Blood pressure-lowering effects of nifedipine/candesartan combinations in high-risk individuals: Subgroup analysis of the DISTINCT randomised trial

The DISTINCT study (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS - Candesartan Therapy) investigated the efficacy and safety of nifedipine GITS/candesartan cilexetil combinations vs respective monotherapies and placebo in patients with hypertension. This descriptive sub-analysis examined blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects in high-risk participants, including those with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate<90 ml min-1, n=422), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=202), hypercholesterolaemia (n=206) and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (n=971), as well as the impact of gender, age and body mass index (BMI). Participants with grade I/II hypertension were randomised to treatment with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30, 60 mg and/or candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16, 32 mg or placebo for 8 weeks. Mean systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions after treatment in high-risk participants were greater, overall, with N/C combinations vs respective monotherapies or placebo, with indicators of a dose-response effect. Highest rates of BP control (ESH/ESC 2013 guideline criteria) were also achieved with highest doses of N/C combinations in each high-risk subgroup. The benefits of combination therapy vs monotherapy were additionally observed in patient subgroups categorised by gender, age or BMI. All high-risk participants reported fewer vasodilatory adverse events in the pooled N/C combination therapy than the N monotherapy group. In conclusion, consistent with the DISTINCT main study outcomes, high-risk participants showed greater reductions in BP and higher control rates with N/C combinations compared with respective monotherapies and lesser vasodilatory side-effects compared with N monotherapy

Baseline characteristics of patients in the reduction of events with darbepoetin alfa in heart failure trial (RED-HF)

&lt;p&gt;Aims: This report describes the baseline characteristics of patients in the Reduction of Events with Darbepoetin alfa in Heart Failure trial (RED-HF) which is testing the hypothesis that anaemia correction with darbepoetin alfa will reduce the composite endpoint of death from any cause or hospital admission for worsening heart failure, and improve other outcomes.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Methods and results: Key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, along with baseline treatment, are reported and compared with those of patients in other recent clinical trials in heart failure. Compared with other recent trials, RED-HF enrolled more elderly [mean age 70 (SD 11.4) years], female (41%), and black (9%) patients. RED-HF patients more often had diabetes (46%) and renal impairment (72% had an estimated glomerular filtration rate &#60;60 mL/min/1.73 m2). Patients in RED-HF had heart failure of longer duration [5.3 (5.4) years], worse NYHA class (35% II, 63% III, and 2% IV), and more signs of congestion. Mean EF was 30% (6.8%). RED-HF patients were well treated at randomization, and pharmacological therapy at baseline was broadly similar to that of other recent trials, taking account of study-specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Median (interquartile range) haemoglobin at baseline was 112 (106–117) g/L.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Conclusion: The anaemic patients enrolled in RED-HF were older, moderately to markedly symptomatic, and had extensive co-morbidity.&lt;/p&gt

Nifedipine plus candesartan combination increases blood pressure control regardless of race and improves the side effect profile: Distinct randomized trial results

OBJECTIVES: DISTINCT (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS - Candesartan Therapy) aimed to determine the dose-response and tolerability of nifedipine GITS and/or candesartan cilexetil therapy in participants with hypertension. METHODS: In this 8-week, multinational, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults with mean seated DBP of at least 95 to less than 110 mmHg received combination or monotherapy with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30 or 60 mg and candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16 or 32 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint, change in DBP from baseline to Week 8, was analysed using the response surface model (RSM); this analysis was repeated for mean seated SBP. RESULTS: Overall, 1381 participants (mean baseline SBP/DBP: 156.5/99.6 mmHg) were randomized. Both N and C contributed independently to SBP/DBP reductions [P < 0.0001 (RSM)]. A positive dose-response was observed, with all combinations providing statistically better blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline versus respective monotherapies (P < 0.05) and N60C32 achieving the greatest reduction [-23.8/-16.5 mmHg; P < 0.01 versus placebo (-5.3/-6.7 mmHg) and component monotherapies]. Even very low-dose (N20 and C4) therapy provided significant BP-lowering, and combination therapy was similarly effective in different racial groups. N/C combination demonstrated a lower incidence of vasodilatory adverse events than N monotherapy (18.3 versus 23.6%), including headache (5.5 versus 11.0%; P = 0.003, chi-square test) and peripheral oedema over time (3.6 versus 5.8%; n.s.). CONCLUSION: N/C combination was effective in participants with hypertension and showed an improved side effect profile compared with N monotherapy.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)

Effect of rosiglitazone on the frequency of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose: a randomised controlled trial

Background Rosiglitazone is a thiazolidinedione that reduces insulin resistance and might preserve insulin secretion. The aim of this study was to assess prospectively the drugs ability to prevent type 2 diabetes in individuals at high risk of developing the condition

Treatment of Anemia with Darbepoetin Alfa in Systolic Heart Failure

<p>BACKGROUND</p><p>Patients with systolic heart failure and anemia have worse symptoms, functional capacity, and outcomes than those without anemia. We evaluated the effects of darbepoetin alfa on clinical outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure and anemia.</p><p>METHODS</p><p>In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 2278 patients with systolic heart failure and mild-to-moderate anemia (hemoglobin level, 9.0 to 12.0 g per deciliter) to receive either darbepoetin alfa (to achieve a hemoglobin target of 13 g per deciliter) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure.</p><p>RESULTS</p><p>The primary outcome occurred in 576 of 1136 patients (50.7%) in the darbepoetin alfa group and 565 of 1142 patients (49.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the darbepoetin alfa group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.13; P = 0.87). There was no significant between-group difference in any of the secondary outcomes. The neutral effect of darbepoetin alfa was consistent across all prespecified subgroups. Fatal or nonfatal stroke occurred in 42 patients (3.7%) in the darbepoetin alfa group and 31 patients (2.7%) in the placebo group (P = 0.23). Thromboembolic adverse events were reported in 153 patients (13.5%) in the darbepoetin alfa group and 114 patients (10.0%) in the placebo group (P = 0.01). Cancer-related adverse events were similar in the two study groups.</p><p>CONCLUSIONS</p><p>Treatment with darbepoetin alfa did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure and mild-to-moderate anemia. Our findings do not support the use of darbepoetin alfa in these patients. (Funded by Amgen; RED-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00358215.)</p>