Repetitive use of levosimendan in advanced heart failure: need for stronger evidence in a field in dire need of a useful therapy.

Patients in the latest stages of heart failure are severely compromised, with poor quality of life and frequent hospitalizations. Heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device implantation are viable options only for a minority, and intermittent or continuous infusions of positive inotropes may be needed as a bridge therapy or as a symptomatic approach. In these settings, levosimendan has potential advantages over conventional inotropes (catecholamines and phosphodiesterase inhibitors), such as sustained effects after initial infusion, synergy with beta-blockers, and no increase in oxygen consumption. Levosimendan has been suggested as a treatment that reduces re-hospitalization and improves quality of life. However, previous clinical studies of intermittent infusions of levosimendan were not powered to show statistical significance on key outcome parameters. A panel of 45 expert clinicians from 12 European countries met in Rome on November 24-25, 2016 to review the literature and envision an appropriately designed clinical trial addressing these needs. In the earlier FIGHT trial (daily subcutaneous injection of liraglutide in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction) a composite Global Rank Score was used as primary end-point where death, re-hospitalization, and change in N-terminal-prohormone-brain natriuretic peptide level were considered in a hierarchical order. In the present study, we tested the same end-point post hoc in the PERSIST and LEVOREP trials on oral and repeated i.v. levosimendan, respectively, and demonstrated superiority of levosimendan treatment vs placebo. The use of the same composite end-point in a properly powered study on repetitive levosimendan in advanced heart failure is strongly advocated.

Comparison of the antagonistic effects of different angiotensin II receptor blockers in human coronary arteries.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin II (Ang II) is a potent vasoconstrictor and a deleterious factor in cardiovascular pathophysiology. Ang II receptor blockers (ARBs) have recently been introduced into clinical practice for treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure. AIMS: This study was undertaken to evaluate the inhibitory effects of ARBs on vasoconstriction in humans. METHODS: Vasomotor tone was analyzed in endothelium denuded, human coronary artery (HCA) segments. Ang II type 1 (AT(1)) and type 2 (AT(2)) receptor mRNA expression was examined by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). RESULTS: Ang II was a potent vasoconstrictor (pEC(50) = 7.7). At 1 nM of the AT(1) receptor antagonists, candesartan and valsartan, the maximum contraction was depressed to 57 and 50% of Ang II, respectively, indicating insurmountability. Although generally considered surmountable, the presence of 100 nM losartan elicited a depression of the Ang II response to 32%. Its active metabolite, EXP 3174 (1 nM), abolished the Ang II contraction. The AT(1) receptor antagonists had the following order of blocking effect; EXP 3174 > candesartan = valsartan > losartan. The AT(2) receptor antagonist, PD 123319 (100 nM) significantly attenuated the Ang II contraction (E(max) = 62% of Ang II). RT-PCR of HCA smooth muscle cells demonstrated expression of both AT(1) and AT(2) receptor mRNA. CONCLUSIONS: Ang II contraction in HCA is mediated mainly by AT(1) but also involves AT(2) receptors. The active metabolite of losartan, EXP 3174, is the most efficacious AT(1) receptor antagonist in HCA.

Safety and efficacy of valsartan versus enalapril in heart failure patients.

Although a cornerstone in the treatment of heart failure, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are under-used, partly due to side effects. If proven at least similarly efficacious to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers may replace them due to their superior tolerability. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of valsartan and enalapril in heart failure patients stabilised on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. We randomised 141 patients (mean 68 years, 74% males) with stable mild/moderate heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction 0.45 or less, to valsartan 160 mg q.d. (n=70) or enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. (n=71) for 12 weeks. Changes in 6-min-walk test (primary efficacy variable), patients' wellbeing and left ventricular size and function did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. Valsartan was significantly non-inferior to enalapril in walk test distance change: least-square means treatment difference +1.12 m (95% confidence interval -21.9 to 24.1), non-inferiority P<0.001. Left ventricular size (P<0.001) and function (P=0.048) improved significantly only in the valsartan group. Fewer patients experienced adverse events in the valsartan group (50%) than in the enalapril group (63%), although statistically non-significant. Valsartan is similarly efficacious and safe to enalapril in patients with stable, mild/moderate heart failure, previously stabilised on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and directly switched to study medication.

Angiotensin II receptor mRNA expression and vasoconstriction in human coronary arteries: effects of heart failure and age.

Angiotensin II is a potent vasoconstrictor that is implicated in the pathogenesis of hypertension, heart failure and atherosclerosis. In the present study, angiotensin II receptor mRNA expression levels were quantified by real-time polymerase chain reaction and the vasocontractile responses to angiotensin II were characterised by in vitro pharmacology in endothelium-denuded human coronary arteries. Angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) and type 2 (AT(2)) receptor mRNA expression levels were significantly down-regulated in arteries from patients with heart failure as compared to controls. The angiotensin II-induced vasoconstriction diminished with increasing age in patients with heart failure (r(2)=0.31, P<0.05). Also, the AT(1) receptor mRNA expression levels decreased with increasing age in patients with heart failure (r(2)=0.74, P<0.05), while no such correlation could be shown in the control group (r(2)=0.04, P=n.s.). The AT(2) receptor mRNA expression levels did not correlate with age in patients with heart failure or controls. In conclusion, the diminished angiotensin II vasoconstriction with age in heart failure patients is most likely due to a lower density of AT(1) receptors and may result from a longer period of exposure to heart failure in older patients.