Efficacy of folic acid when added to statin therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia following acute myocardial infarction: a randomised pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Folic acid is assumed to have favourable effects on vascular endothelium, directly as well as indirectly through its effect on homocysteine metabolism. However, the clinical value of folic acid in secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (MI) has never been tested. Thus, a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial was performed in order to study the effect of folic acid 5 mg o.d. when added to statin therapy on the incidence of recurrent major clinical events up to 1 year post-MI. METHODS: A total of 283 patients with a total cholesterol >6.5 mmol/l (251 mg/dl) (mean 7.3 mmol/l) were included. All patients received 40 fluvastatin. In 140 of the 283 patients, folic acid (5 mg o.d.) was instituted at discharge, and the remaining 143 patients served as controls. Other secondary prevention measures for both groups were advocated. The primary endpoint was a composite consisting of all vascular events, including death, recurrent MI, strokes, and unplanned invasive coronary interventions. RESULTS: At baseline, the two groups were well-matched for all clinical and demographic parameters. After 1 year of treatment, no difference was noticed in the primary endpoint between the two groups. These endpoints occurred in 43 patients (31%) in the folic acid group, as opposed to 45 patients (31%) in the control group. All separate cardiovascular events were also equally distributed between both groups. Total cholesterol levels decreased to a similar extent in the two groups (to 5.5 and 5.7 mmol/l, in folic acid and control groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this medium-size pilot study, folic acid did not demonstrate any beneficial additive effects on cardiovascular mortality or morbidity in post-MI patients with hypercholesterolemia who were treated with statin therapy. Larger trials, possibly targeting at selected populations, must be awaited before definitive conclusions regarding the potentially favourable effects of folic acid supplementation in secondary prevention can be drawn.

Effect of fluvastatin on ischaemia following acute myocardial infarction: a randomized trial.

AIMS: Residual ischaemia following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is related to an adverse outcome, although the effect of early initiation of statin therapy is unknown. METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel study was performed, which compared fluvastatin 80 mg daily with placebo in patients with an AMI and total cholesterol of <6.5 mmol.l(-1). Ischaemia was measured by ambulatory electrocardiographic (AECG) monitoring over 48-h at baseline, after 6 weeks and at 12 months. RESULTS: Five hundred and forty patients were included (83% male, age 61+/-11 years); 43% had an anterior AMI and 50% were treated with fibrinolytics in the acute phase. After 12 months, the total cholesterol (TC) level was reduced by 13% and LDL-C (low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol) by 21% (from 3.5 mmol.l(-1) to 2.7 mmol.l(-1)) in the fluvastatin treatment group. Both TC and LDL increased by 9% in the placebo group (P<0.001 between groups). At baseline, ischaemia on AECG was present in only 11% of patients, and absent in 77%; in the remaining 11%, recordings were technically inadequate. After 6 weeks, 32/48 (67%), and 12 months 35/46 (76%) of the patients with ischaemia on the baseline AECG, no longer showed signs of ischaemia. Nevertheless, ischaemia at baseline was predictive for the occurrence of any major clinical event (RR=2.35; 95% CI 1.39-3.2;P <0.001). Fluvastatin treatment did not affect ischaemia on AECG, nor the occurrence of any major clinical events as compared to placebo. Post-hoc analysis in patients with the most pronounced ischaemia at baseline showed a trend for a beneficial effect of fluvastatin on major clinical events (P=0.084). CONCLUSION: Residual ischaemia after AMI is observed less frequently in the present study, than in earlier studies, although it is predictive for future cardiovascular events. As a result, the present study was underpowered, and no effect of fluvastatin on AECG ischaemia, or major clinical events in the first year after AMI, could be detected. The present data do not confirm other reports which support widespread use of statin treatment early after AMI.

Combination of calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers for patients with exercise-induced angina pectoris: beneficial effect of calcium channel blockers largely determined by their effect on heart rate.

The combination of calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers is more effective for the treatment of exercise-induced angina pectoris than beta-blocker monotherapy. As ischemia in exercise-induced angina is essentially preceded by an increase in heart rate, calcium channel blockers with a negative chronotropic property may perform better for this purpose than nonchronotropic compounds. A 335-patient, 10-week, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of amlodipine 5 mg and 10 mg, diltiazem 200 mg and 300 mg, and mibefradil 50 mg and 100 mg treatment added to baseline beta-blocker treatment was performed. Exercise testing (ETT) was performed by bicycle ergometry. All of the calcium channels blockers significantly delayed the onset of 1 mm ST-segment depression on ETT (p < 0.001 for any treatment vs. baseline). In addition, mibefradil, in both low- and high-dose treatments, produced the largest delays (low dose: different from diltiazem and amlodipine by 24.1 and 29.8 seconds, respectively, p < 0.003 and < 0.001; high dose: different from diltiazem and amlodipine by 33.7 and 37.0 seconds, respectively, p < 0.001 and < 0.001). A stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that this beneficial effect of calcium channel blockers was largely dependent on their effect on heart rate. Serious symptoms of dizziness likewise occurred significantly more frequently on mibefradil (p < 0.05 vs. diltiazem) and urged no fewer than 19 patients on mibefradil to withdraw from the trial. The authors conclude that calcium channel blockers with a negative chronotropic property provide a better delay of ischemia in patients with exercise-induced angina, but the concomitant risk of intolerable dizziness may reduce this benefit.

A comparative study of once-daily amlodipine versus twice-daily diltiazem controlled release (CR) in the treatment of stable angina pectoris. Amlodipine Study Group.

A multicenter, double-blind study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the calcium antagonists, amlodipine and diltiazem controlled release (CR), in patients with stable angina pectoris. One hundred and thirty-two patients were randomized to receive either amlodipine (5-10 mg) once daily or diltiazem CR (90-120 mg) twice daily for 8 weeks. A standard bicycle exercise tolerance test was used for the primary efficacy assessment. The median time to 1 mm ST-segment depression and time to onset of chest pain were increased by 16% (P < 0.0001) and 13% (P < 0.0001) with amlodipine, and by 16% (P < 0.0001) and 7% (P = 0.009) with diltiazem CR, respectively. Amlodipine, but not diltiazem CR, also produced a significant improvement in the median time to end of exercise of 5% (P < 0.0002), although the between-treatment difference for this parameter was not statistically significant. The number of angina attacks and nitroglycerin (NTG) tablet consumption were similar with both agents. Amlodipine was withdrawn in 3% and diltiazem CR in 9% of patients due to adverse events. The adverse events were reported by 15% of patients on amlodipine and 26% of those on diltiazem CR. The results from this study demonstrate that both drugs have a comparable therapeutic effect and possibly that amlodipine was better tolerated in patients with stable angina. Furthermore, amlodipine has the advantage of once-daily dosing and so may also be beneficial in ensuring good patient compliance.

Modulation of lipoprotein(a) atherogenicity by high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in middle-aged men with symptomatic coronary artery disease and normal to moderately elevated serum cholesterol. Regression Growth Evaluation Statin Study (REGRESS) Study Group.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine whether lipoprotein(a) levels predict coronary artery lumen changes in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) and normal to moderate hypercholesterolemia. BACKGROUND: Recent conflicting reports have confirmed or refuted the association of lipoprotein(a) with clinical events or angiographically verified disease progression. METHODS: The association between serum lipoprotein(a) and changes in coronary artery lumen was studied in 704 men entered into the Regression Growth Evaluation Statin Study (REGRESS), a double-blind, placebo-controlled, quantitative angiographic study that assessed the effect of 2 years of pravastatin treatment. The primary end points were changes in average mean segment diameter (MSD) and average minimal obstruction diameter (MOD). Pravastatin- and placebo-treated patients were classified as having progressing, regressing or stable CAD, and median lipoprotein(a) concentrations were compared. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed in the overall patient group and in high risk subgroups. RESULTS: Pravastatin treatment did not affect serum apolipoprotein(a) levels. Median in-trial (sampled at 24 months) apolipoprotein(a) levels for regressing, stable and progressing CAD were, respectively, 130, 162 and 251 U/liter in placebo-treated patients and 143, 224 and 306 U/liter in pravastatin-treated patients. Predictors of MSD and MOD changes were baseline MSD and MOD, in-trial apolipoprotein(a), in-trial high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and baseline use of long-acting nitrates. The multivariate models predicted 14% of MSD changes and 12% of MOD changes; apolipoprotein(a) predicted only 2.6% and 4.8%, respectively. However, in patients with in-trial HDL cholesterol levels <0.7 mmol/liter, apolipoprotein(a) predicted up to 37% of the arteriographic changes. CONCLUSIONS: Serum lipoprotein(a) levels predict coronary artery lumen changes in normal to moderately hypercholesterolemic white men with CAD; its atherogenicity is marked in the presence of concomitant hypoalphalipoproteinemia.

Comparison of saruplase and alteplase in acute myocardial infarction. SESAM Study Group. The Study in Europe with Saruplase and Alteplase in Myocardial Infarction.

Four hundred seventy-three patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were treated with either saruplase (80 mg/hour, n = 236) or alteplase (100 mg every 3 hours, n = 237). Comedication included heparin and acetylsalicylic acid. Angiography was performed at 45 and 60 minutes after the start of thrombolytic therapy. When flow was insufficient, angiography was repeated at 90 minutes. Coronary angioplasty was then performed if Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial 0 to 1 flow was seen. Control angiography was at 24 to 40 hours. Baseline characteristics were similar. Angiography showed comparable and remarkably high early patency rates (TIMI 2 or 3 flow) in both treatment groups: at 45 minutes, 74.6% versus 68.9% (p = 0.22); and at 60 minutes 79.9% versus 75.3% (p = 0.26). Patency rates at 90 minutes before additional interventions were also comparable (79.9% and 81.4%). Angiographic reocclusion rates were not significantly different: 1.2% versus 2.4% (p = 0.68). After rescue angioplasty, angiographic reocclusion rates of 22.0% and 15.0% were observed. Safety data were similar for both groups. Thus, (1) early patency rates were high for saruplase and alteplase treatment, (2) reocclusion rates for both drugs were remarkably low, and (3) complication rates were similar. Thus, saruplase seems to be as safe and effective as alteplase.

Double-blind placebo-controlled study of ibopamine and digoxin in patients with mild to moderate heart failure: results of the Dutch Ibopamine Multicenter Trial (DIMT).

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of long-term treatment with the orally active dopamine agonist ibopamine in patients with mild to moderate chronic congestive heart failure and to compare the results with those of treatment with digoxin and placebo. BACKGROUND: Ibopamine and digoxin are drugs that exert hemodynamic and neurohumoral effects. Because there is accumulating evidence that progression of disease in chronic heart failure is related not only to hemodynamic but also to neurohumoral factors, both drugs might be expected to have a favorable long-term effect. METHODS: We studied 161 patients with mild to moderate chronic heart failure (80% in New York Heart Association functional class II and 20% in class III), who were treated with ibopamine (n = 53), digoxin (n = 55) or placebo (n = 53) for 6 months. Background therapy consisted of furosemide (0 to 80 mg); all other drugs for heart failure were excluded. Clinical assessments were made at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Of the 161 patients, 128 (80%) completed the study. Compared with placebo, digoxin but not ibopamine significantly increased exercise time after 6 months (p = 0.008 by intention to treat analysis). Ibopamine was only effective in patients with relatively preserved left ventricular function, as it significantly increased exercise time in this subgroup (for patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction > 0.30; p = 0.018 vs. placebo). No patient receiving digoxin withdrew from the study because of progression of heart failure, compared with six patients receiving ibopamine and two receiving placebo. At 6 months, plasma norepinephrine was decreased with digoxin and ibopamine therapy (-106 and -13 pg/ml, respectively) but increased with placebo administration (+62 pg/ml) (both p < 0.05 vs. placebo). Plasma aldosterone was unaffected, but renin was decreased by both agents after 6 months (p < 0.05 vs. placebo). Total mortality and ambulatory arrhythmias were not significantly affected by the two drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Ibopamine and digoxin both inhibit neurohumoral activation in patients with mild to moderate chronic heart failure. However, the clinical effects of these drugs are different and appear to be related to the degree of left ventricular dysfunction.

Effects of epanolol and metoprolol on the heart measured by 24-hour holter monitoring.

Continuous 24-hour ECG monitoring was performed as an additional objective in 87 patients from 5 centres in the VISA 1 study. The aim of the study was to compare the continuous 24-hour ECG recordings before the study and during treatment with epanolol ('Visacor') or metoprolol. Parameters of particular interest were heart rate and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). Using the Oxford 4000 system with a 5-lead recorder, 24-hour monitoring was carried out on entry to the study (no antianginal therapy was allowed, with the exception of short acting nitrates), and at the end of both treatment periods. Measurements included the total number of heart beats and PVCs and the incidence of bradycardia. 87 patients, of mean age 59 (range 32 to 80) years, were included in the study. 62 patients had evaluable tapes available on both active treatment periods. The mean heart rate during 24 hours was significantly lower with metoprolol compared with epanolol treatment (64 vs 72 beats/min, respectively, p less than 0.001). The total number of PVCs in 24 hours was similar in both treatment groups and not significantly different from the value recorded at entry. The median total duration of bradycardia (heart rate less than 60 beats/min) in 24 hours was significantly (p less than 0.001) less for epanolol (60 minutes) than metoprolol (428 minutes). Plots of the mean hourly heart rates show that during daytime, epanolol was associated with a mean heart rate in between the rate observed without treatment and with metoprolol treatment. At night-time, almost identical values were found in the groups treated with epanolol compared with the non-treatment period, whereas the metoprolol treatment induced significant lower heart rate levels. Thus, it was shown that there was greater heart rate reduction with metoprolol than with epanolol (p less than 0.001), and that there was no heart rate reduction at night with epanolol. No arrhythmogenic effect was seen for either drug.