| 1. |
- Gullestad, L., et al.
(författare)
-
What resting heart rate should one aim for when treating patients with heart failure with a beta-blocker? Experiences from the Metoprolol Controlled Release/Extended Release Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic Heart Failure (MERIT-HF)
- 2005
-
Ingår i: J Am Coll Cardiol. - 0735-1097. ; 45:2, s. 252-9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to explore the question: what resting heart rate (HR) should one aim for when treating patients with heart failure with a beta-blocker? BACKGROUND: The interaction of pretreatment and achieved resting HR with the risk-reducing effect of beta-blocker treatment needs further evaluation. METHODS: Cardiovascular risk and risk reduction were analyzed in five subgroups defined by quintiles (Q) of pretreatment resting HR in the Metoprolol Controlled Release/Extended Release Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). RESULTS: Mean baseline HR in the 5 Qs were 71, 76, 81, 87, and 98 beats/min; achieved HR 63, 66, 68, 72, and 75 beats/min; and net change -8, -10, -11, -13, and -14 beats/min, respectively. Baseline HR was related to a number of baseline characteristics. Cardiovascular risk was no different in Q1 to Q4 (placebo groups) but increased in Q5 (HR above 90 beats/min). No relationship was observed between the risk-reducing effect of metoprolol controlled release/extended release (CR/XL) and baseline HR in the five Qs of baseline HR, or achieved HR, or change in HR during follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Metoprolol CR/XL significantly reduced mortality and hospitalizations independent of resting baseline HR, achieved HR, and change in HR. Achieved HR and change in HR during follow-up were closely related to baseline HR; therefore, it was not possible to answer the question posed. Instead, one has to apply a very simple rule: aim for the target beta-blocker dose used in clinical trials, and strive for the highest tolerated dose in all patients with heart failure, regardless of baseline and achieved HR.
|
|
| 2. |
- Metra, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of low-dose oral enoximone administration on mortality, morbidity, and exercise capacity in patients with advanced heart failure: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group ESSENTIAL trials
- 2009
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - 1522-9645. ; 30:24, s. 3015-26
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: Use of inotropic agents in patients with heart failure (HF) has been limited by adverse effects on outcomes. However, administration of positive inotropes at lower doses and concomitant treatment with beta-blockers might increase benefit-risk ratio. We investigated the effects of low doses of the positive inotrope enoximone on symptoms, exercise capacity, and major clinical outcomes in patients with advanced HF who were also treated with beta-blockers and other guideline-recommended background therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Studies of Oral Enoximone Therapy in Advanced HF (ESSENTIAL) programme consisted of two identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that differed only by geographic location (North and South America: ESSENTIAL-I; Europe: ESSENTIAL-II). Patients with New York Heart Association class III-IV HF symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 30%, and one hospitalization or two ambulatory visits for worsening HF in the previous year were eligible for participation in the trials. The trials had three co-primary endpoints: (i) the composite of time to all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, analysed in the two ESSENTIAL trials combined; (ii) the 6 month change from baseline in the 6 min walk test distance (6MWTD); and (iii) the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 months, both analysed in each trial separately. ESSENTIAL-I and -II randomized 1854 subjects at 211 sites in 16 countries. In the combined trials, all-cause mortality and the composite, first co-primary endpoint did not differ between the two treatment groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.17; and HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86-1.12, respectively, for enoximone vs. placebo]. The two other co-primary endpoints were analysed separately in the two ESSENTIAL trials, as prospectively designed in the protocol. The 6MWTD increased with enoximone, compared with placebo, in ESSENTIAL-I (P = 0.025, not reaching, however, the pre-specified criterion for statistical significance of P < 0.020), but not in ESSENTIAL-II. No difference in PGA was observed in either trial. CONCLUSION: Although low-dose enoximone appears to be safe in patients with advanced HF, major clinical outcomes are not improved.
|
|
| 3. |
- van Assen, S., et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 70:3, s. 414-422
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives To develop evidence-based European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). Methods A EULAR task force was composed of experts representing 11 European countries, consisting of eight rheumatologists, four clinical immunologists, one rheumatologist/clinical immunologist, one infectious disease physician, one nephrologist, one paediatrician/rheumatologist and one clinical epidemiologist. Key questions were formulated and the eligible spectrum of AIIRD, immunosuppressive drugs and vaccines were defined in order to perform a systematic literature review. A search was made of Medline from 1966 to October 2009 as well as abstracts from the EULAR meetings of 2008 and 2009 and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) meetings of 2007 and 2008. Evidence was graded in categories I-IV, the strength of recommendations was graded in categories A-D and Delphi voting was applied to determine the level of agreement between the experts of the task force. Results Eight key questions and 13 recommendations addressing vaccination in patients with AIIRD were formulated. The strength of each recommendation was determined. Delphi voting revealed a very high level of agreement with the recommendations among the experts of the task force. Finally, a research agenda was proposed. Conclusion Recommendations for vaccination in patients with AIIRD based on the currently available evidence and expert opinion were formulated. More research is needed, particularly regarding the incidence of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases and the safety of vaccination in patients with AIIRD.
|
|
| 4. |
- van Assen, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Vaccination in adult patients with auto-immune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: A systematic literature review for the European League Against Rheumatism evidence-based recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with auto-immune inflammatory rheumatic diseases
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Autoimmunity Reviews. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-0183 .- 1568-9972. ; 10:6, s. 341-352
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To present the systematic literature review (SLR), which formed the basis for the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) evidence-based recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). Methods: AIIRD, vaccines and immunomodulating drugs, as well as eight key questions were defined by the multidisciplinary expert committee commissioned by EULAR for developing the recommendations. A SLR was performed using MedLine through October 2009 and including data from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized trials, and observational studies, excluding case series with participants. Articles in English and regarding patients years of age, were eligible. Results: Several vaccine-preventable infections (VPI) occur more often in AIIRD-patients and most vaccines are efficacious in AIIRD-patients, even when treated with immunomodulating agents, except rituximab. There does not appear to be an increase in vaccination-related harms in vaccinated patients with AIIRD in comparison with unvaccinated patients with AIIRD. However, these studies are underpowered and therefore not conclusive. Conclusion: Based on the current evidence from the literature, recommendations for vaccination in patients with AIIRD were made. However, more research is needed in particular regarding incidence of VPI, harms of vaccination and the influence of (new and established) immunomodulating agents on vaccination efficacy. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
