Post-hoc analysis of QoL data from MERLIN-TIMI 36 indicated that

Post-hoc analysis of QoL data from MERLIN-TIMI 36 indicated that the benefit of ranolazine was most apparent in the subgroup of patients with a history of prior angina (approximately 54 % of the entire MERLIN population). Among these patients, significant effects versus placebo were seen on most domains assessed, with the greatest mean treatment effects observed for the SAQ assessments of angina frequency (mean treatment effect 3.4 points; p < 0.001), QoL (2.7 points; p < 0.001), and treatment satisfaction (1.5 points; p = 0.004) [11].

In addition, the results of a study in women with angina and myocardial ischemia showed that treatment with ranolazine produced significantly better median SAQ scores for physical functioning, Selleck BIBW2992 angina stability, and QoL than placebo [10], and a study in a group DAPT in vivo of veterans with

chronic stable angina who received ranolazine in addition to optimal doses of conventional therapy demonstrated clinically significant improvements from baseline in SAQ scores in the domains of physical limitation, angina stability, and disease perception after 1 and 3 months of treatment [22]. The survey results may also reflect the good tolerability of ranolazine in the appropriate patient subset when used over an extended duration (up Plasmin to 4 years). The present study has some limitations that should be considered when drawing conclusions. A control group was not established for comparative purposes, as only patients receiving ranolazine were recruited to participate. Nevertheless, as

coronary artery disease is a gradually progressive disease, improvement from pretreatment values (while on background therapy) suggests a beneficial role for ranolazine. We could not account for confounding factors, and no information on the CHD profiles of the patients (i.e., the presence of obstructive/non-obstructive disease or normal arteries) was collected. The survey participants comprise a select group of respondents who were taking ranolazine and filling ranolazine prescriptions over time. Presumably, patients who did not respond to ranolazine would not have continued their participation in the panel; the proportion of patients who terminated ranolazine treatment and their reasons for doing so (e.g., efficacy, tolerability, expense) are unknown, although placebo-controlled study data give an indication of the proportion of patients who are anticipated to respond to ranolazine [23].

Comments are closed.