Search

AimsCONCERT-HF is an NHLBI-sponsored, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial designed to determine whether treatment with autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and c-kit positive cardiac cells (CPCs), given alone or in combination, is feasible, safe, and beneficial in patients with heart failure (HF) caused by ischaemic cardiomyopathy.Methods and resultsPatients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to transendocardial injection of MSCs combined with CPCs, MSCs alone, CPCs alone, or placebo, and followed for 12 months. Seven centres enrolled 125 participants with left ventricular ejection fraction of 28.6 ± 6.1% and scar size 19.4 ± 5.8%, in New York Heart Association class II or III. The proportion of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was significantly decreased by CPCs alone (-22% vs. placebo, P = 0.043). Quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score) was significantly improved by MSCs alone (P = 0.050) and MSCs + CPCs (P = 0.023) vs. placebo. Left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular volumes, scar size, 6-min walking distance, and peak oxygen consumption did not differ significantly among groups.ConclusionsThis is the first multicentre trial assessing CPCs and a combination of two cell types from different tissues in HF patients. The results show that treatment is safe and feasible. Even with maximal guideline-directed therapy, both CPCs and MSCs were associated with improved clinical outcomes (MACE and quality of life, respectively) in ischaemic HF without affecting left ventricular function or structure, suggesting possible systemic or paracrine cellular mechanisms. Combining MSCs with CPCs was associated with improvement in both these outcomes. These results suggest potential important beneficial effects of CPCs and MSCs and support further investigation in HF patients.

BackgroundAnthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) may be irreversible with a poor prognosis, disproportionately affecting women and young adults. Administration of allogeneic bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (allo-MSCs) is a promising approach to heart failure (HF) treatment.ObjectivesSENECA (Stem Cell Injection in Cancer Survivors) was a phase 1 study of allo-MSCs in AIC.MethodsCancer survivors with chronic AIC (mean age 56.6 years; 68% women; NT-proBNP 1,426 pg/ml; 6 enrolled in an open-label, lead-in phase and 31 subjects randomized 1:1) received 1 × 108 allo-MSCs or vehicle transendocardially. Primary objectives were safety and feasibility. Secondary efficacy measures included cardiac function and structure measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), functional capacity, quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire), and biomarkers.ResultsA total of 97% of subjects underwent successful study product injections; all allo-MSC-assigned subjects received the target dose of cells. Follow-up visits were well-attended (92%) with successful collection of endpoints in 94% at the 1-year visit. Although 58% of subjects had non-CMR compatible devices, CMR endpoints were successfully collected in 84% of subjects imaged at 1 year. No new tumors were reported. There were no significant differences between allo-MSC and vehicle groups with regard to clinical outcomes. Secondary measures included 6-min walk test (p = 0.056) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (p = 0.048), which tended to favor the allo-MSC group.ConclusionsIn this first-in-human study of cell therapy in patients with AIC, transendocardial administration of allo-MSCs appears safe and feasible, and CMR was successfully performed in the majority of the HF patients with devices. This study lays the groundwork for phase 2 trials aimed at assessing efficacy of cell therapy in patients with AIC.

Although atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines indicate that pharmacological blockade of the renin-angiotensin system may be considered for primary AF prevention in hypertensive patients, previous studies have yielded conflicting results. We sought to determine whether randomization to lisinopril reduces incident AF or atrial flutter (AFL) compared with chlorthalidone in a large clinical trial cohort with extended post-trial surveillance. We performed a secondary analysis of the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial), a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial that enrolled hypertensive individuals ≥55 years of age with at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, lisinopril, or chlorthalidone. Individuals with elevated fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were also randomized to pravastatin versus usual care. The primary outcome was the development of either AF or AFL as diagnosed by serial study ECGs or by Medicare claims data. Among 14 837 participants without prevalent AF or AFL, 2514 developed AF/AFL during a mean 7.5±3.2 years of follow-up. Compared with chlorthalidone, randomization to either lisinopril (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.15; P=0.46) or amlodipine (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.03; P=0.16) was not associated with a significant reduction in incident AF/AFL. Compared with chlorthalidone, treatment with lisinopril is not associated with a meaningful reduction in incident AF or AFL among older adults with a history of hypertension. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000542.

AimsThe effect of statins on risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and HF death remains uncertain. We aimed to establish whether statins reduce major HF events.Methods and resultsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled endpoint statin trials from 1994 to 2014. Collaborating trialists provided unpublished data from adverse event reports. We included primary- and secondary-prevention statin trials with >1000 participants followed for >1 year. Outcomes consisted of first non-fatal HF hospitalization, HF death and a composite of first non-fatal HF hospitalization or HF death. HF events occurring

BackgroundHypertension is a major risk factor for a spectrum of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), including myocardial infarction, sudden death, and stroke. In the US, over 65 million people have high blood pressure and a large proportion of these individuals are prescribed antihypertensive medications. Although large long-term clinical trials conducted in the last several decades have identified a number of effective antihypertensive treatments that reduce the risk of future clinical complications, responses to therapy and protection from cardiovascular events vary among individuals.MethodsUsing a genome-wide association study among 21,267 participants with pharmaceutically treated hypertension, we explored the hypothesis that genetic variants might influence or modify the effectiveness of common antihypertensive therapies on the risk of major cardiovascular outcomes. The classes of drug treatments included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics. In the setting of the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) consortium, each study performed array-based genome-wide genotyping, imputed to HapMap Phase II reference panels, and used additive genetic models in proportional hazards or logistic regression models to evaluate drug-gene interactions for each of four therapeutic drug classes. We used meta-analysis to combine study-specific interaction estimates for approximately 2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a discovery analysis among 15,375 European Ancestry participants (3,527 CVD cases) with targeted follow-up in a case-only study of 1,751 European Ancestry GenHAT participants as well as among 4,141 African-Americans (1,267 CVD cases).ResultsAlthough drug-SNP interactions were biologically plausible, exposures and outcomes were well measured, and power was sufficient to detect modest interactions, we did not identify any statistically significant interactions from the four antihypertensive therapy meta-analyses (Pinteraction > 5.0×10-8). Similarly, findings were null for meta-analyses restricted to 66 SNPs with significant main effects on coronary artery disease or blood pressure from large published genome-wide association studies (Pinteraction ≥ 0.01). Our results suggest that there are no major pharmacogenetic influences of common SNPs on the relationship between blood pressure medications and the risk of incident CVD.

Diabetic patients undergoing coronary interventions have worse clinical and angiographic outcomes than do patients without diabetes. Metformin, an insulin sensitizer, may decrease the occurrence of these outcomes. Diabetic patients in the Prevention of Restenosis with Tranilast and its Outcomes Trial were identified through their medical records (n = 2,772). In this trial, 1,110 diabetic patients received nonsensitizer therapy (insulin and/or sulfonylureas) and 887 received sensitizer therapy (metformin with or without additional therapy). Logistic regression was used to obtain odds ratios (ORs) (sensitizer vs nonsensitizer therapy) of any clinical event (death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) and adjusted for multiple risk factors. Multivariate analysis showed no effect of lesion characteristics on clinical outcomes. Compared with patients on nonsensitizer therapy, those on sensitizer therapy showed an adjusted OR of 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.91, p = 0.005) for any clinical event. The differences between the nonsensitizer therapy group and the sensitizer group were attributable mainly to decreased rates of death (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.77, p = 0.007) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, p = 0.002). In our retrospective analysis, use of metformin in diabetics undergoing coronary interventions appeared to decrease adverse clinical events, especially death and myocardial infarction, compared with diabetic patients treated with nonsensitizer therapy.

Background Randomised evidence on the efficacy of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of BP-lowering drugs in patients with and without AF at baseline. Methods and findings The study was based on the resource provided by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC), in which individual participant data (IPD) were extracted from trials with over 1,000 patient-years of follow-up in each arm, and that had randomly assigned patients to different classes of BP-lowering drugs, BP-lowering drugs versus placebo, or more versus less intensive BP-lowering regimens. For this study, only trials that had collected information on AF status at baseline were included. The effects of BP-lowering treatment on a composite endpoint of major cardiovascular events (stroke, ischaemic heart disease or heart failure) according to AF status at baseline were estimated using fixed-effect one-stage IPD meta-analyses based on Cox proportional hazards models stratified by trial. Furthermore, to assess whether the associations between the intensity of BP reduction and cardiovascular outcomes are similar in those with and without AF at baseline, we used a meta-regression. From the full BPLTTC database, 28 trials (145,653 participants) were excluded because AF status at baseline was uncertain or unavailable. A total of 22 trials were included with 188,570 patients, of whom 13,266 (7%) had AF at baseline. Risk of bias assessment showed that 20 trials were at low risk of bias and 2 trials at moderate risk. Meta-regression showed that relative risk reductions were proportional to trial-level intensity of BP lowering in patients with and without AF at baseline. Over 4.5 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg systolic BP (SBP) reduction lowered the risk of major cardiovascular events both in patients with AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 1.00) and in patients without AF at baseline (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), with no difference between subgroups. There was no evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline SBP or drug class in patients with AF at baseline. The findings of this study need to be interpreted in light of its potential limitations, such as the limited number of trials, limitation in ascertaining AF cases due to the nature of the arrhythmia and measuring BP in patients with AF. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, we found that BP-lowering treatment reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events similarly in individuals with and without AF. Pharmacological BP lowering for prevention of cardiovascular events should be recommended in patients with AF., Author(s): Ana-Catarina Pinho-Gomes 1, Luis Azevedo 2, Emma Copland 3, Dexter Canoy 3,4, Milad Nazarzadeh 3, Rema Ramakrishnan 3, Eivind Berge 5,6, Johan Sundström 7, Dipak Kotecha 8, Mark Woodward [...]

Recurrent events can occur more than once in the same individual; such events may be of different types, known as multitype recurrent events. They are very common in longitudinal studies. Often there is a terminating event, after which no further events can occur. The risk of any event, including terminating events such as death or cure, is typically affected by prior events. We propose a flexible joint multitype recurrent-events model that explicitly provides estimates of the change in risk for each event due to subject characteristics, including number and type of prior events and the absolute risk for every event type (terminating and nonterminating), and predicts event-free survival probability over a desired time period. The model is fully parametric, and therefore a standard likelihood function and robust standard errors can be constructed. We illustrate the model with applications to the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (1994–2002) and provide discussion of the results and model features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Clinical practice guidelines have traditionally recommended blood pressure treatment based primarily on blood pressure thresholds. In contrast, using predicted cardiovascular risk has been advocated as a more effective strategy to guide treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to compare outcomes from a blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk with one based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) level. Methods and findings We used individual participant data from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) from 1995 to 2013. Trials randomly assigned participants to either blood pressure-lowering drugs versus placebo or more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering regimens. We estimated 5-y risk of CVD events using a multivariable Weibull model previously developed in this dataset. We compared the two strategies at specific SBP thresholds and across the spectrum of risk and blood pressure levels studied in BPLTTC trials. The primary outcome was number of CVD events avoided per persons treated. We included data from 11 trials (47,872 participants). During a median of 4.0 y of follow-up, 3,566 participants (7.5%) experienced a major cardiovascular event. Areas under the curve comparing the two treatment strategies throughout the range of possible thresholds for CVD risk and SBP demonstrated that, on average, a greater number of CVD events would be avoided for a given number of persons treated with the CVD risk strategy compared with the SBP strategy (area under the curve 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] for the CVD risk strategy versus 0.54 [95% CI 0.53-0.55] for the SBP strategy). Compared with treating everyone with SBP [greater than or equal to] 150 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 29% (95% CI 26%-31%) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 16% (95% CI 14%-18%) more events for the same number of persons treated. Compared with treating everyone with SBP [greater than or equal to] 140 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 3.8% (95% CI 12.5% fewer to 7.2% more) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 3.1% (95% CI 1.5%-5.0%) more events for the same number of persons treated, although the former estimate was not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, the CVD risk strategy did not appear to be more beneficial than the SBP strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus or established CVD. Conclusions A blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk is more effective than one based on blood pressure levels alone across a range of thresholds. These results support using cardiovascular risk assessment to guide blood pressure treatment decision-making in moderate- to high-risk individuals, particularly for primary prevention., Author(s): Kunal N. Karmali 1, Donald M. Lloyd-Jones 1, Joep van der Leeuw 2, David C. Goff 3, Salim Yusuf 4, Alberto Zanchetti 5, Paul Glasziou 6, Rodney Jackson 7, [...]

The article discusses aspirin dosing in individuals with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, emphasizing the importance of determining the optimal aspirin dose for secondary prevention. It also highlights the Adaptable trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of aspirin, revealing no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding in individuals with diabetes.

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that carotenoid supplementation is associated with decreased DNA damage, but the role of dietary carotenoids in cancer risk remains controversial because epidemiologic studies have yielded conflicting results. Limited data exist regarding the role of dietary carotenoids in the context of constitutional genetic instability in cancer risk. This case-control study estimated dietary carotenoid intake [[micro]g/(kJ * d)] from a FFQ for 423 patients with bladder cancer and 467 healthy controls, and quantified baseline and benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide (BPDE)- and [gamma]-radiation-induced DNA damage in the peripheral blood lymphocytes using the comet assay. Overall, intake of total carotenoids was lower (P < 0.01) for bladder cancer cases (mean [+ or -] SD: 1273.4 [+ or -] 688.9) compared with healthy controls (1501.3 [+ or -] 791.5). When categorized into quartiles, there was an inverse association between increasing levels of carotenoid intake and bladder cancer risk with greatest protective effect [odds ratio (OR) = 0.56, 95% Cl, 0.37-0.85] in the quartile with the highest level of intake. Baseline and mutagen-induced DNA damage was significantly higher in cases than in controls; when analyzed jointly with carotenoid intake, high DNA damage and low carotenoid intake were associated with the highest risk. For example, with high baseline DNA damage and low total carotenoid intake, the OR was 3.08 (95% Cl, 1.64-5.77); with high baseline DNA damage and high total carotenoid intake, the risk was somewhat attenuated (OR = 2.49, 95% Cl, 1.28-4.84). The risk was decreased further for low baseline DNA damage and low total carotenoid intake (OR = 2.18; 95% Cl, 1.13-4.22). This study provides evidence of a preventive role for carotenoids in bladder cancer, and these data may have important implications for cancer prevention, especially for individuals susceptible to DNA damage. KEY WORDS: * comet assay * DNA damage * molecular epidemiology * smoking

Background Medications aimed at inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) have been used extensively for preventing cardiovascular and renal complications in patients with diabetes, but data that compare their clinical effectiveness are limited. We aimed to compare the effects of classes of RAS blockers on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in adults with diabetes. Methods and Findings Eligible trials were identified by electronic searches in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1 January 2004 to 17 July 2014). Interventions of interest were angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and direct renin (DR) inhibitors. The primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke-singly and as a composite endpoint, major cardiovascular outcome-and end-stage renal disease [ESRD], doubling of serum creatinine, and all-cause mortality-singly and as a composite endpoint, progression of renal disease. Secondary endpoints were angina pectoris and hospitalization for heart failure. In all, 71 trials (103,120 participants), with a total of 14 different regimens, were pooled using network meta-analyses. When compared with ACE inhibitor, no other RAS blocker used in monotherapy and/or combination was associated with a significant reduction in major cardiovascular outcomes: ARB (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.90-1.18), ACE inhibitor plus ARB (0.97; 95% CrI 0.79-1.19), DR inhibitor plus ACE inhibitor (1.32; 95% CrI 0.96-1.81), and DR inhibitor plus ARB (1.00; 95% CrI 0.73-1.38). For the risk of progression of renal disease, no significant differences were detected between ACE inhibitor and each of the remaining therapies: ARB (OR 1.10; 95% CrI 0.90-1.40), ACE inhibitor plus ARB (0.97; 95% CrI 0.72-1.29), DR inhibitor plus ACE inhibitor (0.99; 95% CrI 0.65-1.57), and DR inhibitor plus ARB (1.18; 95% CrI 0.78-1.84). No significant differences were showed between ACE inhibitors and ARBs with respect to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, hospitalization for heart failure, ESRD, or doubling serum creatinine. Findings were limited by the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies. Potential inconsistency was identified in network meta-analyses of stroke and angina pectoris, limiting the conclusiveness of findings for these single endpoints. Conclusions In adults with diabetes, comparisons of different RAS blockers showed similar effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on major cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Compared with monotherapies, the combination of an ACE inhibitor and an ARB failed to provide significant benefits on major outcomes. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefits, costs, and potential harms with individual diabetes patients before starting treatment. Review registration PROSPERO CRD42014014404, Author(s): Ferrán Catalá-López 1,2,3,4,*, Diego Macías Saint-Gerons 2, Diana González-Bermejo 2, Giuseppe M. Rosano 5, Barry R. Davis 6, Manuel Ridao 7,8, Abel Zaragoza 2, Dolores Montero-Corominas 2, Aurelio Tobías [...]