Search

The Trial of Preventing Hypertension (TROPHY) demonstrated the feasibility of possibly reducing the incidence of hypertension with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan compared with placebo. The long-term benefits of pharmacologic therapy in high-normal blood pressure, or prehypertension are not known, and the long-term effect on health-related quality of life (HRQL) has not been determined. An analysis of covariance model was used to assess treatment differences from baseline in the HRQL scores using Short Form (SF)-36, and component measures at subsequent visits. Of the 809 randomized patients, 734 had both baseline and ≥1 HRQL follow-up assessment: 95% (379 of 397) of patients receiving candesartan and 91% (355 of 388) of patients receiving placebo. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in least-squares mean physical component survey and mental component survey scores or the individual scales at each scheduled visit relative to baseline values (P >.05). In TROPHY, patients with prehypertension had relatively high baseline HRQL, and HRQL was maintained with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan over both the 2-year treatment period and a total 4-year trial period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assesses the use of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Evaluation of whether inclusion and exclusion criteria should be altered and consideration of the public health implications of any such alterations; Conclusion that significant public health benefits will result from greater use of thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction; Specific contraindications to thrombolytic therapy; More.

Aims Heart failure is characterized by recurrent hospitalizations, but often only the first event is considered in clinical trial reports. In chronic diseases, such as heart failure, analysing all events gives a more complete picture of treatment benefit. We describe methods of analysing repeat hospitalizations, and illustrate their value in one major trial. Methods and results The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity ( CHARM)-Preserved study compared candesartan with placebo in 3023 patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function. The heart failure hospitalization rates were 12.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in the placebo and candesartan groups, respectively. The repeat hospitalizations were analysed using the Andersen-Gill, Poisson, and negative binomial methods. Death was incorporated into analyses by treating it as an additional event. The win ratio method and a method that jointly models hospitalizations and mortality were also considered. Using repeat events gave larger treatment benefits than time to first event analysis. The negative binomial method for the composite of recurrent heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death gave a rate ratio of 0.75 [95% confidence interval ( CI) 0.62-0.91, P = 0.003], whereas the hazard ratio for time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-1.00, P = 0.050). Conclusions In patients with preserved EF, candesartan reduces the rate of admissions for worsening heart failure, to a greater extent than apparent from analysing only first hospitalizations. Recurrent events should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of future clinical trials in heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between baseline resting heart rate and outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) according to baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and cardiac rhythm. Background: Elevated resting heart rate is associated with worse outcomes in patients with HF and reduced LVEF. Whether this association is also found in patients with HF and preserved LVEF is uncertain, as is the predictive value of heart rate in patients in atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Patients enrolled in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) Program were divided into groups by tertiles of baseline heart rate. Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate the association between heart rate and pre-specified outcomes in the overall population as well as in subgroups defined according to LVEF (≤40% vs. >40%) and presence (or absence) of AF at baseline. Results: After adjusting for predictors of poor prognosis, patients in the highest heart rate tertile had worse outcomes when compared with those in the lowest heart rate group (e.g., for the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospital stay hazard ratio: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 1.36, p < 0.001). The relationship between heart rate and outcomes was similar across LVEF categories and was not influenced by beta-blocker use (p value for interaction >0.10 for both endpoints). However, amongst patients in AF at baseline, heart rate had no predictive value (p value for interaction <0.001). Conclusions: Resting heart rate is an important predictor of outcome in patients with stable chronic HF without AF, regardless of LVEF or beta-blocker use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether ticagrelor increased the risk of ventricular pauses compared with clopidogrel and whether these pauses were associated with any clinical bradycardic events in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes. Background: Ticagrelor, an oral reversibly binding P2Y12 inhibitor, provides more potent and consistent inhibition of platelet aggregation than clopidogrel but in a phase II study was associated with increased risk for ventricular pauses. A prospective continuous electrocardiographic (cECG) assessment was therefore performed within the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) study comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. Methods: Patients in the cECG assessment had planned 7-day cECG recording initiated at the time of randomization (week 1), which was within 24 h of symptom onset, and then repeated at 1 month after randomization during the convalescent phase. The principal safety endpoint was the incidence of ventricular pauses lasting at least 3 s. Investigators also reported symptomatic bradycardic adverse events during the entire study duration (median 277 days). Results: A total of 2,908 patients were included in the cECG assessment, of whom 2,866 (98.5%) had week 1 recordings, 1,991 (68.4%) had 1-month recordings, and 1,949 (67.0%) had both. During the first week after randomization, ventricular pauses ≥3 s occurred more frequently in patients receiving ticagrelor than clopidogrel (84 [5.8%] vs. 51 [3.6%]; relative risk: 1.61; p = 0.006). At 1 month, pauses ≥3 s occurred overall less frequently and were similar between treatments (2.1% vs. 1.7%). Most were ventricular pauses, and the greatest excess associated with ticagrelor were asymptomatic, sinoatrial nodal in origin (66%), and nocturnal. There were no differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the incidence of clinically reported bradycardic adverse events, including syncope, pacemaker placement, and cardiac arrest. Conclusions: In the PLATO cECG assessment, more patients treated with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel had ventricular pauses, which were predominantly asymptomatic, sinoatrial nodal in origin, and nocturnal and occurred most frequently in the acute phase of acute coronary syndromes. There were no apparent clinical consequences related to the excess in ventricular pauses in patients assigned to ticagrelor. (A Comparison of AZD6140 and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [PLATO]; NCT00391872) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aims: It is unknown whether there is an interaction between aspirin and angiotensin receptor blockers on outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Aims: Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are common partners. Bronchodilators are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with pulmonary disease. The outcome of patients with HF prescribed bronchodilators is poorly defined. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on a study which examined the prevalence and prognostic value of a spot urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) in patients with heart failure. The study included 2,310 patients involved in the Candersartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) Programme. It assessed the prevalence of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, the predictive value of UACR and mortality among patients. It found that 58 percent of the study population had normal UACR, 30 percent had microalbuminuria and 11 percent had macroalbuminuria. Study authors concluded that increased UACR is an independent predictor of heart failure prognosis.

Aims: The prevalence and importance of liver function test (LFT) abnormalities in a large contemporary cohort of heart failure patients have not been systematically evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Electrocardiographic measures can facilitate the identification of patients at risk of death after acute coronary syndromes. This study evaluates a new risk metric, morphologic variability (MV), which measures beat-to-beat variability in the shape of the entire heart beat signal. This metric is analogous to heart rate variability (HRV) approaches, which focus on beat-to-beat changes in the heart rate. MV was calculated using a dynamic time-warping technique in 764 patients from the DISPERSE2 (TIMI 33) trial for whom 24-hour continuous electrocardiograph was recorded within 48 hours of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. The patients were evaluated during a 90-day follow-up for the end point of death. Patients with high MV showed an increased risk of death during follow-up (hazard ratio 8.46; p <0.001). The relationship between high MV and death could be observed even after adjusting for baseline clinical characteristics and HRV measures (adjusted hazard ratio 6.91; p = 0.001). Moreover, the correlation between MV and HRV was low (R ≤0.25). These findings were consistent among several subgroups, including patients under the age of 65 and those with no history of diabetes or hyperlipidemia. In conclusion, our results suggest that increased variation in the entire heart beat morphology is associated with a considerably elevated risk of death and may provide information complementary to the analysis of heart rate. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: This study sought to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan, according to baseline blood pressure (BP), in the 4,576 patients with a low ejection fraction (EF) (≤0.40) in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) program. Background: Hypotension is a predictor of poor prognosis in heart failure, yet many treatments shown to reduce morbidity and mortality lower blood pressure. This paradox creates a dilemma for physicians and may explain why low BP is reported as a reason for under-use of these agents. Methods: The interaction between treatment and baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was examined with patients divided into 6 SBP categories (≤100, 101 to 110, 111 to 120, 121 to 130, 131 to 140 and ≥141 mm Hg) and 4 DBP categories (≤60, 61 to 70, 71 to 80 and ≥81 mm Hg). Results: Low SBP and DBP were associated with worse clinical outcomes. Baseline BP did not modify the effects of candesartan on clinical outcomes: the interaction p value between SBP category and treatment was 0.38 (0.22 for DBP category). For both placebo and candesartan, study drug discontinuation for adverse effects (especially hypotension) was highest in patients in the lowest baseline BP categories. However, the relative risk of discontinuation for hypotension, renal dysfunction, and hyperkalemia in the candesartan compared with placebo group was not increased in patients with a low baseline BP. Conclusions: In patients with low EF heart failure, the relative risks and benefits of candesartan treatment were similar in patients with a low BP compared to those with a higher BP. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article presents a study which examines the role of hemoglobin A1c levels as progressive risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF). The study focused on participants of the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program. An analysis of the incidence of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure and total mortality in patients with chronic heart failure was also conducted.

The Trial of Preventing Hypertension (TROPHY) demonstrated the feasibility of possibly reducing the incidence of hypertension with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan compared with placebo. The long-term benefits of pharmacologic therapy in high-normal blood pressure, or prehypertension are not known, and the long-term effect on health-related quality of life (HRQL) has not been determined. An analysis of covariance model was used to assess treatment differences from baseline in the HRQL scores using Short Form (SF)-36, and component measures at subsequent visits. Of the 809 randomized patients, 734 had both baseline and > or =1 HRQL follow-up assessment: 95% (379 of 397) of patients receiving candesartan and 91% (355 of 388) of patients receiving placebo. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in least-squares mean physical component survey and mental component survey scores or the individual scales at each scheduled visit relative to baseline values (P >.05). In TROPHY, patients with prehypertension had relatively high baseline HRQL, and HRQL was maintained with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan over both the 2-year treatment period and a total 4-year trial period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The efficacy and safety of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in heart failure (HF) patients already taking an angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor (ACE-I) plus an aldosterone antagonist is uncertain (especially if taking a beta blocker as well). The CHARM-Added trial describes the largest experience of using multiple inhibitors of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) together. Methods and results: 2548 HF patients, taking an ACE-I (936 no spironolactone/no beta blocker; 1175 no spironolactone/beta blocker; 199 spironolactone/no beta blocker; 238 sprionolactone/beta blocker), were randomized to placebo or candesartan and followed for 41 months (median). The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. In patients taking both a beta blocker and spironolactone (in addition to an ACE-I) at baseline, the candesartan:placebo hazard ratio was 0.85(95% CI 0.56, 1.29), compared to 0.85(95% CI 0.75, 0.96) in all randomized patients (interaction p value 0.49). The relative risk of discontinuation of candesartan (compared to placebo) because of hypotension, increased serum creatinine or hyperkalemia was not increased in patients taking spironolactone at baseline. Conclusions: An ARB may provide added benefit, at acceptable risk, in HF patients already taking spironolactone as well as an ACE-I and beta blocker. These findings must be confirmed in a prospective randomized trial before this approach can be recommended, routinely. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: We explored the incidence and predictors of hyperkalemia in a broad population of heart failure patients. Background: When used in optimal doses to treat patients with heart failure, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors improve clinical outcomes but can cause hyperkalemia. Methods: Participants in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) (n = 7,599) Program were randomized to standard heart failure therapy plus candesartan or placebo, titrated as tolerated to a target of 32 mg once daily with recommended monitoring of serum potassium and creatinine. We assessed the incidence and predictors of hyperkalemia associated with dose reduction, study drug discontinuation, hospitalization, or death over the median 3.2 years of follow-up. Results: Independent of treatment assignment, the risk of hyperkalemia increased with age ≥75 years, male gender, diabetes, creatinine ≥2.0 mg/dl, K+ ≥5.0 mmol/l, and background use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or spironolactone. Candesartan increased the rate of aggregate hyperkalemia from 1.8% to 5.2% (difference 3.4%, p < 0.0001) and serious hyperkalemia (associated with death or hospitalization) from 1.1% to 1.8% (difference 0.7%, p < 0.001), with hyperkalemia associated with death reported in 2 (0.05%) candesartan patients and 1 (0.03%) placebo patient. The benefit of candesartan in reducing cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (relative risk reduction 16%, p < 0.0001) was uniform in these subgroups, as was the incremental risk of hyperkalemia. Conclusions: The risk of hyperkalemia is increased in symptomatic heart failure patients with advanced age, male gender, baseline hyperkalemia, renal failure, diabetes, or combined RAAS blockade. Although these groups derive incremental clinical benefit from candesartan, careful surveillance of serum potassium and creatinine is particularly important. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: The goal of this study was to identify potentially novel laboratory markers of risk in chronic heart failure patients. Background: Although a variety of prognostic markers have been described in heart failure, a systematic assessment of routine laboratory values has not been reported. Methods: All 2,679 symptomatic chronic heart failure patients from the North American CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) program had a wide range of laboratory measures performed at a core facility, enabling us to assess the relationship between routine blood tests and outcomes using a Cox proportional hazards model. We then replicated our findings in a cohort of 2,140 heart failure patients from the Duke Databank. Results: Among 36 laboratory values considered in the CHARM program, higher red cell distribution width (RDW) showed the greatest association with morbidity and mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17 per 1-SD increase, p < 0.001). Higher RDW was among the most powerful overall predictors, with only age and cardiomegaly showing a better independent association with outcome. This finding was replicated in the Duke Databank, in which higher RDW was strongly associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.29 per 1 SD, p < 0.001), second only to age as a predictor of outcome. Conclusions: In 2 large contemporary heart failure populations, RDW was found to be a very strong independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. Understanding how and why this marker is associated with outcome may provide novel insights into heart failure pathophysiology. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Bundle branch block (BBB) is a powerful independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The prognostic implications in HF with preserved systolic function (HF–PSF) are less well understood. Methods: The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme randomised 7599 patients with symptomatic HF to receive candesartan or placebo. The primary outcome comprised cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation. The relative risk conveyed by BBB relative to a normal electrocardiogram was examined. Results: The prevalence of BBB was significantly lower in patients with preserved compared with reduced systolic function (CHARM-Preserved 14.4%, Alternative 29.6%, Added 30.5%), p <0.0001. Overall, the adjusted hazard ratio for the primary outcome was 1.48 (95% confidence interval 1.22–1.78), p <0.0001, reflecting increased risk in patients with reduced LVEF (1.72 [1.28–2.31], p =0.0003). The apparently more modest risk among patients with HF–PSF was significant in unadjusted (1.80 [1.37–2.37], p <0.0001) but not adjusted analysis (1.16 [0.88–1.54], p =0.2897). However, no formal statistical difference was observed between the two cohorts, and interpretation is limited by the unknown prevalence of left and right BBB morphologies in each. Comparing BBB presence with absence yielded qualitatively similar results. Conclusion: The simple clinical finding of BBB is a powerful independent predictor of worse clinical outcomes in patients with HF and reduced LVEF. It is less frequent, with a more modest predictive effect, in patients with preserved systolic function. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Limited comparative studies assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQL) in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved vs. low ejection fraction (LVEF) have been disparate. Aims: The aims of this study were a) to characterize HRQL in a large population of HF patients with preserved and low LVEF and b) to determine the factors associated with worse HRQL. Methods: Patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA Class II–IV) enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) HRQL study completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at randomization. Patients were stratified into 2 HF cohorts: preserved LVEF (>40%) and low LVEF (≤40%). Results: In 2709 of the eligible 2744 (98.6%) patients, the summary scores ranged from 0 to 105 (mean 40.9). There were no differences in overall responses of HF patients with preserved vs. low LVEF (41.1 vs. 40.8). Independent factors associated with worse HRQL in both populations included female gender, younger age, higher body mass index, lower systolic blood pressure, greater symptom burden, and worse functional status. Conclusions: In symptomatic HF patients, HRQL is equally impaired in both preserved and low LVEF populations. Targeting improvement in symptoms and HRQL is an important treatment objective in all HF patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: We assessed the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program, which enrolled patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and a broad range of ejection fractions (EFs). Background: Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of adverse CV outcomes in patients with CHF and reduced EF. The risk of AF in patients with CHF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (PEF) is unknown. Methods: A total of 7,599 patients with symptomatic CHF were randomized to candesartan or placebo. Patients were divided by baseline EF (≤40% or >40%) in low or preserved EF groups. Major outcomes were cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and all-cause mortality. Median follow-up was 37.7 months. Results: A total of 670 (17%) patients in the low EF group and 478 (19%) in the PEF group had AF at baseline. Atrial fibrillation predicted a high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality regardless of baseline EF. Patients with AF and low EF had the highest absolute risk for adverse CV outcomes. However, AF was associated with greater relative increased risk of the major outcomes in patients with PEF than in patients with low EF: hazard ratio 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45 to 2.06) versus 1.29 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.46), respectively. The same was true for the risk of all-cause mortality. Candesartan was associated with similar treatment effects regardless of baseline rhythm. Conclusions: Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of CV outcomes in patients with CHF and either reduced EF or PEF. Candesartan improved outcomes similarly regardless of baseline rhythm. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Prehypertension is considered a precursor of stage 1 hypertension and a predictor of excessive cardiovascular risk. We investigated whether pharmacologic treatment of prehypertension prevents or postpones stage 1 hypertension.Methods: Participants with repeated measurements of systolic pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg and diastolic pressure of 89 mm Hg or lower, or systolic pressure of 139 mm Hg or lower and diastolic pressure of 85 to 89 mm Hg, were randomly assigned to receive two years of candesartan (Atacand, AstraZeneca) or placebo, followed by two years of placebo for all. When a participant reached the study end point of stage 1 hypertension, treatment with antihypertensive agents was initiated. Both the candesartan group and the placebo group were instructed to make changes in lifestyle to reduce blood pressure throughout the trial.Results: A total of 409 participants were randomly assigned to candesartan, and 400 to placebo. Data on 772 participants (391 in the candesartan group and 381 in the placebo group; mean age, 48.5 years; 59.6 percent men) were available for analysis. During the first two years, hypertension developed in 154 participants in the placebo group and 53 of those in the candesartan group (relative risk reduction, 66.3 percent; P<0.001). After four years, hypertension had developed in 240 participants in the placebo group and 208 of those in the candesartan group (relative risk reduction, 15.6 percent; P<0.007). Serious adverse events occurred in 3.5 percent of the participants assigned to candesartan and 5.9 percent of those receiving placebo.Conclusions: Over a period of four years, stage 1 hypertension developed in nearly two thirds of patients with untreated prehypertension (the placebo group). Treatment of prehypertension with candesartan appeared to be well tolerated and reduced the risk of incident hypertension during the study period. Thus, treatment of prehypertension appears to be feasible. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00227318.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), but it is not known whether angiotensin receptor blockers have the same effect. Objective To assess the impact of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on MI and other coronary events in patients with heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants The Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program, a randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolling patients (mean age, 66 [SD, 11] years) with New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms who were randomly allocated to receive candesartan (target dose, 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo given in addition to optimal therapy for heart failure. Patients were enrolled from March 1999 through March 2001. Of 7599 patients allocated, 4004 (53%) had experienced a previous MI, and 1808 (24%) currently had angina. At baseline, 3125 (41%) were receiving an ACE inhibitor; 4203 (55%), a β-blocker; 3153 (42%), a lipid-lowering drug; 4246 (56%), aspirin; and 6286 (83%), a diuretic. Main Outcome Measure The primary outcome of the present analysis was the composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI in patients with heart failure receiving candesartan or placebo. Results During the median follow-up of 37.7 months, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI was significantly reduced in the candesartan group (775 patients [20.4%]) vs the placebo group (868 [22.9%]) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.96; P = .004; number needed to treat [NNT], 40). Nonfatal MI alone was also significantly reduced in the candesartan group (116 [3.1%]) vs the placebo group (148 [3.9%]) (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98; P = .03; NNT, 118). The secondary outcome of fatal MI, sudden death, or nonfatal MI was significantly reduced with candesartan (459 [12.1%]) vs placebo (522 [13.8%]) (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97; P = .02; NNT, 59). Risk reductions in cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI were similar across predetermined subgroups and the component CHARM trials. There was no impact on hospitalizations for unstable angina or coronary revascularization procedures with candesartan. Conclusion In patients with heart failure, candesartan significantly reduces the risk of the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aims: To evaluate the effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on patients'' perception of symptoms, using the McMaster Overall treatment evaluation (OTE), in a broad spectrum of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods and results: Patients with symptomatic CHF, randomised in the CHARM Programme in North America (n=2498), were studied. OTE was assessed at baseline, at 6, 14 and 26 months and the patient''s final or closing visit. Patient''s status was classified as “improved (score +1 to +7)”, “unchanged (score 0)” or “deteriorated (score −1 to −7)” at the end of the study compared to baseline. Both a simple “last visit carried forward” (LVCF) analysis and “worst rank carried forward” (WRCF) analysis (where patients who died were allocated the worst OTE score) were used. In the LVCF analysis, compared to placebo, more candesartan patients improved (37.7% versus 33.5%) and fewer worsened (10.8% versus 12.0%) in OTE (p=0.017). The WRCF analysis also showed better overall OTE scores with candesartan compared to placebo (p=0.029). There was no heterogeneity in the response to candesartan between the CHARM component trials or across four exploratory sub-groups (age, sex, NYHA class and beta-blocker). Conclusions: Candesartan was shown to be better than placebo, when using the McMaster OTE to measure patient perception of treatment. More patients treated with candesartan reported improvement and fewer reported deterioration. This benefit was obtained when candesartan was added to extensive background therapy and is consistent with the benefits of candesartan on NYHA class, hospital admission for worsening heart failure and mortality. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are at high risk of cardiovascular death and recurrent hospital admissions. We aimed to find out whether the use of an angiotensin-receptor blocker could reduce mortality and morbidity.Methods: In parallel, randomised, double-blind, controlled, clinical trials we compared candesartan with placebo in three distinct populations. We studied patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or less who were not receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors because of previous intolerance or who were currently receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, and patients with LVEF higher than 40%. Overall, 7601 patients (7599 with data) were randomly assigned candesartan (n=3803, titrated to 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=3796), and followed up for at least 2 years. The primary outcome of the overall programme was all-cause mortality, and for all the component trials was cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat.Findings: Median follow-up was 37.7 months. 886 (23%) patients in the candesartan and 945 (25%) in the placebo group died (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-1.00], p=0.055; covariate adjusted 0.90 [0.82-0.99], p=0.032), with fewer cardiovascular deaths (691 [18%] vs 769 [20%], unadjusted 0.88 [0.79-0.97], p=0.012; covariate adjusted 0.87 [0.78-0.96], p=0.006) and hospital admissions for CHF (757 [20%] vs 918 [24%], p<0.0001) in the candesartan group. There was no significant heterogeneity for candesartan results across the component trials. More patients discontinued candesartan than placebo because of concerns about renal function, hypotension, and hyperkalaemia.Interpretation: Candesartan was generally well tolerated and significantly reduced cardiovascular deaths and hospital admissions for heart failure. Ejection fraction or treatment at baseline did not alter these effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Anaysis 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%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors improve outcome of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). A substantial proportion of patients, however, experience no benefit from ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. We aimed to find out whether candesartan, an angiotensinreceptor blocker, could improve outcome in such patients not taking an ACE inhibitor. Methods Between March, 1999, and March, 2001, we enrolled 2028 patients with symptomatic heart failure and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less who were not receiving ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. Patients were randomly assigned candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings The most common manifestation of ACE-inhibitor intolerance was cough (72%), followed by symptomatic hypotension (13%) and renal dysfunction (12%). During a median follow-up of 33.7 months, 334 (33%) of 1013 patients in the candesartan group and 406 (40%) of 1015 in the placebo group had cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.77 [95% CI 0.67--0.89], p=0.0004; covariate adjusted 0.70 [0.60--0.81], p<0.0001). Each component of the primary outcome was reduced, as was the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. Study-drug discontinuation rates were similar in the candesartan (30%) and placebo (29%) groups. Interpretation Candesartan was generally well tolerated and reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure and intolerance to ACE inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 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 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are at high risk of cardiovascular death and recurrent hospital admissions. We aimed to find out whether the use of an angiotensin- receptor blocker could reduce mortality and morbidity. Methods In parallel, randomised, double-blind, controlled, clinical trials we compared candesartan with placebo in three distinct populations. We studied patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or less who were not receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors because of previous intolerance or who were currently receiving angiotensinconverting- enzyme inhibitors, and patients with LVEF higher than 40%. Overall, 7601 patients (7599 with data) were randomly assigned candesartan (n=3803, titrated to 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=3796), and followed up for at least 2 years. The primary outcome of the overall programme was all-cause mortality, and for all the component trials was cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings Median follow-up was 37.7 months. 886 (23%) patients in the candesartan and 945 (25%) in the placebo group died (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.83--1.00], p=0.055; covariate adjusted 0.90 [0.82--0.99], p=0.032), with fewer cardiovascular deaths (691 [18%] vs 769 [20%], unadjusted 0.88 [0.79--0.97], p=0.012; covariate adjusted 0.87 [0.78--0.96], p=0.006) and hospital admissions for CHF (757 [20%] vs 918 [24%], p<0.0001) in the candesartan group. There was no significant heterogeneity for candesartan results across the component trials. More patients discontinued candesartan than placebo because of concerns about renal function, hypotension, and hyperkalaemia. Interpretation Candesartan was generally well tolerated and significantly reduced cardiovascular deaths and hospital admissions for heart failure. Ejection fraction or treatment at baseline did not alter these effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine-extended release (ER) and amlodipine were compared in a 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, titration-to-effect trial in patients with stage 1 to 2 systemic hypertension (90 to 109 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure [BP]) and chronic stable angina pectoris. After a 3-week placebo run-in period, patients (n = 120) were randomly assigned to active treatment with either nisoldipine-ER (20 to 40 mg) or amlodipine (5 to 10 mg) once daily, titrated as necessary after 2 weeks to achieve diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. After 6 weeks, the mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP from baseline was 15/13 mm Hg with nisoldipine-ER and 13/11 mm Hg with amlodipine (p = NS/p = NS). Both drugs resulted in similar BP responder rates (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg in 87% of patients who received nisoldipine-ER and 78% of patients on amlodipine, p = NS) and anti-ischemic responder rates (increasing exercise time >20% in 20% and 27%, respectively [p = NS], and increasing exercise time >60 seconds in 32% and 29% of patients, respectively [p = NS]. Also, after 6 weeks of active therapy, there was a similar mean increase in total exercise duration (23 seconds in the nisoldipine-ER group and 21 seconds in the amlodipine group, p = NS). Neither drug increased heart rate and both decreased frequency of anginal episodes. Adverse events were infrequent, and typically were vasodilator-related effects (including headache and peripheral edema) that occurred with somewhat higher incidence in the nisoldipine-ER group. Thus, nisoldipine-ER and amlodipine provided comparable antihypertensive and anti-ischemic efficacy, and both were generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine-extended release (ER) and amlodipine were compared in a 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, titration-to-effect trial in patients with stage 1 to 2 systemic hypertension (90 to 109 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure [BP]) and chronic stable angina pectoris. After a 3-week placebo run-in period, patients (n = 120) were randomly assigned to active treatment with either nisoldipine-ER (20 to 40 mg) or amlodipine (5 to10 mg) once daily, titrated as necessary after 2 weeks to achieve diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. After 6 weeks, the mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP from baseline was 15/13 mm Hg with nisoldipine-ER and 13/11 mm Hg with amlodipine (p = NS/p = NS). Both drugs resulted in similar BP responder rates (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg in 87% of patients who received nisoldipine-ER and 78% of patients on amlodipine, p = NS) and anti-ischemic responder rates (increasing exercise time >20% in 20% and 27%, respectively [p = NS], and increasing exercise time >60 seconds in 32% and 29% of patients, respectively [p = NS]. Also, after 6 weeks of active therapy, there was a similar mean increase in total exercise duration (23 seconds in the nisoldipine-ER group and 21 seconds in the amlodipine group, p = NS). Neither drug increased heart rate and both decreased frequency of anginal episodes. Adverse events were infrequent, and typically were vasodilator-related effects (including headache and peripheral edema) that occurred with somewhat higher incidence in the nisoldipine-ER group. Thus, nisoldipine-ER and amlodipine provided comparable antihypertensive and anti-ischemic efficacy, and both were generally well tolerated. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: We sought to determine whether seropositivity to Helicobacter pylori, Chlamydia pneumoniae, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an independent predictor of incident cardiovascular disease.Background: Recent reports have suggested that infections may contribute to risk of cardiovascular disease. However, prospective studies of these associations in a free-living population are lacking.Methods: We measured serum H. pylori IgG, C. pneumoniae IgG and IgA, and CMV IgG levels in Framingham Heart Study cohort participants. Blood samples were drawn during the 16th biennial examination cycle (1979 to 1982) from 1,187 participants free of cardiovascular disease (mean age 69 years) and stored at -20 degrees C. A pooled primary end point of myocardial infarction, atherothrombotic stroke, and coronary heart disease deaths was studied in relation to serology. Using a Cox model, hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, adjusting for age, gender, and established risk factors.Results: Seropositivity to H. pylori IgG, C. pneumoniae IgG, C. pneumoniae IgA, and CMV IgG was 60%, 45%, 11%, and 69%, respectively. During 10 years of follow-up, incident cardiovascular disease occurred in 199 participants (16.8%). In age- and gender-adjusted models, H. pylori IgG (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46), C. pneumoniae IgG (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20), C. pneumoniae IgA (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.07), and CMV IgG (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12) were not associated with incident cardiovascular disease. These associations were further attenuated after adjustment for risk factors including body mass index, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, smoking, and hypertension. These estimates did not change for the individual components of cardiovascular disease, and seropositivity to more than one organism did not alter these risk estimates substantially.Conclusions: In this elderly cohort, chronic H. pylori, C. pneumoniae, and CMV infections, as evidenced by seropositivity, were not associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Additional studies are needed to determine the relations of chronic infections to cardiovascular disease risk in younger persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: ObjectivesWe sought to determine whether seropositivity to Helicobacter pylori, Chlamydia pneumoniae, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an independent predictor of incident cardiovascular disease.: BackgroundRecent reports have suggested that infections may contribute to risk of cardiovascular disease. However, prospective studies of these associations in a free-living population are lacking.: MethodsWe measured serum H. pylori IgG, C. pneumoniae IgG and IgA, and CMV IgG levels in Framingham Heart Study cohort participants. Blood samples were drawn during the 16th biennial examination cycle (1979 to 1982) from 1,187 participants free of cardiovascular disease (mean age 69 years) and stored at −20°C. A pooled primary end point of myocardial infarction, atherothrombotic stroke, and coronary heart disease deaths was studied in relation to serology. Using a Cox model, hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, adjusting for age, gender, and established risk factors.: ResultsSeropositivity to H. pylori IgG, C. pneumoniae IgG, C. pneumoniae IgA, and CMV IgG was 60%, 45%, 11%, and 69%, respectively. During 10 years of follow-up, incident cardiovascular disease occurred in 199 participants (16.8%). In age- and gender-adjusted models, H. pylori IgG (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46), C. pneumoniae IgG (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20), C. pneumoniae IgA (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.07), and CMV IgG (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12) were not associated with incident cardiovascular disease. These associations were further attenuated after adjustment for risk factors including body mass index, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, smoking, and hypertension. These estimates did not change for the individual components of cardiovascular disease, and seropositivity to more than one organism did not alter these risk estimates substantially.: ConclusionsIn this elderly cohort, chronic H. pylori, C. pneumoniae, and CMV infections, as evidenced by seropositivity, were not associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Additional studies are needed to determine the relations of chronic infections to cardiovascular disease risk in younger persons. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Compares effects of angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine in patients with mild systemic hypertension. Study population; Efficacy and tolerability assessment; Patient perception of treatment.

Background: Prehypertension is considered a precursor of stage 1 hypertension and a predictor of excessive cardiovascular risk. We investigated whether pharmacologic treatment of prehypertension prevents or postpones stage 1 hypertension. Methods: Participants with repeated measurements of systolic pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg and diastolic pressure of 89 mm Hg or lower, or systolic pressure of 139 mm Hg or lower and diastolic pressure of 85 to 89 mm Hg, were randomly assigned to receive two years of candesartan (Atacand, AstraZeneca) or placebo, followed by two years of placebo for all. When a participant reached the study end point of stage 1 hypertension, treatment with antihypertensive agents was initiated. Both the candesartan group and the placebo group were instructed to make changes in lifestyle to reduce blood pressure throughout the trial. Results: A total of 409 participants were randomly assigned to candesartan, and 400 to placebo. Data on 772 participants (391 in the candesartan group and 381 in the placebo group; mean age, 48.5 years; 59.6 percent men) were available for analysis. During the first two years, hypertension developed in 154 participants in the placebo group and 53 of those in the candesartan group (relative risk reduction, 66.3 percent; P<0.001). After four years, hypertension had developed in 240 participants in the placebo group and 208 of those in the candesartan group (relative risk reduction, 15.6 percent; P<0.007). Serious adverse events occurred in 3.5 percent of the participants assigned to candesartan and 5.9 percent of those receiving placebo. Conclusions: Over a period of four years, stage 1 hypertension developed in nearly two thirds of patients with untreated prehypertension (the placebo group). Treatment of prehypertension with candesartan appeared to be well tolerated and reduced the risk of incident hypertension during the study period. Thus, treatment of prehypertension appears to be feasible. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00227318.) N Engl J Med 2006;354:1685-97. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]