| 1. |
- Packer, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition Compared With Enalapril on the Risk of Clinical Progression in Surviving Patients With Heart Failure
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 0009-7322. ; 131, s. 54-61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: -Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: -We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-Btype natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. CONCLUSIONS: -Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| 4. |
- McMurray, J., et al.
(författare)
-
A putative placebo analysis of the effects of LCZ696 on clinical outcomes in heart failure
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 36:7, s. 434-439
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: Although active-controlled trials with renin-angiotensin inhibitors are ethically mandated in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, clinicians and regulators often want to know how the experimental therapy would perform compared with placebo. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 was compared with enalapril in PARADIGM-HF. We made indirect comparisons of the effects of LCZ696 with putative placebos. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the treatment-arm of the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD-T) as the reference trial for comparison of an ACE inhibitor to placebo and the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity-Alternative trial (CHARM-Alternative) as the reference trial for comparison of an ARB to placebo. The hazard ratio of LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo was estimated through the product of the hazard ratio of LCZ696 vs. enalapril (active-control) and that of the historical active-control (enalapril or candesartan) vs. placebo. For the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in PARADIGM-HF, the relative risk reduction with LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo from SOLVD-T was 43% (95%CI 34-50%; P < 0.0001) with similarly large effects on cardiovascular death (34%, 21-44%; P < 0.0001) and heart failure hospitalization (49%, 39-58%; P < 0.0001). For all-cause mortality, the reduction compared with a putative placebo was 28% (95%CI 15-39%; P < 0.0001). Putative placebo analyses based on CHARM-Alternative gave relative risk reductions of 39% (95%CI 27-48%; P < 0.0001) for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, 32% (95%CI 16-45%; P < 0.0001) for cardiovascular death, 46% (33-56%; P < 0.0001) for heart failure hospitalization, and 26% (95%CI 11-39%; P < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: These indirect comparisons of LCZ696 with a putative placebo show that the strategy of combined angiotensin receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition led to striking reductions in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, as well as heart failure hospitalization. These benefits were obtained even though LCZ696 was added to comprehensive background beta-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy.
|
|
| 5. |
- Cannon, J. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical outcomes according to QRS duration and morphology in the Eplerenone in Mild Patients: Hospitalization and SurvIval Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF)
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842. ; 17:7, s. 707-716
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AimsWe examined the relationship between different degrees of QRS prolongation and different QRS morphologies and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), and mild symptoms in the Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and SurvIval Study in Heart Failure trial (EMPHASIS-HF). We also evaluated the effect of eplerenone in these patients according to QRS duration/morphology. Methods and resultsPatients were categorized as: QRS duration (ms) (i) <120 (n = 1375); (ii) 120-149 (n = 517); and (iii) 150 (n = 383), and QRS morphology (i) normal (n = 1252); (ii) left bundle branch block (BBB) (n = 608); and (iii) right BBB/intraventricular conduction defect (IVCD) (n = 415). The outcomes examined were the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Both abnormal QRS duration and QRS morphology were associated with higher risk, e.g. the rates of the composite outcome were: 10.2, 17.6, and 15.5 per 100 patient-years in the <120, 120-149, and 150ms groups, respectively. Eplerenone reduced the risk of the primary outcome and mortality, compared with placebo, consistently across the QRS duration/morphology subgroups. ConclusionWe found that even moderate prolongation of QRS duration and right BBB/IVCD were associated with a high risk of adverse outcomes in HF-REF. Eplerenone was similarly effective, irrespective of QRS duration/morphology.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Kristensen, S. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Geographic variations in the PARADIGM-HF heart failure trial
- 2016
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 37:41, s. 3167-3174
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic variations in patient characteristics, event rates, and treatment effects. We investigated these further in PARADIGM-HF, the largest and most globally representative trial in heart failure (HF) to date. METHODS AND RESULTS: We looked at five regions: North America (NA) 622 (8%), Western Europe (WE) 1680 (20%), Central/Eastern Europe/Russia (CEER) 2762 (33%), Latin America (LA) 1413 (17%), and Asia-Pacific (AP) 1487 (18%). Notable differences included: WE patients (mean age 68 years) and NA (65 years) were older than AP (58 years) and LA (63 years) and had more coronary disease; NA and CEER patients had the worst signs, symptoms, and functional status. North American patients were the most likely to have a defibrillating-device (53 vs. 2% AP) and least likely prescribed a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (36 vs. 61% LA). Other evidence-based therapies were used most frequently in NA and WE. Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (per 100 patient-years) varied among regions: NA 13.5 (95% CI 11.7-15.6), WE 9.6 (8.6-10.6), CEER 12.3 (11.4-13.2), LA 11.2 (10.0-12.5), and AP 12.5 (11.3-13.8). After adjustment for prognostic variables, relative to NA, the risk of CV death was higher in LA and AP and the risk of HF hospitalization lower in WE. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across regions. CONCLUSION: There were many regional differences in PARADIGM-HF, including in age, symptoms, comorbidity, background therapy, and event-rates, although these did not modify the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.
|
|
| 8. |
- Simpson, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing LCZ696 With Enalapril According to Baseline Risk Using the MAGGIC and EMPHASIS-HF Risk Scores
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097. ; 66:19, s. 2059-2071
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Although most patients in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial had mild symptoms, there is a poor correlation between reported functional limitation and prognosis in heart failure. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to examine the spectrum of risk in PARADIGM-HF and the effect of LCZ696 across that spectrum. METHODS This study analyzed rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, its components, and all-cause mortality using the MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) risk scores to categorizepatients. The authors determined whether risk, on the basis of these scores, modified the treatment effect of LCZ696. RESULTS The complete MAGGIC risk score was available for 8,375 of the 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF. The median MAGGIC score was 20 (IQR: 16 to 24). An increase of 1 point was associated with a 6% increased risk for the primary endpoint (p < 0.001) and a 7% increased risk for cardiovascular death (p < 0.001). The benefit of LCZ696 over enalapril for the primary endpoint was similar across the spectrum of risk (p = 0.159). Treating 100 patients for 2 years with LCZ696 instead of enalapril led to 7 fewer patients in the highest quintile of risk experiencing primary outcomes, compared with 3 in the lowest quintile. Analyses using the EMPHASIS-HF risk score gave similar findings. CONCLUSIONS Although most PARADIGM-HF patients had mild symptoms, many were at high risk for adverse outcomes and obtained a large absolute benefit from LCZ696, compared with enalapril, over a relatively short treatment period. LCZ696's benefit was consistent across the spectrum of risk. (PARADIGM-HF trial [Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure]; NCT01035255)
|
|
| 9. |
- Young, J. B., et al.
(författare)
-
Mortality and morbidity reduction with Candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction: results of the CHARM low-left ventricular ejection fraction trials
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 110:17, s. 2618-26
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure (CHF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a high risk of death and hospitalization for CHF deterioration despite therapies with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and even an aldosterone antagonist. To determine whether the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan decreases cardiovascular mortality, morbidity, and all-cause mortality in patients with CHF and depressed LVEF, a prespecified analysis of the combined Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) low LVEF trials was performed. CHARM is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international trial program. METHODS AND RESULTS: New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II through IV CHF patients with an LVEF of < or =40% were randomized to candesartan or placebo in 2 complementary parallel trials (CHARM-Alternative, for patients who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors, and CHARM-Added, for patients who were receiving ACE inhibitors). Mortality and morbidity were determined in 4576 low LVEF patients (2289 candesartan and 2287 placebo), titrated as tolerated to a target dose of 32 mg once daily, and observed for 2 to 4 years (median, 40 months). The primary outcome (time to first event by intention to treat) was cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization for each trial, with all-cause mortality a secondary end point in the pooled analysis of the low LVEF trials. Of the patients in the candesartan group, 817 (35.7%) experienced cardiovascular death or a CHF hospitalization as compared with 944 (41.3%) in the placebo group (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; P<0.001) with reduced risk for both cardiovascular deaths (521 [22.8%] versus 599 [26.2%]; HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.75 to 0.95]; P=0.005) and CHF hospitalizations (516 [22.5%] versus 642 [28.1%]; HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.68 to 0.85]; P<0.001). It is important to note that all-cause mortality also was significantly reduced by candesartan (642 [28.0%] versus 708 [31.0%]; HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.98]; P=0.018). No significant heterogeneity for the beneficial effects of candesartan was found across prespecified and subsequently identified subgroups including treatment with ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, an aldosterone antagonist, or their combinations. The study drug was discontinued because of adverse effects by 23.1% of patients in the candesartan group and 18.8% in the placebo group; the reasons included increased creatinine (7.1% versus 3.5%), hypotension (4.2% versus 2.1%), and hyperkalemia (2.8% versus 0.5%), respectively (all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan significantly reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with CHF and LVEF < or =40% when added to standard therapies including ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and an aldosterone antagonist. Routine monitoring of blood pressure, serum creatinine, and serum potassium is warranted.
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
