Should beta-blocker therapy be reduced or withdrawn after an episode of decompensated heart failure?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BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether beta-blocker therapy should be reduced or withdrawn in patients who develop acute decompensated heart failure (HF).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 Of these, 61 patients (8%) had beta-blocker treatment withdrawn, 162 (22%) had a dose reduction and 529 (70%) were maintained on the same dose. One-and two-year cumulative mortality rates were 28.7% and 44.6% for patients withdrawn from study medication, 37.4% and 51.4% for those with a reduced dosage (n.s.) and 19.1% and 32.5% for those maintained on the same dose (HR,1.59; 95%CI,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

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

Analysis and design of randomised clinical trials involving competing risks endpoints

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In randomised clinical trials involving time-to-event outcomes, the failures concerned may be events of an entirely different nature and as such define a classical competing risks framework. In designing and analysing clinical trials involving such endpoints, it is important to account for the competing events, and evaluate how each contributes to the overall failure. An appropriate choice of statistical model is important for adequate determination of sample size.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We describe how competing events may be summarised in such trials using cumulative incidence functions and Gray's test. The statistical modelling of competing events using proportional cause-specific and subdistribution hazard functions, and the corresponding procedures for sample size estimation are outlined. These are illustrated using data from a randomised clinical trial (SQNP01) of patients with advanced (non-metastatic) nasopharyngeal cancer.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In this trial, treatment has no effect on the competing event of loco-regional recurrence. Thus the effects of treatment on the hazard of distant metastasis were similar via both the cause-specific (unadjusted <it>csHR </it>= 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 - 0.72) and subdistribution (unadjusted <it>subHR </it>0.43; 95% CI 0.25 - 0.76) hazard analyses, in favour of concurrent chemo-radiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Adjusting for nodal status and tumour size did not alter the results. The results of the logrank test (<it>p </it>= 0.002) comparing the cause-specific hazards and the Gray's test (<it>p </it>= 0.003) comparing the cumulative incidences also led to the same conclusion. However, the subdistribution hazard analysis requires many more subjects than the cause-specific hazard analysis to detect the same magnitude of effect.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The cause-specific hazard analysis is appropriate for analysing competing risks outcomes when treatment has no effect on the cause-specific hazard of the competing event. It requires fewer subjects than the subdistribution hazard analysis for a similar effect size. However, if the main and competing events are influenced in opposing directions by an intervention, a subdistribution hazard analysis may be warranted.</p

Preferential benefits of nifedipine GITS in systolic hypertension and in combination with RAS blockade: further analysis of the ‘ACTION' database in patients with angina

A retrospective analysis of the database from A Coronary Disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine (ACTION) evaluated the effectiveness of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) (i) in combination with renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers and (ii) in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, treatment groups were compared by the log-rank test without adjustment for covariates and hazard ratios with 95% CIs were obtained using Cox proportional hazards models. Of 7665 randomized patients, 1732 patients were receiving RAS blockade at baseline, the addition of nifedipine GITS significantly reduced any cardiovascular (CV) event (−20% P<0.05), the composite of death, any CV event and revascularization (−16% P<0.05) and coronary angiography (−22% P<0.01). These benefits were achieved with relatively small differences in systolic (3.2 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (BP) (2.3 mm Hg). In 2303 patients (30.0%) who had ISH at baseline (1145 nifedipine GITS and 1158 placebo), nifedipine significantly reduced the primary efficacy end point (−18% P<0.03), any CV event (−22% P<0.01) and new heart failure (−40% P<0.01). The benefits were associated with between-group differences in achieved BP of 4.7 and 3.3 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively. In summary, the lowest CV event rates were seen in those receiving (i) the combination of RAS blockade and nifedipine GITS and (ii) in those specifically treated for ISH

Albiglutide, a Long Lasting Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Analog, Protects the Rat Heart against Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury: Evidence for Improving Cardiac Metabolic Efficiency

BACKGROUND: The cardioprotective effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and analogs have been previously reported. We tested the hypothesis that albiglutide, a novel long half-life analog of GLP-1, may protect the heart against I/R injury by increasing carbohydrate utilization and improving cardiac energetic efficiency. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with albiglutide and subjected to 30 min myocardial ischemia followed by 24 h reperfusion. Left ventricle infarct size, hemodynamics, function and energetics were determined. In addition, cardiac glucose disposal, carbohydrate metabolism and metabolic gene expression were assessed. Albiglutide significantly reduced infarct size and concomitantly improved post-ischemic hemodynamics, cardiac function and energetic parameters. Albiglutide markedly increased both in vivo and ex vivo cardiac glucose uptake while reducing lactate efflux. Analysis of metabolic substrate utilization directly in the heart showed that albiglutide increased the relative carbohydrate versus fat oxidation which in part was due to an increase in both glucose and lactate oxidation. Metabolic gene expression analysis indicated upregulation of key glucose metabolism genes in the non-ischemic myocardium by albiglutide. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Albiglutide reduced myocardial infarct size and improved cardiac function and energetics following myocardial I/R injury. The observed benefits were associated with enhanced myocardial glucose uptake and a shift toward a more energetically favorable substrate metabolism by increasing both glucose and lactate oxidation. These findings suggest that albiglutide may have direct therapeutic potential for improving cardiac energetics and function

Multiple interactions between the alpha2C- and beta1-adrenergic receptors influence heart failure survival

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Persistent stimulation of cardiac β₁-adrenergic receptors by endogenous norepinephrine promotes heart failure progression. Polymorphisms of this gene are known to alter receptor function or expression, as are polymorphisms of the α_2C-adrenergic receptor, which regulates norepinephrine release from cardiac presynaptic nerves. The purpose of this study was to investigate possible synergistic effects of polymorphisms of these two intronless genes (<it>ADRB1 </it>and <it>ADRA2C</it>, respectively) on the risk of death/transplant in heart failure patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Sixteen sequence variations in <it>ADRA2C </it>and 17 sequence variations in <it>ADRB1 </it>were genotyped in a longitudinal study of 655 white heart failure patients. Eleven sequence variations in each gene were polymorphic in the heart failure cohort. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to identify polymorphisms and potential intra- or intergenic interactions that influenced risk of death or cardiac transplant. A leave-one-out cross-validation method was utilized for internal validation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three polymorphisms in <it>ADRA2C </it>and five polymorphisms in <it>ADRB1 </it>were involved in eight cross-validated epistatic interactions identifying several two-locus genotype classes with significant relative risks ranging from 3.02 to 9.23. There was no evidence of intragenic epistasis. Combining high risk genotype classes across epistatic pairs to take into account linkage disequilibrium, the relative risk of death or transplant was 3.35 (1.82, 6.18) relative to all other genotype classes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Multiple polymorphisms act synergistically between the <it>ADRA2C </it>and <it>ADRB1 </it>genes to increase risk of death or cardiac transplant in heart failure patients.</p

Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years

Background: The erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation. Methods: An individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention. Results: The analysis included 2783 patients, with 14 245 person-years of follow-up (median 5·5 years). Early (0–6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 0·89; P = 0·010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 0·40, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·74). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 5·16, 1·49 to 17·89; P = 0·010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P = 0·022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization. Conclusion: The early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5 years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle : brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM (Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (Anévrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoprothèse), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575