Search

BACKGROUND: Moderate and moderately severe renal impairment are common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but whether beta-blockers are effective is unclear, leading to underuse of life-saving therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate patient prognosis and the efficacy of beta-blockers according to renal function using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS: Analysis of 16,740 individual patients with left ventricular ejection fraction

Background: Statin therapy has been shown to reduce major vascular events and vascular mortality in a wide range of individuals, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety among older people. We undertook a meta-analysis of data from all large statin trials to compare the effects of statin therapy at different ages.Methods: In this meta-analysis, randomised trials of statin therapy were eligible if they aimed to recruit at least 1000 participants with a scheduled treatment duration of at least 2 years. We analysed individual participant data from 22 trials (n=134 537) and detailed summary data from one trial (n=12 705) of statin therapy versus control, plus individual participant data from five trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (n=39 612). We subdivided participants into six age groups (55 years or younger, 56–60 years, 61–65 years, 66–70 years, 71–75 years, and older than 75 years). We estimated effects on major vascular events (ie, major coronary events, strokes, and coronary revascularisations), cause-specific mortality, and cancer incidence as the rate ratio (RR) per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. We compared proportional risk reductions in different age subgroups by use of standard χ2 tests for heterogeneity when there were two groups, or trend when there were more than two groups.Findings: 14 483 (8%) of 186 854 participants in the 28 trials were older than 75 years at randomisation, and the median follow-up duration was 4·9 years. Overall, statin therapy or a more intensive statin regimen produced a 21% (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77–0·81) proportional reduction in major vascular events per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. We observed a significant reduction in major vascular events in all age groups. Although proportional reductions in major vascular events diminished slightly with age, this trend was not statistically significant (ptrend=0·06). Overall, statin or more intensive therapy yielded a 24% (RR 0·76, 95% CI 0·73–0·79) proportional reduction in major coronary events per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, and with increasing age, we observed a trend towards smaller proportional risk reductions in major coronary events (ptrend=0·009). We observed a 25% (RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·73–0·78) proportional reduction in the risk of coronary revascularisation procedures with statin therapy or a more intensive statin regimen per 1·0 mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol, which did not differ significantly across age groups (ptrend=0·6). Similarly, the proportional reductions in stroke of any type (RR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·89) did not differ significantly across age groups (ptrend=0·7). After exclusion of four trials which enrolled only patients with heart failure or undergoing renal dialysis (among whom statin therapy has not been shown to be effective), the trend to smaller proportional risk reductions with increasing age persisted for major coronary events (ptrend=0·01), and remained non-significant for major vascular events (ptrend=0·3). The proportional reduction in major vascular events was similar, irrespective of age, among patients with pre-existing vascular disease (ptrend=0·2), but appeared smaller among older than among younger individuals not known to have vascular disease (ptrend=0·05). We found a 12% (RR 0·88, 95% CI 0·85–0·91) proportional reduction in vascular mortality per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, with a trend towards smaller proportional reductions with older age (ptrend=0·004), but this trend did not persist after exclusion of the heart failure or dialysis trials (ptrend=0·2). Statin therapy had no effect at any age on non-vascular mortality, cancer death, or cancer incidence.Interpretation: Statin therapy produces significant reductions in major vascular events irrespective of age, but there is less direct evidence of benefit among patients older than 75 years who do not already have evidence of occlusive vascular disease. This limitation is now being addressed by further trials.Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation.

Aims: Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods and results: Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 ≥ 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF ≥ 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF ≥50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when

BACKGROUND: The relationship between mortality and heart rate remains unclear for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in either sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: This analysis explored the prognostic importance of heart rate in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in randomized controlled trials comparing beta-blockers and placebo. METHODS: The Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group performed a meta-analysis of harmonized individual patient data from 11 double-blind randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, analyzed with Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR) modeling heart rate measured at baseline and approximately 6 months post-randomization. RESULTS: A higher heart rate at baseline was associated with greater all-cause mortality for patients in sinus rhythm (n = 14,166; adjusted HR: 1.11 per 10 beats/min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 1.15; p < 0.0001) but not in AF (n = 3,034; HR: 1.03 per 10 beats/min; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.08; p = 0.38). Beta-blockers reduced ventricular rate by 12 beats/min in both sinus rhythm and AF. Mortality was lower for patients in sinus rhythm randomized to beta-blockers (HR: 0.73 vs. placebo; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.79; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline heart rate (interaction p = 0.35). Beta-blockers had no effect on mortality in patients with AF (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.12; p = 0.58) at any heart rate (interaction p = 0.48). A lower achieved resting heart rate, irrespective of treatment, was associated with better prognosis only for patients in sinus rhythm (HR: 1.16 per 10 beats/min increase, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.22; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of pre-treatment heart rate, beta-blockers reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. Achieving a lower heart rate is associated with better prognosis, but only for those in sinus rhythm.

Item does not contain fulltext Cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to atherosclerosis of the arterial vessel wall and to thrombosis is the foremost cause of premature mortality and of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Europe, and is also increasingly common in developing countries.1 In the European Union, the economic cost of CVD represents annually E192 billion1 in direct and indirect healthcare costs. The main clinical entities are coronary artery disease (CAD), ischaemic stroke, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The causes of these CVDs are multifactorial. Some of these factors relate to lifestyles, such as tobacco smoking, lack of physical activity, and dietary habits, and are thus modifiable. Other risk factors are also modifiable, such as elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidaemias, or non-modifiable, such as age and male gender. These guidelines deal with the management of dyslipidaemias as an essential and integral part of CVD prevention. Prevention and treatment of dyslipidaemias should always be considered within the broader framework of CVD prevention, which is addressed in guidelines of the Joint European Societies' Task forces on CVD prevention in clinical practice.2 - 5 The latest version of these guidelines was published in 20075; an update will become available in 2012. These Joint ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are complementary to the guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice and address not only physicians [e.g. general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists] interested in CVD prevention, but also specialists from lipid clinics or metabolic units who are dealing with dyslipidaemias that are more difficult to classify and treat.

© 2015 Swerdlow et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Background Statins increase the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus. We aimed to assess whether this increase in risk is a consequence of inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGCR), the intended drug target. Methods We used single nucleotide polymorphisms in the HMGCR gene, rs17238484 (for the main analysis) and rs12916 (for a subsidiary analysis) as proxies for HMGCR inhibition by statins. We examined associations of these variants with plasma lipid, glucose, and insulin concentrations; bodyweight; waist circumference; and prevalent and incident type 2 diabetes. Study-specific effect estimates per copy of each LDL-lowering allele were pooled by meta-analysis. These findings were compared with a meta-analysis of new-onset type 2 diabetes and bodyweight change data from randomised trials of statin drugs. The effects of statins in each randomised trial were assessed using meta-analysis. Findings Data were available for up to 223 463 individuals from 43 genetic studies. Each additional rs17238484-G allele was associated with a mean 0·06 mmol/L (95% CI 0·05-0·07) lower LDL cholesterol and higher body weight (0·30 kg, 0·18-0·43), waist circumference (0·32 cm, 0·16-0·47), plasma insulin concentration (1·62%, 0·53-2·72), and plasma glucose concentration (0·23%, 0·02-0·44). The rs12916 SNP had similar effects on LDL cholesterol, bodyweight, and waist circumference. The rs17238484-G allele seemed to be associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes (odds ratio [OR] per allele 1·02, 95% CI 1·00-1·05); the rs12916-T allele association was consistent (1·06, 1·03-1·09). In 129 170 individuals in randomised trials, statins lowered LDL cholesterol by 0·92 mmol/L (95% CI 0·18-1·67) at 1-year of follow-up, increased bodyweight by 0·24 kg (95% CI 0·10-0·38 in all trials; 0·33 kg, 95% CI 0·24-0·42 in placebo or standard care controlled trials and -0·15 kg, 95% CI -0·39 to 0·08 in intensive-dose vs moderate-dose trials) at a mean of 4·2 years (range 1·9-6·7) of follow-up, and increased the odds of new-onset type 2 diabetes (OR 1·12, 95% CI 1·06-1·18 in all trials; 1·11, 95% CI 1·03-1·20 in placebo or standard care controlled trials and 1·12, 95% CI 1·04-1·22 in intensive-dose vs moderate dose trials). Interpretation The increased risk of type 2 diabetes noted with statins is at least partially explained by HMGCR inhibition. Funding The funding sources are cited at the end of the paper.

Objectives: This study sought to examine the effect of statin therapy hospitalizations for heart failure (HFH) in patients in the CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure) trial. Background: HFH is an important, frequently recurrent event. Conventional time-to-first event analyses do not take account repeat events. We used a number of statistical approaches to examine the effect of treatment on first and repeat HFH in the CORONA trial. Methods: In the CORONA trial, 5,011 patients ≥60 years of age with chronic New York Heart Association functional classes II to IV systolic heart failure resulting from ischemia were randomized to receive rosuvastatin or placebo. Poisson, Andersen-Gill, and negative binomial methods (NB) were used to analyze the effect of rosuvastatin on HFH, and the NB and a parametric joint frailty model (JF) were used to examine this effect while accounting for the competing risk of cardiovascular (CV) death. Rosuvastatin/placebo rate ratios were calculated, both unadjusted and adjusted. Results: A total of 1,291 patients had 1 or more HFH (750 of these had a single HFH only), and there were a total of 2,408 HFHs. The hazard ratio for the conventional time-to-first event analysis for HFH was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 1.02, p = 0.105). In contrast, the NB on repeat hospitalizations gave an unadjusted RR (RR) for HFH of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99, p = 0.030), adjusted 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72 to 0.92, p = 0.001), and after including CV death as the last event, adjusted RR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.94, p = 0.001). The JF gave an adjusted RR of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.92, p = 0.001). Similar results were found in analyses of all CV hospitalizations and all-cause hospitalizations. Conclusions: When repeat events were included, rosuvastatin was shown to reduce the risk of HFH by approximately 15% to 20%, equating to approximately 76 fewer admissions per 1,000 patients treated over a median 33 months of follow-up. Including repeat events could increase the ability to detect treatment effects in heart failure trials.

This article argues that major risk factors such as diabetes or hypertension increase the risk of vascular disease principally by amplifying the malign interactions of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles with the arterial wall and, consequently, that LDL is the first and foremost factor in the pathogenesis of vascular disease. We conclude that marked reduction of the LDL particle number should be the cornerstone of therapy in those with vascular disease or in those at high risk of vascular disease.

This article provides a detailed overview of the rationale for key aspects of the protocol of the Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial. It also highlights unusual aspects of the study implementation and the baseline characteristics. The DIG trial is a large, simple, international placebo-controlled trial whose primary objective is to determine the effect of digoxin on all cause mortality in patients with clinical heart failure who are in sinus rhythm and whose ejection fraction isor = 0.45. An ancillary study examines the effect in those with an ejection fraction0.45. Key aspects of the trial include the simplicity of the design, broad eligibility criteria, essential data collection, and inclusion of various types of centers. A total of 302 centers in the United States and Canada enrolled 7788 patients between February 1991 and September 1993. Follow-up continued until December 1995 with the results available in Spring 1996.

Objectives To evaluate the blood pressure-dependent and independent effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) on major cardiovascular events.Methods Using data from 26 large-scale trials comparing an ACEI or an ARB with placebo or another drug class, meta-regression analyses were conducted in which treatment-specific relative risks for major cause-specific outcomes [stroke, major coronary heart disease (CHD) events and heart failure] were regressed against follow-up blood pressure differences.Results From a total of 146 838 individuals with high blood pressure or an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, 22 666 major cardiovascular events were documented during follow-up. The analyses showed comparable blood pressure-dependent reductions in risk with ACEI and ARB (P > 0.3 for all three outcomes). The analyses also showed that ACEI produced a blood pressure-independent reduction in the relative risk of CHD of approximately 9% (95% confidence interval 3-14%). No similar effect was detected for ARB, and there was some evidence of a difference between ACEI and ARB in this regard (P =0.002). For both stroke and heart failure there was no evidence of any blood pressure-independent effects of either ACEI or ARB.Conclusion There are similar blood pressure-dependent effects of ACEI and ARB for the risks of stroke, CHD and heart failure. For ACEI, but not ARB, there is evidence of blood pressure-independent effects on the risk of major coronary disease events.