Effects of high-dose versus low-dose losartan on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HEAAL study): a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) are effective treatments for patients with heart failure, but the relation between dose and clinical outcomes has not been explored. We compared the effects of high-dose versus low-dose losartan on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure. METHODS: This double-blind trial was undertaken in 255 sites in 30 countries. 3846 patients with heart failure of New York Heart Association class II-IV, left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less, and intolerance to angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were randomly assigned to losartan 150 mg (n=1927) or 50 mg daily (n=1919). Allocation was by block randomisation stratified by centre and presence or absence of beta-blocker therapy, and all patients and investigators were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was death or admission for heart failure. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00090259. FINDINGS: Six patients in each group were excluded because of poor data quality. With 4.7-year median follow-up in each group (IQR 3.7-5.5 for losartan 150 mg; 3.4-5.5 for losartan 50 mg), 828 (43%) patients in the 150 mg group versus 889 (46%) in the 50 mg group died or were admitted for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.99; p=0.027). For the two primary endpoint components, 635 patients in the 150 mg group versus 665 in the 50 mg group died (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.04; p=0.24), and 450 versus 503 patients were admitted for heart failure (0.87, 0.76-0.98; p=0.025). Renal impairment (n=454 vs 317), hypotension (203 vs 145), and hyperkalaemia (195 vs 131) were more common in the 150 mg group than in the 50 mg group, but these adverse events did not lead to significantly more treatment discontinuations in the 150 mg group. INTERPRETATION: Losartan 150 mg daily reduced the rate of death or admission for heart failure in patients with heart failure, reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction, and intolerance to ACE inhibitors compared with losartan 50 mg daily. These findings show the value of up-titrating ARB doses to confer clinical benefit. FUNDING: Merck (USA).

Rationale and design of Ferinject assessment in patients with IRon deficiency and chronic Heart Failure (FAIR-HF) study: a randomized, placebo-controlled study of intravenous iron supplementation in patients with and without anaemia.

AIMS: Iron deficiency (ID) and anaemia are common in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). The presence of anaemia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in CHF, and ID is a major reason for the development of anaemia. Preliminary studies using intravenous (i.v.) iron supplementation alone in patients with CHF and ID have shown improvements in symptom status. FAIR-HF (Clinical Trials.gov NCT00520780) was designed to determine the effect of i.v. iron repletion therapy using ferric carboxymaltose on self-reported patient global assessment (PGA) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) in patients with CHF and ID. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study recruiting ambulatory patients with symptomatic CHF with LVEF < or = 40% (NYHA II) or < or =45% (NYHA III), ID [ferritin <100 ng/mL or ferritin 100-300 ng/mL when transferrin saturation (TSAT) < 20%], and haemoglobin 9.5-13.5 g/dL. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject((R))) 200 mg iron i.v. or saline i.v. weekly until iron repletion (correction phase), then monthly until Week 24 (maintenance phase). Primary endpoints are (i) self-reported PGA at Week 24 and (ii) NYHA class at Week 24, adjusted for baseline NYHA class. CONCLUSION: This study will provide evidence on the efficacy and safety of iron repletion with ferric carboxymaltose in CHF patients with ID with and without anaemia.

Uric acid and other renal function parameters in patients with stable angina pectoris participating in the ACTION trial: impact of nifedipine GITS (gastro-intestinal therapeutic system) and relation to outcome.

BACKGROUND: Little data is available concerning the prognostic implications of renal function abnormalities, their evolution over time and the effects of nifedipine on such abnormalities in patients with stable angina pectoris. METHODS: The previously published ACTION trial compared long-acting nifedipine GITS 60 mg once daily to placebo among 7,665 patients. Standard laboratory tests including creatinine and uric acid were assessed at baseline, after 6 months, 2 and 4 years, and at the end of follow-up. We assessed the impact of nifedipine on markers of renal dysfunction and determined whether evidence of renal failure alters the impact of nifedipine on the clinical outcome of patients with stable angina. RESULTS: Uric acid was not while creatinine level and estimated creatinine clearance were potent conditionally independent predictors of total mortality and of cardiovascular clinical events. Relative to placebo, nifedipine reduced 6-month uric acid levels by 3% (P < 0.001) of the baseline value. This difference was maintained during long-term follow-up, was present both in normotensives and in hypertensives, and was not explained by differences in diuretic therapy or allopurinol use. Nifedipine had no effect on the occurrence of clinical renal failure. Relative to placebo, the effects of nifedipine on cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.17], any stroke or transient ischaemic attack (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.88), new overt heart failure (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.95), and the need for any coronary procedure (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.88) were consistent across strata of markers of renal dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that, in patients with stable angina, nifedipine reduces uric acid levels and does not affect other markers of renal dysfunction. Renal dysfunction does not alter the effects of nifedipine on clinical outcome.

Resource utilization implications of treatment were able to be assessed from appropriately reported clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Published clinical trial data rarely allow assessment of the health care resource utilization implications of treatment. We give an example of how these can be assessed given appropriate tabulation of data. METHODS: Data from a trial comparing long-acting nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system to placebo in 7,665 patients with stable angina pectoris was analyzed. RESULTS: Relative to placebo, nifedipine significantly increased mean cardiovascular (CV) event-free survival by 41 days but had no effect on mean survival. Per 100 years of follow-up, 78.1 patient-years of double-blind nifedipine administration reduced use of another calcium antagonist, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, an angiotensin receptor blocker, a diuretic and a cardiac glycoside by 1.54, 3.73, 2.63, 2.23, and 0.64 years, respectively, whereas 0.21 less hospitalization for overt heart failure, 0.47 less hospitalization for any stroke or transient ischemic attack, 0.8 less coronary angiogram, 0.38 less coronary bypass procedure, and 0.13 additional orthopedic procedure was required. Combining resource utilization with cost data for one particular hospital showed that one additional year of CV event-free survival costs an average additional euro 3,036 in the setting considered. CONCLUSION: Appropriately tabulated clinical trial data allows clinicians to judge the resource utilization implications and economic effect of treatment decisions.

Tracking coronary calcification and atherosclerotic lesions in patients with stable angina pectoris undergoing nifedipine therapy.

AIMS: The objective of the Coronary Calcification (CC) study was to determine in patients with chronic symptomatic coronary artery disease, if, in addition to standard therapy, nifedipine GITS, relative to placebo, would arrest or slow down the progression of calcium or the development of new atherosclerotic lesions in the coronary arteries. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CC study was part of the ACTION trial. Multi-slice computerized tomography was used to measure and track the progression of CC. Five hundred and eighteen patients were included in this study. The changes in calcium score from baseline every 24 months, over a period of between 4.5 and 6 years, were similar in the nifedipine and placebo treatment groups (p = 0.8). Compared to placebo, more patients in the nifedipine group (71 vs. 60%) were free of new calcified atherosclerotic lesions during follow-up(p = 0.095). CONCLUSION: Nifedipine GITS was not effective in slowing down the progression of calcium in advanced atherosclerotic plaques in patients with stable angina pectoris. Although statistically not significant, Nifedipine demonstrated a trend in slowing down the development of new atherosclerotic lesions.

Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with stable angina requiring treatment (ACTION trial): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Calcium antagonists are widely prescribed for angina pectoris but their effect on clinical outcome is controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect of the calcium antagonist nifedipine on long-term outcome in patients with stable angina pectoris. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3825 patients with treated stable symptomatic coronary disease to double-blind addition of nifedipine GITS (gastrointestinal therapeutic system) 60 mg once daily and 3840 to placebo. The primary endpoint was the combination of death, acute myocardial infarction, refractory angina, new overt heart failure, debilitating stroke, and peripheral revascularisation. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years (SD 1.1). Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 310 patients allocated nifedipine died (1.64 per 100 patient-years) compared with 291 people allocated placebo (1.53 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.07 [95% CI 0.91-1.25], p=0.41). Primary endpoint rates were 4.60 per 100 patient-years for nifedipine and 4.75 per 100 patient-years for placebo (0.97 [0.88-1.07], p=0.54). With nifedipine, rate of death and any cardiovascular event or procedure was 9.32 per 100 patient-years versus 10.50 per 100 patient-years for placebo (0.89 [0.83-0.95], p=0.0012). The difference was mainly attributable to a reduction in the need for coronary angiography and interventions in patients assigned nifedipine, despite an increase in peripheral revascularisation. Nifedipine had no effect on the rate of myocardial infarction. INTERPRETATION: Addition of nifedipine GITS to conventional treatment of angina pectoris has no effect on major cardiovascular event-free survival. Nifedipine GITS is safe and reduces the need for coronary angiography and interventions.