Controversies in the Use of Beta Blockers in Heart Failure

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94510/1/j.1527-5299.2003.00294.x.pd

AYANT UNE INSUFFISANCE AORTIQUE

à la Faculté des Études supérieures de l'Université Laval dans le cadre du programme de maîtrise en Médecine Expérimentale pour l'obtention du grade de maître es sciences (M.Sc.)

Are beta-blockers needed in patients receiving spironolactone for severe chronic heart failure? An analysis of the COPERNICUS study

BACKGROUND: The beneficial effects of beta-blockers and aldosterone receptor antagonists are now well established in patients with severe systolic chronic heart failure (CHF). However, it is unclear whether beta-blockers are able to provide additional benefit in patients already receiving aldosterone antagonists. We therefore examined this question in the COPERNICUS study of 2289 patients with severe CHF receiving the beta1-beta2/alpha1 blocker carvedilol compared with placebo. METHODS: Patients were divided post hoc into subgroups according to whether they were receiving spironolactone (n = 445) or not (n = 1844) at baseline. Consistency of the effect of carvedilol versus placebo was examined for these subgroups with respect to the predefined end points of all-cause mortality, death or CHF-related hospitalizations, death or cardiovascular hospitalizations, and death or all-cause hospitalizations. RESULTS: The beneficial effect of carvedilol was similar among patients who were or were not receiving spironolactone for each of the 4 efficacy measures. For all-cause mortality, the Cox model hazard ratio for carvedilol compared with placebo was 0.65 (95% CI 0.36-1.15) in patients receiving spironolactone and 0.65 (0.51-0.83) in patients not receiving spironolactone. Hazard ratios for death or all-cause hospitalization were 0.76 (0.55-1.05) versus 0.76 (0.66-0.88); for death or cardiovascular hospitalization, 0.61 (0.42-0.89) versus 0.75 (0.64-0.88); and for death or CHF hospitalization, 0.63 (0.43-0.94) versus 0.70 (0.59-0.84), in patients receiving and not receiving spironolactone, respectively. The safety and tolerability of treatment with carvedilol were also similar, regardless of background spironolactone. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol remained clinically efficacious in the COPERNICUS study of patients with severe CHF when added to background spironolactone in patients who were practically all receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (or angiotensin II antagonist) therapy. Therefore, the use of spironolactone in patients with severe CHF does not obviate the necessity of additional treatment that interferes with the adverse effects of sympathetic activation, specifically beta-blockade

Effects of initiating carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure: results from the COPERNICUS Study

CONTEXT: Beta-blockers remain underused despite their established utility for improving outcome in heart failure. Concerns that initiation of treatment produces few immediate benefits and may have important risks may be deterring widespread use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early effects of the beta-blocker carvedilol in patients with severe heart failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from October 28, 1997, to March 20, 2000, at 334 hospital centers in 21 countries among 2289 patients with symptoms of heart failure at rest or with minimal exertion who were clinically euvolemic and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 25%. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive carvedilol, with start dosage of at 3.125 mg twice daily with uptitration to a target dosage of 25 mg twice daily (n = 1156), or placebo (n = 1133), in addition to their usual medications for heart failure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Death, hospitalization, or permanent withdrawal from study drug, as well as adverse events during the first 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The carvedilol group experienced no increase in cardiovascular risk but instead had fewer patients who died (19 vs 25; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.35); who died or were hospitalized (134 vs 153; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.07); or who died, were hospitalized, or were permanently withdrawn from treatment (162 vs 188; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03). These effects were similar in direction and magnitude to those observed during the entire study, and were apparent particularly in the 624 patients with recent or recurrent decompensation or a very depressed left ventricular ejection fraction. Differences in favor of carvedilol became apparent as early as 14 to 21 days following initiation of treatment. Worsening heart failure was the only serious adverse event with a frequency greater than 2% and was reported with similar frequency in the placebo and carvedilol groups (6.4% vs 5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that, in clinically euvolemic patients, the relation of benefit to risk during initiation of treatment with carvedilol is similar to that seen during long-term therapy with the drug. Our findings should provide the reassurance needed to encourage the high levels of use that are warranted by the results of long-term clinical trial