Felipe Martinez

Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial—the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II

BACKGROUND The ELITE study showed an association between the angiotensin II antagonist losartan and an unexpected survival benefit in elderly heart-failure patients, compared with captopril, an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. We did the ELITE II Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study to confirm whether losartan is superior to captopril in improving survival and is better tolerated. METHODS We undertook a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of 3,152 patients aged 60 years or older with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less. Patients, stratified for beta-blocker use, were randomly assigned losartan (n=1,578) titrated to 50 mg once daily or captopril (n=1,574) titrated to 50 mg three times daily. The primary and secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, and sudden death or resuscitated arrest. We assessed safety and tolerability. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS Median follow-up was 555 days. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (11.7 vs 10.4% average annual mortality rate) or sudden death or resuscitated arrests (9.0 vs 7.3%) between the two treatment groups (hazard ratios 1.13 [95.7% CI 0.95-1.35], p=0.16 and 1.25 [95% CI 0.98-1.60], p=0.08). Significantly fewer patients in the losartan group (excluding those who died) discontinued study treatment because of adverse effects (9.7 vs 14.7%, p<0.001), including cough (0.3 vs 2.7%).

Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE)

BACKGROUND To determine whether specific angiotensin II receptor blockade with losartan offers safety and efficacy advantages in the treatment of heart failure over angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibition with captopril, the ELITE study compared losartan with captopril in older heart-failure patients. METHODS We randomly assigned 722 ACE inhibitor naive patients (aged 65 years or more) with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure and ejection fractions of 40% or less to double-blind losartan (n = 352) titrated to 50 mg once daily or captopril (n = 370) titrated to 50 mg three times daily, for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the tolerability measure of a persisting increase in serum creatinine of 26.5 mumol/L or more (> or = 0.3 mg/dL) on therapy; the secondary endpoint was the composite of death and/or hospital admission for heart failure; and other efficacy measures were total mortality, admission for heart failure, NYHA class, and admission for myocardial infarction or unstable angina. FINDINGS The frequency of persisting increases in serum creatinine was the same in both groups (10.5%). Fewer losartan patients discontinued therapy for adverse experiences (12.2% vs 20.8% for captopril, p = 0.002). No losartan-treated patients discontinued due to cough compared with 14 in the captopril group. Death and/or hospital admission for heart failure was recorded in 9.4% of the losartan and 13.2% of the captopril patients (risk reduction 32% [95% CI -4% to + 55%], p = 0.075). This risk reduction was primarily due to a decrease in all-cause mortality (4.8% vs 8.7%; risk reduction 46% [95% CI 5-69%], p = 0.035). Admissions with heart failure were the same in both groups (5.7%), as was improvement in NYHA functional class from baseline. Admission to hospital for any reason was less frequent with losartan than with captopril treatment (22.2% vs 29.7%). INTERPRETATION In this study of elderly heart-failure patients, treatment with losartan was associated with an unexpected lower mortality than that found with captopril. Although there was no difference in renal dysfunction, losartan was generally better tolerated than captopril and fewer patients discontinued losartan therapy. A further trial, evaluating the effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in a larger number of patients with heart failure, is in progress.

Effects of high-dose versus low-dose losartan on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HEAAL study): a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) are effective treatments for patients with heart failure, but the relation between dose and clinical outcomes has not been explored. We compared the effects of high-dose versus low-dose losartan on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure. METHODS This double-blind trial was undertaken in 255 sites in 30 countries. 3846 patients with heart failure of New York Heart Association class II-IV, left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less, and intolerance to angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were randomly assigned to losartan 150 mg (n=1927) or 50 mg daily (n=1919). Allocation was by block randomisation stratified by centre and presence or absence of beta-blocker therapy, and all patients and investigators were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was death or admission for heart failure. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00090259. FINDINGS Six patients in each group were excluded because of poor data quality. With 4.7-year median follow-up in each group (IQR 3.7-5.5 for losartan 150 mg; 3.4-5.5 for losartan 50 mg), 828 (43%) patients in the 150 mg group versus 889 (46%) in the 50 mg group died or were admitted for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.99; p=0.027). For the two primary endpoint components, 635 patients in the 150 mg group versus 665 in the 50 mg group died (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.04; p=0.24), and 450 versus 503 patients were admitted for heart failure (0.87, 0.76-0.98; p=0.025). Renal impairment (n=454 vs 317), hypotension (203 vs 145), and hyperkalaemia (195 vs 131) were more common in the 150 mg group than in the 50 mg group, but these adverse events did not lead to significantly more treatment discontinuations in the 150 mg group. INTERPRETATION Losartan 150 mg daily reduced the rate of death or admission for heart failure in patients with heart failure, reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction, and intolerance to ACE inhibitors compared with losartan 50 mg daily. These findings show the value of up-titrating ARB doses to confer clinical benefit. FUNDING Merck (USA).

Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel for Acute Coronary Syndromes without Revascularization

BACKGROUND The effect of intensified platelet inhibition for patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who do not undergo revascularization has not been delineated. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, in a primary analysis involving 7243 patients under the age of 75 years receiving aspirin, we evaluated up to 30 months of treatment with prasugrel (10 mg daily) versus clopidogrel (75 mg daily). In a secondary analysis involving 2083 patients 75 years of age or older, we evaluated 5 mg of prasugrel versus 75 mg of clopidogrel. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 17 months, the primary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke among patients under the age of 75 years occurred in 13.9% of the prasugrel group and 16.0% of the clopidogrel group (hazard ratio in the prasugrel group, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.05; P=0.21). Similar results were observed in the overall population. The prespecified analysis of multiple recurrent ischemic events (all components of the primary end point) suggested a lower risk for prasugrel among patients under the age of 75 years (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00; P=0.04). Rates of severe and intracranial bleeding were similar in the two groups in all age groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the frequency of nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events, except for a higher frequency of heart failure in the clopidogrel group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.).

Effect of valsartan on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND It is not known whether drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system reduce the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular events in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we assigned 9306 patients with impaired glucose tolerance and established cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors to receive valsartan (up to 160 mg daily) or placebo (and nateglinide or placebo) in addition to lifestyle modification. We then followed the patients for a median of 5.0 years for the development of diabetes (6.5 years for vital status). We studied the effects of valsartan on the occurrence of three coprimary outcomes: the development of diabetes; an extended composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, arterial revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina; and a core composite outcome that excluded unstable angina and revascularization. RESULTS The cumulative incidence of diabetes was 33.1% in the valsartan group, as compared with 36.8% in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.92; P<0.001). Valsartan, as compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of either the extended cardiovascular outcome (14.5% vs. 14.8%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07; P=0.43) or the core cardiovascular outcome (8.1% vs. 8.1%; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.14; P=0.85). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance and cardiovascular disease or risk factors, the use of valsartan for 5 years, along with lifestyle modification, led to a relative reduction of 14% in the incidence of diabetes but did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097786.)

Effect of nateglinide on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND The ability of short-acting insulin secretagogues to reduce the risk of diabetes or cardiovascular events in people with impaired glucose tolerance is unknown. METHODS In a double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we assigned 9306 participants with impaired glucose tolerance and either cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors to receive nateglinide (up to 60 mg three times daily) or placebo, in a 2-by-2 factorial design with valsartan or placebo, in addition to participation in a lifestyle modification program. We followed the participants for a median of 5.0 years for incident diabetes (and a median of 6.5 years for vital status). We evaluated the effect of nateglinide on the occurrence of three coprimary outcomes: the development of diabetes; a core cardiovascular outcome that was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; and an extended cardiovascular outcome that was a composite of the individual components of the core composite cardiovascular outcome, hospitalization for unstable angina, or arterial revascularization. RESULTS After adjustment for multiple testing, nateglinide, as compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the cumulative incidence of diabetes (36% and 34%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15; P=0.05), the core composite cardiovascular outcome (7.9% and 8.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.09; P=0.43), or the extended composite cardiovascular outcome (14.2% and 15.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.93, 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03; P=0.16). Nateglinide did, however, increase the risk of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS Among persons with impaired glucose tolerance and established cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors, assignment to nateglinide for 5 years did not reduce the incidence of diabetes or the coprimary composite cardiovascular outcomes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097786.)

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition Compared With Enalapril on the Risk of Clinical Progression in Surviving Patients With Heart Failure

Background— Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. Methods and Results— We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. Conclusions— Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

The EPHESUS trial : Eplerenone in patients with heart failure due to systolic dysfunction complicating acute myocardial infarction

The importance of aldosterone in the pathophysiology of chronic heart failure (HF) has been established in previous studies [1–4] and is emphasized by the findings of the RALES trial [5]. In this study, aldosterone blockade with spironolactone resulted in a 30% reduction in total mortality and a 35% reduction in hospitalizations for HF in patients with pre-existing chronic severe HF. Patients in the RALES trial also received standard therapy including an ACE inhibitor (if tolerated), a loop diuretic, and digoxin. While aldosterone receptor blockade has been proven beneficial in severe chronic HF due to systolic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, its effects in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by HF due to systolic left ventricular dysfunction are unknown. The pathophysiology of HF complicating AMI is complex. Factors such as the acute release of catecholamines, activation of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system, degree of ventricular remodeling, myocardial scar formation, extent of coronary artery disease, and residual ischemia may differ both quantitatively and qualitatively in patients with acute infarction compared to patients with chronic HF. Additionally, the extent of activation of cytokines, fibrinolytic balance, and activity of clotting factors may differ. Eplerenone was chosen for this study because of its demonstrated efficacy in an experimental model of AMI [6]. In clinical trials, eplerenone demonstrated efficacy similar to spironolactone in blocking aldosterone receptors, lowering blood pressure, and moderating hormonal and neurohormonal markers of HF [7,8]. However, eplerenone has significantly less affinity for androgen and progesterone receptors and should therefore be associated with a lower incidence of gynecomastia, breast pain and impotency in males, and diminished libido and menstrual irregularities in females [9–11]. While older patients suffering from refractory HF may tolerate these androgenic and progestational side effects, they may preclude widespread use of a nonspecific aldosterone antagonist in younger patients or in patients with less severe cardiac compromise. Since eplerenone is at least 100 times more specific in its affinity for aldosterone receptors than is spironolactone, if the hypothesis being tested in the EPHESUS trial proves correct, eplerenone has the potential to be used in a broad population to prevent progressive left ventricular remodeling, ventricular fibrosis, malignant arrhythmias, non-fatal AMI, and sudden cardiac death. We hypothesize that selective aldosterone receptor blockade with eplerenone will have a beneficial effect on survival and morbidity in patients with AMI complicated by HF due to systolic left ventricular dysfunction. This paper describes the background, design, and organization of a trial to test this hypothesis—the EPHESUS trial (Eplerenone Post-AMI Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study).

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) Trial: Outcomes in Patients Receiving Monotherapy

In the main Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) report, we investigated outcomes in 15 245 high-risk hypertensive subjects treated with valsartan- or amlodipine-based regimens. In this report, we analyzed outcomes in 7080 patients (46.4%) who, at the end of the initial drug adjustment period (6 months), remained on monotherapy. Baseline characteristics were similar in the valsartan (N=3263) and amlodipine (N=3817) groups. Time on monotherapy was 3.2 years (78% of treatment exposure time). The average in-trial blood pressure was similar in both groups. Event rates in the monotherapy group were 16% to 39% lower than in the main VALUE trial. In the first analysis, we censored patients when they discontinued monotherapy (“censored”); in the second, we counted events regardless of subsequent therapy (intention-to-treat principle). We also assessed the impact of duration of monotherapy on outcomes. No difference was found in primary composite cardiac end points, strokes, myocardial infarctions, and all-cause deaths with both analyses. Heart failure in the valsartan group was lower both in the censored and intention-to-treat analyses (hazard ratios: 0.63, P=0.004 and 0.78, P=0.045, respectively). Longer duration of monotherapy amplified between-group differences in heart failure. New-onset diabetes was lower in the valsartan group with both analyses (odds ratios: 0.78, P=0.012 and 0.82, P=0.034). Thus, despite lower absolute event rates in monotherapy patients, the relative risks of heart failure and new-onset diabetes favored valsartan. Moreover, these findings support the feasibility of comparative prospective trials in lower-risk hypertensive patients.

Effects of losartan versus captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of patients in the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study--ELITE II.

BACKGROUND In the Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE) heart failure study, a survival benefit (primarily because of a reduction in sudden deaths) was observed in symptomatic patients treated with losartan compared with captopril. METHODS AND RESULTS The Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study--ELITE II (currently ongoing) is a double-blind, randomized clinical trial being conducted in 45 countries at 288 sites. ELITE II formally tests the hypotheses that losartan, compared with captopril, will reduce all-cause mortality (primary end point) and sudden cardiac death and/or resuscitated cardiac arrest (secondary end point). In addition, all-cause mortality and/or hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality and/or hospitalizations will be evaluated. The trial has 90% power to detect a 25% treatment difference in all-cause mortality (event driven, 510 deaths). Substudies are examining quality of life, health care resource utilization, and mechanisms related to the reduction in sudden death. During recruitment (June 1997 to May 1998), 3,152 patients aged 60 years or older (mean age, 71.6 years), with New York Heart Association classes II (51%), III (44%), and IV (5%), and left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less (mean, 31%) were randomized to receive either 12.5 mg of losartan, titrated as tolerated to 50 mg once daily, or 12.5 mg of captopril, titrated as tolerated to 50 mg thrice daily. Randomization was stratified by clinical site and for baseline beta-blocker use. CONCLUSION The ELITE II study will further define the role of losartan in the treatment of patients with symptomatic heart failure relative to the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril, an agent from a class currently considered standard treatment for this disease.