XXXX in @entity1187 .

@entity1 @entity1187 @entity3076 @entity64 @entity2405 @entity1396 @entity6 @entity1397 @entity548 @entity63 @entity583
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the @entity2405 in order to identify their current place in therapy for the treatment of @entity1187 ( @entity1187 ). DATA SOURCES: Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (1966-October 2010 week 1), EMBASE (1980-2010 week 40), and a bibliographic review of published articles using the search terms @entity1187 , @entity1397 , and @entity3076 . Articles were limited to clinical trials conducted in @entity1 and published in the English language. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Head-to-head clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of the @entity2405 in @entity1 with @entity1187 were critically reviewed. Trials evaluating @entity1396 were excluded due to its limited clinical use. DATA SYNTHESIS: @entity2405 are an integral part of the treatment of @entity1187 . Prior to the approval of @entity3076 , @entity1397 was considered the agent of choice due to safety concerns associated with @entity1396 . A randomized controlled trial comparing @entity3076 and @entity1397 has demonstrated superior efficacy with @entity3076 , and post hoc analyses suggest additional benefit with @entity3076 is derived in @entity1 with ST-segment elevation @entity583 and @entity1 with @entity6 . However, safety concerns exist linking @entity3076 with an increased risk of @entity548 , which diminishes its advantage in elderly @entity1 , underweight @entity1 , and those with a history of @entity64 . Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies discussing differences in response variability, platelet inhibition, interactions with proton pump inhibitors, and genetic factors between the @entity2405 are numerous, although more clinical data are needed to determine clinical implications. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial data have suggested @entity3076 is superior to @entity1397 at preventing @entity63 events in @entity1 with @entity1187 undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, this coincides with an increased risk of @entity548 . Clinicians must carefully interpret the current evidence, including limitations in study design and pharmacologic differences between agents, in order to balance the risks and benefits as new data become available.
