| 1. |
- Kotecha, Dipak, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of Renal Impairment on Beta-Blocker Efficacy in Patients With Heart Failure.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1558-3597 .- 0735-1097. ; 74:23, s. 2893-2904
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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/1.73 m2; 4,584 patients (27.4%) had eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 2,286 (13.7%) 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2. Over a median follow-up of 1.3 years, eGFR was independently associated with mortality, with a 12% higher risk of death for every 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 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 59 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86; p < 0.001) and 0.71 for eGFR 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2 (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 function on follow-up. Due to exclusion criteria, there were insufficient patients with severe renal dysfunction (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2) 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 receive beta-blocker therapy even with moderate or moderately severe renal dysfunction.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lorgelly, Paula K, et al.
(författare)
-
An economic evaluation of rosuvastatin treatment in systolic heart failure: evidence from the CORONA trial.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: European journal of heart failure. - : Wiley. - 1879-0844 .- 1388-9842. ; 12:1, s. 66-74
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ghali, Jalal K, et al.
(författare)
-
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
-
Ingår i: Journal of cardiac failure. - : Elsevier BV. - 1532-8414 .- 1071-9164. ; 15:4, s. 310-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Rydén, Lars, et al.
(författare)
-
ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 34:39, s. 3035-3087
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This is the second iteration of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) joining forces to write guidelines on the management of diabetes mellitus (DM), pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (CVD), designed to assist clinicians and other healthcare workers to make evidence-based management decisions. The growing awareness of the strong biological relationship between DM and CVD rightly prompted these two large organizations to collaborate to generate guidelines relevant to their joint interests, the first of which were published in 2007. Some assert that too many guidelines are being produced but, in this burgeoning field, five years in the development of both basic and clinical science is a long time and major trials have reported in this period, making it necessary to update the previous Guidelines.
|
|
| 5. |
- Abdul-Rahim, A. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Risk of Stroke in Chronic Heart Failure Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation: Analysis of the Controlled Rosuvastatin in Multinational Trial Heart Failure (CORONA) and the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Insufficienza Cardiaca-Heart Failure (GISSI-HF) Trials
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 131:17, s. 1486-94; discussion 1494
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Our aim was to describe the incidence and predictors of stroke in patients who have heart failure without atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled 2 contemporary heart failure trials, the Controlled Rosuvastatin in Multinational Trial Heart Failure (CORONA) and the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Insufficienza cardiaca-Heart Failure trial (GISSI-HF). Of the 9585 total patients, 6054 did not have AF. Stroke occurred in 165 patients (4.7%) with AF and in 206 patients (3.4%) without AF (rates 16.8/1000 patient-years and 11.1/1000 patient-years, respectively). Using Cox proportional-hazards models, we identified the following independent predictors of stroke in patients without AF (ranked by chi(2) value): age (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.63 per 10 years), New York Heart Association class (1.60, 1.21-2.12 class III/IV versus II), diabetes mellitus treated with insulin (1.87, 1.22-2.88), body mass index (0.74, 0.60-0.91 per 5 kg/m(2) up to 30), and previous stroke (1.81, 1.19-2.74). N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (available in 2632 patients) was also an independent predictor of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.31; 1.11-1.57 per log unit) when added to this model. With the use of a risk score formulated from these predictors, we found that patients in the upper third of risk had a rate of stroke that approximated the risk in patients with AF. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of demographic and clinical variables identified a subset of patients who have heart failure without AF at a high risk of stroke.
|
|
| 6. |
- Cleland, J. G. F., et al.
(författare)
-
Beta-blockers for heart failure with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: an individual patient-level analysis of double-blind randomized trials
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 39:1, s. 26-35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF >= 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods and results Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 >= 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF >= 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF >= 50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis. Conculations Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.
|
|
| 7. |
- Cosmi, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment with insulin is associated with worse outcome in patients with chronic heart failure and diabetes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842. ; 20:5, s. 888-895
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Up to one-third of patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure (HF) are treated with insulin. As insulin causes sodium retention and hypoglycaemia, its use might be associated with worse outcomes. Methods and results We examined two datasets: 24 012 patients with HF from four large randomized trials and an administrative database of 4 million individuals, 103 857 of whom with HF. In the former, survival was examined using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for baseline variables and separately for propensity scores. Fine-Gray competing risk regression models were used to assess the risk of hospitalization for HF. For the latter, a case-control nested within a population-based cohort study was conducted with propensity score. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus at study entry ranged from 25.5% to 29.5% across trials. Insulin alone or in combination with oral hypoglycaemic drugs was prescribed at randomization to 24.4% to 34.5% of the patients with diabetes. The rates of death from any cause and hospitalization for HF were higher in patients with vs. without diabetes, and highest of all in patients prescribed insulin [propensity score pooled hazard ratio for all-cause mortality 1.27 (1.16-1.38), for HF hospitalization 1.23 (1.13-1.33)]. In the administrative registry, insulin prescription was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death [odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.87-2.19] and rehospitalization for HF (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.32-1.53). Conclusions Whether insulin use is associated with poor outcomes in HF should be investigated further with controlled trials, as should the possibility that there may be safer alternative glucose-lowering treatments for patients with HF and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
|
|
| 8. |
- Deedwania, P. C., et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy, safety and tolerability of metoprolol CR/XL in patients with diabetes and chronic heart failure: experiences from MERIT-HF
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Am Heart J. - : Mosby, Inc.. - 1097-6744 .- 0002-8703. ; 149:1, s. 159-67
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to examine the efficacy and tolerability of the beta-blocker metoprolol succinate controlled release/extended release (CR/XL) in patients with diabetes in the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). METHODS: The Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for convenience expressed as relative risks (risk reduction = 1-HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The risk of hospitalization for heart failure was 76% higher in diabetics compared to non-diabetics (95% CI 38% to 123%). Metoprolol CR/XL was well tolerated and reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 37% in the diabetic group (95% CI 53% to 15%), and by 35% in the non-diabetic group (95% CI 48% to 19%). Pooling of mortality data from the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS II), MERIT-HF, and the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival Study (COPERNICUS) showed similar survival benefits in patients with diabetes (25%; 95% CI 40% to 4%) and without diabetes (36%; 95% CI 44% to 27%); test of diabetes by treatment interaction was non-significant. Adverse events were reported more often on placebo than on metoprolol CR/XL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure and diabetes have a much higher risk of hospitalization than patients without diabetes. Regardless of diabetic status, a highly significant reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure was observed with metoprolol CR/XL therapy, which was very well tolerated also by patients with diabetes. Furthermore, the pooled data showed a statistically significant survival benefit in patients with diabetes.
|
|
| 9. |
- 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.
|
|
| 10. |
- Kristensen, S. L., et al.
(författare)
-
International Geographic Variation in Event Rates in Trials of Heart Failure With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 131, s. 43-53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: -International geographic differences in outcomes may exist for clinical trials of heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), but there are few data for those with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: -We analyzed outcomes by international geographic region in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved systolic function trial (I-Preserve), the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved trial, the CHARM-Alternative and CHARM-Added HF-REF trials, and the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in HF-REF (CORONA). Crude rates of heart failure hospitalization varied by geographic region, and more so for HF-PEF than for HF-REF. Rates in patients with HF-PEF were highest in the United States/Canada (HF hospitalization rate 7.6 per 100 patient-years in I-Preserve; 8.8 in CHARM-Preserved), intermediate in Western Europe (4.8/100 and 4.7/100), and lowest in Eastern Europe/Russia (3.3/100 and 2.8/100). The difference between the United States/Canada versus Eastern Europe/Russia persisted after adjustment for key prognostic variables: adjusted hazard ratios 1.34 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.74; P=0.04) in I-Preserve and 1.85 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.91; P=0.01) in CHARM-Preserved. In HF-REF, rates of HF hospitalization were slightly lower in Western Europe compared with other regions. For both HF-REF and HF-PEF, there were few regional differences in rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: -The differences in event rates observed suggest there is international geographic variation in 1 or more of the definition and diagnosis of HF-PEF, the risk profile of patients enrolled, and the threshold for hospitalization, which has implications for the conduct of future global trials.
|
|
