Effects of Serelaxin in Patients with Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Serelaxin is a recombinant form of human relaxin-2, a vasodilator hormone that contributes to cardiovascular and renal adaptations during pregnancy. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with serelaxin may result in relief of symptoms and in better outcomes in patients with acute heart failure. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial, we enrolled patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure and had dyspnea, vascular congestion on chest radiography, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and a systolic blood pressure of at least 125 mm Hg, and we randomly assigned them within 16 hours after presentation to receive either a 48-hour intravenous infusion of serelaxin (30 µg per kilogram of body weight per day) or placebo, in addition to standard care. The two primary end points were death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days and worsening heart failure at 5 days. RESULTS: A total of 6545 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At day 180, death from cardiovascular causes had occurred in 285 of the 3274 patients (8.7%) in the serelaxin group and in 290 of the 3271 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.15; P = 0.77). At day 5, worsening heart failure had occurred in 227 patients (6.9%) in the serelaxin group and in 252 (7.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.07; P = 0.19). There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of death from any cause at 180 days, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or rehospitalization for heart failure or renal failure at 180 days, or the length of the index hospital stay. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure, an infusion of serelaxin did not result in a lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days or worsening heart failure at 5 days than placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; RELAX-AHF-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01870778.).

Blood pressure variability in hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation in the VALUE trial.

PURPOSE: Blood pressure variability is associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors, but little is known about the association with atrial fibrillation. We compared blood pressure variability in patients with and without atrial fibrillation using data from the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The VALUE trial was a randomised-controlled trial of valsartan versus amlodipine in patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk, followed for 4.2 years (mean). For the present analysis we included patients with electrocardiogram at baseline and during follow-up, and ≥3 visits from 6 months onwards. We compared standard deviation (SD) of all blood pressures within each visit averaged across all visits (within-visit variability) and of mean blood pressure at each visit (visit-to-visit variability) in patients with and without atrial fibrillation at baseline. We similarly compared patients who developed non-persistent or persistent atrial fibrillation during follow-up with those who did not, using t-tests, ANOVA and linear regression. RESULTS: Of 15,245 patients in the VALUE trial, 13,827 were eligible for analysis. SD of visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure was not significantly different between patients with and without atrial fibrillation at baseline (mean difference 0.3 mm Hg, p = 0.4), but significantly higher in patients with incident non-persistent or persistent atrial fibrillation during follow-up than in those who never developed atrial fibrillation (differences 1.2 and 1.8 mm Hg, respectively, p-values <0.0001). Associations with non-persistent and persistent atrial fibrillation were confirmed in linear regression models (p-values <0.0001). SD of within-visit systolic blood pressure was not significantly different between patients with and without atrial fibrillation at baseline (p = 0.4) but significantly higher in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation during follow-up (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In patients treated for hypertension, atrial fibrillation was not associated with increased blood pressure variability, but blood pressure variability was higher in those who developed atrial fibrillation during follow-up.

Blood pressure variability and risk of cardiovascular events and death in patients with hypertension and different baseline risks.

Aims: Blood pressure variability is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events, particularly in high-risk patients. We assessed if variability was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and death in hypertensive patients at different risk levels. Methods and results: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation trial was a randomized controlled trial of valsartan vs. amlodipine in patients with hypertension and different risks of cardiovascular events, followed for a mean of 4.2 years. We calculated standard deviation (SD) of mean systolic blood pressure from visits from 6 months onward in patients with ≥3 visits and no events during the first 6 months. We compared the risk of cardiovascular events in the highest and lowest quintile of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability, using Cox regression. For analysis of death, variability was analysed as a continuous variable. Of 13 803 patients included, 1557 (11.3%) had a cardiovascular event and 1089 (7.9%) died. Patients in the highest quintile of SD had an increased risk of cardiovascular events [hazard ratio (HR) 2.1, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.7-2.4; P < 0.0001], and a 5 mmHg increase in SD of systolic blood pressure was associated with a 10% increase in the risk of death (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17; P = 0.002). Associations were stronger among younger patients and patients with lower systolic blood pressure, and similar between patients with different baseline risks, except for higher risk of death among patients with established cardiovascular disease. Conclusion: Higher visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension, irrespective of baseline risk of cardiovascular events. Associations were stronger in younger patients and in those with lower mean systolic blood pressure.

Day vs night: Does time of presentation matter in acute heart failure? A secondary analysis from the RELAX-AHF trial.

BACKGROUND: Signs and symptoms of heart failure can occur at any time. Differences between acute heart failure (AHF) patients who present at nighttime vs daytime and their outcomes have not been well studied. Our objective was to determine if there are differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes between AHF patients presenting during daytime vs nighttime hours within an international, clinical trial. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the RELAX AHF trial, which randomized 1,161 AHF patients to serelaxin vs placebo, both in addition to usual AHF therapy. Prespecified end points of the primary trial were used: dyspnea, 60-day heart failure/renal failure rehospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death, and 180-day CV death. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses for outcomes stratified by daytime vs nighttime presentation were performed. RESULTS: Of the 1,161 RELAX-AHF patients, 775 (66.8%) patients presented during daytime and 386 (33.2%) at nighttime. Baseline characteristics were largely similar, although daytime patients were more likely to be male, have greater baseline body weight, have higher New York Heart Association class, have history of atrial fibrillation, and have more peripheral edema compared with nighttime patients. No differences in dyspnea relief or 60-day outcomes were observed. However, daytime presentation was associated with greater risk for 180-day CV death after adjustment (hazard ratio 2.28, 95% CI 1.34-3.86; c statistic = 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.86). CONCLUSION: In this secondary analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial, baseline characteristics suggest that daytime-presenting patients may have more gradual worsening of chronic HF. Patients with AHF who presented at night had less risk for 180-day CV death, but similar risk for 60-day CV death or rehospitalization and symptom improvement for patients who presented during the daytime.

Evaluating the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in Asian Patients With Acute Heart Failure: Design and Rationale of RELAX-AHF-ASIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (AHF), a common and growing health concern worldwide, is associated with high risk of post-discharge rehospitalization and mortality. Existing evidence indicates potential therapeutic benefits of serelaxin in Caucasian AHF patients, but corresponding data in Asians remain scarce. RELAX-AHF-ASIA, a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial, will evaluate the effects of serelaxin on symptom relief and clinical outcomes in Asian AHF patients, with the use of novel assessments. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with AHF, systolic blood pressure ≥125 mm Hg, and mild to moderate renal dysfunction will be randomized within 16 hours of presentation to receive 48-hour intravenous infusion of 30 µg ⋅ kg-1 ⋅ d-1 serelaxin or placebo in addition to standard therapy. The composite primary end point includes: (1) treatment success (moderate/marked improvement in patient-reported dyspnea and physician-assessed signs of congestion on day 2); (2) treatment failure (in-hospital worsening of signs and/or symptoms of heart failure [HF] requiring intensification of intravenous HF therapy or mechanical ventilation, renal/circulatory support, rehospitalization due to HF/renal-failure, or death through day 5); and (3) unchanged status. Secondary end points include time to in-hospital worsening HF through day 5 and all-cause and cardiovascular deaths through day 180. CONCLUSIONS: RELAX-AHF-ASIA, the largest randomized clinical trial in Asian AHF patients to date, has a novel composite primary end point and the potential to become a hallmark of AHF trials.

Cardiovascular outcomes at different on-treatment blood pressures in the hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial.

AIMS: Recent hypertension guidelines recommend that also in high cardiovascular (CV) risk, hypertensive patients blood pressure (BP) is lowered to <140/90 mmHg as no evidence is available supporting the lower target of <130/80 mmHg recommended in previous guidelines. Whether this represents the optimal treatment strategy is debated, however. METHODS AND RESULTS: The high CV risk hypertensive patients of the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term use Evaluation (VALUE) trial were divided into subgroups according to (i) the percentage of on-treatment visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg or (ii) the mean systolic or diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) values achieved during the entire treatment period or up to the occurrence of an event. A progressive increase from <25 to ≥75% of the visits in which BP was <140/90 mmHg was accompanied by a significant, progressive marked decrease in the covariate adjusted risk of CV morbidity and mortality, cause specific CV events (myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke), and all-cause mortality. Except for a persistent progressive decrease in stroke, no significant trend to a risk decrease occurred for a similar progressive increment of the proportion of visits with BP <130/80 mmHg. Increasing the proportion of visits with a BP <140/90 mmHg (but not <130/80 mmHg) was accompanied by a decreased risk of events also when differences in baseline risk were adjusted using a propensity score. Finally, compared with patients remaining at a mean on-treatment SBP ≥140 or DBP ≥90 mmHg, the risk of all events was markedly reduced when on-treatment mean SBP was lowered to a mean SBP of 130-139 mmHg or a mean DBP of 80-89 mmHg, whereas at on-treatment mean SBP <130 mmHg or DBP <80 mmHg, an additional risk reduction was found for stroke but for any other type of event, the risk of which remained similar or only slightly greater than that seen at the higher BP target. CONCLUSIONS: In the high CV risk, hypertensives of the VALUE trial reducing BP consistently to <140/90 mmHg had marked beneficial effects both when data were calculated as proportion of visits at BP target or as on-treatment mean BP. Reducing BP to <130/80 mmHg led only to some possible further benefit on stroke, whereas the risk of other outcomes remained substantially similar to or slightly greater than that seen at the higher target. Thus, aggressive BP reductions when CV risk is high may not offer substantial advantages, except perhaps in patients or conditions in which stroke risk is particularly common.

Predictors of cardiac morbidity in diabetic, new-onset diabetic and non-diabetic high-risk hypertensive patients: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial.

Diabetic and new-onset diabetic patients with hypertension have higher cardiac morbidity than patients without diabetes. We aimed to investigate whether baseline predictors of cardiac morbidity, the major constituent of the primary endpoint in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, were different in patients with diabetes and new-onset diabetes compared to patients without diabetes. In total, 15,245 high-risk hypertensive patients in the VALUE trial were followed for an average of 4.2 years. At baseline, 5250 patients were diabetic by the 1999 World Health Organization criteria, 1298 patients developed new-onset diabetes and 8697 patients stayed non-diabetic during follow-up. Cardiac morbidity was defined as a composite of myocardial infarction and heart failure requiring hospitalization, and baseline predictors were identified by univariate and multivariate stepwise Cox regression analyses. History of coronary heart disease (CHD) and age were the most important predictors of cardiac morbidity in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. History of CHD, history of stroke and age were the only significant predictors of cardiac morbidity in patients with new-onset diabetes. Predictors of cardiac morbidity, in particular history of CHD and age, were essentially the same in high-risk hypertensive patients with diabetes, new-onset diabetes and without diabetes who participated in the VALUE trial.

No evidence for a J-shaped curve in treated hypertensive patients with increased cardiovascular risk: The VALUE trial.

Previous studies have debated the notion that low blood pressure (BP) during treatment, particularly diastolic (DBP), is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. We evaluated the impact of low BP on cardiovascular outcomes in a high-risk population of 15,244 hypertensive patients, almost half of whom had a history of coronary artery disease (CAD). In the prospective Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, patients were randomized to valsartan or amlodipine regimens and followed for 4.2 years (mean) with no difference in the primary cardiovascular endpoint. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between average on-treatment BP and clinical outcomes. The relationship between BP and cardiovascular events was adjusted for age, gender and body mass index, and baseline qualifying risk factors and diseases (smoking, high total cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, proteinuria, CAD, previous stroke and left ventricular hypertrophy). DBP ≥ 90 mmHg, compared with < 90 mmHg, was associated with increased incidence of the primary cardiovascular endpoint (all cardiac events); however, DBP < 70 mmHg, compared with ≥ 70 mmHg, was not associated with increased incidence after covariate adjustment (no J-shaped curve). Similar results were observed for death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure and stroke, considered separately. Nadir for MI was at DBP of 76 mmHg and for stroke 60 mmHg. The ratio of MI to stroke increased with lower DBP. In CAD patients the MI to stroke ratio was more pronounced than in patients without CAD but there was no significant J-curve in either group. Systolic BP ≥ 150 but not < 130 mmHg, compared with 130-149 mmHg, similarly was associated with increased risk for primary outcome. In conclusion, patients in BP strata ≥ 150/90 mmHg, but not patients in BP strata < 130/70 mmHg, were at increased risk for adverse outcomes in this hypertensive, high-risk population. Although benefit in preventing MI in relation to preventing stroke levels off for the lowest BPs, these data provide no support for a J-curve in the treatment of high-risk hypertensive patients . The increase in the ratio of MI to stroke with lower DBP indicates target organ heterogeneity in that the optimal on-treatment DBP for cerebroprotection is below that for cardioprotection.

Effects of serelaxin in subgroups of patients with acute heart failure: results from RELAX-AHF.

AIM: Patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) differ with respect of many clinical characteristics which may influence their prognosis and response to treatment. We have assessed possible differences in the effects of serelaxin on dyspnoea relief, 60 Day outcomes and 180 Day mortality across patient subgroups in the RELAX-AHF trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Subgroups were based on pre-specified covariates (age, sex, race, geographic region, estimated glomerular filtration rate, time from presentation to randomization, baseline systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, atrial fibrillation, ischaemic heart disease, cardiac devices, i.v. nitrates at randomization). Other covariates which may modify the efficacy of AHF treatment were also analysed. Subgroup analyses did not show any difference in the effects of serelaxin vs. placebo on dyspnoea relief or on the incidence of cardiovascular death or rehospitalizations for heart failure or renal failure at 60 days. Nominally significant interactions between some patient subgroups and the effects of serelaxin on 180 days cardiovascular and all-cause mortality were noted but should be interpreted cautiously due to the number of comparisons and the low incidence of deaths in the subgroups at lower risk. CONCLUSION: The effects of serelaxin vs. placebo appeared to be similar across subgroups of patients in RELAX-AHF.

Effect of aliskiren on post-discharge outcomes among diabetic and non-diabetic patients hospitalized for heart failure: insights from the ASTRONAUT trial.

AIMS: The objective of the Aliskiren Trial on Acute Heart Failure Outcomes (ASTRONAUT) was to determine whether aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor, would improve post-discharge outcomes in patients with hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) with reduced ejection fraction. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggested potential heterogeneity in post-discharge outcomes with aliskiren in patients with and without baseline diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS AND RESULTS: ASTRONAUT included 953 patients without DM (aliskiren 489; placebo 464) and 662 patients with DM (aliskiren 319; placebo 343) (as reported by study investigators). Study endpoints included the first occurrence of cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 and 12 months, all-cause death within 6 and 12 months, and change from baseline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at 1, 6, and 12 months. Data regarding risk of hyperkalaemia, renal impairment, and hypotension, and changes in additional serum biomarkers were collected. The effect of aliskiren on cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 months (primary endpoint) did not significantly differ by baseline DM status (P = 0.08 for interaction), but reached statistical significance at 12 months (non-DM: HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99; DM: HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.91-1.47; P = 0.03 for interaction). Risk of 12-month all-cause death with aliskiren significantly differed by the presence of baseline DM (non-DM: HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50-0.94; DM: HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.15-2.33; P < 0.01 for interaction). Among non-diabetics, aliskiren significantly reduced NT-proBNP through 6 months and plasma troponin I and aldosterone through 12 months, as compared to placebo. Among diabetic patients, aliskiren reduced plasma troponin I and aldosterone relative to placebo through 1 month only. There was a trend towards differing risk of post-baseline potassium ≥6 mmol/L with aliskiren by underlying DM status (non-DM: HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.71-1.93; DM: HR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.30-4.42; P = 0.07 for interaction). CONCLUSION: This pre-specified subgroup analysis from the ASTRONAUT trial generates the hypothesis that the addition of aliskiren to standard HHF therapy in non-diabetic patients is generally well-tolerated and improves post-discharge outcomes and biomarker profiles. In contrast, diabetic patients receiving aliskiren appear to have worse post-discharge outcomes. Future prospective investigations are needed to confirm potential benefits of renin inhibition in a large cohort of HHF patients without DM.

Heart rate as a predictor of stroke in high-risk, hypertensive patients with previous stroke or transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for first stroke are well established, but less is known about risk factors for recurrent stroke. In the present analysis, we aimed to assess the effect of heart rate and other possible predictors of stroke in a hypertensive population with previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). METHODS: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial was a multicentre, double-masked, randomized controlled, parallel group trial comparing the effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker (valsartan) and a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) in patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. We used Cox proportional hazard models to investigate the effect of baseline variables on the risk of stroke. Quadratic terms of the continuous variables were entered in the models to test for linearity. RESULTS: Of 15,245 patients included in the trial, 3014 had a previous stroke or TIA at baseline and were included in the present analysis. Stroke recurrence occurred in 239 patients (7.9%) during a median of 4.5 years of follow-up. Resting heart rate (per 10 beats per minute; hazard ratio [HR], 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-6.58) and diabetes mellitus at baseline (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.03-2.10) were significantly associated with an increased risk of stroke recurrence in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk, hypertensive patients with previous stroke or TIA, resting heart rate was the strongest predictor of recurrent stroke.

Effect of nateglinide on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: The ability of short-acting insulin secretagogues to reduce the risk of diabetes or cardiovascular events in people with impaired glucose tolerance is unknown. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we assigned 9306 participants with impaired glucose tolerance and either cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors to receive nateglinide (up to 60 mg three times daily) or placebo, in a 2-by-2 factorial design with valsartan or placebo, in addition to participation in a lifestyle modification program. We followed the participants for a median of 5.0 years for incident diabetes (and a median of 6.5 years for vital status). We evaluated the effect of nateglinide on the occurrence of three coprimary outcomes: the development of diabetes; a core cardiovascular outcome that was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; and an extended cardiovascular outcome that was a composite of the individual components of the core composite cardiovascular outcome, hospitalization for unstable angina, or arterial revascularization. RESULTS: After adjustment for multiple testing, nateglinide, as compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the cumulative incidence of diabetes (36% and 34%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15; P=0.05), the core composite cardiovascular outcome (7.9% and 8.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.09; P=0.43), or the extended composite cardiovascular outcome (14.2% and 15.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.93, 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03; P=0.16). Nateglinide did, however, increase the risk of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Among persons with impaired glucose tolerance and established cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors, assignment to nateglinide for 5 years did not reduce the incidence of diabetes or the coprimary composite cardiovascular outcomes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097786.)

Effect of valsartan on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system reduce the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular events in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we assigned 9306 patients with impaired glucose tolerance and established cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors to receive valsartan (up to 160 mg daily) or placebo (and nateglinide or placebo) in addition to lifestyle modification. We then followed the patients for a median of 5.0 years for the development of diabetes (6.5 years for vital status). We studied the effects of valsartan on the occurrence of three coprimary outcomes: the development of diabetes; an extended composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, arterial revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina; and a core composite outcome that excluded unstable angina and revascularization. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of diabetes was 33.1% in the valsartan group, as compared with 36.8% in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.92; P<0.001). Valsartan, as compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of either the extended cardiovascular outcome (14.5% vs. 14.8%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07; P=0.43) or the core cardiovascular outcome (8.1% vs. 8.1%; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.14; P=0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance and cardiovascular disease or risk factors, the use of valsartan for 5 years, along with lifestyle modification, led to a relative reduction of 14% in the incidence of diabetes but did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097786.)

Effect of aliskiren on postdischarge mortality and heart failure readmissions among patients hospitalized for heart failure: the ASTRONAUT randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF) represent a major health burden, with high rates of early postdischarge rehospitalization and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor, when added to standard therapy, would reduce the rate of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF rehospitalization among HHF patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: International, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that randomized hemodynamically stable HHF patients a median 5 days after admission. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or less, elevated natriuretic peptides (brain natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥ 400 pg/mL or N -terminal pro-BNP [NT-proBNP] ≥ 1600 pg/mL), and signs and symptoms of fluid overload. Patients were recruited from 316 sites across North and South America, Europe, and Asia between May 2009 and December 2011. The follow-up period ended in July 2012. INTERVENTION: All patients received 150 mg (increased to 300 mg as tolerated) of aliskiren or placebo daily, in addition to standard therapy. The study drug was continued after discharge for a median 11.3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization at 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 1639 patients were randomized, with 1615 patients included in the final efficacy analysis cohort (808 aliskiren, 807 placebo). Mean age was 65 years; mean LVEF, 28%; 41% of patients had diabetes mellitus, mean estimated glomerular filtration rate, 67 mL/min/1.73 m2. At admission and randomization, median NT-proBNP levels were 4239 pg/mL and 2718 pg/mL, respectively. At randomization, patients were receiving diuretics (95.9%), ß-blockers (82.5%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (84.2%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (57.0%). In total, 24.9% of patients receiving aliskiren (77 CV deaths, 153 HF rehospitalizations) and 26.5% of patients receiving placebo (85 CV deaths, 166 HF rehospitalizations) experienced the primary end point at 6 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.12; P = .41). At 12 months, the event rates were 35.0% for the aliskiren group (126 CV deaths, 212 HF rehospitalizations) and 37.3% for the placebo group (137 CV deaths, 224 HF rehospitalizations; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79-1.09; P = .36). The rates of hyperkalemia, hypotension, and renal impairment/renal failure were higher in the aliskiren group compared with placebo. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients hospitalized for HF with reduced LVEF, initiation of aliskiren in addition to standard therapy did not reduce CV death or HF rehospitalization at 6 months or 12 months after discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00894387.

Renal outcomes in hypertensive Black patients at high cardiovascular risk.

The ACCOMPLISH trial (Avoiding Cardiovascular events through Combination therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) was a 3-year multicenter, event-driven trial involving patients with high cardiovascular risk who were randomized in a double-blinded manner to benazepril plus either hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine and titrated in parallel to reach recommended blood pressure goals. Of the 8125 participants in the United States, 1414 were of self-described Black ethnicity. The composite kidney disease end point, defined as a doubling in serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, or death was not different between Black and non-Black patients, although the Blacks were significantly more likely to develop a greater than 50% increase in serum creatinine to a level above 2.6 mg/dl. We found important early differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) due to acute hemodynamic effects, indicating that benazepril plus amlodipine was more effective in stabilizing eGFR compared to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in non-Blacks. There was no difference in the mean eGFR loss in Blacks between therapies. Thus, benazepril coupled to amlodipine was a more effective antihypertensive treatment than when coupled to hydrochlorothiazide in non-Black patients to reduced kidney disease progression. Blacks have a modestly higher increased risk for more advanced increases in serum creatinine than non-Blacks.

Predictors of systolic BP <140 mmHg and systolic BP level by randomly assigned treatment group (benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide) in the ACCOMPLISH Study.

BACKGROUND: The ACCOMPLISH Trial investigated intensive antihypertensive combination treatment with benazepril + amlodipine (B+A) or benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide (B+H) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with systolic hypertension. We analyzed the baseline predictors of achieving a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mmHg and achieved SBP level by the end of 12 months in both treatment groups. METHODS: Baseline and 12-month SBP was available in 10,506 patients, of whom 6250 had diabetes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for SBP control at 12 months and multivariable regression models were used for the prediction of SBP at 12 months. A stepwise procedure was used to select significant (p < 0.001) predictors in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) BP fell from 145.4/80.1 (± 18.3/10.7) mmHg at randomization to 132.8/74.7 (± 16.0/9.6) mmHg at 12 months. The main baseline predictors of SBP control <140 mmHg were region (USA >Nordic region) and Caucasian ethnicity in both randomization arms. A higher diastolic BP and the use of lipid lowering agents indicated favorable effects in the B+H arm only. The predictors of uncontrolled SBP were: (i) higher baseline SBP values, (ii) higher number of previous antihypertensive medications in both arms, (iii) the previous use of insulin in the B+A arm, and (iv) pre-trial calcium channel blocker (CCB) use in the B+H arm. Additionally, pre-trial use of thiazides and electrocardiogram (ECG)-left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) at baseline predicted higher, and smoking lower absolute SBP in the B+A arm and the use of thiazides and proteinuria a higher SBP in the B+H arm. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of treatment, patients in the USA and Caucasians achieved better SBP control, whereas higher baseline SBP and more previous antihypertensive medications indicated less control. Concomitant use of lipid lowering treatment indicated a better SBP control in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm. Lastly, insulin use and ECG-LVH in the benazepril + amlodipine arm and proteinuria in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm indicated poor control.

Determining the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome.

BACKGROUND: Because composite end points augment event rates, they are often thought to increase statistical power. This may not be true if the intervention has a lesser effect on some components of the composite. Consequently, treatment effect size may depend on the choice of composite. METHODS: To explore this issue, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on individual cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. We then applied these treatment effects to 2 different composite CV outcomes generated using blinded data from the ongoing Nateglinide and Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT) Outcomes Research (NAVIGATOR) trial and analyzed them on a time-to-first-event basis. The composites were CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure and an "extended" composite that included hospitalization for angina and coronary revascularization. RESULTS: The odds reductions due to angiotensin-converting enzyme/angiotensin receptor blocker treatment estimated from the meta-analysis were as follows: CV death: 13%, P < .0001; nonfatal myocardial infarction: 16%, P < .00001; nonfatal stroke: 14%, P = .006; heart failure: 28%, P < .00001; hospitalization for angina: 7%, P = .02; and revascularization: 5%, P = .17. For the CV composites, the projected odds reduction was larger (17.8%, 95% CI 0.452-1.189) for the narrower composite compared with the extended CV composite (11.7%, 95% CI 0.623-1.136); that is, use of the extended composite reduced power to detect a difference between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of CV composites augments event rates, it may not increase statistical power. Inclusion of events little influenced by an intervention may reduce the precision of the composite end point and mask treatment effects.

Reduced incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation with angiotensin II receptor blockade: the VALUE trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and increases cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. Therefore, in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) a prespecified objective was to compare the effects of valsartan and amlodipine on new-onset AF. METHODS: A total of 15 245 hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk received valsartan 80-160 mg/day or amlodipine 5-10 mg/day combined with additional antihypertensive agents. Electrocardiograms were obtained every year and analyzed centrally for evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy and new-onset AF. RESULTS: At baseline, AF was diagnosed in 2.6% of 7649 valsartan recipients and 2.6% of 7596 amlodipine recipients. During antihypertensive treatment the incidence of at least one documented occurrence of new-onset AF was 3.67% with valsartan and 4.34% with amlodipine [unadjusted hazard ratio 0.843, [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.713, 0.997], P = 0.0455]. The incidence of persistent AF was 1.35% with valsartan and 1.97% with amlodipine [unadjusted hazard ratio 0.683 (95% CI: 0.525, 0.889), P = 0.0046]. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan-based treatment reduced the development of new-onset AF, particularly sustained AF in hypertensive patients, compared with amlodipine-based therapy. These findings suggest that angiotensin II receptor blockers may result in greater benefits than calcium antagonists in hypertensive patients at risk of new-onset AF.

Site enrollment rate, outcomes, and study drug effects in a multicenter trial. Results from RELAX-AHF.

BACKGROUND: Site selection is critical in acute heart failure trials. We assessed whether the enrollment rate per site affects patients' characteristics, outcomes and treatment response. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1161 patients enrolled at 96 sites in the RELAX-AHF trial (serelaxin vs placebo) were included. Annualized enrollment rate was calculated as the total number of patients enrolled at each site divided by time that the site was open (patients per year). Sites were classified in low (<10), medium (10-20) and high enrolling sites (>20 patients per site/year) and were compared for prognosis and serelaxin effect. High enrolling sites were more prevalent in Eastern Europe and Israel. Time from hospital admission to randomization was shorter in high enrolling sites (6.3±4.4h>20 patients sites versus 8.7±4.5h for <10 patients sites; p<0.0001). Patients had slightly fewer comorbidities, lower levels of natriuretic peptides and creatinine and more severe pulmonary congestion in high enrolling sites. Use of evidence-based therapies was higher in high enrolling sites. The rates of worsening heart failure to day 5, 180-day cardiovascular and all-cause mortality and 60-day heart failure/renal failure rehospitalization or cardiovascular death, were similar across study groups even after adjustment for covariates. The effects of serelaxin on these outcomes did not differ by enrollment rate. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of RELAX-AHF study patients enrolled in high versus low enrolling sites differed only slightly and there were no differences in outcomes. Differences in serelaxin effects by enrollment rate were not discernible.

Prediction of cardiovascular outcome by estimated glomerular filtration rate and estimated creatinine clearance in the high-risk hypertension population of the VALUE trial.

BACKGROUND: Reduced renal function is predictive of poor cardiovascular outcomes but the predictive value of different measures of renal function is uncertain. METHODS: We compared the value of estimated creatinine clearance, using the Cockcroft-Gault formula, with that of estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula, as predictors of cardiovascular outcome in 15 245 high-risk hypertensive participants in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. For the primary end-point, the three secondary end-points and for all-cause death, outcomes were compared for individuals with baseline estimated creatinine clearance and estimated GFR < 60 ml/min and > or = 60 ml/min using hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Coronary heart disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, age, sex and treatment effects were included as covariates in the model. RESULTS: For each end-point considered, the risk in individuals with poor renal function at baseline was greater than in those with better renal function. Estimated creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) was significantly predictive only of all-cause death [hazard ratio = 1.223, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.076-1.390; P = 0.0021] whereas estimated GFR was predictive of all outcomes except stroke. Hazard ratios (95% CIs) for estimated GFR were: primary cardiac end-point, 1.497 (1.332-1.682), P < 0.0001; myocardial infarction, 1.501 (1.254-1.796), P < 0.0001; congestive heart failure, 1.699 (1.435-2.013), P < 0.0001; stroke, 1.152 (0.952-1.394) P = 0.1452; and all-cause death, 1.231 (1.098-1.380), P = 0.0004. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated with the MDRD formula is more informative than estimated creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) in the prediction of cardiovascular outcomes.