Albuminuria in chronic heart failure: prevalence and prognostic importance.

BACKGROUND: Increased excretion of albumin in urine might be a marker of the various pathophysiological changes that arise in patients with heart failure. Therefore our aim was to assess the prevalence and prognostic value of a spot urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) in patients with heart failure. METHODS: UACR was measured at baseline and during follow-up of 2310 patients in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) Programme. The prevalence of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, and the predictive value of UACR for the primary composite outcome of each CHARM study--ie, death from cardiovascular causes or admission to hospital with worsening heart failure--and death from any cause were assessed. FINDINGS: 1349 (58%) patients had a normal UACR, 704 (30%) had microalbuminuria, and 257 (11%) had macroalbuminuria. The prevalence of increased UACR was similar in patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions. Patients with an increased UACR were older, had more cardiovascular comorbidity, worse renal function, and a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus than did those with normoalbuminuria. However, a high prevalence of increased UACR was still noted among patients without diabetes, hypertension, or renal dysfunction. Elevated UACR was associated with increased risk of the composite outcome and death even after adjustment for other prognostic variables including renal function, diabetes, and haemoglobin A1c. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the composite outcome in patients with microalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria was 1.43 (95% CI 1.21-1.69; p<0.0001) and for macroalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria was 1.75 (1.39-2.20; p<0.0001). The adjusted values for death were 1.62 (1.32-1.99; p<0.0001) for microalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria, and 1.76 (1.32-2.35; p=0.0001) for macroalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria. Treatment with candesartan did not reduce or prevent the development of excessive excretion of urinary albumin. INTERPRETATION: Increased UACR is a powerful and independent predictor of prognosis in heart failure. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

A dose-response analysis of candesartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in patients with hypertension.

AIM: To describe the antihypertensive dose-response of combination therapy with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 4632 men and women (sex ratio 1:1, mean age 54 years) with mild to moderate hypertension, who participated in one of seven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with candesartan-HCT for 8-12 weeks, were entered in a common database. The daily dose of candesartan ranged from 2 to 32 mg, and that of HCT from 6.25 to 25mg. An E(max) model was used to describe the placebo-adjusted dose-response surface for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) reductions. RESULTS: The BP reduction increased with increasing doses of candesartan and HCT, ranging from 5.9 to 17.4 mmHg systolic, and from 2.8 to 10.2 mmHg diastolic with combination therapy. As these figures represent pure drug effects, the effect observed in placebo treated patients (mean reduction 6.0/5.6 mmHg) should be added to estimate the average BP reduction in the usual clinical setting. The reduction with candesartan-HCT represented fully additive contributions of the components. CONCLUSION: The effect of candesartan-HCT is dose-related over a wide range of doses, and the effects of the components are fully additive. This analysis provides guidance for dosing.

Efficacy and tolerability of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with heart failure already receiving an angiotensin-converting inhibitor plus aldosterone antagonist, with or without a beta blocker. Findings from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Added trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in heart failure (HF) patients already taking an angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor (ACE-I) plus an aldosterone antagonist is uncertain (especially if taking a beta blocker as well). The CHARM-Added trial describes the largest experience of using multiple inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) together. METHODS AND RESULTS: 2548 HF patients, taking an ACE-I (936 no spironolactone/no beta blocker; 1175 no spironolactone/beta blocker; 199 spironolactone/no beta blocker; 238 sprionolactone/beta blocker), were randomized to placebo or candesartan and followed for 41 months (median). The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. In patients taking both a beta blocker and spironolactone (in addition to an ACE-I) at baseline, the candesartan:placebo hazard ratio was 0.85(95% CI 0.56, 1.29), compared to 0.85(95% CI 0.75, 0.96) in all randomized patients (interaction p value 0.49). The relative risk of discontinuation of candesartan (compared to placebo) because of hypotension, increased serum creatinine or hyperkalemia was not increased in patients taking spironolactone at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: An ARB may provide added benefit, at acceptable risk, in HF patients already taking spironolactone as well as an ACE-I and beta blocker. These findings must be confirmed in a prospective randomized trial before this approach can be recommended, routinely.

Clinical correlates and consequences of anemia in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure: results of the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) Program.

BACKGROUND: We wished to determine the prevalence of, potential mechanistic associations of, and clinical outcomes related to anemia in patients with heart failure and a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, we examined the associations between hemoglobin and baseline characteristics, laboratory variables, and outcomes in 2653 patients randomized in the CHARM Program in the United States and Canada. Anemia was equally common in patients with preserved (27%) and reduced (25%) LVEF but was more common in black and older patients. Anemia was associated with ethnicity, diabetes, low body mass index, higher systolic and lower diastolic blood pressure, and recent heart failure hospitalization. More than 50% of anemic patients had a glomerular filtration rate <60 mL.min(-1).1.73 m(-2) compared with <30% of nonanemic patients. Despite an inverse relationship between hemoglobin and LVEF, anemia was associated with an increased risk of death and hospitalization, a relationship observed in patients with both reduced and preserved LVEF. There were 133 versus 69 deaths and 527 versus 352 hospitalizations per 1000 patient-years of follow-up in anemic versus nonanemic patients (both P<0.001). The effect of candesartan in reducing outcomes was independent of hemoglobin. CONCLUSIONS: Anemia was common in heart failure, regardless of LVEF. Lower hemoglobin was associated with higher LVEF yet was an independent predictor of adverse mortality and morbidity outcomes. In heart failure, the causes of anemia and the associations between anemia and outcomes are probably multiple and complex.

Characterization of health-related quality of life in heart failure patients with preserved versus low ejection fraction in CHARM.

BACKGROUND: Limited comparative studies assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQL) in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved vs. low ejection fraction (LVEF) have been disparate. AIMS: The aims of this study were a) to characterize HRQL in a large population of HF patients with preserved and low LVEF and b) to determine the factors associated with worse HRQL. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA Class II-IV) enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) HRQL study completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at randomization. Patients were stratified into 2 HF cohorts: preserved LVEF (>40%) and low LVEF (

Effects of candesartan on the development of a new diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a risk factor for heart failure, and both conditions are increasing. Identifying treatments that prevent both conditions will be clinically important. We previously reported that candesartan (an angiotensin receptor blocker) reduces cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in heart failure patients (CHARM: Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity Program). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the impact of candesartan versus placebo on the development of diabetes, a predefined secondary outcome in a randomized, controlled, double-blind study involving 5436 of the 7601 patients with heart failure, irrespective of ejection fraction, who did not have a diagnosis of diabetes at entry into the trial. Patients received candesartan (target of 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo for 2 to 4 years. One hundred sixty-three (6.0%) individuals in the candesartan group developed diabetes, as compared with 202 (7.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.64 to 0.96; P=0.020). The composite end point of death or diabetes occurred in 692 (25.2%) and 779 (28.6%), respectively, in the candesartan and placebo groups (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.95; P=0.004). The results were not statistically heterogeneous in the various subgroups examined, although the apparent magnitude of benefit appeared to be smaller among those treated concomitantly with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors at trial entry (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.20) compared with those not receiving these drugs (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.93; P for heterogeneity, 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan appears to prevent diabetes in heart failure patients, suggesting that the renin-angiotensin axis is implicated in glucose regulation.

Adherence to candesartan and placebo and outcomes in chronic heart failure in the CHARM programme: double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is an important cause of hospital admission and death. Poor adherence to medication is common in some chronic illnesses and might reduce the population effectiveness of proven treatments. Because little is known about adherence in patients with CHF and about the consequences of non-adherence, we assessed the association between adherence and clinical outcome in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) programme. METHODS: CHARM was a double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial, comparing the effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan with placebo in 7599 patients with CHF. Median follow-up was 38 months. The proportion of time patients took more than 80% of their study medication was defined as good adherence and 80% or less as poor adherence. We used a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with adherence as a time-dependent covariate in the model, to examine the association between adherence and mortality in the candesartan and placebo groups. FINDINGS: We excluded 187 patients because of missing information on adherence. In the time-dependent Cox regression model, after adjustment for predictive factors (demographics, physiological and severity-of-illness variables, smoking history, and number of concomitant medications), good adherence was associated with lower all-cause mortality in all patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.75, p<0.0001). The adjusted HR for good adherence was similar in the candesartan (0.66, 0.55-0.81, p<0.0001) and placebo (0.64, 0.53-0.78, p<0.0001) groups. INTERPRETATION: Good adherence to medication is associated with a lower risk of death than poor adherence in patients with CHF, irrespective of assigned treatment. This finding suggests that adherence is a marker for adherence to effective treatments other than study medications, or to other adherence behaviours that affect outcome. Understanding these factors could provide an opportunity for new interventions, including those aimed at improving adherence.

Relationship of dose of background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor to the benefits of candesartan in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Added trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether an angiotensin receptor blocker is of benefit when added to a full dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor in heart failure (HF) is uncertain. METHODS: The effect of candesartan, compared with placebo, in 2548 patients randomized in the CHARM-Added trial was analyzed according to (i) ACE inhibitor dose at baseline, (ii) ACE inhibitor dose during follow-up, and (iii) combination treatment with ACE inhibitor and beta-blocker at baseline. The main outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: The benefit of candesartan was not modified by the dose of ACE inhibitor. In all patients (n = 2548), the candesartan/placebo hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.96). In patients taking a guideline recommended dose of ACE inhibitor at baseline (n = 1291), this HR was 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.95; interaction P value .26). In patients taking a Food and Drug Administration-designated maximum dose of ACE inhibitor (n = 529), this HR was 0.75 (95% CI 0.57-0.98; interaction P value .29). The benefit of candesartan was preserved in patients taking beta-blockers in addition to a higher dose of ACE inhibitor and in patients maintaining a high dose of ACE inhibitor throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These clinical findings support the pharmacologic evidence that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have distinct mechanisms of action and show that their combined use improves outcomes in patients with HF more than an evidence-based dose of ACE inhibitor alone.

Prevention of atrial fibrillation in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure by candesartan in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequent in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Experimental and small patient studies have demonstrated that blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may prevent AF. In the CHARM program, the effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity were evaluated in a broad spectrum of patients with symptomatic CHF. CHARM provided the opportunity to prospectively determine the effect of candesartan on the incidence of new AF in this CHF population. METHODS: 7601 patients with symptomatic CHF and reduced or preserved left ventricular systolic function were randomized to candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily, mean dose 24 mg) or placebo in the 3 component trials of CHARM. The major outcomes were cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The incidence of new AF was a prespecified secondary outcome. Median follow-up was 37.7 months. A conditional logistic regression model for stratified data was used. RESULTS: 6379 patients (83.9%) did not have AF on their baseline electrocardiogram. Of these, 392 (6.15%) developed AF during follow-up, 177 (5.55%) in the candesartan group and 215 (6.74%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.812, 95% CI 0.662-0.998, P = .048). After adjustment for baseline covariates, the odds ratio was 0.802 (95% CI 0.650-0.990, P = .039). There was no heterogeneity of the effects of candesartan in preventing AF between the 3 component trials (P = .57). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan reduced the incidence of AF in a large, broadly-based, population of patients with symptomatic CHF.

Mortality and morbidity reduction with Candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction: results of the CHARM low-left ventricular ejection fraction trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure (CHF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a high risk of death and hospitalization for CHF deterioration despite therapies with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and even an aldosterone antagonist. To determine whether the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan decreases cardiovascular mortality, morbidity, and all-cause mortality in patients with CHF and depressed LVEF, a prespecified analysis of the combined Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) low LVEF trials was performed. CHARM is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international trial program. METHODS AND RESULTS: New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II through IV CHF patients with an LVEF of < or =40% were randomized to candesartan or placebo in 2 complementary parallel trials (CHARM-Alternative, for patients who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors, and CHARM-Added, for patients who were receiving ACE inhibitors). Mortality and morbidity were determined in 4576 low LVEF patients (2289 candesartan and 2287 placebo), titrated as tolerated to a target dose of 32 mg once daily, and observed for 2 to 4 years (median, 40 months). The primary outcome (time to first event by intention to treat) was cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization for each trial, with all-cause mortality a secondary end point in the pooled analysis of the low LVEF trials. Of the patients in the candesartan group, 817 (35.7%) experienced cardiovascular death or a CHF hospitalization as compared with 944 (41.3%) in the placebo group (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; P<0.001) with reduced risk for both cardiovascular deaths (521 [22.8%] versus 599 [26.2%]; HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.75 to 0.95]; P=0.005) and CHF hospitalizations (516 [22.5%] versus 642 [28.1%]; HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.68 to 0.85]; P<0.001). It is important to note that all-cause mortality also was significantly reduced by candesartan (642 [28.0%] versus 708 [31.0%]; HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.98]; P=0.018). No significant heterogeneity for the beneficial effects of candesartan was found across prespecified and subsequently identified subgroups including treatment with ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, an aldosterone antagonist, or their combinations. The study drug was discontinued because of adverse effects by 23.1% of patients in the candesartan group and 18.8% in the placebo group; the reasons included increased creatinine (7.1% versus 3.5%), hypotension (4.2% versus 2.1%), and hyperkalemia (2.8% versus 0.5%), respectively (all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan significantly reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with CHF and LVEF < or =40% when added to standard therapies including ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and an aldosterone antagonist. Routine monitoring of blood pressure, serum creatinine, and serum potassium is warranted.

Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are at high risk of cardiovascular death and recurrent hospital admissions. We aimed to find out whether the use of an angiotensin-receptor blocker could reduce mortality and morbidity. METHODS: In parallel, randomised, double-blind, controlled, clinical trials we compared candesartan with placebo in three distinct populations. We studied patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or less who were not receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors because of previous intolerance or who were currently receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, and patients with LVEF higher than 40%. Overall, 7601 patients (7599 with data) were randomly assigned candesartan (n=3803, titrated to 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=3796), and followed up for at least 2 years. The primary outcome of the overall programme was all-cause mortality, and for all the component trials was cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 37.7 months. 886 (23%) patients in the candesartan and 945 (25%) in the placebo group died (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-1.00], p=0.055; covariate adjusted 0.90 [0.82-0.99], p=0.032), with fewer cardiovascular deaths (691 [18%] vs 769 [20%], unadjusted 0.88 [0.79-0.97], p=0.012; covariate adjusted 0.87 [0.78-0.96], p=0.006) and hospital admissions for CHF (757 [20%] vs 918 [24%], p<0.0001) in the candesartan group. There was no significant heterogeneity for candesartan results across the component trials. More patients discontinued candesartan than placebo because of concerns about renal function, hypotension, and hyperkalaemia. INTERPRETATION: Candesartan was generally well tolerated and significantly reduced cardiovascular deaths and hospital admissions for heart failure. Ejection fraction or treatment at baseline did not alter these effects.

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers have favourable effects on haemodynamic measurements, neurohumoral activity, and left-ventricular remodelling when added to angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). We aimed to find out whether these drugs improve clinical outcome. METHODS: Between March, 1999, and November, 1999, we enrolled 2548 patients with New York Heart Association functional class II-IV CHF and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or lower, and who were being treated with ACE inhibitors. We randomly assigned patients candesartan (n=1276, target dose 32 mg once daily) or placebo (n=1272). At baseline, 55% of patients were also treated with beta blockers and 17% with spironolactone. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The median follow-up was 41 months. 483 (38%) patients in the candesartan group and 538 (42%) in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.75-0.96], p=0.011; covariate adjusted p=0.010). Candesartan reduced each of the components of the primary outcome significantly, as well as the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. The benefits of candesartan were similar in all predefined subgroups, including patients receiving baseline beta blocker treatment. INTERPRETATION: The addition of candesartan to ACE inhibitor and other treatment leads to a further clinically important reduction in relevant cardiovascular events in patients with CHF and reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction.

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors improve outcome of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). A substantial proportion of patients, however, experience no benefit from ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. We aimed to find out whether candesartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, could improve outcome in such patients not taking an ACE inhibitor. METHODS: Between March, 1999, and March, 2001, we enrolled 2028 patients with symptomatic heart failure and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less who were not receiving ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. Patients were randomly assigned candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The most common manifestation of ACE-inhibitor intolerance was cough (72%), followed by symptomatic hypotension (13%) and renal dysfunction (12%). During a median follow-up of 33.7 months, 334 (33%) of 1013 patients in the candesartan group and 406 (40%) of 1015 in the placebo group had cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.77 [95% CI 0.67-0.89], p=0.0004; covariate adjusted 0.70 [0.60-0.81], p<0.0001). Each component of the primary outcome was reduced, as was the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. Study-drug discontinuation rates were similar in the candesartan (30%) and placebo (29%) groups. INTERPRETATION: Candesartan was generally well tolerated and reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure and intolerance to ACE inhibitors.

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial.

BACKGROUND: Half of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) have preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but few treatments have specifically been assessed in such patients. In previous studies of patients with CHF and low LVEF or vascular disease and preserved LVEF, inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system is beneficial. We investigated the effect of addition of an angiotensin-receptor blocker to current treatments. METHODS: Between March, 1999, and July, 2000, we randomly assigned 3023 patients candesartan (n=1514, target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=1509). Patients had New York Heart Association functional class II-IV CHF and LVEF higher than 40%. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or admission to hospital for CHF. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 36.6 months. 333 (22%) patients in the candesartan and 366 (24%) in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.03], p=0.118; covariate adjusted 0.86 [0.74-1.0], p=0.051). Cardiovascular death did not differ between groups (170 vs 170), but fewer patients in the candesartan group than in the placebo group were admitted to hospital for CHF once (230 vs 279, p=0.017) or multiple times. Composite outcomes that included non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke showed similar results to the primary composite (388 vs 429; unadjusted 0.88 [0.77-1.01], p=0.078; covariate adjusted 0.86 [0.75-0.99], p=0.037). INTERPRETATION: Candesartan has a moderate impact in preventing admissions for CHF among patients who have heart failure and LVEF higher than 40%.

Stroke prevention with the angiotensin II type 1-receptor blocker candesartan in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension: the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan can reduce the risk of stroke in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). BACKGROUND: Isolated systolic hypertension is the predominant form of hypertension in the elderly, and stroke is the most common cardiovascular (CV) complication. METHODS: In the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE), 4,964 patients age 70 to 89 years were randomly assigned to double-blind candesartan or placebo with open-label antihypertensive therapy (mostly thiazide diuretics) added as needed to control blood pressure. Of the 4,964 patients, 1,518 had ISH (systolic blood pressure >160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg). The present study is a predefined subgroup analysis of outcome results in the ISH patients. RESULTS: Of the ISH patients, 754 were randomized to the candesartan group and 764 to the control group. Over the study period, blood pressure was reduced by 22/6 mm Hg in the candesartan group and by 20/5 mm Hg in the control group (difference between treatments 2/1 mm Hg; p = 0.101 and 0.064). A total of 20 fatal/non-fatal strokes occurred in the candesartan group (7.2/1,000 patient-years) and 35 in the control group (12.5/1,000 patient-years); relative risk (RR) was 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.33 to 1.00), that is, a RR reduction of 42% (p = 0.050 unadjusted, p = 0.049 adjusted for baseline risk). There were no marked or statistically significant differences between the treatment groups in other CV end points or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with ISH, antihypertensive treatment based on the ARB candesartan resulted in a significant 42% RR reduction in stroke in comparison with other antihypertensive treatment, despite little difference in blood pressure reduction.

Patient perception of the effect of treatment with candesartan in heart failure. Results of the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on patients' perception of symptoms, using the McMaster Overall treatment evaluation (OTE), in a broad spectrum of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic CHF, randomised in the CHARM Programme in North America (n=2498), were studied. OTE was assessed at baseline, at 6, 14 and 26 months and the patient's final or closing visit. Patient's status was classified as "improved (score +1 to +7)", "unchanged (score 0)" or "deteriorated (score -1 to -7)" at the end of the study compared to baseline. Both a simple "last visit carried forward" (LVCF) analysis and "worst rank carried forward" (WRCF) analysis (where patients who died were allocated the worst OTE score) were used. In the LVCF analysis, compared to placebo, more candesartan patients improved (37.7% versus 33.5%) and fewer worsened (10.8% versus 12.0%) in OTE (p=0.017). The WRCF analysis also showed better overall OTE scores with candesartan compared to placebo (p=0.029). There was no heterogeneity in the response to candesartan between the CHARM component trials or across four exploratory sub-groups (age, sex, NYHA class and beta-blocker). CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan was shown to be better than placebo, when using the McMaster OTE to measure patient perception of treatment. More patients treated with candesartan reported improvement and fewer reported deterioration. This benefit was obtained when candesartan was added to extensive background therapy and is consistent with the benefits of candesartan on NYHA class, hospital admission for worsening heart failure and mortality.

Effect of baseline cognitive function and antihypertensive treatment on cognitive and cardiovascular outcomes: Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE).

BACKGROUND: We examined whether cognitive function at baseline affected cognitive and cardiovascular outcomes in the Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE), a blood pressure (BP)-lowering intervention trial. METHODS: SCOPE included 4937 patients, aged 70 to 89 years, with mild-to-moderate hypertension and Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score > or =24. Double-blind treatment was initiated with candesartan or placebo. Open-label therapy was added as needed to control BP, both in the candesartan (49%) and control (66%) groups. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years. Low cognitive function (LCF) at baseline was defined as MMSE score 24 to 28 (N = 2070), and high cognitive function (HCF) as MMSE score 29 to 30 (N = 2867). RESULTS: Mean BP reductions were approximately 20/10 mm Hg both in LCF and HCF patients, with greater reductions in the candesartan group than in the control group. The incidence of dementia was higher in LCF than in HCF patients. A higher cardiovascular event rate observed in LCF patients was explained by older age and other cardiovascular risk factors at baseline. In LCF patients, the MMSE score declined less in the candesartan than in the control group (mean difference 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.97, P = .04). Nonfatal stroke was reduced in the candesartan group in the total sample (28%, P = .04), with no difference between LCF (27%) and HCF (29%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and slightly impaired cognitive function (MMSE 24 to 28) are at increased risk of dementia and cardiovascular events. This analysis indicates that effective antihypertensive therapy may reduce cognitive decline and stroke incidence in these patients.

Impact of candesartan on nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure.

CONTEXT: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), but it is not known whether angiotensin receptor blockers have the same effect. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on MI and other coronary events in patients with heart failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program, a randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolling patients (mean age, 66 [SD, 11] years) with New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms who were randomly allocated to receive candesartan (target dose, 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo given in addition to optimal therapy for heart failure. Patients were enrolled from March 1999 through March 2001. Of 7599 patients allocated, 4004 (53%) had experienced a previous MI, and 1808 (24%) currently had angina. At baseline, 3125 (41%) were receiving an ACE inhibitor; 4203 (55%), a beta-blocker; 3153 (42%), a lipid-lowering drug; 4246 (56%), aspirin; and 6286 (83%), a diuretic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome of the present analysis was the composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI in patients with heart failure receiving candesartan or placebo. RESULTS: During the median follow-up of 37.7 months, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI was significantly reduced in the candesartan group (775 patients [20.4%]) vs the placebo group (868 [22.9%]) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.96; P = .004; number needed to treat [NNT], 40). Nonfatal MI alone was also significantly reduced in the candesartan group (116 [3.1%]) vs the placebo group (148 [3.9%]) (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98; P = .03; NNT, 118). The secondary outcome of fatal MI, sudden death, or nonfatal MI was significantly reduced with candesartan (459 [12.1%]) vs placebo (522 [13.8%]) (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97; P = .02; NNT, 59). Risk reductions in cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI were similar across predetermined subgroups and the component CHARM trials. There was no impact on hospitalizations for unstable angina or coronary revascularization procedures with candesartan. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure, candesartan significantly reduces the risk of the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI.

The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic benefits of blood pressure lowering treatment in elderly hypertensive patients were established more than a decade ago, but are less clear in those with mildly to moderately elevated blood pressure. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether candesartan-based antihypertensive treatment in elderly patients with mildly to moderately elevated blood pressure confers a reduction in cardiovascular events, cognitive decline and dementia. DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study conducted in 1997-2002. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was of 4964 patients aged 70-89 years, with systolic blood pressure 160-179 mmHg, and/or diastolic blood pressure 90-99 mmHg, and a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) test score >or= 24. A total of 527 centres in 15 countries participated in the study. INTERVENTION: Patients were assigned randomly to receive the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan or placebo, with open-label active antihypertensive therapy added as needed. As a consequence, active antihypertensive therapy was extensively used in the control group (84% of patients). Mean follow-up was 3.7 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was major cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal stroke and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Secondary outcome measures included cardiovascular death, non-fatal and fatal stroke and myocardial infarction, cognitive function measured by the MMSE and dementia. RESULTS: Blood pressure fell by 21.7/10.8 mmHg in the candesartan group and by 18.5/9.2 mmHg in the control group. A first major cardiovascular event occurred in 242 candesartan patients and in 268 control patients; risk reduction with candesartan was 10.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), -6.0 to 25.1, P = 0.19]. Candesartan-based treatment reduced non-fatal stroke by 27.8% (95% CI, 1.3 to 47.2, P = 0.04), and all stroke by 23.6% (95% CI, -0.7 to 42.1, P = 0.056). There were no significant differences in myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. Mean MMSE score fell from 28.5 to 28.0 in the candesartan group and from 28.5 to 27.9 in the control group (P = 0.20). The proportions of patients who had a significant cognitive decline or developed dementia were not different in the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly hypertensive patients, a slightly more effective blood pressure reduction during candesartan-based therapy, compared with control therapy, was associated with a modest, statistically non-significant, reduction in major cardiovascular events and with a marked reduction in non-fatal stroke. Cognitive function was well maintained in both treatment groups in the presence of substantial blood pressure reductions. Both treatment regimens were generally well tolerated.

The Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE); outcomes in patients not receiving add-on therapy after randomization.

OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical outcomes in the Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE) in patients who did not receive add-on antihypertensive therapy after randomization, i.e. in patients that best reflect the original intention of a placebo-controlled trial. DESIGN: Post-hoc analysis of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred and twenty-seven centres in 15 countries participated in SCOPE. Patients aged 70-89 years, with systolic blood pressure 160-179 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90-99 mmHg, and preserved cognitive function were eligible. Out of 4937 patients in SCOPE, 2098 did not receive add-on therapy. INTERVENTION: The number of patients who received candesartan 8-16 mg once daily was 1253, and 845 received placebo. Mean follow-up was 3.7 and 3.5 years, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction). Secondary: total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, cognitive function, and dementia. RESULTS: The treatment groups were generally well balanced for baseline characteristics. Blood pressure fell by 21.8/11.0 mmHg in the candesartan group and by 17.2/8.4 mmHg in the placebo group. There were significant relative risk reductions with candesartan in major cardiovascular events (32%, P = 0.013), cardiovascular mortality (29%, P = 0.049), and total mortality (27%, P = 0.018). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in cognitive outcomes. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of elderly patients with mild hypertension is beneficial and supports current recommendations. Candesartan appears an appropriate therapy in such patients, in view of its favourable tolerability profile and ability to reduce major cardiovascular events.