VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.
-
Upload
bruce-fowler -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
2
Transcript of VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.
![Page 1: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
VBWG
Improving Outcomes in Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights Heart Failure: New Insights
From Vascular BiologyFrom Vascular Biology
![Page 2: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
VBWG
Heart Failure:A Public Health Concern
![Page 3: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
VBWG
Lloyd-Jones DM et al. Circulation. 2002;106:3068-72.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Attained age (years)
Cumulativerisk (%)
Men
40
20% Lifetime risk for HF after age 40
Women
Framingham Heart Study
5050 60 70 80 900
5
10
15
20
25
0
Lifetime risk for HF for given index ageis cumulative through age 94 years
40 5050 60 70 80 90
![Page 4: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
VBWG
Hypertension is the No. 1 risk factor for HF
20
40
60
0HTN
Population-attributable
risk (%)
MI Angina VHD LVH Diabetes
Hazard ratio M 2.1 6.3 1.4 2.5 2.2 1.8
W 3.3 6.0 1.7 2.1 2.8 3.7
Men Women
Levy D at al. JAMA. 1996;275:1557-62.VHD = valvular heart disease
Framingham Heart Study
![Page 5: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
VBWG
Diabetes: A frequent comorbidity with HF
Bell DSH. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:2433-41.Bertoni AG et al. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:699-703.
Adams KF et al. Am Heart J. 2005;149:209-16.
• Framingham data show HF in diabetic adults age 45 to 74 years
– 2x in men; 5x in women
• Medicare sample of diabetic adults age ≥65 years (1994–1999):
– HF prevalence in 1994: 22.4%
– Annual HF incidence: 7.9%
– Similar incidence by sex and race
– Significant ↑ with age and diabetes-related comorbidities
• National registry of >100,000 patients hospitalized with HF
(mean age 72.4 years)
– 44% had diabetes
![Page 6: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
VBWG
Diabetes is the No. 1 risk factor for HF in women with coronary disease
Bibbins-Domingo K Jr et al. Circulation.2004;110:1424-30.
Adjusted hazard ratio
Diabetes
Atrial fibrillation
Myocardial infarction >1 event
Creatinine clearance <40
Current smoking
BMI >35
Left bundle branch block
LV hypertrophy
Systolic BP ≥140
3.12.9
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
HERS study
![Page 7: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
VBWG
Increasing risk for HF in women with CHD: Impact of diabetes, renal insufficiency, obesity
Bibbons-Domingo K et al. Circulation.2004;110:1424-30.CrCl (ml/min) = creatinine clearance
HERS study; 2391 women with CHD and no HF at baseline
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
CHD CHD + DM CHD + DM + BMI >36
CHD + DM + CrCl <42.8
1.2
2.8
7.0
12.8
AnnualHF
incidence(%)
![Page 8: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
VBWG
Heart Failure Pathophysiology
![Page 9: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
VBWG
Important pathophysiologic mechanisms in HF (1)
Coronary arteries• Obstruction• Inflammation
Modified from Jessup M, Brozena S. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2007-18.
Cardiac abnormalities
Myocardium or myocyte• Myocardial relaxation • Abnormal excitation- contraction coupling• -Adrenergic desensitization• Hypertrophy• Necrosis• Fibrosis• Apoptosis
FunctionalStructural
Left ventricular chamber• Remodeling
– Dilation– Increased sphericity– Aneurysmal dilatation
or wall thinning– Concentric hypertrophy
Mitral regurgitation
Intermittent ischemia or hibernating myocardium
Induced arterial and ventricular arrhythmias
Altered ventricular interaction
![Page 10: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
VBWG
Important pathophysiologic mechanisms in HF (2)
• RAAS
• SNS (norepinephrine)
• Vasodilators (bradykinin, nitric oxide, prostaglandins)
• Natriuretic peptides
• Cytokines (endothelin, tumor necrosis factor, interleukins)
• Vasopressin
• Matrix metalloproteinases
Jessup M, Brozena S. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2007-18.
Biologically active tissue
and circulating substances
![Page 11: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
VBWG
Important pathophysiologic mechanisms in HF (3)
Jessup M, Brozena S. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2007-18.
• Genetics, ethnicity, sex• Age• Use of alcohol, tobacco,
toxic drugs
Coexisting conditions• Hypertension• Diabetes• Renal disease• Coronary artery disease• Anemia• Obesity• Sleep apnea• Depression
Patient factors
![Page 12: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
VBWG
Neurohormonal model of HF
Ventricular remodeling
• Neurohormonal activation– RAAS, SNS
• Increased cytokine expression
• Immune and inflammatory changes
• Altered fibrinolysis
• Oxidative stress
• Apoptosis
• Altered gene expression
• Energy starvation
Injury to myocytes and extracellular matrix
Electrical, vascular, renal, pulmonary muscle, and other effects
Heart failure McMurray J, Pfeffer MA. Circulation. 2002;105:2099-106.
![Page 13: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
VBWG
Diabetes pathogenesis accelerates HF
Kirpichnikov D et al. J Card Fail. 2003;9:333-44.
Activation of
protein kinase C
Hyperglycemia
Heart failure
Decreased intracellular
calcium removal
Activated
RAAS
Activated
sympathoadrenal
system
Cardiac
fibrosis
Cardiomyocyte
death
Decreased myocardial
contractile strengthDiastolic
dysfunction
Systolic
dysfunction
Diabetes
![Page 14: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
VBWG
RAAS in CV continuum: Pivotal role of AT1 receptors in the failing heart
Adapted from Wassmann S, Nickenig G. Eur Heart J Suppl. 2004;6(suppl H):H3-9.
Renin
ACE
B1/B2 receptorAT1 receptor
Angiotensinogen
Angiotensin I
Angiotensin II
AT2 receptor
NO
VasodilationGrowth inhibitionApoptosis
Degradation
Bradykinin/Kinins
Reactive oxygen speciesPro-inflammatory processVasoconstrictionCellular growth/proliferationApoptosisNeurohormonal activation
? Clinical significance
![Page 15: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
VBWG
Primary targets of treatment in HF
Jessup M, Brozena S. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2007-18.
![Page 16: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
VBWG
Angiotensin receptor blockade in the CVD continuum
AtherosclerosisMyocardial
infarction
Endothelial
dysfunction
ARB
Coronary heart
disease
Plaque rupture
ARB
Risk factors
Dilation/
Remodeling
Heart failure
End-stage
heart failure
ARB
Hypertension
Hyperlipidemia
Diabetes
ARB
Wassmann S, Nickenig G. Eur Heart J Suppl. 2004;6(suppl H):H3-9.
ARB
ARB
![Page 17: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
VBWG
Clinical Trial Update
![Page 18: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
VBWG
Survival studies of -blockade in HF
0.50.0 1.0
II-IV
III/IV*
III/IVCIBIS-II Bisoprolol
MERIT-HF Metoprolol succinate CR/XL
All pooled
Relative risk and 95% CI
Patients(N)
Favors-blocker
Total mortalityPlacebo/-blocker
NYHAclass
EFmean
COPERNICUS Carvedilol
2647
3991
2289
8927
28%
28%
20%
CIBIS-II Investigators. Lancet. 1999;353:9-13.MERIT-HF Study Group. Lancet. 1999;353:2001-7.
Packer M et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1651-8.
228/156
217/145
190/130
635/431
P
0.0001
0.00009
0.00013
*not recorded in COPERNICUS, but placebo mortality indicates III/IV
![Page 19: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
VBWG
MERIT-HF: Metoprolol succinate CR/XL lowers risk of hospitalization with/without diabetes
Placebo(n = 490)
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL(n = 495)
Total # hospitaliz/patient-yrs
(%)
50
2625
15
–53%P = 0.0087
–44%P = 0.0039
25
910
30
50
70
–37%P = 0.0026
–35%P = 0.0002
All randomized NYHA III/IV, EF <25%
Diabetes No diabetes Diabetes No diabetes
Deedwania PC et al. Am Heart J. 2005;149:159-67.
16 13
![Page 20: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
VBWG
MERIT-HF: Benefit of -blockade with/without diabetes
145
50
14
95
31
200
72
20
128
40
Relative risk (95% CI)
All patients randomized
Diabetes
Diabetes, severe HF
No diabetes
No diabetes, severe HF
All patients randomized
Diabetes
Diabetes, severe HF
No diabetes
No diabetes, severe HF*
0.0 1.0
Favors metoprolol succinate CR/XL
Favorsplacebo
All-cause mortality
Hospitalization for CHF
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL
Deedwania PC et al. Am Heart J. 2005;149:159-67.
217
61
24
156
48
294
108
40
186
64
Placebo
Events (n)
*Severe HF = NYHA class III/IV, EF<0.25
![Page 21: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
VBWG
Pooled HF trials: Effect of -blockade on survival in diabetic patients
31223352647
98530063991
Relative risk (95% CI)
DiabetesNo diabetes
All
All 3 studies
0.0 1.0
CIBIS II
MERIT-HF
Total (n)randomized
Deedwania PC et al. Am Heart J. 2005;149:159-67.
1.8
33/27195/129228/156
61/50156/95
217/145
635/431
Deaths (n)Placebo/-blockade
58917002289
COPERNICUS
190/130
DiabetesNo diabetes
All
DiabetesNo diabetes
All
18867041
8927
DiabetesNo diabetes
All
![Page 22: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
VBWG
GEMINI: Design
Bakris GL et al. JAMA. 2004;292:2227-36.
Objective: Compare effects of -blockers with different pharmacologic properties on glycemic and metabolic control in patients with diabetes and hypertension receiving RAAS blockade
Participants: 1235 patients
Randomizedto treatment: Carvedilol 6.25 mg to 25 mg bid (n = 498) or
Metoprolol tartrate 50 mg to 200 mg bid (n = 737)
Follow-up: 35 weeks
Glycemic Effects in diabetes Mellitus: carvedilol-metoprolol comparison IN hypertensIves study
![Page 23: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
VBWG
Bakris GL et al. JAMA. 2004;292:2227-36.
Metoprolol tartrate
Carvedilol
% (SD) P % (SD) P
HbA1c 0.15 (0.04) <0.001 0.02 (0.04) 0.65
Insulin sensitivity –2.0 0.48 –9.1 0.004
GEMINI: Change in HbA1c and insulin sensitivity
Endpoint(mean )
![Page 24: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
VBWG
RESOLVD substudy: Effect of metoprolol succinate CR/XL on glucose and insulin
Demers C et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Congress; 2004. Calgary.
• 247 patients with heart failure
• Mean LVEF 28%
• 18% female
• 26% with diabetes
• At 17 weeks, patients taking enalapril candesartan were randomized to
– Metoprolol succinate CR/XL ≤200 mg/d* (n = 130) or – Placebo (n = 117)
• Blood samples analyzed at 17 weeks and after 43 weeks
*Phase 2 regimen
Randomized Evaluation of Strategies fOr Left Ventricular Dysfunction
![Page 25: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
VBWG
RESOLVD substudy: No effect on glucose and insulin with metoprolol succinate CR/XL
Glucose(mmol/L)
Insulin (mmol/L)
Glucose (mmol/L)
Insulin (mmol/L)
Metoprolol succinateCR/XL
8.26 107 8.31† 108†
Placebo 8.28 116 8.38 139
Demers C et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Congress; 2004. Calgary.
17 weeks* 43 weeks
*Phase 2: Start metoprolol succinate CR/XL†P = NS vs placebo
![Page 26: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
VBWG
Implications for -blockade in diabetes and HF
• HF is a frequent, often fatal complication of diabetes
• -Blockers are safe and well tolerated by patients with HF and diabetes
• -Blockade benefits diabetic patients by decreasing hospitalizations for HF and improving survival
• It is time to remove existing barriers for use of -blockers in patients with HF and diabetes
Deedwania PC et al. Am Heart J. 2005;149:159-67.
![Page 27: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
VBWG
MERIT-HF: Mortality benefit of -blockade in the elderly
All-cause mortality
0
5
10
20
15
3 6 9 12 15 18
PlaceboP = 0.0008
Months
Risk reduction37%
0
Deedwania PC et al. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:1300-9.
Metoprololsuccinate CR/XL
%Patients
2
4
6
3 6 9 12 15 18
Placebo
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL
P = 0.0005
Months
0
0
%Patients
0
3
6
12
9
3 6 9 12 15 18
Placebo
P = 0.0032
Months
Risk reduction43%
0
Sudden death
HF mortality
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL
N = 1982 age ≥65 years
%Patients
Riskreduction
61%
![Page 28: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
VBWG
Meta-analysis: -Blockade improves survival in elderly HF patients
Dulin BR et al. Am J Cardiol.2005;95:896-8.
COPERNICUS
Carvedilol (U.S.)
CIBIS-II
MERIT-HF
Overall
BEST
Placebo better
–1 1 10
-blocker better
Risk ratio (95% CI)
0.75 (0.58–0.98)
0.45 (0.24–0.86)
0.70 (0.49–0.99)
0.70 (0.52–0.95)
0.76 (0.64–0.90)
0.91 (0.78–1.05)
P = 0.002
Hazard ratio
![Page 29: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
VBWG
SENIORS: Design
• 2128 patients with HF or LVEF ≤35%
• ≥70 years of age (mean, 76 years)
• Randomly assigned to− Nebivolol titrated to 10 mg once daily over 16-week maximum (n = 1067)− Placebo (n = 1061)
• Primary outcome: Composite of all-cause mortality or CV hospital admission (time to first event)
• Follow-up: median 21 monthsFlather MD et al. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:215-25.
Study of the Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalization in Seniors with heart failure
![Page 30: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
VBWG
SENIORS: Primary and secondary outcomes
100
90
80
70
60
50
100
90
80
70
60
500 6 12 18 24 30 0 6 12 18 24 30
HR 0.86 (0.74–0.99) P = 0.039
Time (months)
All-cause mortality or CV hospital admission
(primary outcome)
Nebivolol
Time (months)
All-cause mortality (main secondary outcome)
HR 0.88 (0.71–1.08) P = 0.214
Nebivolol 332 (31.1%)
Placebo 375 (35.3%)
Placebo
Event- free
survival (%)
169 (15.8%)
192 (18.1%)
Flather MD et al. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:215-25.
No. of events:
Nebivolol
Placebo
HR = hazard ratio
![Page 31: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
VBWG
SENIORS: Clinical relevance
• Confirms data indicating -blockade benefits elderly HF patients
• Extends evidence for benefit of -blockade to a broad range of elderly patients (age >70 years) with HF, including those with mild or preserved LV function
• As in previous large trials, both all-cause mortality and CV hospital admissions show a similar and consistent effect with -blockade
Flather MD et al. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:215-25.
![Page 32: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
VBWG
Benefit of -blockade on mortality in urban patients with HFN = 551; 62% African American, 20% White, 15% HispanicNYHA class III/IV HF: No -blocker group 60%; -blocker group 45%
0
10
20
P < 0.001
0 6
No -blockers
-blockers
Months
12
Death at 1 year
(%)
No -blocker 132 115 100
-blocker 239 229 212
Estep JD et al. Am Heart J. 2004;148:958-63.
17%
4%
![Page 33: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
VBWG
Not all -blockers are the same
Atenolol Tenormin 1 selective Yes Not FDA- approved for HF
Bisoprolol Zebeta 1 selective N/A Not FDA-approved for HF
Metoprolol tartrate
Lopressoror generic
1 selective Yes Not FDA-approved for HF
Metoprolol succinate
CR/XL
TOPROL-XL 1 selective No 200 mg qd
Carvedilol Coreg Non-selective (1, 1, 2)
No 25 mg bid†
Labetalol Normodyne Non-selective (1, 1, 2)
Yes Not FDA-approved for HF
Generic name
Brand name* Properties
AB-rated genericequiv available Dose for HF
* see prescribing information†COPERNICUS; other trials 50 mg bid for >75 kg
![Page 34: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
VBWG
Metoprolol tartrate vs metoprolol succinate CR/XL: Significant pharmacokinetic differences
Andersson B et al. J Card Fail. 2001;7:311-7.
Metoprolol tartrate 50 mg x 3
14 22 0808
300
200
100
0
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL 100 mg
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL 200 mg
Metoprolol tartrate 50 mg
Metoprolol tartrate 50 mg
Time (h)
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL 200 mg x 1
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL 100 mg x 1
Three-way crossover in patients with HF; N = 15
Plasmaconcentration
(mmol/L)
![Page 35: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
VBWG
Effect of metoprolol succinate CR/XL vs atenolol on exercise heart rate/SBP over 24 h
Blomqvist I et al. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1988;33(suppl):S19-24.
N = 10 healthy men
Systolic BP Exercise heart rate
Time (hours)
Meanexercise
SBP(mm Hg)
190
180
170
160
150
0
0 2 8 12 244
160
140
120
100
0
0 2 8 12 24
Time (hours)
4
Meanexerciseheart rate
(bpm)
Placebo
Atenolol 50 mg
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL 100 mg
Placebo
Atenolol 50 mg
Metoprolol succinate CR/XL 100 mg
![Page 36: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
VBWG
Recommended ACEI doses do not completely halt Ang II formation in HF42 HF patients on 40 mg long-acting ACEI (fosinopril, lisinopril, enalapril) or captopril 150 mg
Jorde UP et al. Circulation. 2000;101:844-6.*P < 0.05 vs after valsartan†P < 0.05 vs 10 ng/kg Ang I
20
0
Radial artery
systolic pressure(mm Hg)
25
15
10
5
0100 20010
†
†
Angiotensin I (ng/Kg)
ACEI + valsartan
ACEI
*
*
![Page 37: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
VBWG
CHARM Program: 3 Component trials comparing candesartan with placeboTarget dose, candesartan 32 mg
Overall trial: All-cause death
Primary outcome: CV death or CHF hospitalization
Median follow-up, 37 months
CHARM-Alternative
CHARM-Added
CHARM-Preserved
n = 2028
LVEF ≤40%ACE inhibitor
intolerant
n = 3023
LVEF >40%ACE inhibitor
treated/not treated
n = 2548
LVEF ≤40%ACE inhibitor
treated
Pfeffer MA et al. Lancet. 2003;362:759-66.Granger CB et al. Lancet. 2003;362:772-6.
McMurray JJV et al. Lancet. 2003;362:767-71.Yusuf S et al. Lancet. 2003;362:777-81.
![Page 38: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
VBWG
CHARM Program: Reduction in mortality and morbidity
Alternative(LVEF ≤40%; ACEI intolerant)
1.00.8 0.90.7 1.2 0.90.7 0.80.6 1.21.0 1.11.1
Added(LVEF ≤40%; ACEI treated)
Preserved(LVEF >40%; ACEI treated/
not treated)
Overall
CV death orHF hospitalizationAll-cause mortality
Adjusted hazard ratioP heterogeneity = 0.37
Adjusted hazard ratioP heterogeneity = 0.33
Pfeffer MA et al. Lancet. 2003;362:759-66.
![Page 39: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
VBWG
CHARM-Overall: CV death and non-CV death—Secondary endpoints
5
10
15
20
25
35
2.0 3.00.0 1.0 3.5
P = 0.450
Years
%Patients
13% Relative risk reduction(95% CI 4%–22%)
P = 0.006CV death
Non-CV death
Number at risk
Candesartan 3803 3563 3271 2215 761Placebo 3796 3464 3170 2157 743
Pfeffer MA et al. Lancet. 2003;362:759-66.
![Page 40: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
VBWG
CHARM-Overall: Reduction in mortality and nonfatal MI with candesartan
Events (n)Placebo/candesartan
344/299Sudden death
HF death
CV death
Nonfatal MI
All deaths
260/209
769/691
148/116
945/886
Nonfatal MI/CV death 868/775
0.5 0.6 0.7 9.08.0 1.0 0.5
Riskreduction
15%
22%
12%
23%
9%
21%
P
0.036
0.008
0.012
0.032
0.055
0.004
Solomon SD et al. Circulation. 2004;110:2180-83.Demers C et al. Circulation. 2004;110(suppl):Abstract.
![Page 41: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
VBWG
CHARM—Low LVEF trials: Risk reductions at 1 and 2 years with candesartanLVEF ≤40%
Young JB et al. Circulation. 2004;110:2618-26.
3033
2320
50
40
30
20
10
0CV death/HF hospitalization All-cause mortality
1 year
2 years
%Reduction
P < 0.001
P < 0.001
P = 0.001
P = 0.001
![Page 42: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
VBWG
CHARM Program: Outcomes overview
Parameter
CHARM Added
CHARM Alternative
CHARM Preserved
CHARM Overall
Follow-up (months) 41 34 37 38
CV deaths (%) 23.7 vs 27.3* 21.6 vs 24.8 11.2 vs 11.3 18.2 vs 20.3*
HF hospitalization (%) 24.2 vs 28* 20.4 vs 28.2* 15.9* vs 18.3 19.9 vs 24.2*
Combined endpoint (%) 37.9 vs 42.3* 33 vs 40* 22 vs 24.3 30.2 vs 34.5*
NNT/year to prevent 1 CV death/HF hospitalization 85 40 132 73
Gleiter CH et al. Cardiovasc Drug Rev. 2004;22:263-84.*statistically significant
Candesartan vs placebo
![Page 43: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
VBWG
Pfeffer MA et al. Lancet. 2003;362:759-66.
Candesartan n/N
Placebon/N
Hazard ratio(95% CI) P
163/2715 (6%) 202/2721 (7.4%) 0.78 (0.64–0.96) 0.02
CHARM-Overall: Reduction in new-onset diabetes
n = new-onset diabetesN = total patients
![Page 44: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
VBWG
VALIANT: Design
• 14,800 patients with acute MI + HF/LV dysfunction
• Receiving conventional therapy
• Randomly assigned (0.5 days to 10 days after acute MI) – Valsartan 160 mg bid (n = 4909) – Valsartan 80 mg bid + captopril 25 mg tid (n = 4885) – Captopril 50 mg tid (n = 4909)
• Primary outcome: death from any cause
• Follow-up: median 24.7 months
Pfeffer MA et al. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1893-906.
![Page 45: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
VBWG
VALIANT: Treatments show similar effect on outcome
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
6 12 18 24 30 36
Months Months
Probabilityof event
Death from any cause Combined CV endpoint*
0
CaptoprilValsartan/captoprilValsartan
*CV death, reinfarction, or hospitalization for HF Pfeffer MA et al. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1893-906.
![Page 46: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
VBWG
VALIANT: Poorer 1-year outcomes in patients with new-onset or previous diabetes
Months
Probabilityof event
All-cause mortality
Previous vs new diabetes diagnosis
Previous vs no diabetes
New vs no diabetes diagnosis
Aguilar D et al. Circulation. 2004;110:1572-8.
3 6 9 12
Months
Adverse CV events
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
03 6 9 12
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
Previous DM
No DM
No DM
New DM
Previous DM
New DM
P = 0.43
P < 0.001
P < 0.001
P < 0.005
P < 0.001
P < 0.001
![Page 47: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
VBWG
Clinical implications of CHARM and VALIANT
• In HF patients and in patients with acute MI and LV dysfunction,
evidence supports
– ARBs as alternative to ACEIs (in ACEI–intolerant patients)
– Benefit from addition of ARBs to ACEI-based regimens
• ARBs and ACEIs similarly reduce all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations in patients with HF or high-risk MI
• Discharge prescription of ACEI or ARB meets new Medicare/Medicaid quality performance measures for HF/MI with LV dysfunction
Lee VC et al. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:693-704.McClellen MB et al. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:386-7.
ACC/AHA. www.acc.org
![Page 48: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
VBWG
Benefit of ARB + ACE inhibitor in HF
0.6 1.20.8
ARB+ACEI better
1.0
CHARM(HF)
1.4
ACEI alone better
VALIANT(post MI + HF/LV dysfunction)
Val-HeFT(HF)
1.20.8
HF hospitalization
1.0 1.40.6
All-cause mortality
ARB+ACEI better
ACEI alone better
Voors AA, van Veldhuisen DJ. Int J Cardiol. 2004;97:345-8.
![Page 49: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
VBWG
ARBs in LV dysfunction: Before/after CHARM and VALIANT
Before CHARM, VALIANT
After CHARM, VALIANT
ARBs superior to ACEI? No (ELITE II, OPTIMAAL) No
ARBs non-inferior to ACEI? ? (ELITE II, OPTIMAAL) Yes
ARBs additive on top of ACEI? ? (Val-HeFT)
Yes, HFNo, post-MI
Combination ARB, ACEI, and -blocker dangerous? ? (ELITE II, Val-HeFT) No
Voors AA, van Veldhuisen DJ. Int J Cardiol. 2004;97:345-8.
![Page 50: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
VBWG
Difference in target dosing among ARB trials
Trial Patients Study drug Outcome
CHARM Overall HFLVEF ≤40%LVEF >40%
Candesartan 32 mg qd vs Placebo
10% mortality13% CV death23% HF hosp
ELITE II HFLVEF ≤40%≥ 60 years
Losartan 50 mg qd vs Captopril 50 mg tid
Similar morbidity/mortality
OPTIMAAL Post-MI + HF Losartan 50 mg qd vs Captopril 50 mg tid
Mortality trend favors captoprilNo difference in morbidity
Val-HeFT HF Valsartan 160 mg bid vs Placebo + conventional HF Rx
No mortality 13.2% morbidity/mortality28% HF hosp
VALIANT Acute MI + HF/LV dysfunction
Valsartan 160 mg bid or Captopril 50 mg tid orValsartan 80 mg bid + captopril 50 mg tid
Similar mortality/morbidityNo added benefit with ACEI+ARB
Dickstein K et al. Lancet. 2002;360:752-60.Cohn JN et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1667-75.
Pfeffer MA et al. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1893-906.Pfeffer MA et al. Lancet. 2003;362:759-66.
Pitt B et al. Lancet. 2000;355:1582-7.
![Page 51: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
VBWG
Impact of RAAS modulation on mortality in HF patients with renal insufficiency Minnesota Heart Survey
Odds ratio (95%
CI)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
P = 0.65P = 0.04
P = 0.002
P = 0.17
≥90 60–89 30–59 <30
Post-discharge mortality(mean follow-up 15 mo)
64 6863
48
0
20
40
60
80
≥90 60–89 30–59 <30
ACEI/ARB Rx at discharge
Berger AK et al. Circulation. 2004;110 (suppl III):III-749.
No ACEI/ARB at discharge ACEI and/or ARB at discharge
GFR (mL/min)
%
GFR (mL/min)
4926 patients hospitalized with HF
![Page 52: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
VBWG
Summary
![Page 53: VBWG Improving Outcomes in Heart Failure: New Insights From Vascular Biology.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062312/551b8215550346d6338b5749/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
VBWG
ACC/AHA stages of systolic HF and treatment options
Jessup M, Brozena S. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2007-18.*In appropriate patients