Estimating the Lifetime Benefits of Treatments for Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared ways of describing treatment effects. The objective was to better explain to clinicians and patients what they might expect from a given treatment, not only in terms of relative and absolute risk reduction, but also in projections of long-term survival. BACKGROUND: The restricted mean survival time (RMST) can be used to estimate of long-term survival, providing a complementary approach to more conventional metrics (e.g., absolute and relative risk), which may suggest greater benefits of therapy in high-risk patients compared with low-risk patients. METHODS: Relative and absolute risk, as well as the RMST, were calculated in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials. RESULTS: As examples, in the RALES trial (more severe HFrEF), the treatment effect metrics for spironolactone versus placebo on heart failure hospitalization and/or cardiovascular death were a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5 to 0.77), number needed to treat = 9 (7 to 14), and age extension of event-free survival +1.1 years (-0.1 to + 2.3 years). The corresponding metrics for EMPHASIS-HF (eplerenone vs. placebo in less severe HFrEF) were 0.64 (0.54 to 0.75), 14 (1 to 22), and +2.9 (1.2 to 4.5). In patients in PARADIGM-HF aged younger than 65 years, the metrics for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88), 23 (15 to 44), and +1.7 (0.6 to 2.8) years; for those aged 65 years or older, the metrics were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.94), 29 (17 to 83), and +0.9 (0.2 to 1.6) years, which provided evidence of a greater potential life extension in younger patients. Similar observations were found for lower risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: RMST event-free (and overall) survival estimates provided a complementary means of evaluating the effect of therapy in relation to age and risk. They also provided a clinically useful metric that should be routinely reported and used to explain the potential long-term benefits of a given treatment, especially to younger and less symptomatic patients.

Yoga-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Given the shortage of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs in India and poor uptake worldwide, there is an urgent need to find alternative models of CR that are inexpensive and may offer choice to subgroups with poor uptake (e.g., women and elderly). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the effects of yoga-based CR (Yoga-CaRe) on major cardiovascular events and self-rated health in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The trial was conducted in 24 medical centers across India. This study recruited 3,959 patients with acute myocardial infarction with a median and minimum follow-up of 22 and 6 months. Patients were individually randomized to receive either a Yoga-CaRe program (n = 1,970) or enhanced standard care involving educational advice (n = 1,989). The co-primary outcomes were: 1) first occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or emergency cardiovascular hospitalization); and 2) self-rated health on the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level visual analogue scale at 12 weeks. RESULTS: MACE occurred in 131 (6.7%) patients in the Yoga-CaRe group and 146 (7.4%) patients in the enhanced standard care group (hazard ratio with Yoga-CaRe: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71 to 1.15; p = 0.41). Self-rated health was 77 in Yoga-CaRe and 75.7 in the enhanced standard care group (baseline-adjusted mean difference in favor of Yoga-CaRe: 1.5; 95% CI: 0.5 to 2.5; p = 0.002). The Yoga-CaRe group had greater return to pre-infarct activities, but there was no difference in tobacco cessation or medication adherence between the treatment groups (secondary outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Yoga-CaRe improved self-rated health and return to pre-infarct activities after acute myocardial infarction, but the trial lacked statistical power to show a difference in MACE. Yoga-CaRe may be an option when conventional CR is unavailable or unacceptable to individuals. (A study on effectiveness of YOGA based cardiac rehabilitation programme in India and United Kingdom; CTRI/2012/02/002408).

Development of a Yoga-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation (Yoga-CaRe) Programme for Secondary Prevention of Myocardial Infarction.

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after myocardial infarction is highly effective. It is unavailable in public hospitals in India due to limited resources. Our objective was to develop a scalable model of CR for India based on yoga, which could also appeal to some groups with low uptake of CR (e.g., ethnic minorities, women, and older people) globally. The intervention was developed using a structured process. A literature review and consultations with yoga experts, CR experts, and postmyocardial infarction patients were conducted to systematically identify and shortlist appropriate yoga exercises and postures, breathing exercises, meditation and relaxation practices, and lifestyle changes, which were incorporated into a conventional CR framework. The draft intervention was further refined based on the feedback from an internal stakeholder group and an external panel of international experts, before being piloted with yoga instructors and patients with myocardial infarction. A four-phase yoga-based CR (Yoga-CaRe) programme was developed for delivery by a single yoga instructor with basic training. The programme consists of a total of 13 instructor-led sessions (2 individual and 11 group) over a 3-month period. Group sessions include guided practice of yoga exercises and postures, breathing exercises, and meditation and relaxation practices, and support for the lifestyle change and coping through a moderated discussion. Patients are encouraged to self-practice daily at home and continue long-term with the help of a booklet and digital video disc (DVD). Family members/carers are encouraged to join throughout. In conclusion, a novel yoga-based CR programme has been developed, which promises to provide a scalable CR solution for India and an alternative choice for CR globally. It is currently being evaluated in a large multicentre randomised controlled trial across India.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a Yoga-based Cardiac Rehabilitation (Yoga-CaRe) program following acute myocardial infarction: Study rationale and design of a multi-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a standard treatment for secondary prevention of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in high income countries (HICs), but it is inaccessible to most patients in India due to high costs and skills required for multidisciplinary CR teams. We developed a low-cost and scalable CR program based on culturally-acceptable practice of yoga (Yoga-CaRe). In this paper, we report the rationale and design for evaluation of its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: This is a multi-center, single-blind, two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial across 22 cardiac care hospitals in India. Four thousand patients aged 18-80 years with AMI will be recruited and randomized 1:1 to receive Yoga-CaRe program (13 sessions supervised by an instructor and encouragement to self-practice daily) or enhanced standard care (3 sessions of health education) delivered over a period of three months. Participants will be followed 3-monthly till the end of the trial. The co-primary outcomes are a) time to occurrence of first cardiovascular event (composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and emergency cardiovascular hospitalization), and b) quality of life (Euro-QoL-5L) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include need for revascularization procedures, return to pre-infarct activities, tobacco cessation, medication adherence, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. CONCLUSION: This trial will alone contribute >20% participants to existing meta-analyses of randomized trials of CR worldwide. If Yoga-CaRe is found to be effective, it has the potential to save millions of lives and transform care of AMI patients in India and other low and middle income country settings.

Clinical benefit of eplerenone in patients with mild symptoms of systolic heart failure already receiving optimal best practice background drug therapy: analysis of the EMPHASIS-HF study.

BACKGROUND: In EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure), eplerenone significantly reduced major cardiovascular events versus placebo in 2737 patients with mild symptoms of heart failure and an ejection fraction of <35%, in addition to recommended therapy. However, it is not known whether such benefits were preserved in patients receiving optimal background drug therapy, that is, high doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi, or angiotensin receptor blocker), ß-blocker, or both drug classes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We further analyzed EMPHASIS-HF according to the use and dose of these background drug classes. Patients receiving ≥ 50% of target dose were considered to be receiving high doses; patients on <50% or no drug comprised the low-dose group. The primary end point of the study (cardiovascular death/heart failure hospitalization), as well as all-cause mortality, was evaluated in this way. The beneficial clinical effects of eplerenone (as observed in the main study) were preserved for the EMPHASIS-HF primary end point in patients receiving higher doses of ACEi or angiotensin receptor blocker, ß-blocker, or both (hazard ratio for eplerenone versus placebo, ACEi/angiotensin receptor blocker: high dose, 0.67; low dose, 0.65; ß-blockers: high dose, 0.55; low dose, 0.72; both ACEi/angiotensin receptor blocker and ß-blocker: high dose, 0.59; low dose, 0.68; P value for interaction 0.80, 0.15, and 0.53, respectively), as well as for all-cause mortality. There were no major safety issues, except a borderline increased risk of hypotension with eplerenone in those on high-dose ACEi or ACEi/ß-blocker. CONCLUSIONS: Eplerenone provides substantial benefit on major events (with an acceptable safety profile) in patients with mild symptoms of systolic heart failure, even in those already receiving high doses of standard background therapies.

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.

Mejorar la comunicación de estudios observacionales en epidemiología (STROBE): explicación y elaboración / Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Gran parte de la investigación biomédica es de tipo observacional. Los informes de los estudios observacionales a menudo poseen una calidad insuficiente, lo que dificulta la evaluación de sus fortalezas y debilidades para generalizar los resultados. Teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y consideraciones teóricas, un grupo de expertos en metodología, investigadores y editores de revistas científicas, desarrollaron una lista de recomendaciones para aumentar la calidad de las publicaciones de los estudios observacionales: Strenghtening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). La Declaración STROBE consiste en una lista de verificación de 22 puntos que guardan relación con las diferentes secciones de un artículo: título, resumen, introducción, metodología, resultados y discusión. De ellos, 18 puntos son comunes a los tres diseños de estudio: cohorte, casos y controles, y transversales; los otros cuatro son específicos para cada una de estas tres modalidades. La Declaración STROBE proporciona a los autores información sobre cómo mejorar la calidad de los artículos sobre estudios observacionales y facilita a los revisores, editores de revistas y lectores su apreciación crítica y su interpretación. Este documento explicativo tiene el propósito de impulsar el uso, la comprensión y la difusión de la Declaración STROBE. Se presentan el significado y el análisis razonado para cada punto de la lista de verificación, proporcionando uno o varios ejemplos publicados en la literatura y, en lo posible, referencias de estudios empíricos relevantes y literatura metodológica. También se incluyen ejemplos de diagramas de flujo. La Declaración STROBE, el presente documento y la página Web asociada (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) son recursos útiles para mejorar la divulgación de la investigación observacional (AU)

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research (AU)

Mejorar la comunicación de estudios observacionales en epidemiología (STROBE): explicación y elaboración / Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Gran parte de la investigación biomédica es de tipo observacional. Los informes de los estudios observacionales a menudo poseen una calidad insuficiente, lo que dificulta la evaluación de sus fortalezas y debilidades para generalizar los resultados. Teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y consideraciones teóricas, un grupo de expertos en metodología, investigadores y editores de revistas científicas, desarrollaron una lista de recomendaciones para aumentar la calidad de las publicaciones de los estudios observacionales: Strenghtening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). La Declaración STROBE consiste en una lista de verificación de 22 puntos que guardan relación con las diferentes secciones de un artículo: título, resumen, introducción, metodología, resultados y discusión. De ellos, 18 puntos son comunes a los tres diseños de estudio: cohorte, casos y controles, y transversales; los otros cuatro son específicos para cada una de estas tres modalidades. La Declaración STROBE proporciona a los autores información sobre cómo mejorar la calidad de los artículos sobre estudios observacionales y facilita a los revisores, editores de revistas y lectores su apreciación crítica y su interpretación. Este documento explicativo tiene el propósito de impulsar el uso, la comprensión y la difusión de la Declaración STROBE. Se presentan el significado y el análisis razonado para cada punto de la lista de verificación, proporcionando uno o varios ejemplos publicados en la literatura y, en lo posible, referencias de estudios empíricos relevantes y literatura metodológica. También se incluyen ejemplos de diagramas de flujo. La Declaración STROBE, el presente documento y la página Web asociada (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) son recursos útiles para mejorar la divulgación de la investigación observacional (AU)

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research (AU)

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.

A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown. METHODS: We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions. Of these patients, 4123 were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions: 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; propofol or a volatile anesthetic; nitrogen or nitrous oxide; and remifentanil or fentanyl. The remaining patients were randomly assigned with respect to the first four interventions. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly. RESULTS: Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent. Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent, and nitrogen by 12 percent; the risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics. All the interventions acted independently of one another and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. Absolute risk reduction, though, was a critical function of patients' baseline risk. CONCLUSIONS: Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.