Candesartan in heart failure--assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM): rationale and design. Charm-Programme Investigators

"Diastolic heart failure" or heart failure caused by subtle left ventricular systolic dysfunction?

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether patients with suspected heart failure but preserved systolic function, as determined by conventional echocardiographic measures (often said to have "diastolic heart failure), might have subtle left ventricular systolic dysfunction detectable by a new measure of left ventricular systolic function-left ventricular systolic atrioventricular plane displacement.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Direct access echocardiography.

PATIENTS

147 patients with suspected heart failure referred by general practitioners.

MEASUREMENTS

Echocardiographic assessment of conventional measures of left ventricular systolic function (fractional shortening, ejection fraction (by Simpson's biplane method) and "eyeball" assessment) and measurement of left ventricular systolic atrioventricular plane displacement.

RESULTS

Between 21% and 33% of patients with "normal" left ventricular systolic function by conventional methods were found to have abnormal left ventricular systolic atrioventricular plane displacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one quarter of patients with suspected heart failure but preserved systolic function by conventional methods have abnormal atrioventricular plane displacement. These patients with suspected heart failure but preserved systolic function by conventional echocardiographic measures may have heart failure caused by subtle systolic dysfunction rather than isolated "diastolic heart failure".

Angiotensin type-1 receptor blockers in heart failure

Chronic heart failure is a common condition with a poor prognosis, usually associated with poor exercise tolerance and debilitating symptoms despite optimal modern therapy. Standard therapy includes diuretics, digoxin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and beta-blockers. Despite this, many patients remain symptomatic, and interest is high as to whether the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) would offer further advantage to a patient already receiving quadruple therapy. In addition, some patients are intolerant of ACEIs, and for this group the ARBs seem a logical choice. This article reviews the evidence for the use of ARBs as a class in heart failure concentrating on clinical recommendations and clinical needs and evidence rather than purely on statistical issues of significance in trials. The trials to date have demonstrated clearly similar hemodynamic effects to those seen with ACEIs and variety of ancillary benefits such as improvements in endothelial function, anti-thrombotic effects, and effects on neurohormonal inhibition. There is consistent evidence of a preservation of exercise tolerance when patients with heart failure are crossed over from stable ACEI therapy, and when added to ACEIs exercise tolerance appears to increase with ARBs. In terms of major outcomes, the two largest trials, Elite-II and Val-Heft, demonstrate that angiotensin receptor blockers probably have a clinical role in improving mortality and morbidity as an alternative to ACEIs in those patients unable to tolerate these agents, which remain, however, the first choice in unselected patients with heart failure. There is a worrying suggestion of a negative interaction when ARBs are added to beta-blockers, which is a reason for caution in using the ARBs, not a reason not to use beta-blockers.

Pulsatile hemodynamics in congestive heart failure

Pulse pressure, an indirect measure of vascular stiffness and pulsatile load, predicts clinical events in congestive heart failure (CHF), suggesting that abnormal pulsatile load may contribute to CHF. This study was designed to assess more direct measures of central pulsatile load in CHF. Noninvasive hemodynamic evaluations were performed in 28 subjects with CHF and 40 controls using calibrated tonometry of the brachial, radial, femoral, and carotid arteries along with echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter and Doppler flow. Characteristic impedance (Z(c)) was calculated as the ratio of DeltaP (carotid) and DeltaQ (LVOT flow) in early systole. Carotid-radial (CR-PWV) and carotid-femoral (CF-PWV) pulse wave velocities were calculated from tonometry. Augmentation index was assessed from the carotid waveform. Total arterial compliance (TAC) was calculated using the area method. Brachial pulse pressure was elevated (62+/-16 versus 53+/-15 mm Hg, P=0.015) in CHF because of lower diastolic pressure (66+/-10 versus 73+/-9 mm Hg, P=0.003). CHF had higher Z(c) (225+/-76 versus 184+/-66 dyne. sec. cm(-5), P=0.020). CF-PWV did not differ (9.7+/-2.7 versus 9.2+/-2.0, P=0.337), whereas CR-PWV was lower in CHF (8.6+/-1.4 versus 9.4+/-1.5, P=0.038). There was no difference in TAC (1.4+/-0.5 versus 1.4+/-0.6 mL/mmHg, P=0.685), and augmentation index was lower in CHF (8+/-17 versus 21+/-13%, P=0.001). CHF subjects have elevated central pulsatile load (Z(c)), which is not apparent in global measures such as augmentation index or TAC, possibly because of contrasting changes in central and peripheral conduit vessels. This increased pulsatile load represents an important therapeutic target in CHF.

Effects of candesartan on cardiac and arterial structure and function in hypertensive subjects

OBJECTIVES

To study the effect of candesartan cilexetil on left ventricular mass index (LVMI), left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, arterial structure and function and blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients (n=35), aged >20 years, with hypertension and average baseline LVMI of 89 g/m2 were treated for 24 weeks with candesartan, 16 mg o.d., following a four-week placebo run-in period. If diastolic BP remained above 95 mmHg, hydrochlorothiazide, 12.5 mg o.d.,was added. Left ventricular structure and function were assessed using transthoracic echocardiography. Arterial function and structure were assessed using pulse wave analysis to calculate augmentation index (AIx) and forearm plethysmography to calculate minimum vascular resistance. BP was measured in the office and by 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

RESULTS

The mean reduction in LVMI was 4.4 g/m2(p=0.022). Left ventricular systolic function was not significantly altered from baseline, but diastolic function significantly improved: the mean change in diastolic time was 54 ms (p=0.037), in peak velocity filling 6.3 cm/s (p=0.023); E:A ratio improved by 0.08 (p=0.049). The mean reduction in forearm vascular resistance was 15 units at rest (p=0.001) and 1.3 units after limb ischaemia (p=0.006). AIx decreased significantly, with a mean reduction of 9% (p<0.001). Central BP also significantly reduced(systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 31/20 mmHg; p<0.001). BP was significantly reduced, both in the office (22/16 mmHg; p<0.001) and by 24-hourABPM (18/12 mmHg; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with candesartan, 16 mg o.d., with or without hydrochlorothiazide, for 24 weeks, significantly reduced left ventricular mass and arterial hypertrophy in patients with hypertension. In parallel, there were significant improvements in left ventricular diastolic function and arterial function.

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockade with 80 and 160 mg valsartan in healthy, normotensive subjects

BACKGROUND

An 80-mg dose once or twice daily is the dose of valsartan frequently administered for treatment of hypertension. The target dose selected for the Val-HeFT trial in patients with chronic heart failure is 160 mg twice daily. The level and time course of angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1))-receptor blockade achieved by 160 mg valsartan have not been reported.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Seven normotensive healthy subjects were assigned in random order to receive a single dose of placebo, 80 mg valsartan, and 160 mg valsartan at 7- to 10-day intervals. AT(1)-receptor blockade level (%) was determined by the pressure response to administration of exogenous angiotensin II. The pressure response to angiotensin II was measured at baseline and 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after oral administration of placebo, 80 mg valsartan, and 160 mg valsartan. Eighty and 160 mg valsartan resulted in a significant and similar level of AT(1)-receptor blockade at 2 and 6 hours compared with placebo. The 160-mg dose resulted in a significantly greater level of AT(1)-receptor blockade than 80 mg at 12 and 24 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

During the first 6 hours after oral administration of 80 and 160 mg valsartan the level of AT(1)-receptor blockade is similar. However, only 160 mg valsartan provides sustained AT(1)-receptor blockade over 24 hours.

Congestive heart failure with preserved systolic function in a statewide sample of community hospitals

BACKGROUND

The importance of congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function is increasingly recognized, but most studies have been conducted at a single, usually academic, medical center. The aim of this study was to determine the prognosis, readmission rate, and effect of ACE inhibitor therapy in a Medicare cohort with CHF and preserved systolic function.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined a statewide, random sample of 1,720 California Medicare patients hospitalized with an ICD-9 diagnosis of CHF confirmed by a decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) or chest radiograph from July 1993 to June 1994 and January 1996 to June 1996. Among the 782 patients with confirmed CHF and an in-hospital left ventricular EF measurement, 45% had reduced systolic function (ReSF) (EF < 40%) and 55% had preserved systolic function (PrSF) (EF > 40%). The PrSF group had a lower 1-year mortality rate but similar hospital readmission rates for both CHF and all causes. In patients with ReSF, ACE inhibitor treatment was associated with a lower mortality rate (P =.04) and a trend toward a lower CHF readmission rate (P =.13). In contrast, ACE inhibition therapy was associated with neither a lower rate of mortality nor CHF readmission in PrSF patients (P =.61 and.12, respectively). In multivariate analyses treatment with ACE inhibitors in PrSF patients was not associated with either a reduction in mortality (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.79-1.67) or CHF readmission (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.58).

CONCLUSIONS

CHF with PrSF seems to be associated with high mortality and morbidity rates, but ACE inhibitors may not produce comparable benefit in this group as in patients with ReSF.

ADEPT: Addition of the AT1 receptor antagonist eprosartan to ACE inhibitor therapy in chronic heart failure trial: hemodynamic and neurohormonal effects

BACKGROUND

Persistent activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) is known to occur in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) despite treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE) therapy. When added to ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) antagonists may allow more complete blockade of the RAAS and preserve the beneficial effects of bradykinin accumulation not seen with AT1 receptor blockade alone.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients with stable New York Heart Association class II-IV CHF receiving ACE inhibitor therapy were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either eprosartan, a specific competitive AT1 receptor antagonist (400 to 800 mg daily, n = 18) or placebo (n = 18) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome measure was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as measured by radionuclide ventriculography, and secondary measures were central hemodynamics assessed by Swan-Ganz catheterization and neurohormonal effects.

RESULTS

There was no change in LVEF with eprosartan therapy (mean relative LVEF percentage change [SEM] +10.5% [9.3] vs +10.1% [5.0], respectively; difference, 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], -20.8 to 21.7; P =.97). Eprosartan was associated with a significant reduction in diastolic blood pressure and a trend toward a reduction in systolic blood pressure compared with placebo (-7.3 mm Hg [95% CI, -14.2 to -0.4] diastolic; -8.9 mm Hg [95% CI, -18.6 to 0.8] systolic). No significant change in heart rate or central hemodynamics occurred during treatment with eprosartan compared with placebo. A trend toward an increase in plasma renin activity was noted with eprosartan therapy. Eprosartan was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to placebo, whereas kidney function remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to an ACE inhibitor, eprosartan reduced arterial pressure without increasing heart rate. There was no change in LVEF after 2 months of therapy with eprosartan.

Angiotensin receptor blockers and aldosterone antagonists in chronic heart failure

Prognosis in congestive heart failure is directly linked to neurohormonal activation. Angiotensin II through the activation of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system has been the principal focus therapy over the last 2 decades. New agents that target selective blockade of the angiotensin II receptor have been introduced in clinical trials for the treatment of heart failure. Aldosterone has been identified as a critically important neurohormone with direct detrimental effects on the myocardium. Aldosterone antagonists have been used in clinical trials to improve mortality in patients with chronic heart failure.

Difficult cases in heart failure: Raison d'Être behind ACE inhibitors and AT1 receptor combinations in chronic heart failure: chemical nuances or clinical significance?

The following case description serves to illustrate the difficulties often faced in clinical practice in implementing what appear to be fairly simple and clear evidence-based guidelines regarding angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and no clear guidelines regarding angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use or, more importantly, ACE inhibitor and ARB combinations in chronic heart failure. (c)2001 by CHF, Inc.

Are angiotensin II receptor blockers more efficacious than placebo in heart failure? Implications of ELITE-2. Evaluation of Losartan In The Elderly

In the light of the recent randomized controlled trials in chronic heart failure, it is now commonly assumed that treatment with an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) is equivalent to treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. We performed an imputed placebo analysis using previous placebo-ACE inhibitor trials and the current ACE inhibitor-ARB comparison studies, which shows that ARBs may not even be superior to placebos, let alone an ACE inhibitor.

Comparison of 26-week efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan and atenolol, in combination with hydrochlorothiazide as required, in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension: a randomized, multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan, a novel antihypertensive agent, and atenolol, a well-established beta-blocker, in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension.

METHODS

This 26-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, titration-to-response study compared doses of telmisartan (40 mg titrated to 80 mg titrated to 120 mg) with atenolol (50 mg titrated to 100 mg) required to achieve diastolic blood pressure (DBP) control (< or = 90 mm Hg or a decrease from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg). Open-label hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 or 25 mg was added if needed according to a prespecified titration rule. Men and women aged > 18 years with mild to moderate hypertension (morning mean supine DBP [SDBP] > or = 95 mm Hg and < or = 114 mm Hg) were eligible to participate. Patients with significant cardiovascular, metabolic, hepatic, or renal dysfunction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded. The primary efficacy end point was trough SDBP response at 26 weeks; secondary efficacy end points included changes from baseline at trough in both standing and supine DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and heart rate after 4, 8, 16, and 26 weeks; SBP control (reduction from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg); normalization of supine SDBP to < or = 90 mm Hg; and the need for add-on HCTZ. Changes in quality of life were also examined. Adverse events were obtained from spontaneous reporting and recorded. Serious adverse events were reported to the sponsor according to predefined timelines.

RESULTS

A total of 533 patients from 49 centers participated. Patients' mean age was 57.9 years (range, 22-79 years); 55.9% (298/533) of the population was male and 98.1% (523/533) was white. Of the 533 patients randomly assigned to treatment and included in the safety analysis, 520 (97.6%) were included in the efficacy analysis; 346 received telmisartan and 174 received atenolol. A total of 489 patients (91.7%) completed the study (325 [93.9%], telmisartan; 164 [94.2%], atenolol). Full SDBP response (trough SDBP < or = 90 mm Hg and/or a reduction from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg) was observed in 84% and 78% of telmisartan- and atenolol-treated patients, respectively; this difference was not statistically significant. Final SBP/DBP reductions of 20.9/14.4 mm Hg were observed for the telmisartan regimen versus 16.7/13.3 mm Hg for the atenolol regimen; only the difference in SBP was significant (P = 0.005). Reduction from baseline in SBP of > or = 10 mm Hg was achieved by 80% of telmisartan-treated and 68% of atenolol-treated patients (P = 0.003). Adverse events were reported by 52.7% of patients given telmisartan and 61.2% of patients given atenolol; this difference was not statistically significant. Most events were mild or moderate. Although fatigue and male impotence were more common in atenolol-treated patients (3.4% and 4.0%, respectively), the incidence of these adverse events was too low to differentiate statistically.

CONCLUSIONS

Telmisartan appears to be at least as effective as atenolol in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension and may be better tolerated.

ELITE II and Val-HeFT are different trials: together what do they tell us?

The Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study (ELITE II) and the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) both evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of a selective angiotensin II receptor antagonist on morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure. The trials differed, however, in terms of their primary hypothesis, study design, and treatment regimens, and this must be taken into consideration when comparing and interpreting the data from these studies. The data are in many ways complementary, and add to our understanding of the optimal treatment of symptomatic heart failure. Additional studies are needed, however, to fully define the role of angiotensin II receptor antagonists in the management of this very heterogeneous group of patients.

Serum erythropoietin in heart failure patients treated with ACE-inhibitors or AT(1) antagonists

BACKGROUND

Erythropoietin (Epo), a growth factor produced by the kidney, is important in heart failure patients to promote oxygen delivery to tissues. Seventy-two chronic heart failure (CHF) patients at our outpatient clinic were subjected to morning serum Epo-level measurements and classified according to NYHA criteria.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients of classes III and IV had a significantly elevated serum Epo-level of 42.9+/-40.3 mIU/ml (mean+/-1 S.D.) when compared to the mean level of 24 patients of classes I and II who had a normal range mean value of 13.4+/-6.2 mIU/ml (P<0.05). Patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors showed a trend towards lower serum Epo-levels compared to patients treated with angiotensin-II type-1 receptor antagonists (AT(1) antagonists) (levels: 33.3+/-35.6 mIU/ml and 43.6+/-38.1 mIU/ml). This trend did not, however, reach statistical significance (P=0.36).

CONCLUSION

We suggest that a desirable Epo increase in class III and IV CHF patients could be achieved by either recombinant human Epo administration or, possibly, by appropriate selection of the concomitant medical therapy. A large prospective study shall investigate the possible advantage of AT(1) antagonists over ACE-inhibitors with regard to Epo effect.

Renal implications of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in heart failure

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system actively participates in the derangement of renal function since the early stages of heart failure (HF). A diminished capacity to excrete sodium secondary to increased proximal tubular re-absorption and loss of the renal functional reserve are the two most relevant initial alterations of renal function in which angiotensin II has been proven to act directly. Meanwhile, the octapeptide contributes to maintain glomerular filtration rate (GFR) within normal limits through efferent arteriole vasoconstriction. Administration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARA) may thus be accompanied by a functional fall in that parameter. Advanced age, higher initial serum creatinine, history of hypertension, diabetes and atrial fibrillation predict the onset of GFR impairment associated with blockade of the renin-angiotensin system. Concomitant administration of betablockers may help to protect renal function, and preliminary data indicate that the combination of ACEi and ARA is not accompanied by a higher renal risk. The good prognostic effects of aldosterone antagonists in HF does not seem to be related to intrarenal effects of these compounds with the exception of preventing potassium loss and hypokalemia. The systematic therapeutic use of drug(s) provided with beneficial renal effects, to treat arterial hypertension or myocardial ischemia, may contribute to delay of, or prevent the development of HF.

The importance of early intervention in CHF--signs and symptom relief

Effective treatments of congestive heart failure (CHF) must not only reduce mortality, but should also reduce the severity of the signs and symptoms of the syndrome, as these can have a major impact on quality of life. Early intervention can help to make everyday activities easier for patients with CHF and may slow disease progression. This review provides an overview of the efficacies of various therapies in improving the signs and symptoms of CHF, with particular reference to recent data from randomised, double-blind studies of patients receiving the AT(1)-receptor blocker, candesartan cilexetil.

Neurohumoral blockade in CHF management

Is heart failure an endocrine disease? Historically, congestive heart failure (CHF) has often been regarded as a mechanical and haemodynamic condition. However, there is now strong evidence that the activation of neuroendocrine systems, like the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and sympathetic nervous system, as well as the activation of natriuretic peptides, endothelin and vasopressin, play key roles in the progression of CHF. In this context, agents targeting neurohormones offer a highly rational approach to CHF management, with ACE inhibitors, aldosterone antagonists and beta-adrenergic blockade improving the prognosis for many patients. Although relevant improvements in clinical status and survival can be achieved with these drug classes, mortality rates for patients with CHF are still very high. Moreover, most patients do not receive these proven life-prolonging drugs, partially due to fear of adverse events, such as hypotension (with ACE inhibitors), gynaecomastia (with spironolactone) and fatigue (with beta-blockers). New agents that combine efficacy with better tolerability are therefore needed. The angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1))-receptor blockers have the potential to fulfil both these requirements, by blocking the deleterious cardiovascular and haemodynamic effects of angiotensin II while offering placebo-like tolerability. As shown with candesartan, AT(1)-receptor blockers also modulate the levels of other neurohormones, including aldosterone and atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP). Combined with its tight, long-lasting binding to AT(1)-receptors, this characteristic gives candesartan the potential for complete blockade of the RAAS-neurohormonal axis, along with the great potential to improve clinical outcomes.

Rationale for the use of combination angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy in heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays a major role in its pathophysiology, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are the cornerstone of therapy. However, HF continues to progress despite this therapy, perhaps because of production of angiotensin II by alternative pathways, which lead to direct stimulation of the angiotensin II receptor. Angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) therapy alone or in combination with the ACE inhibitor is a promising approach to block the RAS and slow HF progression more completely.

METHODS

The current medical literature on the pathophysiology of HF and the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was extensively reviewed.

RESULTS

Evidence from basic science, experimental animals, and clinical trials provides data on the safety and efficacy of RAS inhibition with ACE inhibitors and ARBs as monotherapy and in combination. Data from the Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE) II trial indicate that ARBs alone do not appear to be more effective than ACE inhibitors in HF, but studies evaluating their use in combination are currently ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an ARB offers more complete angiotensin II receptor blockade of the RAS than can be obtained by ACE inhibitors alone. Combination therapy preserves the benefits of bradykinin potentiation offered by ACE inhibitors while providing potential antitrophic influences of AT(2) receptor stimulation and may play an increased role in the treatment of chronic HF in the future.

Why we need new strategies in CHF management

Despite recent improvements in drug therapy, the prevalence of congestive heart failure (CHF) continues to rise, as a result of the increasing proportion of older people in the population and factors such as greater survival rates after myocardial infarction. More effective management strategies for CHF are therefore needed urgently. The angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1))-receptor blockers might contribute to such strategies, offering placebo-like tolerability and showing promise in early trials of their use in CHF. Large-scale outcome studies, currently underway, will provide further evidence of the value of AT(1)-receptor blockers in CHF. In addition, the involvement of specially trained nurses in patient education and monitoring should enhance compliance with both existing and novel therapies, and thus help to increase the overall efficacy of holistic strategies for CHF management.

Therapeutic trials comparing angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers

Two independent pharmacologic methods of specifically interfering with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system have been brought to the marketplace: angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). These agents have the potential not only to be very widely used for a broad variety of clinical indications but also to compete against each other as treatments for hypertension, heart failure, renal impairment, and other conditions. Many short-term comparative studies of these two classes of drugs have now been completed. Most have focused on surrogate endpoints, such as blood pressure, renal function, or cough. These studies have generally concluded that ARBs are better tolerated but that the two drug classes otherwise have similar efficacy. The largest clinical trial comparing ARBs and ACE inhibitors thus far completed, Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE 2), failed to confirm the results of a smaller study; it did not demonstrate a significant improvement in outcomes (death or hospitalization for heart failure) with an ARB used alone, despite better tolerability. Many longer-term outcome studies with survival endpoints are under way, but most will compare the combination against an ACE inhibitor alone. These studies will define the optimal use of these agents in medicine for decades to come.

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

BACKGROUND

The ELITE study showed an association between the angiotensin II antagonist losartan and an unexpected survival benefit in elderly heart-failure patients, compared with captopril, an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. We did the ELITE II Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study to confirm whether losartan is superior to captopril in improving survival and is better tolerated.

METHODS

We undertook a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of 3,152 patients aged 60 years or older with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less. Patients, stratified for beta-blocker use, were randomly assigned losartan (n=1,578) titrated to 50 mg once daily or captopril (n=1,574) titrated to 50 mg three times daily. The primary and secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, and sudden death or resuscitated arrest. We assessed safety and tolerability. Analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Median follow-up was 555 days. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (11.7 vs 10.4% average annual mortality rate) or sudden death or resuscitated arrests (9.0 vs 7.3%) between the two treatment groups (hazard ratios 1.13 [95.7% CI 0.95-1.35], p=0.16 and 1.25 [95% CI 0.98-1.60], p=0.08). Significantly fewer patients in the losartan group (excluding those who died) discontinued study treatment because of adverse effects (9.7 vs 14.7%, p<0.001), including cough (0.3 vs 2.7%).

Update of ELITE-II, BEST, CHAMP, and IMPRESS clinical trials in heart failure

The ELITE-II, BEST and CHAMP Trials were reported for the first time at the American Heart Association in November 1999. These trials provide valuable new information to guide clinical practice in the management of heart failure and of myocardial infarction, although none mandate a major change from current clinical practice. The IMPRESS trial of the vasopeptidase inhibitor, omapatrilat, indicated a promising new treatment for the management of heart failure.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers in chronic heart failure--not as ELITE as expected!

As with many large-scale long-term outcome trials, more questions have been posed than answered regarding the potential role of angiotensin II receptor blockers as first-line agents in chronic heart failure. Given the present data, in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, ACE inhibitors must remain the treatment of choice, owing to the large body of data supporting their use in this clinical syndrome. However, ARBs seems a reasonable alternative for renin-angiotensin axis blockade in the significant number of heart failure patients who are genuinely intolerant of ACE inhibitors. The pendulum has now swung back in favour of ACE inhibition for chronic heart failure, although one can only await with great expectation the results of the ongoing trials comparing not only angiotensin II receptor blockers with ACE inhibitors but a combination of the two with regards tolerability and survival. Whether this potentially useful class of drugs will ultimately become the cornerstone of heart failure therapy in place of, or in addition to, ACE inhibitors is still in debate, but hopefully we should not have to wait too long for the definitive answers.

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system began as a way of studying the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease with specific pharmacological probes. Oral activity, achieved by shortening the original peptide structures, transformed the probes into therapeutic agents, the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. However, ACE is a non-specific target for blocking the renin-angiotensin enzymatic cascade. The availability of orally active drugs turned ACE inhibition into a therapeutic breakthrough but more specific blockade always seemed desirable. This goal has now been achieved with the orally active angiotensin II receptor antagonists; six are on the market and more are under development. This new class of drugs is equal in efficacy to ACE inhibitors, at least in hypertensive patients. Trials now underway will demonstrate whether angiotensin II receptor antagonists can prevent target-organ damage and reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. If they do, these compounds might one day replace ACE inhibitors.

Cardiac protection: evolving role of angiotensin receptor blockers

Congestive heart failure (HF) is a common and serious public health problem affecting approximately 5 million Americans. Recent treatment strategies have focused on attenuating the effects of angiotensin (Ang) II, which include vasoconstriction, sodium retention, sympathetic activation, and cell growth. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, which primarily block the systemic formation of Ang II, reduce HF-related morbidity and mortality rates. However, ACE inhibitors may not suppress Ang II activity over their entire dosing interval and, with long-term therapy, Ang II levels tend to return to normal. It is now known that Ang II can be formed independent of ACE by the action of enzymes such as chymase in local tissues, including the heart. Despite the established benefits of ACE inhibitor treatment, HF-related morbidity and mortality rates continue to increase because the aging of the population is placing more patients at risk of HF. By acting at the receptor level, Ang II receptor blockers (ARBs) should, at least theoretically, provide more "complete" Ang II blockade. Early evidence suggests that ARBs induce hemodynamic improvement in patients with HF and may reduce mortality rates. Because ACE inhibitors and ARBs block Ang II through fundamentally different mechanisms, the combination may provide additive therapeutic effects in patients with HF. Results from a pilot study suggest that the combination of an ACE inhibitor and valsartan results in a more thorough inhibition of Ang II and an additive improvement in cardiac hemodynamics. Clinical trials now in progress will elucidate the effects of combined ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy on HF-related morbidity and mortality rates.

Angiotensin receptor blockers in heart failure after the ELITE II trial

Specific blockers of the angiotensin type1 receptor, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), have been introduced as an alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) for the treatment of heart failure. In comparison with ACEi, ARBs are better tolerated and have similar effects on haemodynamics, neurohormones and exercise capacity. Early studies have suggested that ARBs might have a superior effect on mortality. However, the first outcome trial, ELITE II (Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study), did not show any significant difference between losartan and captopril in terms of mortality or morbidity. This commentary outlines the role of ARBs in the treatment of heart failure.