Effects of low-dose oral enoximone administration on mortality, morbidity, and exercise capacity in patients with advanced heart failure: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group ESSENTIAL trials.

AIMS: Use of inotropic agents in patients with heart failure (HF) has been limited by adverse effects on outcomes. However, administration of positive inotropes at lower doses and concomitant treatment with beta-blockers might increase benefit-risk ratio. We investigated the effects of low doses of the positive inotrope enoximone on symptoms, exercise capacity, and major clinical outcomes in patients with advanced HF who were also treated with beta-blockers and other guideline-recommended background therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Studies of Oral Enoximone Therapy in Advanced HF (ESSENTIAL) programme consisted of two identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that differed only by geographic location (North and South America: ESSENTIAL-I; Europe: ESSENTIAL-II). Patients with New York Heart Association class III-IV HF symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 30%, and one hospitalization or two ambulatory visits for worsening HF in the previous year were eligible for participation in the trials. The trials had three co-primary endpoints: (i) the composite of time to all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, analysed in the two ESSENTIAL trials combined; (ii) the 6 month change from baseline in the 6 min walk test distance (6MWTD); and (iii) the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 months, both analysed in each trial separately. ESSENTIAL-I and -II randomized 1854 subjects at 211 sites in 16 countries. In the combined trials, all-cause mortality and the composite, first co-primary endpoint did not differ between the two treatment groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.17; and HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86-1.12, respectively, for enoximone vs. placebo]. The two other co-primary endpoints were analysed separately in the two ESSENTIAL trials, as prospectively designed in the protocol. The 6MWTD increased with enoximone, compared with placebo, in ESSENTIAL-I (P = 0.025, not reaching, however, the pre-specified criterion for statistical significance of P < 0.020), but not in ESSENTIAL-II. No difference in PGA was observed in either trial. CONCLUSION: Although low-dose enoximone appears to be safe in patients with advanced HF, major clinical outcomes are not improved.

Ambrisentan for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: results of the ambrisentan in pulmonary arterial hypertension, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, efficacy (ARIES) study 1 and 2.

BACKGROUND: Ambrisentan is a propanoic acid-based, A-selective endothelin receptor antagonist for the once-daily treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ambrisentan in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter, Efficacy Study 1 and 2 (ARIES-1 and ARIES-2) were concurrent, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that randomized 202 and 192 patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension, respectively, to placebo or ambrisentan (ARIES-1, 5 or 10 mg; ARIES-2, 2.5 or 5 mg) orally once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point for each study was change in 6-minute walk distance from baseline to week 12. Clinical worsening, World Health Organization functional class, Short Form-36 Health Survey score, Borg dyspnea score, and B-type natriuretic peptide plasma concentrations also were assessed. In addition, a long-term extension study was performed. The 6-minute walk distance increased in all ambrisentan groups; mean placebo-corrected treatment effects were 31 m (P=0.008) and 51 m (P<0.001) in ARIES-1 for 5 and 10 mg ambrisentan, respectively, and 32 m (P=0.022) and 59 m (P<0.001) in ARIES-2 for 2.5 and 5 mg ambrisentan, respectively. Improvements in time to clinical worsening (ARIES-2), World Health Organization functional class (ARIES-1), Short Form-36 score (ARIES-2), Borg dyspnea score (both studies), and B-type natriuretic peptide (both studies) were observed. No patient treated with ambrisentan developed aminotransferase concentrations >3 times the upper limit of normal. In 280 patients completing 48 weeks of treatment with ambrisentan monotherapy, the improvement from baseline in 6-minute walk at 48 weeks was 39 m. CONCLUSIONS: Ambrisentan improves exercise capacity in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Improvements were observed for several secondary end points in each of the studies, although statistical significance was more variable. Ambrisentan is well tolerated and is associated with a low risk of aminotransferase abnormalities.

Are beta-blockers needed in patients receiving spironolactone for severe chronic heart failure? An analysis of the COPERNICUS study.

BACKGROUND: The beneficial effects of beta-blockers and aldosterone receptor antagonists are now well established in patients with severe systolic chronic heart failure (CHF). However, it is unclear whether beta-blockers are able to provide additional benefit in patients already receiving aldosterone antagonists. We therefore examined this question in the COPERNICUS study of 2289 patients with severe CHF receiving the beta1-beta2/alpha1 blocker carvedilol compared with placebo. METHODS: Patients were divided post hoc into subgroups according to whether they were receiving spironolactone (n = 445) or not (n = 1844) at baseline. Consistency of the effect of carvedilol versus placebo was examined for these subgroups with respect to the predefined end points of all-cause mortality, death or CHF-related hospitalizations, death or cardiovascular hospitalizations, and death or all-cause hospitalizations. RESULTS: The beneficial effect of carvedilol was similar among patients who were or were not receiving spironolactone for each of the 4 efficacy measures. For all-cause mortality, the Cox model hazard ratio for carvedilol compared with placebo was 0.65 (95% CI 0.36-1.15) in patients receiving spironolactone and 0.65 (0.51-0.83) in patients not receiving spironolactone. Hazard ratios for death or all-cause hospitalization were 0.76 (0.55-1.05) versus 0.76 (0.66-0.88); for death or cardiovascular hospitalization, 0.61 (0.42-0.89) versus 0.75 (0.64-0.88); and for death or CHF hospitalization, 0.63 (0.43-0.94) versus 0.70 (0.59-0.84), in patients receiving and not receiving spironolactone, respectively. The safety and tolerability of treatment with carvedilol were also similar, regardless of background spironolactone. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol remained clinically efficacious in the COPERNICUS study of patients with severe CHF when added to background spironolactone in patients who were practically all receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (or angiotensin II antagonist) therapy. Therefore, the use of spironolactone in patients with severe CHF does not obviate the necessity of additional treatment that interferes with the adverse effects of sympathetic activation, specifically beta-blockade.

Effect of carvedilol on the morbidity of patients with severe chronic heart failure: results of the carvedilol prospective randomized cumulative survival (COPERNICUS) study.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blocking agents improve functional status and reduce morbidity in mild-to-moderate heart failure, but it is not known whether they produce such benefits in severe heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 2289 patients with symptoms of heart failure at rest or on minimal exertion and with an ejection fraction <25% (but not volume-overloaded) to double-blind treatment with either placebo (n=1133) or carvedilol (n=1156) for an average of 10.4 months. Carvedilol reduced the combined risk of death or hospitalization for a cardiovascular reason by 27% (P=0.00002) and the combined risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure by 31% (P=0.000004). Patients in the carvedilol group also spent 27% fewer days in the hospital for any reason (P=0.0005) and 40% fewer days in the hospital for heart failure (P<0.0001). These differences were as a result of both a decrease in the number of hospitalizations and a shorter duration of each admission. More patients felt improved and fewer patients felt worse in the carvedilol group than in the placebo group after 6 months of maintenance therapy (P=0.0009). Carvedilol-treated patients were also less likely than placebo-treated patients to experience a serious adverse event (P=0.002), especially worsening heart failure, sudden death, cardiogenic shock, or ventricular tachycardia. CONCLUSION: In euvolemic patients with symptoms at rest or on minimal exertion, the addition of carvedilol to conventional therapy ameliorates the severity of heart failure and reduces the risk of clinical deterioration, hospitalization, and other serious adverse clinical events.

Influence of pretreatment systolic blood pressure on the effect of carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure: the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the influence of pretreatment systolic blood pressure (SBP) on the efficacy and safety of carvedilol in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). BACKGROUND: Although beta-blockers reduce the risk of death in CHF, there is little reported experience with these drugs in patients with a low pretreatment SBP, who may respond poorly to beta-blockade. METHODS: We studied 2,289 patients with severe CHF who participated in the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) trial. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, carvedilol improved the clinical status and reduced the risk of death and the combined risk of death or hospitalization for any reason, for a cardiovascular reason, or for worsening heart failure (p < 0.001 for all). The relative magnitude of these benefits did not vary as a function of the pretreatment SBP (all interaction: p > 0.10). However, because patients with the lowest SBP were at highest risk of an event, they experienced the greatest absolute benefit from treatment with carvedilol. The lower the pretreatment SBP, the more likely that patients would report an adverse event, be intolerant of high doses of the study drug, or require permanent withdrawal of treatment (p < 0.001 for all). However, these risks were primarily related to the severity of the underlying illness and not to treatment with carvedilol. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides little support for concerns about using beta-blockers (particularly those with vasodilatory actions) in patients with severe CHF who have a low SBP. Pretreatment blood pressure can identify patients who have the greatest need for risk reduction with carvedilol.

Long-term ambrisentan therapy for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ambrisentan for a period of 2 years in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). BACKGROUND: Ambrisentan is an oral, once-daily endothelin receptor antagonist that is selective for the endothelin type A receptor. The ARIES-1 (Ambrisentan in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter, Efficacy Studies) and ARIES-2 trials were the pivotal 12-week, placebo-controlled studies that led to the regulatory approval of ambrisentan (5 and 10 mg) for the treatment of PAH. METHODS: In the ARIES-1 and -2 studies, and the subsequent long-term extension protocol, the ARIES-E study, 383 patients received ambrisentan (2.5, 5, or 10 mg). Efficacy and safety assessments are presented from the time of the first dose of ambrisentan for all patients with post-baseline data. RESULTS: After 2 years of ambrisentan exposure, the mean change from baseline in 6-min walk distance was improved for the 5-mg (+23 m; 95% confidence interval: 9 to 38 m) and 10-mg (+28 m; 95% confidence interval: 11 to 45 m) groups. Estimates of survival and freedom from clinical worsening for the combined dose group were 94% and 83%, respectively, at 1 year and 88% and 72%, respectively, at 2 years. The annualized risk of aminotransferase abnormalities >3x the upper limit of normal was approximately 2% per year; most of these events were mild and did not lead to discontinuation of drug. CONCLUSIONS: Two years of ambrisentan treatment was associated with sustained improvements in exercise capacity and a low risk of clinical worsening and death in patients with PAH. Ambrisentan was generally well tolerated and had a low risk of aminotransferase abnormalities over the 2-year study period. (A Long Term Study of Ambrisentan in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Subjects Having Completed AMB-320 or AMB-321; NCT00578786).

Prognostic benefit of beta-blockers in patients not receiving ACE-Inhibitors.

AIMS: Beta-blockers (BBs) confer significant prognostic benefit in patients (pts) with systolic chronic heart failure (CHF). However, major trials have thus far studied BBs mainly in addition to ACE-Inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) as background therapy. The magnitude of the prognostic benefit of BBs in the absence of ACE-I or ARB has not as yet been determined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a meta-analysis of all placebo-controlled BB studies in patients with CHF (n>200). Trials were identified via Medline literature searches, meeting abstracts, and contact with study organizations. Results for all-cause mortality and death or heart failure hospitalization were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel (fixed effects) method. The impact of BB therapy on all-cause mortality in CHF, in the absence (4.8%) and presence (95.2%) of ACE-I (or ARB), was determined from six trials of 13 370 patients. The risk ratio (RR) for BBs vs. placebo was 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-1.02] in the absence of ACE-I or ARB at baseline, compared with a RR of 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.83) in the presence of these agents. When ACE-Inhibitors were analysed in the same way (pre-BB), a RR of 0.89 (0.80-0.99) vs. placebo was observed in studies of >90 days. The impact of BB therapy on death or HF hospitalization in systolic CHF, in the absence and presence of ACE-I, was determined from three trials of 8988 patients. The RR for BBs vs. placebo was 0.81 (95% CI 0.61-1.08) in the absence of ACE-I or ARB at baseline, compared with a RR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.83) in the presence of these agents. When ACE-Is were analysed in the same way (pre-BB), a RR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.93) vs. placebo was observed in studies of >90 days. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of the prognostic benefit conferred by BBs in the absence of ACE-I appears to be similar to those of ACE-Is in systolic CHF. These data therefore suggest that either ACE-Is or BBs could be used as first-line neurohormonal therapy in patients with systolic CHF. Prospective studies directly comparing these agents are required to definitively address this issue.

Rationale and design of the enoximone clinical trials program.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure is a disease syndrome characterized in its advanced stages by a poor quality of life, frequent hospitalizations, and a high risk of mortality. In advanced and ultra-advanced chronic heart failure, many treatment options, such as cardiac transplantation and mechanical devices, are severely limited by availability and cost. Short-term Phase II clinical trials suggest that low-dose oral inotropic therapy with enoximone may improve hemodynamics and exercise capacity, without adversely affecting mortality, in selected subjects with advanced chronic heart failure. Based on these data, the ability of enoximone to deliver safe and efficacious palliative treatment of advanced/ultra-advanced chronic heart failure is being evaluated in Phase III clinical trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Enoximone Clinical Trials Program is a series of 4 clinical trials designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral enoximone in advanced chronic heart failure. ESSENTIAL I and II (The Studies of Oral Enoximone Therapy in Advanced Heart Failure) will investigate the effects of oral enoximone on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization, submaximal exercise capacity, and quality of life in subjects with New York Heart Association Class III/IV chronic heart failure. EMOTE (Oral Enoximone in Intravenous Inotrope-Dependent Subjects) will evaluate the potential of oral enoximone to wean subjects with ultra-advanced chronic heart failure from chronic intravenous inotropic therapy to which they have been shown to be dependent. EMPOWER (Enoximone Plus Extended-Release Metoprolol Succinate in Subjects with Advanced Chronic Heart Failure) will explore the potential of enoximone to increase the tolerability of continuous release metoprolol in subjects shown previously to be hemodynamically intolerant to beta-blocker treatment. CONCLUSION: These studies are Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials designed to test the general hypothesis that chronic oral administration of low doses of enoximone can produce beneficial effects in subjects with advanced or ultra-advanced chronic heart failure.

Effects of initiating carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure: results from the COPERNICUS Study.

CONTEXT: Beta-blockers remain underused despite their established utility for improving outcome in heart failure. Concerns that initiation of treatment produces few immediate benefits and may have important risks may be deterring widespread use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early effects of the beta-blocker carvedilol in patients with severe heart failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from October 28, 1997, to March 20, 2000, at 334 hospital centers in 21 countries among 2289 patients with symptoms of heart failure at rest or with minimal exertion who were clinically euvolemic and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 25%. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive carvedilol, with start dosage of at 3.125 mg twice daily with uptitration to a target dosage of 25 mg twice daily (n = 1156), or placebo (n = 1133), in addition to their usual medications for heart failure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Death, hospitalization, or permanent withdrawal from study drug, as well as adverse events during the first 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The carvedilol group experienced no increase in cardiovascular risk but instead had fewer patients who died (19 vs 25; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.35); who died or were hospitalized (134 vs 153; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.07); or who died, were hospitalized, or were permanently withdrawn from treatment (162 vs 188; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03). These effects were similar in direction and magnitude to those observed during the entire study, and were apparent particularly in the 624 patients with recent or recurrent decompensation or a very depressed left ventricular ejection fraction. Differences in favor of carvedilol became apparent as early as 14 to 21 days following initiation of treatment. Worsening heart failure was the only serious adverse event with a frequency greater than 2% and was reported with similar frequency in the placebo and carvedilol groups (6.4% vs 5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that, in clinically euvolemic patients, the relation of benefit to risk during initiation of treatment with carvedilol is similar to that seen during long-term therapy with the drug. Our findings should provide the reassurance needed to encourage the high levels of use that are warranted by the results of long-term clinical trials.