| 1. |
- Lewis, E. F., et al.
(författare)
-
Characterization of health-related quality of life in heart failure patients with preserved versus low ejection fraction in CHARM
- 2007
-
Ingår i: European journal of heart failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842. ; 9:1, s. 83-91
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Limited comparative studies assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQL) in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved vs. low ejection fraction (LVEF) have been disparate. AIMS: The aims of this study were a) to characterize HRQL in a large population of HF patients with preserved and low LVEF and b) to determine the factors associated with worse HRQL. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA Class II-IV) enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) HRQL study completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at randomization. Patients were stratified into 2 HF cohorts: preserved LVEF (>40%) and low LVEF (
|
|
| 2. |
- O'Meara, E., et al.
(författare)
-
Patient perception of the effect of treatment with candesartan in heart failure. Results of the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme
- 2005
-
Ingår i: European journal of heart failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842. ; 7:4, s. 650-6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: To evaluate the effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on patients' perception of symptoms, using the McMaster Overall treatment evaluation (OTE), in a broad spectrum of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic CHF, randomised in the CHARM Programme in North America (n=2498), were studied. OTE was assessed at baseline, at 6, 14 and 26 months and the patient's final or closing visit. Patient's status was classified as "improved (score +1 to +7)", "unchanged (score 0)" or "deteriorated (score -1 to -7)" at the end of the study compared to baseline. Both a simple "last visit carried forward" (LVCF) analysis and "worst rank carried forward" (WRCF) analysis (where patients who died were allocated the worst OTE score) were used. In the LVCF analysis, compared to placebo, more candesartan patients improved (37.7% versus 33.5%) and fewer worsened (10.8% versus 12.0%) in OTE (p=0.017). The WRCF analysis also showed better overall OTE scores with candesartan compared to placebo (p=0.029). There was no heterogeneity in the response to candesartan between the CHARM component trials or across four exploratory sub-groups (age, sex, NYHA class and beta-blocker). CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan was shown to be better than placebo, when using the McMaster OTE to measure patient perception of treatment. More patients treated with candesartan reported improvement and fewer reported deterioration. This benefit was obtained when candesartan was added to extensive background therapy and is consistent with the benefits of candesartan on NYHA class, hospital admission for worsening heart failure and mortality.
|
|
| 3. |
- Desai, A. S., et al.
(författare)
-
Incidence and predictors of hyperkalemia in patients with heart failure: an analysis of the CHARM Program
- 2007
-
Ingår i: J Am Coll Cardiol. - 1558-3597. ; 50:20, s. 1959-66
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: We explored the incidence and predictors of hyperkalemia in a broad population of heart failure patients. BACKGROUND: When used in optimal doses to treat patients with heart failure, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors improve clinical outcomes but can cause hyperkalemia. METHODS: Participants in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) (n = 7,599) Program were randomized to standard heart failure therapy plus candesartan or placebo, titrated as tolerated to a target of 32 mg once daily with recommended monitoring of serum potassium and creatinine. We assessed the incidence and predictors of hyperkalemia associated with dose reduction, study drug discontinuation, hospitalization, or death over the median 3.2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Independent of treatment assignment, the risk of hyperkalemia increased with age > or =75 years, male gender, diabetes, creatinine > or =2.0 mg/dl, K+ > or =5.0 mmol/l, and background use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or spironolactone. Candesartan increased the rate of aggregate hyperkalemia from 1.8% to 5.2% (difference 3.4%, p < 0.0001) and serious hyperkalemia (associated with death or hospitalization) from 1.1% to 1.8% (difference 0.7%, p < 0.001), with hyperkalemia associated with death reported in 2 (0.05%) candesartan patients and 1 (0.03%) placebo patient. The benefit of candesartan in reducing cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (relative risk reduction 16%, p < 0.0001) was uniform in these subgroups, as was the incremental risk of hyperkalemia. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of hyperkalemia is increased in symptomatic heart failure patients with advanced age, male gender, baseline hyperkalemia, renal failure, diabetes, or combined RAAS blockade. Although these groups derive incremental clinical benefit from candesartan, careful surveillance of serum potassium and creatinine is particularly important.
|
|
| 4. |
- McMurray, J. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Relationship of dose of background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor to the benefits of candesartan in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Added trial
- 2006
-
Ingår i: American heart journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 1097-6744 .- 0002-8703. ; 151:5, s. 985-91
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Whether an angiotensin receptor blocker is of benefit when added to a full dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor in heart failure (HF) is uncertain. METHODS: The effect of candesartan, compared with placebo, in 2548 patients randomized in the CHARM-Added trial was analyzed according to (i) ACE inhibitor dose at baseline, (ii) ACE inhibitor dose during follow-up, and (iii) combination treatment with ACE inhibitor and beta-blocker at baseline. The main outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: The benefit of candesartan was not modified by the dose of ACE inhibitor. In all patients (n = 2548), the candesartan/placebo hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.96). In patients taking a guideline recommended dose of ACE inhibitor at baseline (n = 1291), this HR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.95; interaction P value .26). In patients taking a Food and Drug Administration-designated maximum dose of ACE inhibitor (n = 529), this HR was 0.75 (95% CI 0.57-0.98; interaction P value .29). The benefit of candesartan was preserved in patients taking beta-blockers in addition to a higher dose of ACE inhibitor and in patients maintaining a high dose of ACE inhibitor throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These clinical findings support the pharmacologic evidence that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have distinct mechanisms of action and show that their combined use improves outcomes in patients with HF more than an evidence-based dose of ACE inhibitor alone.
|
|
