| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Metra, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of low-dose oral enoximone administration on mortality, morbidity, and exercise capacity in patients with advanced heart failure: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group ESSENTIAL trials
- 2009
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - 1522-9645. ; 30:24, s. 3015-26
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: Use of inotropic agents in patients with heart failure (HF) has been limited by adverse effects on outcomes. However, administration of positive inotropes at lower doses and concomitant treatment with beta-blockers might increase benefit-risk ratio. We investigated the effects of low doses of the positive inotrope enoximone on symptoms, exercise capacity, and major clinical outcomes in patients with advanced HF who were also treated with beta-blockers and other guideline-recommended background therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Studies of Oral Enoximone Therapy in Advanced HF (ESSENTIAL) programme consisted of two identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that differed only by geographic location (North and South America: ESSENTIAL-I; Europe: ESSENTIAL-II). Patients with New York Heart Association class III-IV HF symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 30%, and one hospitalization or two ambulatory visits for worsening HF in the previous year were eligible for participation in the trials. The trials had three co-primary endpoints: (i) the composite of time to all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, analysed in the two ESSENTIAL trials combined; (ii) the 6 month change from baseline in the 6 min walk test distance (6MWTD); and (iii) the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 months, both analysed in each trial separately. ESSENTIAL-I and -II randomized 1854 subjects at 211 sites in 16 countries. In the combined trials, all-cause mortality and the composite, first co-primary endpoint did not differ between the two treatment groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.17; and HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86-1.12, respectively, for enoximone vs. placebo]. The two other co-primary endpoints were analysed separately in the two ESSENTIAL trials, as prospectively designed in the protocol. The 6MWTD increased with enoximone, compared with placebo, in ESSENTIAL-I (P = 0.025, not reaching, however, the pre-specified criterion for statistical significance of P < 0.020), but not in ESSENTIAL-II. No difference in PGA was observed in either trial. CONCLUSION: Although low-dose enoximone appears to be safe in patients with advanced HF, major clinical outcomes are not improved.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Metra, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Influence of heart rate, blood pressure, and beta-blocker dose on outcome and the differences in outcome between carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the COMET trial
- 2005
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 26:21, s. 2259-68
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: We studied the influence of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and beta-blocker dose on outcome in the 2599 out of 3029 patients in Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) who were alive and on study drug at 4 months after randomization (time of first visit on maintenance therapy). METHODS AND RESULTS: By multivariable analysis, baseline HR, baseline SBP, and their change after 4 months were not independently related to subsequent outcome. In a multivariable analysis including clinical variables, HR above and SBP below the median value achieved at 4 months predicted subsequent increased mortality [relative risk (RR) for HR>68 b.p.m. 1.333; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.152-1.542; P<0.0001 and RR for SBP>120 mmHg 0.78; 95% CI 0.671-0.907; P<0.0013]. Achieving target beta-blocker dose was associated with a better outcome (RR 0.779; 95% CI 0.662-0.916; P<0.0025). The superiority of carvedilol as compared to metoprolol tartrate was maintained in a multivariable model (RR 0.767; 95% CI 0.663-0.887; P=0.0004) and there was no interaction with HR, SBP, or beta-blocker dose. CONCLUSION: Beta-blocker dose, HR, and SBP achieved during beta-blocker therapy have independent prognostic value in heart failure. None of these factors influenced the beneficial effects of carvedilol when compared with metoprolol tartrate at the pre-defined target doses used in COMET.
|
|
| 9. |
- Remme, W. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Carvedilol protects better against vascular events than metoprolol in heart failure: results from COMET
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - 1558-3597. ; 49:9, s. 963-71
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: We explored whether vascular protection by carvedilol could contribute to its superior effects in the treatment of heart failure (HF) compared with metoprolol tartrate in the COMET (Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial) study. BACKGROUND: Full adrenergic blockade by carvedilol and additional (e.g., antioxidative) properties may lead to vascular protection relative to beta-1 blockade alone, and contribute to its efficacy in HF treatment. METHODS: Three thousand twenty-nine patients with HF due to ischemic (51%) or idiopathic cardiomyopathy (44%) were randomized double-blind to carvedilol (n = 1,511) or metoprolol (n = 1,518) and followed for 58 months. Vascular end points were cardiovascular death, stroke, stroke death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unstable angina. RESULTS: The effect of carvedilol on cardiovascular death improved consistently in subgroups with prespecified baseline variables. Myocardial infarctions were reported in 69 carvedilol and 94 metoprolol patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.97, p = 0.03). Cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI combined were reduced by 19% in carvedilol (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, p = 0.0009 vs. metoprolol). Unstable angina was reported as an adverse event in 56 carvedilol and in 77 metoprolol patients (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.501 to 0.998, p = 0.049). A stroke occurred in 65 carvedilol and 80 metoprolol patients (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10). Stroke or MI combined occurred in 130 carvedilol and 168 metoprolol patients (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95, p = 0.015), and fatal MI or fatal stroke occurred in 34 carvedilol and in 72 metoprolol patients (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, p = 0.0002). Death after a nonfatal MI or stroke occurred in 61 of 124 carvedilol and in 106 of 160 metoprolol patients (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, p = 0.0086). CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol improves vascular outcomes better than metoprolol. These results suggest a ubiquitous protective effect of carvedilol against major vascular events.
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
