| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- O'Connor, C. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of nesiritide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure
- 2011
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 365:1, s. 32-43
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Nesiritide is approved in the United States for early relief of dyspnea in patients with acute heart failure. Previous meta-analyses have raised questions regarding renal toxicity and the mortality associated with this agent. METHODS: We randomly assigned 7141 patients who were hospitalized with acute heart failure to receive either nesiritide or placebo for 24 to 168 hours in addition to standard care. Coprimary end points were the change in dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, as measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and the composite end point of rehospitalization for heart failure or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Patients randomly assigned to nesiritide, as compared with those assigned to placebo, more frequently reported markedly or moderately improved dyspnea at 6 hours (44.5% vs. 42.1%, P=0.03) and 24 hours (68.2% vs. 66.1%, P=0.007), but the prespecified level for significance (P
|
|
| 3. |
- Zannad, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical outcome endpoints in heart failure trials: a European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association consensus document
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 15:10, s. 1082-1094
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Endpoint selection is a critically important step in clinical trial design. It poses major challenges for investigators, regulators, and study sponsors, and it also has important clinical and practical implications for physicians and patients. Clinical outcomes of interest in heart failure trials include all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, relevant non-fatal morbidity (e.g. all-cause and cause-specific hospitalization), composites capturing both morbidity and mortality, safety, symptoms, functional capacity, and patient-reported outcomes. Each of these endpoints has strengths and weaknesses that create controversies regarding which is most appropriate in terms of clinical importance, sensitivity, reliability, and consistency. Not surprisingly, a lack of consensus exists within the scientific community regarding the optimal endpoint(s) for both acute and chronic heart failure trials. In an effort to address these issues, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) convened a group of expert heart failure clinical investigators, biostatisticians, regulators, and pharmaceutical industry scientists (Nice, France, 12-13 February 2012) to evaluate the challenges of defining heart failure endpoints in clinical trials and to develop a consensus framework. This report summarizes the group's recommendations for achieving common views on heart failure endpoints in clinical trials.
|
|
| 4. |
- Zannad, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: integrating evidence into clinical practice
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1522-9645 .- 0195-668X. ; 33:22, s. 2782-2795
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve survival and reduce morbidity in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), and mild-to-severe symptoms, and in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. These clinical benefits are observed in addition to those of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. The morbidity and mortality benefits of MRAs may be mediated by several proposed actions, including antifibrotic mechanisms that slow heart failure progression, prevent or reverse cardiac remodelling, or reduce arrhythmogenesis. Both eplerenone and spironolactone have demonstrated survival benefits in individual clinical trials. Pharmacologic differences exist between the drugs, which may be relevant for therapeutic decision making in individual patients. Although serious hyperkalaemia events were reported in the major MRA clinical trials, these risks can be mitigated through appropriate patient selection, dose selection, patient education, monitoring, and follow-up. When used appropriately, MRAs significantly improve outcomes across the spectrum of patients with HF-REF.
|
|
