| 1. |
- Cleland, J. G., et al.
(författare)
-
A comparison of the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on well-being, morbidity, and mortality (the "patient journey") in patients with heart failure: a report from the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET)
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1558-3597 .- 0735-1097. ; 47:8, s. 1603-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to investigate the loss of well-being, in terms of life-years, overall and in patients randomized to metoprolol versus carvedilol in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET). BACKGROUND: The ultimate objectives of treating patients with heart failure are to relieve suffering and prolong life. Although the effect of treatment on mortality is usually described in trials, the effects on patient well-being throughout the trials' courses are rarely reported. METHODS: A total of 3,029 patients randomized in the COMET study were included in the analysis. "Patient journey" was calculated by adjusting days alive and out of hospital over four years using a five-point score completed by the patient every four months, adjusted according to the need for intensification of diuretic therapy. Scores ranged from 0% (dead or hospitalized) to 100% (feeling very well). RESULTS: Over 48 months, 17% of all days were lost through death, 1% through hospitalization, 23% through impaired well-being, and 2% through the need for intensified therapy. Compared with metoprolol, carvedilol was associated with fewer days lost to death, with no increase in days lost due to impaired well-being or days in hospital. The "patient journey" score improved from a mean of 54.8% (SD 26.0) to 57.4% (SD 26.3%) (p < 0.0068). CONCLUSIONS: Despite treatment with beta-blockers, heart failure remains associated with a marked reduction in well-being and survival. Loss of quality-adjusted life-years through death and poor well-being seemed of similar magnitude over four years, and both were much larger than the loss that could be attributed to hospitalization.
|
|
| 2. |
- McMurray, J, et al.
(författare)
-
Practical recommendations for the use of ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists and angiotensin receptor blockers in heart failure: Putting guidelines into practice
- 2005
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1879-0844 .- 1388-9842. ; 7:5, s. 710-721
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Surveys of prescribing patterns in both hospitals and primary care have usually shown delays in translating the evidence from clinical trials of pharmacological agents into clinical practice, thereby denying patients with heart failure (HF) the benefits of drug treatments proven to improve well-being and prolong life. This may be due to unfamiliarity with the evidence-base for these therapies, the clinical guidelines recommending the use of these treatments or both, as well as concerns regarding adverse events. ACE inhibitors have long been the cornerstone of therapy for systolic HF irrespective of aetiology. Recent trials have now shown that treatment with beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists and angiotensin receptor blockers also leads to substantial improvements in outcome. In order to accelerate the safe uptake of these treatments and to ensure that all eligible patients receive the most appropriate medications, a clear and concise set of clinical recommendations has been prepared by a group of clinicians with practical expertise in the management of HE The objective of these recommendations is to provide practical guidance for non-specialists, in order to increase the use of evidenced based therapy for HF. These practical recommendations are meant to serve as a supplement to, rather than replacement of, existing HF guidelines.
|
|
| 3. |
- Remme, W. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of carvedilol and metoprolol on the mode of death in patients with heart failure
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Eur J Heart Fail. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 9:11, s. 1128-35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In the COMET study, carvedilol improved survival compared to metoprolol tartrate in 3029 patients with NYHA II-IV heart failure and EF <35%, followed for an average of 58 months. AIMS: To evaluate whether the effect on overall mortality was specific for a particular mode of death. This may help to identify the mechanism of the observed difference. METHODS: Of the 1112 total deaths, 972 were adjudicated as cardiovascular, including 480 sudden, 365 circulatory failure (CF) and 51 stroke deaths. For each mode of death, the effect of pre-specified baseline variables was assessed, including sex, age, NYHA class, aetiology, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, EF, atrial fibrillation, previous myocardial infarction or hypertension, renal function, concomitant medication, and study treatment allocation. RESULTS: In multivariate Cox regression analyses, compared to metoprolol, carvedilol reduced cardiovascular (RR 0.80, CI 0.7-0.91, p=0.0009), sudden (RR 0.77, CI 0.64-0.93, p=0.0073) and stroke deaths (RR 0.37, CI 0.19-0.71, p=0.0027) with a non-significant trend for CF death (RR 0.83, CI 0.66-1.04, p=0.07). Treatment benefit with carvedilol did not differ between modes of death, except for a greater reduction in stroke death with carvedilol (competing risk analysis, p=0.0071 vs CF death). There were no interactions between treatment allocation and baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Mortality reduction with carvedilol compared to metoprolol appears relatively non-specific and could be consistent with a superior effect of carvedilol on cardiac function, arrhythmias or, in view of the greater reduction in stroke deaths, on vascular events.
|
|
| 4. |
- Benner, J. S., et al.
(författare)
-
A novel programme to evaluate and communicate 10-year risk of CHD reduces predicted risk and improves patients' modifiable risk factor profile
- 2008
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Clinical Practice. - : Hindawi Limited. - 1742-1241 .- 1368-5031. ; 62:10, s. 1484-1498
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: We assessed whether a novel programme to evaluate/communicate predicted coronary heart disease (CHD) risk could lower patients' predicted Framingham CHD risk vs. usual care. Methods: The Risk Evaluation and Communication Health Outcomes and Utilization Trial was a prospective, controlled, cluster-randomised trial in nine European countries, among patients at moderate cardiovascular risk. Following baseline assessments, physicians in the intervention group calculated patients' predicted CHD risk and were instructed to advise patients according to a risk evaluation/communication programme. Usual care physicians did not calculate patients' risk and provided usual care only. The primary end-point was Framingham 10-year CHD risk at 6 months with intervention vs. usual care. Results: Of 1103 patients across 100 sites, 524 patients receiving intervention, and 461 receiving usual care, were analysed for efficacy. After 6 months, mean predicted risks were 12.5% with intervention, and 13.7% with usual care [odds ratio = 0.896; p = 0.001, adjusted for risk at baseline (17.2% intervention; 16.9% usual care) and other covariates]. The proportion of patients achieving both blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets was significantly higher with intervention (25.4%) than usual care (14.1%; p < 0.001), and 29.3% of smokers in the intervention group quit smoking vs. 21.4% of those receiving usual care (p = 0.04). Conclusions: A physician-implemented CHD risk evaluation/communication programme improved patients' modifiable risk factor profile, and lowered predicted CHD risk compared with usual care. By combining this strategy with more intensive treatment to reduce residual modifiable risk, we believe that substantial improvements in cardiovascular disease prevention could be achieved in clinical practice.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Erhardt, Leif RW, et al.
(författare)
-
Lipid management in cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines: Strategies and tactics for implementation.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Atherosclerosis. - : Elsevier BV. - 1879-1484 .- 0021-9150. ; 196:2, s. 532-541
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Despite the widespread dissemination of clinical practice guidelines on the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), CVD causes one third of deaths worldwide and almost half of all deaths in the developed world. It is therefore likely that, although some aspects of CVD management have improved, there is still a significant shortfall between what is known about CVD prevention and what is put into action. Twenty-one experts in the field of CVD from around the world attended a focus panel meeting in Marlow-on-Thames, UK (see acknowledgements for a list of meeting participants). These experts were invited to discuss practical strategies and tactics for overcoming barriers to the implementation of guidelines on CVD prevention, and lipid management in particular. This article reviews and updates the key topics presented during the course of the meeting, captures the essence of the group discussions, and summarizes the meeting outcomes. The participants concluded that initial efforts to implement CVD prevention guidelines more effectively are best directed at high-risk patients who have already been identified. Once current patients achieve their targets, more attention can be paid to finding untreated patients at risk. Recommendations from the expert panel included: Harmonize guidelines; focus on common areas of consensus rather than state-of-the-art science Remove the boundary between primary and secondary prevention and focus on level of overall risk. Help policy makers understand the different components of CVD. Include professional societies from different specialties in guideline development and implementation, to increase ownership and decrease fragmentation of guideline committees. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
