Alan J. Block

Comparison of vasopeptidase inhibitor, omapatrilat, and lisinopril on exercise tolerance and morbidity in patients with heart failure: IMPRESS randomised trial

BACKGROUND We aimed to assess in patients with congestive heart failure whether dual inhibition of neutral endopeptidase and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) with the vasopeptidase inhibitor omapatrilat is better than ACE inhibition alone with lisinopril on functional capacity and clinical outcome. METHODS We did a prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel trial of 573 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV congestive heart failure, left-ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, and receiving an ACE inhibitor. Patients were randomly assigned omapatrilat at a daily target dose of 40 mg (n=289) or lisinopril at a daily target dose of 20 mg (n=284) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was improvement in maximum exercise treadmill test (ETT) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included death and comorbid events indicative of worsening heart failure. FINDINGS Week 12 ETT increased similarly in the omapatrilat and lisinopril groups (24 vs 31 s, p=0.45). The two drugs were fairly well tolerated, but there were fewer cardiovascular-system serious adverse events in the omapatrilat group than in the lisinopril group (20 [7%] vs 34 [12%], p=0.04). There was a suggestive trend in favour of omapatrilat on the combined endpoint of death or admission for worsening heart failure (p=0.052; hazard ratio 0.53 [95% CI 0.27-1.02]) and a significant benefit of omapatrilat in the composite of death, admission, or discontinuation of study treatment for worsening heart failure (p=0.035; 0.52 [0.28-0.96]). Omapatrilat improved NYHA class more than lisinopril in patients who had NYHA class III and IV (p=0.035), but not if patients with NYHA class II were included. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that omapatrilat could have some advantages over lisinopril in the treatment of patients with congestive heart failure. Thus use of vasopeptidase inhibitors could constitute a potentially important treatment for further improving the prognosis and well being of patients with this disorder.

Abatacept in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial

BACKGROUND Some children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis either do not respond, or are intolerant to, treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of abatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation modulator, in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who had failed previous treatments. METHODS We did a double-blind, randomised controlled withdrawal trial between February, 2004, and June, 2006. We enrolled 190 patients aged 6-17 years, from 45 centres, who had a history of active juvenile idiopathic arthritis; at least five active joints; and an inadequate response to, or intolerance to, at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. All 190 patients were given 10 mg/kg of abatacept intravenously in the open-label period of 4 months. Of the 170 patients who completed this lead-in course, 47 did not respond to the treatment according to predefined American College of Rheumatology (ACR) paediatric criteria and were excluded. Of the patients who did respond to abatacept, 60 were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg/kg of abatacept at 28-day intervals for 6 months, or until a flare of the arthritis, and 62 were randomly assigned to receive placebo at the same dose and timing. The primary endpoint was time to flare of arthritis. Flare was defined as worsening of 30% or more in at least three of six core variables, with at least 30% improvement in no more than one variable. We analysed all patients who were treated as per protocol. This trial is registered, number NCT00095173. FINDINGS Flares of arthritis occurred in 33 of 62 (53%) patients who were given placebo and 12 of 60 (20%) abatacept patients during the double-blind treatment (p=0.0003). Median time to flare of arthritis was 6 months for patients given placebo (insufficient events to calculate IQR); insufficient events had occurred in the abatacept group for median time to flare to be assessed (p=0.0002). The risk of flare in patients who continued abatacept was less than a third of that for controls during that double-blind period (hazard ratio 0.31, 95% CI 0.16-0.95). During the double-blind period, the frequency of adverse events did not differ in the two treatment groups. Adverse events were recorded in 37 abatacept recipients (62%) and 34 (55%) placebo recipients (p=0.47); only two serious adverse events were reported, both in controls (p=0.50). INTERPRETATION Selective modulation of T-cell costimulation with abatacept is a rational alternative treatment for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. FUNDING Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Determinants of Elevated Pulse Pressure in Middle-Aged and Older Subjects With Uncomplicated Systolic Hypertension The Role of Proximal Aortic Diameter and the Aortic Pressure-Flow Relationship

Background—Elevated pulse pressure (PP) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and is thought to be secondary to elastin fragmentation with secondary collagen deposition and stiffening of the aortic wall, leading to a dilated, noncompliant vasculature. Methods and Results—By use of calibrated tonometry and pulsed Doppler, arterial stiffness and pulsatile hemodynamics were assessed in 128 subjects with uncomplicated systolic hypertension (supine systolic pressure ≥140 mm Hg off medication) and 30 normotensive control subjects of comparable age and gender. Pulse-wave velocity was assessed from tonometry and body surface measurements. Characteristic impedance (Zc) was calculated from the ratio of change in carotid pressure and aortic flow in early systole. Effective aortic diameter was assessed by use of the water hammer equation. Hypertensives were heavier (P <0.001) and had higher PP (P <0.001), which was attributable primarily to higher Zc (P <0.001), especially in women. Pulse-wave velocity was higher in hypertensives (P =0.001); however, this difference was not significant after adjustment for differences in mean arterial pressure (MAP) (P >0.153), whereas increased Zc remained highly significant (P <0.001). Increased Zc in women and in hypertensive men was attributable to decreased effective aortic diameter, with no difference in wall stiffness at comparable MAP and body weight. Conclusions—Elevated PP in systolic hypertension was independent of MAP and was attributable primarily to elevated Zc and reduced effective diameter of the proximal aorta. These findings are not consistent with the hypothesis of secondary aortic degeneration, dilation, and wall stiffening but rather suggest that aortic function may play an active role in the pathophysiology of systolic hypertension.

Omapatrilat Reduces Pulse Pressure and Proximal Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Systolic Hypertension

Background— Increased pulse pressure, an indicator of conduit vessel stiffness, is a strong independent predictor of cardiovascular events in hypertensive cohorts, which suggests that reduction of conduit vessel stiffness may be desirable in hypertension. Methods and Results— We assessed changes in pulse pressure and conduit vessel stiffness in a 12-week double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared monotherapy with the ACE inhibitor enalapril 40 mg daily (n=87) versus the vasopeptidase (dual ACE and neutral endopeptidase) inhibitor omapatrilat 80 mg daily (n=80) in patients with systolic hypertension. Patients were withdrawn from antihypertensive medications 1 to 2 weeks before enrollment, and systolic pressure was confirmed to be ≥160 mm Hg. With the use of calibrated tonometry and pulsed Doppler, pulsatile hemodynamics were assessed before randomization and at 12 weeks. Characteristic impedance (Zc), a direct measure of the stiffness of the central aorta, was calculated from the ratio of change...

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Abatacept in Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE We previously documented that abatacept was effective and safe in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who had not previously achieved a satisfactory clinical response with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tumor necrosis factor blockade. Here, we report results from the long-term extension (LTE) phase of that study. METHODS This report describes the long-term, open-label extension phase of a double-blind, randomized, controlled withdrawal trial in 190 patients with JIA ages 6-17 years. Children were treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept administered intravenously every 4 weeks, with or without methotrexate. Efficacy results were based on data derived from the 153 patients who entered the open-label LTE phase and reflect >or=21 months (589 days) of treatment. Safety results include all available open-label data as of May 7, 2008. RESULTS Of the 190 enrolled patients, 153 entered the LTE. By day 589, 90%, 88%, 75%, 57%, and 39% of patients treated with abatacept during the double-blind and LTE phases achieved responses according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30 (Pedi 30), Pedi 50, Pedi 70, Pedi 90, and Pedi 100 criteria for improvement, respectively. Similar response rates were observed by day 589 among patients previously treated with placebo. Among patients who had not achieved an ACR Pedi 30 response at the end of the open-label lead-in phase and who proceeded directly into the LTE, 73%, 64%, 46%, 18%, and 5% achieved ACR Pedi 30, Pedi 50, Pedi 70, Pedi 90, and Pedi 100 responses, respectively, by day 589 of the LTE. No cases of tuberculosis and no malignancies were reported during the LTE. Pneumonia developed in 3 patients, and multiple sclerosis developed in 1 patient. CONCLUSION Abatacept provided clinically significant and durable efficacy in patients with JIA, including those who did not initially achieve an ACR Pedi 30 response during the initial 4-month open-label lead-in phase.

Abatacept improves health‐related quality of life, pain, sleep quality, and daily participation in subjects with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

To assess health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) in abatacept‐treated children/adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Comparison of the effects of omapatrilat and lisinopril on circulating neurohormones and cytokines in patients with chronic heart failure

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors exert their effects by modulating the neurohumoral milieu. Vasopeptidase inhibitors (VPI) are ACE and neutral endopeptidase inhibitors and may increase natriuretic peptides, bradykinin, and perhaps endothelin-1 in patients with congestive heart failure. Patients (n = 107) with ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy, New York Heart Association functional class II to III, with left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, and on ACE inhibitor therapy were randomized to either the VPI omapatrilat 40 mg/day or the ACE inhibitor lisinopril 20 mg/day. Trough levels of neurohormones (24 hours after dosing) were assessed at baseline, and at 12 and 24 weeks of follow-up. C-terminal atrial natriuretic peptide (C-ANP) levels decreased with lisinopril (p = 0.035), but not with omapatrilat. In contrast, N-terminal ANP levels did not change, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels tended to decrease similarly in both groups. Endothelin-1 levels increased in both groups, the increase reaching statistical significance with omapatrilat (p = 0.008). Levels of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 tended to decrease, and the anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-10 increased in both groups, with statistical significance only for interleukin-10 with omapatrilat therapy. Neither agent changed catecholamines or angiotensin II. Thus, even at trough levels, omapatrilat potentiates C-ANP more than lisinopril. Potentially important effects of omapatrilat on endothelin-1 and anti-inflammatory cytokines were identified, providing potential explanations for differences in clinical outcome.

Effect of aspirin and ifetroban on skeletal muscle blood flow in patients with congestive heart failure treated with enalapril

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine the acute and chronic effects of cyclooxygenase inhibition with aspirin and thromboxane A2 receptor blockade with ifetroban on the chronic vasodilating effects of enalapril in the skeletal muscle circulation of patients with heart failure. BACKGROUND Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and antiplatelet therapy with aspirin independently reduce the risk for subsequent nonfatal coronary events in survivors of myocardial infarction. The safety of the combined administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and aspirin has been questioned due to their divergent effects on the vascular synthesis of vasodilating prostaglandins. METHODS Forearm blood flow (ml/min/100 ml) at rest and during rhythmic handgrip exercise and after transient arterial occlusion was determined by strain gauge plethysmography before and 4 h and six weeks after combined administration of enalapril with either aspirin, ifetroban or placebo in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of 62 patients with mild to moderate heart failure. RESULTS Before randomization, forearm hemodynamics were similar in the three treatment groups except for increased resting forearm blood flow and decreased resting forearm vascular resistance in the aspirin group when compared with the placebo group. After combined administration of enalapril and study drug for 4 h and six weeks, changes from prerandomization values of mean arterial pressure, forearm blood flow and forearm vascular resistance at rest, during handgrip exercise and after transient arterial occlusion did not differ among the three treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate that the vasodilating effects of enalapril in the skeletal muscle circulation of patients with heart failure are not critically dependent on prostaglandin pathways.

Long‐Term Safety, Efficacy, and Quality of Life in Patients With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Treated With Intravenous Abatacept for Up to Seven Years

The efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who experienced an inadequate response to disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs were previously established in a phase III study that included a 4‐month open‐label lead‐in period, a 6‐month double‐blind withdrawal period, and a long‐term extension (LTE) phase. The aim of this study was to present the safety, efficacy, and patient‐reported outcomes of abatacept treatment (10 mg/kg every 4 weeks) during the LTE phase, for up to 7 years of followup.

A169: Cumulative Long‐Term Safety, Efficacy and Patient‐Reported Outcomes in Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Treated With Intravenous Abatacept: Up to 7 Years of Treatment

The long‐term efficacy and safety of intravenous abatacept in patients (pts) with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) have been reported previously from the Phase III AWAKEN trial ( ). Here, we report efficacy, safety and pt‐reported outcomes from the open‐label, long‐term extension (LTE) of AWAKEN, with up to 7 years of follow‐up.