| 1. |
- Young, J. B., et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 110:17, s. 2618-26
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rosengren, Annika, 1951, et al.
(author)
-
Association of psychosocial risk factors with risk of acute myocardial infarction in 11119 cases and 13648 controls from 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study
- 2004
-
In: Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 364:9438, s. 953-62
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors have been reported to be independently associated with coronary heart disease. However, previous studies have been in mainly North American or European populations. The aim of the present analysis was to investigate the relation of psychosocial factors to risk of myocardial infarction in 24767 people from 52 countries. METHODS: We used a case-control design with 11119 patients with a first myocardial infarction and 13648 age-matched (up to 5 years older or younger) and sex-matched controls from 262 centres in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Australia, and North and South America. Data for demographic factors, education, income, and cardiovascular risk factors were obtained by standardised approaches. Psychosocial stress was assessed by four simple questions about stress at work and at home, financial stress, and major life events in the past year. Additional questions assessed locus of control and presence of depression. FINDINGS: People with myocardial infarction (cases) reported higher prevalence of all four stress factors (p<0.0001). Of those cases still working, 23.0% (n=1249) experienced several periods of work stress compared with 17.9% (1324) of controls, and 10.0% (540) experienced permanent work stress during the previous year versus 5.0% (372) of controls. Odds ratios were 1.38 (99% CI 1.19-1.61) for several periods of work stress and 2.14 (1.73-2.64) for permanent stress at work, adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, and smoking. 11.6% (1288) of cases had several periods of stress at home compared with 8.6% (1179) of controls (odds ratio 1.52 [99% CI 1.34-1.72]), and 3.5% (384) of cases reported permanent stress at home versus 1.9% (253) of controls (2.12 [1.68-2.65]). General stress (work, home, or both) was associated with an odds ratio of 1.45 (99% CI 1.30-1.61) for several periods and 2.17 (1.84-2.55) for permanent stress. Severe financial stress was more typical in cases than controls (14.6% [1622] vs 12.2% [1659]; odds ratio 1.33 [99% CI 1.19-1.48]). Stressful life events in the past year were also more frequent in cases than controls (16.1% [1790] vs 13.0% [1771]; 1.48 [1.33-1.64]), as was depression (24.0% [2673] vs 17.6% [2404]; odds ratio 1.55 [1.42-1.69]). These differences were consistent across regions, in different ethnic groups, and in men and women. INTERPRETATION: Presence of psychosocial stressors is associated with increased risk of acute myocardial infarction, suggesting that approaches aimed at modifying these factors should be developed.
|
|
| 3. |
- Solomon, S. D., et al.
(author)
-
Effect of candesartan on cause-specific mortality in heart failure patients: the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program
- 2004
-
In: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 110:15, s. 2180-3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure are at increased risk of sudden death and death attributed to progressive pump failure. We assessed the effect of candesartan on cause-specific mortality in patients enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CHARM program consisted of 3 component trials that enrolled patients with symptomatic heart failure: CHARM-Alternative (n=2028; LVEF<=40% [corrected] and ACE intolerant), CHARM-Added (n=2548; LVEF<=40%, [corrected] already on ACE inhibitors), and CHARM-Preserved (n=3023; LVEF >40%). Patients were randomized to candesartan, titrated to 32 mg QD, or placebo and were followed up for a median of 37.7 months. All deaths were reviewed by a blinded adjudication committee and categorized according to prespecified definitions on the basis of a narrative and source documentation. The number and rate of deaths by cause were calculated for each of the component trials and the overall program. Of all the patients, 8.5% died suddenly, and 6.2% died of progressive heart failure. Candesartan reduced both sudden death (HR 0.85 [0.73 to 0.99], P=0.036) and death from worsening heart failure (HR 0.78 [0.65 to 0.94], P=0.008). These reductions were most apparent in the patients with LVEF<=40% [corrected]. CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan reduced sudden death and death from worsening heart failure in patients with symptomatic heart failure, although this reduction was most apparent in patients with systolic dysfunction.
|
|
| 4. |
- O'Meara, E., et al.
(author)
-
Effect of candesartan on New York Heart Association functional class. Results of the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme
- 2004
-
In: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X. ; 25:21, s. 1920-6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIMS: To evaluate the effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class in a broad spectrum of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the CHARM Programme with symptomatic CHF were randomized to placebo (n=3796) or candesartan (n=3803) and followed for a median of 38 months. NYHA class was assessed at baseline, at two weekly intervals during dose titration and 4 monthly thereafter. Patients were classified as "better", "unchanged" or "worse" 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 NYHA class V) were used. In the LVCF analysis, compared to placebo, more candesartan patients improved (35.4% versus 32.5%) and fewer worsened (9.0% versus 10.3%) in NYHA class (p=0.003). The WRCF analysis also showed a better overall change in NYHA class with candesartan compared to placebo. There was no heterogeneity in the response to candesartan between the CHARM component trials. CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan improves NYHA functional class to a similar extent to other proven treatments for CHF when added to these other treatments.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
