Background: Long-term outcomes of antiplatelet monotherapy in patients who receive percutaneous coronary intervention are unknown. The HOST-EXAM (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis–Extended Antiplatelet Monotherapy) Extended study reports the posttrial follow-up results of the original HOST-EXAM trial. Methods: From March 2014 through May 2018, 5438 patients who maintained dual antiplatelet therapy without clinical events for 12±6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive clopidogrel (75 mg once daily) or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary end point (a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission attributable to acute coronary syndrome, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or greater bleeding), secondary thrombotic end point (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, readmission attributable to acute coronary syndrome, and definite or probable stent thrombosis), and bleeding end point (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or greater bleeding) were analyzed during the extended follow-up period. Analysis was performed on the per-protocol population (2431 patients in the clopidogrel group and 2286 patients in the aspirin group). Results: During a median follow-up of 5.8 years (interquartile range, 4.8–6.2 years), the primary end point occurred in 12.8% and 16.9% in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.63–0.86]; P <0.001). The clopidogrel group had a lower risk for the secondary thrombotic end point (7.9% versus 11.9%; hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.55–0.79]; P 5 years after randomization, clopidogrel monotherapy compared with aspirin monotherapy was associated with lower rates of the composite net clinical outcome in patients without clinical events for 12±6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02044250.

Mitochondrial dysfunction represents a pivotal characteristic of numerous neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. These conditions, distinguished by unique clinical and pathological features, exhibit shared pathways leading to neuronal damage, all of which are closely associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. The high metabolic requirements of neurons make even minor mitochondrial deficiencies highly impactful, driving oxidative stress, energy deficits, and aberrant protein processing. Growing evidence from genetic, biochemical, and cellular investigations associates impaired electron transport chain activity and disrupted quality-control mechanisms, such as mitophagy, with the initial phases of disease progression. Furthermore, the overproduction of reactive oxygen species and persistent neuroinflammation can establish feedforward cycles that exacerbate neuronal deterioration. Recent clinical research has increasingly focused on interventions aimed at enhancing mitochondrial resilience—through antioxidants, small molecules that modulate the balance of mitochondrial fusion and fission, or gene-based therapeutic strategies. Concurrently, initiatives to identify dependable mitochondrial biomarkers seek to detect pathological changes prior to the manifestation of overt symptoms. By integrating the current body of knowledge, this review emphasizes the critical role of preserving mitochondrial homeostasis as a viable therapeutic approach. It also addresses the complexities of translating these findings into clinical practice and underscores the potential of innovative strategies designed to delay or potentially halt neurodegenerative processes.

Mitochondrial dysfunction is increasingly recognized as a central contributor to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), including heart failure, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, and cardiomyopathy. Mitochondria, known as the powerhouses of the cell, play a vital role in maintaining cardiac energy homeostasis, regulating reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and controlling cell death pathways. Dysregulated mitochondrial function results in impaired adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production, excessive ROS generation, and activation of apoptotic and necrotic pathways, collectively driving the progression of CVDs. This review provides a detailed examination of the molecular mechanisms underlying mitochondrial dysfunction in CVDs, including mutations in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), defects in oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), and alterations in mitochondrial dynamics (fusion, fission, and mitophagy). Additionally, the role of mitochondrial dysfunction in specific cardiovascular conditions is explored, highlighting its impact on endothelial dysfunction, myocardial remodeling, and arrhythmias. Emerging therapeutic strategies targeting mitochondrial dysfunction, such as mitochondrial antioxidants, metabolic modulators, and gene therapy, are also discussed. By synthesizing recent advances in mitochondrial biology and cardiovascular research, this review aims to enhance understanding of the role of mitochondria in CVDs and identify potential therapeutic targets to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

The increasing global health crisis of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Huntington’s disease is worsening because of a rapidly increasing aging population. Disease-modifying therapies continue to face development challenges due to the blood–brain barrier (BBB), which prevents more than 98% of small molecules and all biologics from entering the central nervous system. The therapeutic landscape for neurodegenerative diseases has recently undergone transformation through advances in targeted drug delivery that include ligand-decorated nanoparticles, bispecific antibody shuttles, focused ultrasound-mediated BBB modulation, intranasal exosomes, and mRNA lipid nanoparticles. This review provides an analysis of the molecular pathways that cause major neurodegenerative diseases, discusses the physiological and physicochemical barriers to drug delivery to the brain, and reviews the most recent drug targeting strategies including receptor-mediated transcytosis, cell-based “Trojan horse” approaches, gene-editing vectors, and spatiotemporally controlled physical methods. The review also critically evaluates the limitations such as immunogenicity, scalability, and clinical translation challenges, proposing potential solutions to enhance therapeutic efficacy. The recent clinical trials are assessed in detail, and current and future trends are discussed, including artificial intelligence (AI)-based carrier engineering, combination therapy, and precision neuro-nanomedicine. The successful translation of these innovations into effective treatments for patients with neurodegenerative diseases will require essential interdisciplinary collaboration between neuroscientists, pharmaceutics experts, clinicians, and regulators.

Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is the standard treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). De-escalation of the potent P2Y12 inhibtor is an appealing concept to balance the ischaemic and bleeding risks after PCI. An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed to compare de-escalation versus standard DAPT in patients with ACS. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database, were searched to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the de-escalation strategy with the standard DAPT after PCI in patients with ACS. Individual patient-level data were collected from the relevant trials. The co-primary endpoints of interest were the ischaemic composite endpoint (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular events) and bleeding endpoint (any bleeding) at 1-year post-PCI. Four RCTs (the TROPICAL-ACS, POPular Genetics, HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS, and TALOS-AMI trials) including 10 133 patients were analysed. The ischaemic endpoint was significantly lower in the patients assigned to the de-escalation strategy than in those assigned to the standard strategy (2.3% vs. 3.0%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.761, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.597-0.972, log rank P = 0.029). Bleeding was also significantly lower in the de-escalation strategy group (6.5% vs. 9.1%, HR 0.701, 95% CI 0.606-0.811, log rank P < 0.001). No significant intergroup differences were observed in terms of all-cause death and major bleeding events. Subgroup analyses revealed that compared to guided de-escalation, unguided de-escalation had a significantly larger impact on bleeding endpoint reduction (P for interaction = 0.007); no intergroup differences were observed for the ischaemic endpoints. In this individual patient data meta-analysis, DAPT-based de-escalation was associated with both decreased ischaemic and bleeding endpoints. Reduction in bleeding endpoints was more prominent for the unguided than the guided de-escalation strategy. This study was registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021245477). A total of 10 133 patients from four randomized clinical trials were analysed. During the first year after percutaneous coronary intervention, the de-escalation strategy was associated with a lower risk of the ischaemic and bleeding endpoints. The absolute risk difference of endpoints between the two astrategies was 0.69% for the ischaemic endpoint and 2.48% for the bleeding endpoint. CI, confidence interval; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; HR, hazard ratio.

Background: Large-scale randomized comparison of drug-eluting stents (DES) based on durable polymer versus biodegradable polymer technology is currently insufficient in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The present study aimed to prove the noninferiority of the durable polymer DES (DP-DES) compared with the biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) in such patients. Methods: The HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Diseases—Comparison of Reduction of Prasugrel Dose or Polymer Technology in ACS Patients) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES in patients with ACS. The primary end point was a patient-oriented composite outcome (a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) at 12 months. The key secondary end point was device-oriented composite outcome (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 12 months. Results: A total of 3413 patients were randomized to receive the DP-DES (1713 patients) and BP-DES (1700 patients). At 12 months, patient-oriented composite outcome occurred in 5.2% in the DP-DES group and 6.4% in the BP-DES group (absolute risk difference, –1.2%; P _{non inferiority} <0.001). The key secondary end point, device-oriented composite outcome, occurred less frequently in the DP-DES group (DP-DES vs BP-DES, 2.6% vs 3.9%; hazard ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46–0.98]; P =0.038), mostly because of a reduction in target lesion revascularization. The rate of spontaneous nonfatal myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were extremely low, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (0.6% versus 0.8%; P =0.513 and 0.1% versus 0.4%; P =0.174, respectively). Conclusions: In ACS patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention, DP-DES was noninferior to BP-DES with regard to patient-oriented composite outcomes at 12 months after index percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://wwwclinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02193971.