Eric L. Michelson

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 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%.

Renal Function as a Predictor of Outcome in a Broad Spectrum of Patients With Heart Failure

Background— Decreased renal function has been found to be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) with markedly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the prognostic importance of renal function in a broader spectrum of patients with CHF. Methods and Results— The Candesartan in Heart Failure:Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program consisted of three component trials that enrolled patients with symptomatic CHF, based on use of ACE inhibitors and reduced (≤40%) or preserved LVEF (>40%). Entry baseline creatinine was required to be below 3.0 mg/dL (265 &mgr;mol/L). Routine baseline serum creatinine assessments were done in 2680 North American patients. An analysis of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation and LVEF on risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, as well as on all-cause mortality, was conducted on these 2680 patients. The proportion of patients with eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 was 36.0%; 42.6% for CHARM-Alternative, 33.0% for CHARM-Added, and 34.7% for CHARM-Preserved. During the median follow-up of 34.4 months (total 6493 person-years), the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening CHF occurred in 950 of 2680 subjects. Both reduced eGFR and lower LVEF were found to be significant independent predictors of worse outcome after adjustment for major confounding baseline clinical characteristics. The risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening CHF as well as the risk for all-cause mortality increased significantly below an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 for 45 to 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and 1.86 for <45 mL/min per 1.73 m2 for the primary outcome, both P<0.001, and hazard ratio of 1.50, P=0.006, and 1.91, P=0.001, respectively, for all-cause mortality). The prognostic value of eGFR was not significantly different among the three component trials. There was no significant interaction between renal function, the effect of candesartan, and clinical outcome. Conclusions— Impaired renal function is independently associated with heightened risk for death, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with CHF with both preserved as well as reduced LVEF. There was no evidence that the beneficial effect of candesartan was modified by baseline eGFR.

Recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia 3. Role of the electrophysiologic study in selection of antiarrhythmic regimens.

SUMMARY Twenty patients with recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) underwent serial electrophysiological studies (EPS) 1) to determine the predictive value of the EPS in the selection of antiarrhythmic therapy, and 2) to establish the therapeutic efficacy of available antiarrhythmic agents. In each patient VT could be reproducibly initiated by programmed stimulation. After control EPS, the effects of several drugs (lidocaine, procainamide, quinidine, disopyramide and diphenylhydantoin) on the ability to initiate VT were assessed. An oral regimen was chosen on the basis of acute EPS and its effectiveness was evaluated by repeat EPS in 24-72 hours. Blood levels achieved acutely were used as guidelines to chronic therapy.In 14 patients the initiation of VT was prevented by the acute administration of one or more agents. In 13 of these patients, a chronic oral regimen based on these results prevented recurrence of VT with a three- to 27- month follow-up. In the remaining patient, oral therapy could not achieve blood levels of procainamide shown to be effective intravenously, and VT recurred. In six patients no single drug or drug combination was effective during acute EPS, and VT recurred in all while on therapy with the agent shown to make initiation of VT most difficult. Procainamide prevented VT in nine patients; quinidine in three patients; lidocaine in three patients; diphenylhydantoin in two patients; and disopyramide in one patient. The mean duration of EPS studies was 4.5 days.This study suggests that serial EPS provides rapid identification of successful antiarrhythmic therapy and can predict in which patients conventional therapy would be ineffective, thereby identifying patients requiring more aggressive modes of therapy.

Influence of Ejection Fraction on Cardiovascular Outcomes in a Broad Spectrum of Heart Failure Patients

Background— Left ventricular function is a principal determinant of cardiovascular risk in patients with heart failure. The growing number of patients with preserved systolic function heart failure underscores the importance of understanding the relationship between ejection fraction and risk. Methods and Results— We studied 7599 patients with a broad spectrum of symptomatic heart failure enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) Program. All patients were randomized to candesartan at a target dose of 32 mg once daily or matching placebo and followed up for a median of 38 months. We related left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), measured before randomization at the sites, to cardiovascular outcomes and causes of death. Mean LVEF in patients enrolled in CHARM was 38.8±14.9% (median LVEF 36%). Patients with lower LVEF tended to have higher baseline New York Heart Association class. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality increased by 39% for every 10% reduction in ejection fraction below 45% (hazard ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.46), with adjustment for baseline covariates. All-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and all components of cardiovascular death declined with increasing ejection fraction until an ejection fraction of 45%, after which the risk of these outcomes remained relatively stable with increasing LVEF. The absolute change in rate per 100 patient-years for each 10% reduction in LVEF was greatest for sudden death and heart failure–related death. The effect of candesartan in reducing cardiovascular outcomes was consistent across LVEF categories. Conclusions— LVEF is a powerful predictor of cardiovascular outcome in heart failure patients across a broad spectrum of ventricular function. Nevertheless, once elevated to a range above 45%, ejection fraction does not further contribute to assessment of cardiovascular risk in heart failure patients.

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.

Influence of Nonfatal Hospitalization for Heart Failure on Subsequent Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

Background— Patients with chronic heart failure (HF) are at increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events. We used data from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) trials to assess the influence of nonfatal hospitalizations for HF on subsequent mortality rates in a broad spectrum of HF patients. Methods and Results— In the present study, 7599 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV HF and reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were randomized to placebo or candesartan. We assessed the risk of death after discharge from a first hospitalization for HF using time-updated Cox proportional-hazards models on 7572 patients for whom discharge data were available. Of 7572 patients, 1455 (19%) had at least 1 HF hospitalization, and 586 of 1819 deaths occurred after discharge from an HF hospitalization. The mortality rate was increased after HF hospitalizations, even after adjustment for baseline predictors of death (hazard ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.83 to 3.50). Longer duration of HF hospitalization enhanced the risk of dying, as did repeat HF hospitalizations. Moreover, risk of death was highest within a month of discharge and then declined progressively over time, particularly for death resulting from HF progression and for sudden cardiac death. We observed a similar pattern of risk associated with all-cause hospitalization, although the magnitude was less than that with HF hospitalization. Conclusions— In patients with chronic HF, the risk of death is greatest in the early period after discharge after a hospitalization for HF and is directly related to the duration and frequency of HF hospitalizations. These findings suggest a role for increased surveillance in the early postdischarge period of greatest vulnerability after an HF admission.

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, β-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 ≤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, β-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). Conclusion—Candesartan significantly reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with CHF and LVEF ≤40% when added to standard therapies including ACE inhibitors, β-blockers, and an aldosterone antagonist. Routine monitoring of blood pressure, serum creatinine, and serum potassium is warranted.

Impact of diabetes on outcomes in patients with low and preserved ejection fraction heart failure - An analysis of the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme

AIMS To determine whether the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes associated with diabetes differs in patients with low and preserved ejection fraction (EF) heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS We analysed outcomes in the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme which randomized 7599 patients with symptomatic HF and a broad range of EF. The prevalence of diabetes was 28.3% in patients with preserved EF (>40%) and 28.5% in those with low EF (<or=40%). Diabetes was associated with a greater relative risk of CV death or HF hospitalization in patients with preserved EF [hazard ratio (HR) 2.0 (1.70-2.36)] than in patients with low EF [HR 1.60 (1.44-1.77); interaction test P = 0.0009]. For all-cause mortality, the risk conferred by diabetes was similar in both low and preserved EF groups. The effect of candesartan in reducing CV morbidity and mortality outcomes was not modified by having diabetes at baseline (P = 0.09 test for interaction). CONCLUSION Diabetes was an independent predictor of CV morbidity and mortality in patients with HF, regardless of EF. The relative risk of CV death or HF hospitalization conferred by diabetes was significantly greater in patients with preserved when compared with those with low EF HF.

Body Mass Index and Prognosis in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure Insights From the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) Program

Background— In individuals without known cardiovascular disease, elevated body mass index (BMI) (weight/height2) is associated with an increased risk of death. However, in patients with certain specific chronic diseases, including heart failure, low BMI has been associated with increased mortality. Methods and Results— We examined the influence of BMI on prognosis using Cox proportional hazards models in 7599 patients (mean age, 65 years; 35% women) with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association class II to IV) and a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fractions (mean, 39%) in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. During a median follow-up of 37.7 months, 1831 patients died. After adjustment for potential confounders, compared with patients with BMI between 30 and 34.9, patients in lower BMI categories had a graded increase in the risk of death. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.22 (1.06 to 1.41), 1.46 (1.24 to 1.71), and 1.69 (1.43 to 2.01) among those with BMI of 25 to 29.9, 22.5 to 24.9, and <22.5, respectively. The increase in risk of death among patients with BMI ≥35 was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.43). The association between BMI and mortality was not altered by age, smoking status, or left ventricular ejection fraction (P for interaction >0.20). However, lower BMI was associated with a greater risk of all-cause death in patients without edema but not in patients with edema (P for interaction <0.0001). Lower BMI was associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular death and noncardiovascular death. Baseline BMI did not influence the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure or due to all causes. Conclusions— In patients with symptomatic heart failure and either reduced or preserved left ventricular systolic function, underweight or low BMI was associated with increased mortality, primarily in patients without evidence of fluid overload (edema).