4.4 Review

How to fill the GAPS-I in secondary prevention: application of a strategy based on GLP1 analogues, antithrombotic agents, PCSK9 inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors and immunomodulators

期刊

PANMINERVA MEDICA
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 265-273

出版社

EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
DOI: 10.23736/S0031-0808.21.04284-1

关键词

Coronary artery disease; Heart disease risk factors; Cardiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The continuous progress in cardiovascular risk prevention strategies has led to a reduction in mortality and recurrent ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the control of several cardiovascular risk factors remains suboptimal in many CAD patients. The GAPS-I strategy offers a promising potential in patients with high residual cardiovascular risk, by addressing their individual risk factors.
The continuous progress in cardiovascular risk prevention strategies has led to an impressive reduction in mortality and recurrent ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the control of several cardiovascular risk factors remains suboptimal in many CAD patients, with a high rate of recurrent events, underlying the need for more new prevention strategies. The GAPS-I (glucagon-like peptide 1 analogues, antithrombotic agents, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors and immunomodulators) strategy offers a promising potential in patients with a high-residual cardiovascular risk, who are frequently encountered in daily practice, by offering an individualized and structured approach to addressing their individual risk factors. The current review summarizes the evidence to date on each of its components, with respect to clinical outcomes and economic feasibility. The current evidence points to an efficacy of GAPS-I in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality, without a compromise on safety, albeit with the need for longer follow-up data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据