Mary Ann Lukas

Carvedilol Inhibits Clinical Progression in Patients With Mild Symptoms of Heart Failure

BACKGROUND We tested the hypothesis that carvedilol inhibits clinical progression in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure due to left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients (n = 366) who had mildly symptomatic heart failure with an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < or = 0.35, had minimal functional impairment (defined as the ability to walk 450 to 550 m on a 6-minute walk test), and were receiving optimal standard therapy, including ACE inhibitors, were randomized double-blind to carvedilol (n = 232) or placebo (n = 134) and followed up for 12 months. The primary end point was clinical progression, defined as death due to heart failure, hospitalization for heart failure, or a sustained increase in heart failure medications. Clinical progression of heart failure occurred in 21% of placebo patients and 11% of carvedilol patients, reflecting a 48% (P = .008) reduction in the primary end point of heart failure progression (relative risk, 0.52; CI, 0.32 to 0.85). This effect of carvedilol was not influenced by sex, age, race, cause of heart failure, or baseline LVEF. Carvedilol also significantly improved several secondary end points, including LVEF, heart failure score, NYHA functional class, and the physician and patient global assessments. Carvedilol reduced all-cause mortality but had no effects on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure scale, the distance walked in 9 minutes on a self-powered treadmill, or cardiothoracic index. The drug was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Carvedilol, when added to standard therapy, including an ACE inhibitor, reduces clinical progression in patients who are only mildly symptomatic with well-compensated heart failure.

Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Effects of Carvedilol in Patients With Moderate to Severe Heart Failure The PRECISE Trial

Background Carvedilol has improved the symptomatic status of patients with moderate to severe heart failure in single-center studies, but its clinical effects have not been evaluated in large, multicenter trials. Methods and Results We enrolled 278 patients with moderate to severe heart failure (6-minute walk distance, 150 to 450 m) and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.35 at 31 centers. After an open-label, run-in period, each patient was randomly assigned (double-blind) to either placebo (n=145) or carvedilol (n=133; target dose, 25 to 50 mg BID) for 6 months, while background therapy with digoxin, diuretics, and an ACE inhibitor remained constant. Compared with placebo, patients in the carvedilol group had a greater frequency of symptomatic improvement and lower risk of clinical deterioration, as evaluated by changes in the NYHA functional class (P=.014) or by a global assessment of progress judged either by the patient (P=.002) or by the physician (P<.001). In addition, treatment with carvedilol...

Race and the Response to Adrenergic Blockade with Carvedilol in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

Background The benefits of angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers may be smaller in black patients than in patients of other races, but it is unknown whether race influences the response to carvedilol in patients with chronic heart failure. Methods In the U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program, 217 black and 877 nonblack patients (in New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV and with a left ventricular ejection fraction of no more than 0.35) were randomly assigned to receive placebo or carvedilol (at doses of 6.25 to 50 mg twice daily) for up to 15 months. The effects of carvedilol on ejection fraction, clinical status, and major clinical events were retrospectively compared between black and nonblack patients. Results As compared with placebo, carvedilol lowered the risk of death from any cause or hospitalization for any reason by 48 percent in black patients and by 30 percent in nonblack patients. Carvedilol reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (heart failure leadi...

Safety and efficacy of carvedilol in severe heart failure

Abstract Background: Many patients remain markedly symptomatic despite optimal current therapy for heart failure. Beta-blockers have often been viewed as contraindicated in this group because of their potential adverse short-term effects on cardiac function. Methods and Results: One hundred thirty-one patients with severe congestive heart failure were enrolled into a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the vasodilating beta-blocker carvedilol. All patients had symptomatic, advanced heart failure while on standard triple therapy, as evidenced by a mean ejection fraction of 0.22, marked reduction in distance traveled in a 6-minute corridor walk test, and severe impairment in quality of life measured by the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire. After a 2-week, open-label test of 6.25 mg twice daily carvedilol, 105 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either carvedilol (up to 25 mg twice daily, n = 70) or matching placebo (n = 35) for 6 months while background therapy with digoxin, diuretics, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor remained constant. Ten patients (8%) did not complete the open-label period because of adverse events and 11.4% in both the carvedilol and placebo groups dropped out in the double-blind phase. The study was terminated early by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board and follow-up evaluation was therefore aborted before the projected number of patients and follow-up time was achieved. Quality of life, which was the primary endpoint, improved similarly in the carvedilol and placebo groups, whereas the global assessment by the physicians and the patient exhibited a better response to carvedilol ( P P = .004). Conclusion: The beta-blocker carvedilol can be safely employed in patients with severe heart failure. Improved left ventricular function with a trend for some improvement in symptoms combined with the experience with the drug in the larger population of less severe patients in this multicenter trial suggests that carvedilol may have a favorable long-term effect in heart failure of diverse severity.

Effect of darapladib on major coronary events after an acute coronary syndrome: the SOLID-TIMI 52 randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2) has been hypothesized to be involved in atherogenesis through pathways related to inflammation. Darapladib is an oral, selective inhibitor of the Lp-PLA2 enzyme. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of darapladib in patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS SOLID-TIMI 52 was a multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized 13,026 participants within 30 days of hospitalization with an ACS (non-ST-elevation or ST-elevation myocardial infarction [MI]) at 868 sites in 36 countries. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to either once-daily darapladib (160 mg) or placebo on a background of guideline-recommended therapy. Patients were followed up for a median of 2.5 years between December 7, 2009, and December 6, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point (major coronary events) was the composite of coronary heart disease (CHD) death, MI, or urgent coronary revascularization for myocardial ischemia. Kaplan-Meier event rates are reported at 3 years. RESULTS During a median duration of 2.5 years, the primary end point occurred in 903 patients in the darapladib group and 910 in the placebo group (16.3% vs 15.6% at 3 years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91-1.09]; P = .93). The composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred in 824 in the darapladib group and 838 in the placebo group (15.0% vs 15.0% at 3 years; HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.90-1.09]; P = .78). There were no differences between the treatment groups for additional secondary end points, for individual components of the primary end point, or in all-cause mortality (371 events in the darapladib group and 395 in the placebo group [7.3% vs 7.1% at 3 years; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.82-1.08]; P = .40). Patients were more likely to report an odor-related concern in the darapladib group vs the placebo group (11.5% vs 2.5%) and also more likely to report diarrhea (10.6% vs 5.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients who experienced an ACS event, direct inhibition of Lp-PLA2 with darapladib added to optimal medical therapy and initiated within 30 days of hospitalization did not reduce the risk of major coronary events. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01000727.

Effects of metoprolol and carvedilol on pre-existing and new onset diabetes in patients with chronic heart failure: data from the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET)

Background: β Blocker treatment may worsen glucose metabolism. Objective: To study the development of new onset diabetes in a large cohort of patients with heart failure treated with either metoprolol or carvedilol. Design: Prospective and retrospective analysis of a controlled clinical trial. Setting: Multinational multicentre study. Patients: 3029 patients with chronic heart failure. Interventions: Randomly assigned treatment with carvedilol (n = 1511, target dose 50 mg daily) or metoprolol tartrate (n = 1518, target dose 100 mg daily). Results: Diabetic events (diabetic coma, peripheral gangrene, diabetic foot, decreased glucose tolerance or hyperglycaemia) and new onset diabetes (clinical diagnosis, repeated high random glucose level or glucose lowering drugs) were assessed in 2298 patients without diabetes at baseline. Diabetic events occurred in 122/1151 (10.6%) patients in the carvedilol group and 149/1147 (13.0%) patients in the metoprolol group (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.99; p = 0.039). New onset diabetes was diagnosed in 119/1151 (10.3%) v 145/1147 (12.6%) cases in the carvedilol and metoprolol treatment groups (HR = 0.78, CI 0.61 to 0.997; p = 0.048), respectively. Patients with diabetes at baseline had an increased mortality compared with non-diabetic subjects (45.3% v 33.9%; HR = 1.45, CI 1.28 to 1.65). Both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects at baseline had a similar reduction in mortality with carvedilol compared with metoprolol (RR = 0.85; CI 0.69 to 1.06 and RR = 0.82; CI 0.71 to 0.94, respectively). Conclusion: A high prevalence and incidence of diabetes is found in patients with heart failure over a course of 5 years. New onset diabetes is more likely to occur during treatment with metoprolol than during treatment with carvedilol.

Study design and rationale for the Stabilization of pLaques usIng Darapladib—Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (SOLID-TIMI 52) trial in patients after an acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND Higher levels of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) (Lp-PLA(2)) are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events and may play a causal role in atherogenesis. Darapladib inhibits Lp-PLA(2) activity in plasma and in arterial plaques and may confer clinical benefit in preventing cardiovascular events. STUDY DESIGN The SOLID-TIMI 52 trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, event-driven trial. Approximately 13,000 subjects are being randomized to darapladib (160 mg enteric-coated tablet daily) or matching placebo within 30 days of hospitalization with an acute coronary syndrome. The primary end point is the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Secondary end points include major and total coronary events, individual components of the primary end point, and all-cause mortality. The study will continue until approximately 1,500 primary end point events have occurred to achieve 90% power to detect a 15.5% reduction in the primary end point. The median treatment duration is anticipated to be approximately 3 years, with a total study duration of approximately 4.1 years. CONCLUSIONS The SOLID-TIMI 52 trial will determine the clinical benefit of direct inhibition of Lp-PLA(2) activity with darapladib in patients after an acute coronary syndrome.

Influence of carvedilol on hospitalizations in heart failure: incidence, resource utilization and costs☆

BACKGROUND Carvedilol reduces disease progression in heart failure, but to our knowledge, its effects on hospitalizations and costs have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES We examined the effects on hospitalization frequency and costs in the U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program. This program consisted of four concurrent, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies involving 1,094 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure, which treated patients with placebo or carvedilol for up to 15 months (median, 6.5 months). METHODS Detailed resource utilization data were collected for all hospitalizations occurring between randomization and the end of follow-up. In-patient care costs were estimated based on observed levels of resource use. RESULTS Compared with placebo, carvedilol reduced the risk of hospitalization for any reason by 29% (p = 0.009), cardiovascular hospitalizations by 28% (p = 0.034) and heart failure hospitalizations by 38% (p = 0.041). Carvedilol also decreased the mean number of hospitalizations per patient (for cardiovascular reasons 30% [p = 0.02], for heart failure 53% [p = 0.03]). Among hospitalized patients, carvedilol reduced severity of illness during hospital admission, as reflected by shorter length of stay and less frequent use of intensive care. For heart failure hospital admissions, carvedilol decreased mean length of stay by 37% (p = 0.03) and mean number of intensive care unit/coronary care unit days by 83% (p = 0.001), with similar effects on cardiovascular admissions. As a result, estimated inpatient care costs with carvedilol were 57% lower for cardiovascular admissions (p = 0.016) and 81% lower for heart failure admissions (p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS Carvedilol added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition reduces hospitalization risk as well as severity of illness and resource utilization during admission in patients with chronic heart failure.

Efficacy and Safety of Carvedilol in Treatment of Heart Failure with Chronic Kidney Disease A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background—The safety and efficacy of different types of &bgr;-blocker therapy in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) and systolic heart failure (HF) are not well described. We assessed whether treatment of systolic HF with carvedilol is efficacious and safe in adults with CKD. Methods and Results—We performed a post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data (n=4217) from 2 multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trials, CAPRICORN (Carvedilol Postinfarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction Study) and COPERNICUS (Carvedilol Prospective Randomized, Cumulative Survival study). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, HF mortality, first HF hospitalization, the composite of cardiovascular mortality or first HF hospitalization, and sudden cardiac death. Non–dialysis-dependent CKD was defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate ⩽60 mL/min/1.73 m2, using the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. CKD was present in 2566 of 4217 (60.8%) of the cohort, 50.4% of whom were randomly assigned to carvedilol therapy. Within the CKD group, treatment with carvedilol decreased the risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.93; P=0.007), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.94; P=0.011), HF mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.88; P=0.003), first hospitalization for HF (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88; P=0.0009), and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.87; P<0.001) but was without significant effect on sudden cardiac death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.05; P=0.098). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm and study type. Carvedilol was generally well tolerated by both groups of patients, with an increased relative incidence in transient increase in serum creatinine without need for dialysis and other electrolyte changes in the CKD patients. However, in a sensitivity analysis among HF subjects with estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (CKD stage 3b), the efficacy of carvedilol was not significantly different from placebo. Conclusions—This analysis suggests that the benefits of carvedilol therapy in patients with systolic left ventricular dysfunction with or without symptoms of HF are consistent even in the presence of mild to moderate CKD. Whether carvedilol therapy is similarly efficacious in HF patients with more advanced kidney disease requires further study.

Effect of carvedilol and metoprolol on the mode of death in patients with heart failure

In the COMET study, carvedilol improved survival compared to metoprolol tartrate in 3029 patients with NYHA II–IV heart failure and EF <35%, followed for an average of 58months.