Rolofylline, an adenosine A1-receptor antagonist, in acute heart failure

Can we improve the treatment of congestion in heart failure?

INTRODUCTION

Dyspnoea and peripheral oedema, caused by fluid redistribution to the lungs and/or by fluid overload, are the main causes of hospitalization in patients with heart failure and are associated with poor outcomes. Treatment of fluid overload should relieve symptoms and have a neutral or favorable effect on outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

We first consider the results obtained with furosemide administration, which is still the mainstay of treatment of congestion in patients with heart failure. We then discuss important shortcomings of furosemide treatment, including the development of resistance and side effects (electrolyte abnormalities, neurohormonal activation, worsening renal function), as well as the relationship of furosemide - and its doses - with patient prognosis. Finally, the results obtained with potential alternatives to furosemide treatment, including different modalities of loop diuretic administration, combined diuretic therapy, dopamine, inotropic agents, ultrafiltration, natriuretic peptides, vasopressin and adenosine antagonists, are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Relief of congestion is a major objective of heart failure treatment but therapy remains based on the administration of furosemide, an agent that is often not effective and is associated with poor outcomes. The results of the few controlled studies aimed at the assessment of new treatments to overcome resistance to furosemide and/or to protect the kidney from its untoward effects have been mostly neutral. Better treatment of congestion in heart failure remains a major unmet need.

Clinical development of pharmacologic agents for acute heart failure syndromes: a proposal for a mechanistic translational phase

Hospitalization for acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS) predicts a poor prognosis, with postdischarge mortality and rehospitalization rates reaching 45% within 60 to 90 days. Despite the use of evidence-based therapies and adherence to national process measures, these event rates have largely remained the same over the past decade. Given the current and growing burden of AHFS, there exists a substantial unmet need for novel therapies that improve outcomes. However, attempts to improve symptoms and/or reduce postdischarge events have failed to produce positive results, either because of safety and/or efficacy. These negative results may be related to the drug itself, the protocol in terms of patient selection and/or end points, and/or the trial execution. Although experts may not agree on the exact reasons to explain the lack of success to date of phase III trials in AHFS, there is agreement that clinical benefits observed in phase II trials were not reproduced in phase III trials. A different approach may be needed. In November of 2009, a meeting was held at the Food and Drug Administration with the primary purpose of identifying the reasons why benefits observed during phase II did not translate into benefits in phase III to improve future trial design. Although multiple domains of trial design were discussed, the participants identified a lack of in-depth understanding of novel molecules before pivotal trials in AHFS as a possible contributor to the disappointing results of recent large trials. In this brief report, we outline the T1 or translational phase of research for AHFS clinical development as an important first step toward greater success in AHFS clinical trials.