Individualized Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme (ACE)‐Inhibitor Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease Based on Clinical and Pharmacogenetic Determinants: The PERindopril GENEtic (PERGENE) Risk Model

Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) constitute a heterogeneous group in which the treatment benefits by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor therapy vary between individuals. Our objective was to integrate clinical and pharmacogenetic determinants in an ultimate combined risk prediction model.Clinical, genetic, and outcomes data were used from 8726 stable CAD patients participating in the EUROPA/PERGENE trial of perindopril versus placebo. Multivariable analysis of phenotype data resulted in a clinical risk score (range, 0-21 points). Three single-nucleotide polymorphisms (rs275651 and rs5182 in the angiotensin-II type I-receptor gene and rs12050217 in the bradykinin type I-receptor gene) were used to construct a pharmacogenetic risk score (PGXscore; range, 0-6 points). Seven hundred eighty-five patients (9.0%) experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction or resuscitated cardiac arrest, during 4.2 years of follow-up. Absolute risk reductions ranged from 1.2% to 7.5% in the 73.5% of patients with PGXscore of 0 to 2. As a consequence, estimated annual numbers needed to treat ranged from as low as 29 (clinical risk score ≥10 and PGXscore of 0) to 521 (clinical risk score ≤6 and PGXscore of 2). Furthermore, our data suggest that long-term perindopril prescription in patients with a PGXscore of 0 to 2 is cost-effective.Both baseline clinical phenotype, as well as genotype determine the efficacy of widely prescribed ACE inhibition in stable CAD. Integration of clinical and pharmacogenetic determinants in a combined risk prediction model demonstrated a very wide range of gradients of absolute treatment benefit

Should beta-blocker therapy be reduced or withdrawn after an episode of decompensated heart failure? Results from COMET.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether beta-blocker therapy should be reduced or withdrawn in patients who develop acute decompensated heart failure (HF). We studied the relationship between changes in beta-blocker dose and outcome in patients surviving a HF hospitalisation in COMET. METHODS: Patients hospitalised for HF were subdivided on the basis of the beta-blocker dose administered at the visit following hospitalisation, compared to that administered before. RESULTS: In COMET, 752/3029 patients (25%, 361 carvedilol and 391 metoprolol) had a non-fatal HF hospitalisation while on study treatment. Of these, 61 patients (8%) had beta-blocker treatment withdrawn, 162 (22%) had a dose reduction and 529 (70%) were maintained on the same dose. One-and two-year cumulative mortality rates were 28.7% and 44.6% for patients withdrawn from study medication, 37.4% and 51.4% for those with a reduced dosage (n.s.) and 19.1% and 32.5% for those maintained on the same dose (HR,1.59; 95%CI, 1.28-1.98; p<0.001, compared to the others). The result remained significant in a multivariable model: (HR, 1.30; 95%CI, 1.02-1.66; p=0.0318). No interaction with the beneficial effects of carvedilol, compared to metoprolol, on outcome was observed (p=0.8436). CONCLUSIONS: HF hospitalisations are associated with a high subsequent mortality. The risk of death is higher in patients who discontinue beta-blocker therapy or have their dose reduced. The increase in mortality is only partially explained by the worse prognostic profile of these patients

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.

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; P120 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

Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Beta blockers reduce mortality in patients who have chronic heart failure, systolic dysfunction, and are on background treatment with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We aimed to compare the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcome. METHODS: In a multicentre, double-blind, and randomised parallel group trial, we assigned 1511 patients with chronic heart failure to treatment with carvedilol (target dose 25 mg twice daily) and 1518 to metoprolol (metoprolol tartrate, target dose 50 mg twice daily). Patients were required to have chronic heart failure (NYHA II-IV), previous admission for a cardiovascular reason, an ejection fraction of less than 0.35, and to have been treated optimally with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors unless not tolerated. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause admission. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The mean study duration was 58 months (SD 6). The mean ejection fraction was 0.26 (0.07) and the mean age 62 years (11). The all-cause mortality was 34% (512 of 1511) for carvedilol and 40% (600 of 1518) for metoprolol (hazard ratio 0.83 [95% CI 0.74-0.93], p=0.0017). The reduction of all-cause mortality was consistent across predefined subgroups. The composite endpoint of mortality or all-cause admission occurred in 1116 (74%) of 1511 on carvedilol and in 1160 (76%) of 1518 on metoprolol (0.94 [0.86-1.02], p=0.122). Incidence of side-effects and drug withdrawals did not differ by much between the two study groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that carvedilol extends survival compared with metoprolo

Rationale, design and conduct of a randomised controlled trial evaluating a primary care-based complex intervention to improve the quality of life of heart failure patients: HICMan (Heidelberg Integrated Case Management) : study protocol

Background: Chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) is a complex disease with rising prevalence, compromised quality of life (QoL), unplanned hospital admissions, high mortality and therefore high burden of illness. The delivery of care for these patients has been criticized and new strategies addressing crucial domains of care have been shown to be effective on patients' health outcomes, although these trials were conducted in secondary care or in highly organised Health Maintenance Organisations. It remains unclear whether a comprehensive primary care-based case management for the treating general practitioner (GP) can improve patients' QoL. Methods/Design: HICMan is a randomised controlled trial with patients as the unit of randomisation. Aim is to evaluate a structured, standardized and comprehensive complex intervention for patients with CHF in a 12-months follow-up trial. Patients from intervention group receive specific patient leaflets and documentation booklets as well as regular monitoring and screening by a prior trained practice nurse, who gives feedback to the GP upon urgency. Monitoring and screening address aspects of disease-specific selfmanagement, (non)pharmacological adherence and psychosomatic and geriatric comorbidity. GPs are invited to provide a tailored structured counselling 4 times during the trial and receive an additional feedback on pharmacotherapy relevant to prognosis (data of baseline documentation). Patients from control group receive usual care by their GPs, who were introduced to guidelineoriented management and a tailored health counselling concept. Main outcome measurement for patients' QoL is the scale physical functioning of the SF-36 health questionnaire in a 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are the disease specific QoL measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ), depression and anxiety disorders (PHQ-9, GAD-7), adherence (EHFScBS and SANA), quality of care measured by an adapted version of the Patient Chronic Illness Assessment of Care questionnaire (PACIC) and NTproBNP. In addition, comprehensive clinical data are collected about health status, comorbidity, medication and health care utilisation. Discussion: As the targeted patient group is mostly cared for and treated by GPs, a comprehensive primary care-based guideline implementation including somatic, psychosomatic and organisational aspects of the delivery of care (HICMAn) is a promising intervention applying proven strategies for optimal care. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30822978

Heart failure guidelines and prescribing in primary care across Europe

BACKGROUND: Major international differences in heart failure treatment have been repeatedly described, but the reasons for these differences remain unclear. National guideline recommendations might be a relevant factor. This study, therefore, explored variation of heart failure guideline recommendations in Europe. METHODS: Treatment recommendations of 14 national guidelines published after 1994 were analyzed in relation to the heart failure treatment guideline of the European Society of Cardiology. To test potential relations between recommendations and prescribing, national prescribing patterns as obtained by a European study in primary care (IMPROVEMENT-HF) were related to selected recommendations in those countries. RESULTS: Besides the 14 national guidelines used by primary care physicians in the countries contacted, the European guideline was used in four countries, and separate guidelines for specialists and primary care were available in another four countries. Two countries indicated that no guideline was used up to 2000. Comprehensiveness of the guidelines varied with respect to length, literature included and evidence ratings. Relevant differences in treatment recommendations were seen only in drug classes where evidence had changed recently (β-blockers and spironolactone). The relation between recommendation and prescribing for selected recommendations was inconsistent among countries. CONCLUSION: Differences in guideline recommendations are not sufficient to explain variation of prescribing among countries, thus other factors must be considered

The health care setting rather than medical speciality impacts on physicians adherence to guideline-conform anticoagulation in outpatients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a cross sectional survey

BACKGROUND: In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at high risk for stroke guidelines consistently recommend long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) with a vitamin K antagonist. However recommendations remain ambiguous in respect to the precise OAC initiation regimens. Based on the clinical observation, that the initiation of OAC for NVAF varies considerably in daily practice, we aimed to assess the current practice in Switzerland. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of randomly selected general practitioners, internists and cardiologists from different health care settings in an urban Swiss region that covers 1.4 million inhabitants. The main outcome measures were the preferred antithrombotic initiation regimen and long-term treatment in patients with newly diagnosed NVAF at high risk for stroke. RESULTS: We received 226 out of 388 (58.2%) surveys. Compared to physicians working in a hospital setting (33.6% of respondents) physicians in ambulatory care reported more years of experience and claimed lower-use (never or seldom) of guidelines in general (47.6 vs. 12.2%). Regarding long-term thromboembolic prophylaxis 93.7% of all responders followed current recommendation by choosing an OAC. When focussing on guideline-consistent correct OAC initiation (either low-dose initial OAC or a combination of LMWH and OAC) adherence dropped to 60.6% with hospital physicians demonstrating a significantly higher use of guideline-conform OAC regimens (79.7 vs. 51.0%). Medical speciality in non-hospital physicians was not related to correct guideline-use. Hospital setting remained independently associated with a guideline-conform OAC initiation regimen (OR 2.8, p = 0.023) when controlled for medical speciality, physicians' characteristics and clinical experience. Problems when starting an anticoagulation treatment were seldom reported (never or seldom accounting for 94.1% of all responses). CONCLUSIONS: The guideline adherence with respect to OAC initiation regimens in NVAF was significantly lower when compared to long-term treatment and health care setting rather than medical speciality explained guideline-conform OAC initiation. The majority of the physicians did not consider the initiation of anticoagulation to be a major obstacle in outpatient care

The systematic guideline review: method, rationale, and test on chronic heart failure

Background: Evidence-based guidelines have the potential to improve healthcare. However, their de-novo-development requires substantial resources-especially for complex conditions, and adaptation may be biased by contextually influenced recommendations in source guidelines. In this paper we describe a new approach to guideline development-the systematic guideline review method (SGR), and its application in the development of an evidence-based guideline for family physicians on chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: A systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Evidence-based guidelines on CHF management in adults in ambulatory care published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2004 were included. Guidelines on acute or right heart failure were excluded. Eligibility was assessed by two reviewers, methodological quality of selected guidelines was appraised using the AGREE instrument, and a framework of relevant clinical questions for diagnostics and treatment was derived. Data were extracted into evidence tables, systematically compared by means of a consistency analysis and synthesized in a preliminary draft. Most relevant primary sources were re-assessed to verify the cited evidence. Evidence and recommendations were summarized in a draft guideline. Results: Of 16 included guidelines five were of good quality. A total of 35 recommendations were systematically compared: 25/35 were consistent, 9/35 inconsistent, and 1/35 un-rateable (derived from a single guideline). Of the 25 consistencies, 14 were based on consensus, seven on evidence and four differed in grading. Major inconsistencies were found in 3/9 of the inconsistent recommendations. We re-evaluated the evidence for 17 recommendations (evidence-based, differing evidence levels and minor inconsistencies) - the majority was congruent. Incongruity was found where the stated evidence could not be verified in the cited primary sources, or where the evaluation in the source guidelines focused on treatment benefits and underestimated the risks. The draft guideline was completed in 8.5 man-months. The main limitation to this study was the lack of a second reviewer. Conclusion: The systematic guideline review including framework development, consistency analysis and validation is an effective, valid, and resource saving-approach to the development of evidence-based guidelines