| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kotecha, Dipak, et al.
(author)
-
Impact of Renal Impairment on Beta-Blocker Efficacy in PatientsWithHeartFailure.
- 2019
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1558-3597 .- 0735-1097. ; 74:23, s. 2893-2904
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Moderate and moderately severe renal impairment are common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but whether beta-blockers are effective is unclear, leading to underuse of life-saving therapy.This study sought to investigate patient prognosis and the efficacy of beta-blockers according to renal function using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).Analysis of 16,740 individual patients with left ventricular ejection fraction<50% from 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials was performed. The authors report all-cause mortality on an intention-to-treat basis, adjusted for baseline covariates and stratified by heart rhythm.Median eGFR at baseline was 63 (interquartile range: 50 to 77) ml/min/1.73m2; 4,584 patients (27.4%) had eGFR 45 to 59ml/min/1.73m2, and 2,286 (13.7%) 30 to 44ml/min/1.73m2. Over a median follow-up of 1.3 years, eGFR was independently associated with mortality, with a 12% higher risk of death for every 10ml/min/1.73m2 lower eGFR (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10% to 15%; p<0.001). In 13,861 patients in sinus rhythm, beta-blockers reduced mortality versus placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.73 for eGFR 45 to 59ml/min/1.73m2 (95%CI: 0.62 to 0.86; p<0.001) and 0.71 for eGFR 30 to 44ml/min/1.73m2 (95%CI: 0.58 to 0.87; p=0.001). The authors observed no deterioration in renal function over time in patients with moderate or moderately severe renal impairment, no difference in adverse events comparing beta-blockers with placebo, and higher mortality in patients with worsening renal functionon follow-up. Due to exclusion criteria, there were insufficient patients with severe renal dysfunction (eGFR<30ml/min/1.73m2) to draw conclusions. In 2,879 patients with atrial fibrillation, there was no reduction in mortality with beta-blockers at any level of eGFR.Patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction<50% and sinus rhythm should receivebeta-blocker therapy even with moderate or moderately severe renal dysfunction.
|
|
| 3. |
- Cleland, John G F, et al.
(author)
-
Plasma concentration of amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in chronic heart failure: prediction of cardiovascular events and interaction with the effects of rosuvastatin: a report from CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure).
- 2009
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1558-3597 .- 0735-1097. ; 54:20, s. 1850-9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether plasma amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a marker of cardiac dysfunction and prognosis measured in CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure), could be used to identify the severity of heart failure at which statins become ineffective. BACKGROUND: Statins reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in many patients with ischemic heart disease but not, overall, those with heart failure. There must be a transition point at which treatment with a statin becomes futile. METHODS: In CORONA, patients with heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and ischemic heart disease were randomly assigned to 10 mg/day rosuvastatin or placebo. The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. RESULTS: Of 5,011 patients enrolled, NT-proBNP was measured in 3,664 (73%). The midtertile included values between 103 pmol/l (868 pg/ml) and 277 pmol/l (2,348 pg/ml). Log NT-proBNP was the strongest predictor (per log unit) of every outcome assessed but was strongest for death from worsening heart failure (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71 to 2.30), was weaker for sudden death (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.88), and was weakest for atherothrombotic events (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.40). Patients in the lowest tertile of NT-proBNP had the best prognosis and, if assigned to rosuvastatin rather than placebo, had a greater reduction in the primary end point (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.88) than patients in the other tertiles (heterogeneity test, p = 0.0192). This reflected fewer atherothrombotic events and sudden deaths with rosuvastatin. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure due to ischemic heart disease who have NT-proBNP values <103 pmol/l (868 pg/ml) may benefit from rosuvastatin.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kjekshus, John, et al.
(author)
-
Rosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure.
- 2007
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406. ; 357:22, s. 2248-61
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patients with systolic heart failure have generally been excluded from statin trials. Acute coronary events are uncommon in this population, and statins have theoretical risks in these patients. METHODS: A total of 5011 patients at least 60 years of age with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV ischemic, systolic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg of rosuvastatin or placebo per day. The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause, any coronary event, death from cardiovascular causes, and the number of hospitalizations. RESULTS: As compared with the placebo group, patients in the rosuvastatin group had decreased levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (difference between groups, 45.0%; P<0.001) and of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (difference between groups, 37.1%; P<0.001). During a median follow-up of 32.8 months, the primary outcome occurred in 692 patients in the rosuvastatin group and 732 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.02; P=0.12), and 728 patients and 759 patients, respectively, died (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.31). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the coronary outcome or death from cardiovascular causes. In a prespecified secondary analysis, there were fewer hospitalizations for cardiovascular causes in the rosuvastatin group (2193) than in the placebo group (2564) (P<0.001). No excessive episodes of muscle-related or other adverse events occurred in the rosuvastatin group. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin did not reduce the primary outcome or the number of deaths from any cause in older patients with systolic heart failure, although the drug did reduce the number of cardiovascular hospitalizations. The drug did not cause safety problems. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00206310.)
|
|
| 5. |
- Lorgelly, Paula K, et al.
(author)
-
An economic evaluation of rosuvastatin treatment in systolic heart failure: evidence from the CORONA trial.
- 2010
-
In: European journal of heart failure. - : Wiley. - 1879-0844 .- 1388-9842. ; 12:1, s. 66-74
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10 mg rosuvastatin daily for older patients with systolic heart failure in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Study in Heart Failure (CORONA) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: This within trial analysis of CORONA used major cardiovascular (CV) events as the outcome measure. Resource use was valued and the costs of hospitalizations, procedures, and statin use compared. Cost-effectiveness was estimated as cost per major CV event avoided. There were significantly fewer major CV events in the rosuvastatin group compared with the placebo group (1.04 vs. 1.20 per patient; difference 0.164; 95% CI: 0.075-0.254, P < 0.001). The average cost of CV hospitalizations and procedures was significantly lower for those receiving rosuvastatin ( pound1531 vs. pound1769; difference pound238; 95% CI: pound73-403, P = 0.005); the additional cost of the statin resulted in significantly higher total costs for the rosuvastatin group ( pound1769 vs. pound2072; difference pound303; 95% CI: pound138-468, P < 0.001). Overall, rosuvastatin was found to cost pound1840 (95% CI: pound562-6028) per major CV event avoided. CONCLUSION: This economic analysis showed that a significant reduction in major CV events with rosuvastatin led to significantly reduced costs of CV hospitalizations and procedures. The reduction in associated costs for major CV events was found to offset partially (by 44%) the cost of rosuvastatin treatment in patients with systolic heart failure.
|
|
| 6. |
- Ghali, Jalal K, et al.
(author)
-
The influence of renal function on clinical outcome and response to beta-blockade in systolic heart failure: insights from Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic HF (MERIT-HF).
- 2009
-
In: Journal of cardiac failure. - : Elsevier BV. - 1532-8414 .- 1071-9164. ; 15:4, s. 310-8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the risk and impact of renal dysfunction on the response to beta-blockade and mode of death in systolic heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Renal function was estimated with glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation. Patients from the Metoprolol CR/XL Controlled Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic HF (MERIT-HF) were divided into 3 renal function subgroups (MDRD formula): eGFR(MDRD) > 60 (n = 2496), eGFR(MDRD) 45 to 60 (n = 976), and eGFR(MDRD) < 45 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) body surface area (n = 493). Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated with Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for prespecified risk factors. Placebo patients with eGFR < 45 had significantly higher risk than those with eGFR > 60: HR for all-cause mortality, 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28 to 2.81) comparing placebo patients with eGFR < 45 and eGFR > 60, and for the combined end point of all-cause mortality/hospitalization for worsening HF (time to first event): HR, 1.91 (95% CI, 1.44 to 2.53). No significant increase in risk with deceased renal function was observed for those randomized to metoprolol controlled release (CR)/extended release (XL) due to a highly significant decrease in risk on metoprolol CR/XL in those with eGFR < 45. For total mortality, metoprolol CR/XL vs placebo: HR, 0.41 (95% CI. 0.25 to 0.68; P < .001) in those with eGFR < 45 compared with HR, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.95; P < .021) for those with eGFR > 60; corresponding data for the combined end point was HR, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.63; P < .0001) and HR, 0.75 (0.62 to 0.92; P = .005, respectively; P = .095 for interaction by treatment for total mortality; P = .011 for combined end point). Metoprolol CR/XL was well tolerated in all 3 renal function subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Renal function as estimated by eGFR was a powerful predictor of death and hospitalizations from worsening HF. Metoprolol CR/XL was at least as effective in reducing death and hospitalizations for worsening HF in patients with eGFR < 45 as in those with eGFR > 60.
|
|
