Rationale and design of the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial: a large multinational trial to assess the effects of valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, on morbidity and mortality in chronic congestive heart failure

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in the Management of Hypertension: A Real-World Perspective and Current Recommendations

Hypertension represents a major common cardiovascular risk factor. Optimal control of high blood pressure levels is recommended to reduce the global burden of hypertensive-mediated organ damage and cardiovascular (CV) events. Among the first-line drugs recommended in international guidelines, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists [angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)] have long represented a rational, effective, and safe anti-hypertensive pharmacological strategy. In fact, current US and European guidelines recommend ACEi and ARBs as a suitable first choice for hypertension treatment together with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide diuretics. Different studies have demonstrated that ARBs and ACEi exert a comparable effect in lowering blood pressure levels. However, ARBs are characterized by better pharmacological tolerability. Most importantly, the clinical evidence supports a relevant protective role of ARBs toward the CV and renal damage development, as well as the occurrence of major adverse CV events, in hypertensive patients. Moreover, a neutral metabolic effect has been reported upon ARBs administration, in contrast to other antihypertensive agents, such as beta-blockers and diuretics. These properties highlight the use of ARBs as an excellent pharmacological strategy to manage hypertension and its dangerous consequences. The present review article summarizes the available evidence regarding the beneficial effects and current recommendations of ARBs in hypertension. The specific properties performed by these agents in various clinical subsets are discussed, also including an overview of their implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Interaction of -blockers and angiotensin receptor blockers/ACE inhibitors in heart failure

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system contributes to the progression of heart failure and its inhibition slows ventricular remodelling and favourably affects morbidity and mortality. -blockers exert a remarkably favourable effect on progression that may be mediated at least in part by renin inhibition. Although earlier trials suggested a possible adverse interaction when an angiotensin receptor blocker was added to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a -blocker, a recent study and newly analysed mechanistic data indicate that the triple combination provides modest additional inhibition of angiotensin that can further slow progression of disease.

Upregulation of Angiotensin II Type 2 Receptor and Limitation of Myocardial Stunning by Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers during Reperfused Myocardial Infarction in the Rat

Background: We have previously shown that angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers induce cardioprotection and upregulate angiotensin II type 2 receptor during in vivo postischemicreperfusion in dogs. Whether angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers upregulate angiotensin II type 2 receptors in rats is controversial, and whether surmountable and insurmountable angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers exert similar protective effects during reperfused myocardial infarction is not known.

Methods: We assessed the effects of the surmountable angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan, and the insurmountable angiotensin receptor blocker irbesartan, on hemodynamics and left ventricular systolic and diastolic function (echocardiography/Doppler) in vivo and infarct size (triphenyl tetrazolium chloride method), and regional angiotensin II type 1 receptor and angiotensin II type 2 receptor expression (immunoblots) ex vivo, after anterior reperfused myocardial infarction in rats. The rats were randomized to four groups: intravenous valsartan (10 mg/kg, n = 8), irbesartan (10 mg/kg, n = 8), or saline vehicle (controls, n = 14) over 30 minutes before reperfused myocardial infarction, and sham (n = 8). Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockade was assessed by the inhibition of angiotensin II pressor responses.

Results: Compared with the control group, both angiotensin receptor blockers significantly decreased infarct size, limited the increase in left atrial pressure, improved positive left ventricular dP/dtm,x and dP/dtm,,, improved left ventricular ejection fraction and diastolic function, and limited infarct expansion after reperfused myocardial infarction. Both angiotensin receptor blockers increased angiotensin II type 2 receptor protein in the postischemic-reperfused zone, with no change in angiotensin II type 1 receptor protein. There were no changes in the sham group.

Conclusion: The overall results indicate that the angiotensin receptor blockers valsartan and irbesartan both induce cardioprotection, limit myocardial stunning, and upregulate angiotensin II type 2 receptor protein expression after reperfused myocardial infarction in the rat. Patients who are already receiving angiotensin receptor blockers and develop acute coronary syndromes might benefit from these cardioprotective effects during reperfusion therapy.

Interaction between baseline and early worsening of renal function and efficacy of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in patients with heart failure: insights from the Val-HeFT study

AIMS

We evaluated the effect of (dual) renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade with valsartan and an ACE inhibitor [92.7% of patients were treated with an ACE inhibitor in the Valsartan in Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT)] in patients with NYHA class II-IV heart failure (HF) and reduced EF on cardiovascular (CV) death and HF hospitalization by subgroups and by presence of early worsening of renal function (EWRF) and according to baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed the data from 5010 patients enrolled in the Val-HeFT study. A total of 2346 (46.8%) patients had baseline renal impairment (i.e. baseline eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Further, 425 patients (8.6%) had EWRF (i.e. eGFR decrease >20% within 1 month after randomization), whereas 4503 patients (91.4%) had ≤20% decline in eGFR. Overall, the difference between valsartan and placebo on the composite endpoint of CV death and HF hospitalization was significant [P = 0.0005; hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.92)]. In patients with baseline renal impairment, the difference between the treatment groups was also significant (P = 0.0002; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.88). Patients with EWRF had higher risk of CV death and HF hospitalization vs. those without ERWF (P < 0.0001; HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.21-1.71), and within the EWRF group a significant difference was also observed between valsartan and placebo (P = 0.0086; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.89). However, the interaction between treatment and eGFR at Month 1 was not significant (P = 0.1160).

CONCLUSION

Benefits were maintained in patients with renal dysfunction at baseline and those who experienced EWRF.

Changes in metabolic profile and population of skeletal muscle fibers of mice overexpressing calsequestrin: influence of losartan

In heart failure, exertional fatigue of skeletal muscles can occur. A transgenic mouse overexpressing calsequestrin can be regarded as an animal model of heart failure. The aims of the present study were to investigate, whether at the time of cardiac failure the composition of fiber types of skeletal muscles was altered, what kind of alterations in glycolytic and oxidative enzyme activities occurred in different muscle fiber types and whether these were affected by the administration of the angiotensin II receptor blocker, losartan. Hemodynamic parameters were determined using a working heart preparation. Four groups of mice were investigated: wild-type (WT) mice and transgenic (TG) mice overexpressing calsequestrin, with and without losartan treatment. Enzyme activities were measured in homogenates of Rectus femoris muscle and in muscle fibers, which were typed by their metabolic profile. Calcineurin expression was measured by Western blotting. Succinate dehydrogenase activity was increased by 275% in R. femoris muscle homogenates of TG compared to WT mice. This was due to a 57% increase in slow oxidative fibers, which was accompanied by an increased calcineurin expression in TG muscles. This increase was attenuated by losartan treatment. With respect to glycerol-3-phosphate-dehydrogenase (GPDH), no difference was evident comparing WT and TG. Treatment with losartan resulted in a down-regulation of GPDH in WT and TG. In conclusion, changes in skeletal muscles occur in this mouse model of heart failure and these changes were antagonized by losartan. In contrast to heart failure patients, in the mouse model a shift to the oxidative phenotype of skeletal muscle was noted, possibly due to enhanced calcineurin expression.

The Minimally Clinically Important Difference in Generic Utility-Based Measures

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of utility-based generic quality of life measures for establishing the minimally clinically important difference (MCID).

BACKGROUND

Utility-based quality of life measures place levels of wellness on a continuum anchored by death (0.00) and optimum function (1.00). Preference measurement studies are used to define the meaning of points along the continuum. Health states that differ by less than 0.03 units cannot be discriminated by panels of judges as different from one another. Thus, 0.03 is a reasonable MCID for these measures.

METHOD

Three published studies of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) reported data on the Quality of Well-being Scale (QWB) before and after pulmonary rehabilitation. One of the studies also randomly assigned patients to lung volume reduction surgery or to maximal medical therapy. These patients were followed for an average of 29 months.

RESULTS

All three evaluations of pulmonary rehabilitation showed changes on the QWB in excess of the proposed 0.03 MCID. QWB changes for patients assigned to lung volume reduction surgery were close to the MCID threshold at one year but grew stronger in subsequent years. Using Norman's 0.50 standard deviation method, all three estimates of rehabilitation effectiveness and the outcomes one year following surgery fall below the MCID.

CONCLUSION

Different methods for estimating MCID lead to different conclusions about the meaning of quality of life changes following pulmonary rehabilitation and lung volume reduction surgery. The preference scaling system in generic utility-based quality of life measures provides a metric that is directly interpretable and avoids many of the criticisms of MCID measures. The method is sensitive enough to suggest clinically meaningful benefits of rehabilitation and surgery. Further, quality adjusted life years offer a valuable metric for policy analysis. Utility-based measures of health related quality of life should gain greater use in COPD outcomes research.

Incremental value of renal function in risk prediction with the Seattle Heart Failure Model

BACKGROUND

Impaired renal function portends poor heart failure (HF) outcomes. The Seattle Heart Failure Score (SHFS), a multimarker risk assessment tool, however does not incorporate renal function. In this study, we assessed the incremental value of renal function over the SHFS in patients with advanced HF on contemporary optimal treatment.

METHODS

Blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (sCr), BUN/sCr ratio, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were assessed in survival models with SHFS as the base model among 443 patients with HF (52 +/- 12 years, male 68.5%, white 52.4%, ejection fraction 0.18 +/- 0.08). Incremental value of renal function was assessed by changes in the likelihood ratio chi(2) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for 1-, 2-, and 3-year event prediction.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 21 months, 108 (24.5%) of 443 patients had an event (death [n = 92], urgent transplantation [n = 13], or ventricular assist device implantation [n = 3]). All renal parameters individually were associated with outcome (BUN, P < .001; sCr, P < .001; BUN/sCr ratio, P = .006; and estimated glomerular filtration rate, P = .006); however, only BUN was an independent predictor of events in multivariable analyses. Addition of BUN improved the predictive ability of SHFS (Deltalikelihood ratio chi(2) 5.03, P = .025); however, the increase in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was marginal (year 1, 0.786 to 0.791; year 2, 0.732 to 0.741; year 3, 0.745 to 0.754; all P > .2).

CONCLUSION

Among the various renal function parameters, BUN had the strongest association with outcomes in patients with advanced HF. However, the incremental value of renal function over the SHFS for risk determination was marginal.

Waon therapy improves the prognosis of patients with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

We developed a Waon therapy (soothing warm therapy) and have previously reported that repeated Waon therapy improves hemodynamics, peripheral vascular function, arrhythmias, and clinical symptoms in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of Waon therapy on the prognosis of CHF patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied 129 patients with CHF in NYHA functional class III or IV who were admitted to our hospital between January 1999 and March 2001. In the Waon therapy group, 64 patients were treated with a far infrared-ray dry sauna at 60 degrees C for 15 min and then kept on bed rest with a blanket for 30 min. The patients were treated daily for 5 days during admission, and then at least twice a week after discharge. In the control group, 65 patients, matched for age, gender, and NYHA functional class, were treated with traditional CHF therapy. The follow-up time was scheduled for 5 years.

RESULTS

Recent, complete follow-up data on each patient were obtained. The overall survival rate was 84.5% (Kaplan-Meier estimate). Twelve patients died in the control group and 8 patients died in the Waon therapy group at 60 months of follow-up. Cardiac events due to heart failure or cardiac death occurred in 68.7% of the control group but only 31.3% of the Waon therapy group (P<0.01) at 60 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Waon therapy reduced cardiac events in patients with CHF. This therapy is a promising non-pharmacological treatment for CHF.

Impact of coronary revascularization and transmural extent of scar on regional left ventricular remodelling

AIMS

Transmural extent (TME) of myocardial scar, contractile reserve, and perfusion all predict improvement in regional myocardial function after coronary revascularization. We sought their association with regional remodelling after infarction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 89 patients (age 62 +/- 10 years) with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, at least 1 month post infarction. Viability was identified by TME < 75% on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (ce-MRI), augmentation at low-dose dobutamine echocardiography (DbE), or >60% uptake on delayed redistribution on TI-201 SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography). Coronary revascularization was performed in 36 patients. Regional LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction were measured with MRI at baseline and after a median follow-up of 18 months. Of 357 segments identified with subendocardial infarction (TME 0-25%) on ce-MRI, 176 were revascularized. Subendocardial scar segments were associated with reverse regional remodeling during follow-up. Revascularization was an independent correlate of change in EDV, but TME and revascularization showed no interaction with respect to their influence on regional volumes. Contractile reserve was present on DbE in 228 segments, of which 129 were TME 0-25%; remodelling was associated with intervention in non-transmural infarcts showing viability by DbE. Viability was identified by TI-201 SPECT in 381 segments (233 with TME 0-25%), but viability by SPECT was not associated with reverse remodelling. No significant reverse remodelling occurred in segments with intermediate scar thickness (TME 26-75%) or transmural scar, independent of revascularization or viability by DbE or TI-SPECT.

CONCLUSION

Reverse regional remodelling is associated with subendocardial infarction, especially in the setting of contractile reserve and revascularization.

Renal dysfunction in heart failure patients: what is the evidence?

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is an increasingly common medical condition and the fastest growing cardiovascular diagnosis in North America. Over one-third of patients with heart failure also have renal insufficiency. It has been shown that renal insufficiency confers worsened outcomes to patients with heart failure. However, a majority of the larger and therapy-defining heart failure medication and device trials exclude patients with advanced renal dysfunction. These studies also infrequently perform subgroup analyses based on the degree of renal dysfunction. The lack of information on heart failure patients who have renal insufficiency likely contributes to their being prescribed mortality and morbidity reducing medications and receiving diagnostic and therapeutic procedures at lower rates than heart failure patients with normal renal function. Inclusion of patients with renal insufficiency in heart failure studies and published guidelines for medication, device, and interventional therapies would likely improve patient outcomes.

Do valsartan and losartan have the same effects in the treatment of coronary artery disease?

BACKGROUND

Many angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) are available for clinical use, but because they do not all have the same effects, the present study investigated whether all benefits conferred by ARBs are class effects.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Study 1 was a case-control study of patients with coronary artery disease, which showed that a non-depressor dose of valsartan significantly decreased the rate of target lesion revascularization at 6 months after stenting compared with the control group without ARB treatment. In Study 2, 44 patients with acute myocardial infarction who randomly received an initial lower dose of either valsartan or losartan after stenting were evaluated. The late loss and decrease in %diameter stenosis in the valsartan group were significantly lower than those in the losartan group as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography after 6 months. In addition, the valsartan group showed a significantly lower expression of intracellular adhesion molecule-1 and L-selectin.

CONCLUSION

A non-depressor dose of ARB may have beneficial effects on coronary restenosis that are associated with the regulation of adhesion molecules, and these effects might not be a class effect of ARBs.

Body mass index, prognosis and mode of death in chronic heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial

AIMS

To assess the relationship between body mass index (BMI), mortality and mode of death in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients; to define the shape of the relationship between BMI and mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a post-hoc analysis of 5010 patients from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial. The end-points of the study were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Mortality rate was 27.2% in underweight patients (BMI<22 kg/m2), 21.7% in normal weight patients (BMI 22-24.9 kg/m2), 17.9% in overweight patients (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2) and 16.5% in obese patients (BMI>30 kg/m2) (p<0.0001). The rates of non-cardiovascular death did not differ among groups. The risk of death due to progressive heart failure was 3.4-fold higher in the underweight than in the obese patients (p<0.0001). Normal weight, overweight and obese patients had lower risk of death as compared with underweight patients (p=0.019, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; p=0.0005, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.84; p=0.003, HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.88, respectively) independently of symptoms, ventricular function, beta-blocker use, C-reactive protein and brain natriuretic peptide levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In CHF patients a higher BMI is associated with a better prognosis independently of other clinical variables. The relationship between mortality and BMI is monotonically decreasing.

Variable Impact of Combining Fatal and Nonfatal End Points in Heart Failure Trials

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. Their design, implementation, and interpretation are sometimes subject to flaws and errors. To achieve statistical significance and economically feasible RCTs, the use of composite end points in heart failure (HF) trials has become more common. We analyzed the incremental value of combining HF hospitalizations with all-cause mortality in trials of chronic HF that enrolled >1000 placebo patients and had a mean follow-up >9 months. We tested the assumption that, compared with mortality, combining HF hospitalization with all-cause death would yield a consistently predictable increase in event rate across HF RCTs. Average placebo arm duration of follow-up was determined, and standardized placebo event rates per 100 patient-years were estimated. Twelve major HF RCTs were included in this analysis. There was a substantial relative increase in the event rate ranging from 64% to 134% when a composite end point was used. This increase was not related to disease severity as described by annual mortality rate. The relative contribution of combining HF hospitalization with all-cause mortality was, however, influenced by the duration of the trial. Combining HF hospitalization with all-cause mortality increases the overall event rate in HF clinical trials; the relative increase varies widely and is unrelated to disease severity. Longer-duration trials have a more predictable increase in events than short RCTs. Trial duration must be considered when composite end points are used during the design and interpretation of HF RCTs.

Signs and symptoms in chronic heart failure: Relevance of clinical trial results to point of care-data from Val-HeFT

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials emphasize mortality and morbidity endpoints.

AIMS

To bring relevance of trial results to point of care by examining the prognostic and therapeutic value of individual signs and symptoms (S&S).

METHODS

We analysed data from 5010 patients with stable chronic heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction who were participants in the Val-HeFT study. Individual S&S were stratified by severity. Treatment differences between valsartan and placebo were analysed by S&S strata at baseline and endpoint by logistical regression, and an overall S&S score by ANCOVA. Hazard ratios of S&S strata were calculated for mortality and heart failure hospitalisation. Prognostic contributions of S&S to other variables were determined by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

At endpoint, there were significantly fewer valsartan and more placebo patients with severe symptoms. Over time, improvement in the S&S overall score was significantly more favourable for valsartan than placebo. S&S strata were significantly predictive of risk for hospitalisation and death. S&S were each independent and incremental predictors of mortality compared to other variables. Symptom strata separated out moderately symptomatic patients with a mortality rate which was intermediate between that for NYHA Class II and III.

CONCLUSION

Risk stratification of individual S&S defined prognosis, identified patients with an intermediate mortality between Class II and III, and treatment benefits of valsartan over placebo.

Effect of valsartan added to background ACE inhibitor therapy in patients with heart failure: results from Val-HeFT

AIMS

To investigate the effect of valsartan in the Valsartan-Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) when added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) alone in patients with heart failure (HF).

METHODS

Subjects in Val-HeFT receiving ACEi but not beta-blocker at baseline were analysed; 1532 were assigned to valsartan and 1502 assigned to placebo. Primary outcome events (all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for adjudicated heart failure, sudden death with resuscitation and need for >4 h of parenteral therapy for worsening heart failure) were monitored.

RESULTS

Mortality was not affected by valsartan but morbidity endpoints were significantly reduced (36.3% in placebo, 31.0% in valsartan, p=0.002) in patients receiving an ACEi but no beta-blocker. Quality of life (QOL) was significantly improved, ejection fraction (EF) significantly increased, left ventricular (LV) diameter significantly reduced and plasma B-type natriuretic peptide, norepinephrine and aldosterone levels significantly reduced with valsartan compared to placebo. The morbidity benefit was significant in patients on ACEi doses below the median (22% reduction, p=0.003) and not statistically significant in those receiving ACEi doses above the median (14% reduction, p=0.143).

CONCLUSION

Valsartan reduces heart failure hospitalisations and slows LV remodelling in patients treated with an ACEi in the absence of beta-blockade, particularly in those on lower doses of ACEi.

Prognostic value of the QRS duration in patients with heart failure: a subgroup analysis from 24 centers of Val-HeFT

BACKGROUND

This study investigated whether QRS duration (QRS D) is a prognostic indicator in patients with heart failure (New York Heart Association [NYHA] classes II-IV).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This subgroup analysis included 248 patients with heart failure recruited in the German centers of the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). Mean age was 60 years, mean NYHA class was 2.3, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) was 27.9%. Electrocardiograms were recorded and analyzed at the beginning of the study, at 2 weeks, 4 months, 1 year, and 2 years. The mean observation period for mortality was 25 months. Patients > or = 65 years and patients with an EF <20% had a significantly longer QRS D (P = .02; P = .0005). NYHA class, etiology of heart failure, therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, amiodarone or beta-blockers, implanted defibrillator, and atrial fibrillation had no significant influence on QRS D. Total mortality was 9%: 14 patients died suddenly, 7 from heart failure, 2 from noncardiac causes. Kaplan-Meier plots show significantly different survival rates for patients with QRS D <120 ms, QRS D 120-159 ms, or QRS D > or = 160 ms (P = .0085). Multivariate analysis showed that QRS D was the only independent risk factor for all-cause mortality (P = .008). NYHA class, EF, atrial fibrillation, age, and gender failed to qualify as independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

QRS duration in the surface electrocardiogram is an easily obtainable parameter with a significant prognostic impact in patients with congestive heart failure and a reduced EF. In this German subgroup of Val-HeFT patients, it was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality.

Proposed New Score to Rate the Strength of Evidence and Its Application to Large-Scale Clinical Trials of Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers

BACKGROUND

Many large-scale clinical studies appear to be interpreted with bias and with hindsight. To select the best treatment, accurate evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and fair comparison of the results using the concept of evidence-based medicine are critical. A scoring system has been developed to rate the scientific strength of evidence and thereby provide guidance for best clinical practice and for large-scale RCTs of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs).

METHOD AND RESULTS

Positive evidence scores (ESs) were given based on whether specified study endpoints were proven and whether treatments tested made significant progress over current usual therapy. Retrospective ad hoc analyses data were not counted, in order to simplify the system and to avoid hindsight interpretations, even in cases that were medically significant. In fact, in more than half of the large-scale trials with ARBs examined, ad-hoc analyses had been retroactively performed. When such post-hoc analyses were not used, the ESs were positive with candesartan and valsartan for treatment of heart failure, irbesartan and losartan for nephropathy and losartan for hypertension. Applying the ES system, losartan was judged to be an ARB with the strongest evidence covering a wide range of clinical relevance.

CONCLUSION

ES is useful for quantifying and comparing the strength of evidence obtained in large-scale RCTs of ARBs. Several problems related to rating the evidence obtained from clinical trials were recognized in this study.

Incremental prognostic value of changes in B-type natriuretic peptide in heart failure

PURPOSE

B-type natriuretic peptide is one of the most sensitive and specific biohumoral markers of heart failure. We hypothesized that B-type natriuretic peptide changes during treatment of heart failure may provide independent information on disease progression and outcome in patients enrolled in the Val-HeFT trial.

METHODS

Patients were divided into four groups according to concentrations of B-type natriuretic peptide at baseline versus 4 months (n = 3740) or 12 months (n = 3343), with respect to the baseline median (97 pg/mL): low-->low (stable below median, 44%-46%), high-->high (stable above median, 32%-37%), high-->low (above to below median, 12%-14%), and low-->high (below to above median, 6%-9%). Cox multivariate regression analysis was used to assess the risk of death and morbidity, with adjustment for baseline B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations.

RESULTS

Patients who improved their B-type natriuretic peptide at 4 months (high-->low) had a similar risk for mortality (hazard ratio = 1.191, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.870-1.631, P =.2746) compared with the low-->low patients. Conversely, patients who worsened in their B-type natriuretic peptide (low-->high) had a risk for mortality (hazard ratio 2.578, CI, 1.861-3.571, P <.0001) higher than patients in the low-->low group, and indistinguishable from the high-->high group. Worsening of B-type natriuretic peptide (low-->high) was associated with 0.03 cm/m2 increase in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, whereas it decreased by 0.10 cm/m2 in high-->low and low-->low groups (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in B-type natriuretic peptide over time with respect to a threshold value of 97 pg/mL convey an independent and additional prognostic value compared with a single determination of B-type natriuretic peptide in a large population of patients with chronic symptomatic heart failure and might be helpful in the management of these patients.

ACE2: A novel therapeutic target for cardiovascular diseases

Hypertension afflicts over 65 million Americans and poses an increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity such as stroke, myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease resulting in significant mortality. Overactivity of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) has been identified as an important determinant that is implicated in the etiology of these diseases and therefore represents a major target for therapy. In spite of the successes of drugs inhibiting various elements of the RAS, the incidence of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases remain steadily on the rise. This has lead many investigators to seek novel and innovative approaches, taking advantage of new pathways and technologies, for the control and possibly the cure of hypertension and related pathologies. The main objective of this review is to forward the concept that gene therapy and the genetic targeting of the RAS is the future avenue for the successful control and treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. We will present argument that genetic targeting of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a newly discovered member of the RAS, is ideally poised for this purpose. This will be accomplished by discussion of the following: (i) summary of our current understanding of the RAS with a focus on the systemic versus tissue counterparts as they relate to hypertension and other cardiovascular pathologies; (ii) the newly discovered ACE2 enzyme with its physiological and pathophysiological implications; (iii) summary of the current antihypertensive pharmacotherapy and its limitations; (iv) the discovery and design of ACE inhibitors; (v) the emerging concepts for ACE2 drug design; (vi) the current status of genetic targeting of the RAS; (vii) the potential of ACE2 as a therapeutic target for hypertension and cardiovascular disease treatment; and (viii) future perspectives for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases.

Use of valsartan for the treatment of heart-failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors: A budget impact analysis

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a widespread and costly malady. It represents the leading single diagnosis for hospitalized patients. For many heart failure patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are either not tolerated or contraindicated, but angiotensin receptor blockers such as valsartan may be a therapeutic option for them.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to prepare a budget impact analysis to assist health plans in evaluating the financial impact of adding valsartan therapy to usual care for heart failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis was developed for a hypothetical US health plan. Model inputs included demographic data, estimates of the prevalence of heart failure and proportion of heart-failure patients not on ACE inhibitors, prevalence of heart failure-related hospitalization, cost data, and resultant health care utilization from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). Costs and cost savings were reported as year-2001 US dollars.

RESULTS

An estimated 1207 of hypothetical 250,000 enrollees were projected to have heart-failure diagnoses, with 603 (50.0%) not receiving ACE inhibitors, and 160 (26.5%) of such patients being hospitalized each year. For valsartan-treated patients, savings due to reduced hospitalizations and shorter length of hospital stay were 1,083,938 US dollars and 221,364 US dollars, respectively. Subtracting the cost of valsartan treatment (629,472 US dollars) from savings yielded projected net savings of 675,830 US dollars per year. Varying patient, treatment, and payer-mix characteristics resulted in projected net savings of $409,598 to 1,350,617 US dollars per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of valsartan therapy to usual care in this model analysis resulted in net cost savings among hypothetical heart-failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors. Substantial cost savings were realized, regardless of variation in model parameters.

Relevance of blood pressure variation in the circadian onset of cardiovascular events

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring enables the recording of the circadian rhythm of blood pressure under everyday circumstances, with the majority of individuals displaying diurnal variations in both systolic and diastolic blood pressures. During sleep, blood pressure in most people is between 10% and 20% lower than the mean daytime value. On arousal and the start of day-to-day activities, there is a surge in blood pressure that may last for between 4 and 6 h. Extensive evidence shows that ambulatory blood pressure is superior to office values in predicting cardiovascular risk. Cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, ischaemia and stroke are more frequent in the morning hours, soon after waking, than at other times of day. Circadian variations in biochemical and physiological parameters help to explain the link between acute cardiovascular events and the early morning blood pressure surge. Recent observations in elderly Japanese individuals demonstrate that greater early morning blood pressure surges are related to an increased incidence of overt cerebrovascular disease; individuals with the greatest increases in blood pressure on awakening also had the greatest prevalence of silent ischaemic events and were more likely to experience multiple infarcts. Antihypertensive drugs that provide blood pressure control at the time of the early morning surge should provide greater protection against target-organ damage and enhance patient prognosis. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring may be particularly helpful in assessing the circadian pharmacodynamics of such antihypertensive drugs. The technique has demonstrated, for example, a significantly greater reduction in blood pressure for the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval with telmisartan compared with valsartan.

Valsartan for the treatment of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) still has a discouraging prognosis. Therapeutic strategies aim to reduce mortality as well as slow the progression of the disease, improve symptoms and reduce the frequency of hospital admission. Activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is a hallmark of several cardiocirculatory diseases, including HF. Drugs for evidence-based therapy of HF are angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), beta-blockers and aldosterone antagonists. A promising alternative is a more complete action on the RAAS through selective blockade of the angiotensin type 1 (AT(1)) receptors, taking into account not only physiopathological issues but also pharmacological, experimental and clinical data. The effect of valsartan, an orally-active, selective antagonist of AT(1) receptors, on the outcome in patients with chronic and symptomatic HF was evaluated in a large-scale, international, placebo-controlled clinical study, the Valsartan in Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). In this study, overall mortality was similar in the valsartan and placebo groups (19.7 and 19.4%, respectively). However, valsartan, in addition to recommended therapy of HF including an ACEI, significantly reduced the combined end point of mortality and morbidity, with a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalisation, paralleled by improvements in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, signs and symptoms and quality of life. Valsartan also improved left ventricular anatomy and function and significantly reduced neurohormonal activation. These results were confirmed and extended by the CHARM trial, where the benefits of candesartan were proved not only in all 7599 patients with HF, but also in the 2548 given an ACEI, the 2028 not given an ACEI and in the 3023 patients with an ejection fraction of > 40%. In conclusion, the first choice for HF remains an ACEI with a beta-blocker, but two new options are emerging. In patients intolerant to ACEI, the combination of valsartan or candesartan with a beta-blocker is proposed, whereas an ACEI with either valsartan or candesartan can be considered in patients intolerant to or with contraindications to beta-blockers.

Anemia in Patients With Heart Failure: Prevalence and Prognostic Role in a Controlled Trial and in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Aims of the present study were (1) to confirm the prognostic role of anemia in patients with heart failure (HF) and (2) to analyze this aspect in relatively unselected patients with HF monitored prospectively in a community setting (IN-CHF), and in patients selected for enrollment into the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In both Val-HeFT and IN-CHF Registry, anemia was defined as a hemoglobin (Hb) level < or = 11 g/dL in women and < or = 12 g/dL in men. Of the 2411 patients of the IN-CHF Registry, 15.5% had anemia, whereas in the 5010 patients of the Val-HeFT trial, the prevalence was 9.9%. In the IN-CHF registry, 1-year all-cause mortality was significantly higher in anemic patients (25.9%) than in patients without anemia (13.2%) (P < .0001). The association of anemia with mortality was confirmed by the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.97). The risk of death decreased by 9.7% for each gram of Hb. The Val-HeFT trial showed an all-cause mortality rate for anemic patients of 29.6% over a mean follow-up period of 22.4 months versus 18.5% (P < .0001) in patients without anemia. After adjustment, anemia retained its negative independent prognostic role (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04-1.52). When Hb was considered as a continuous variable, the risk of death decreased by 7.8% for each gram of Hb.

CONCLUSIONS

Anemia was confirmed to be an independent negative prognostic factor in patients with HF. This finding is consistent in 2 different clinical contexts, a controlled trial and a registry in clinical practice, in which patient characteristics and outcome are largely different.

Valsartan reduces the incidence of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT)

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) is generally considered a negative prognostic factor. Recent studies indicate that the incidence of AF might be decreased by renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors. The identification of a treatment to prevent its occurrence is likely to improve patients outcome. The aims of these subanalyses of Val-HeFT were to assess (a) the effects of valsartan in the prevention of AF, (b) the independent predictors of this event, and (c) the prognostic role of AF occurrence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The occurrence of AF was evaluated based on adverse event reports in the patients with HF enrolled in Val-HeFT. Patients were randomized to valsartan or placebo on top of their prescribed treatments for HF. During the mean 23 months of follow-up, AF was reported in 287/4395 patients (6.53%) in sinus rhythm at baseline, of whom 113/2205 (5.12%) were allocated to valsartan and 174/2190 (7.95%) to placebo (P = .0002). Multivariable analysis showed that brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels at baseline above the median value (HR 2.28, 95% CI 1.75-2.98), age over 70 years (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.17-1.95), male sex (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07-2.18), and the valsartan treatment (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81) were independently associated with AF occurrence. Cox multivariable regression analysis showed that occurrence of AF was independently associated with a worse prognosis, with the adjusted hazard risks for all-cause mortality and combined mortality/morbidity of 1.40 (95% CI 1.16-1.58) and 1.38 (95% CI 1.12-1.70), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study demonstrate that (a) adding valsartan to prescribed therapy for HF significantly reduces the incidence of AF by 37%; (b) BNP level and advanced age were the strongest independent predictors for AF occurrence; and (c) AF occurrence further worsens the outcome in patients with HF.

Comparison of treatment benefit and outcome in women versus men with chronic heart failure (from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial)

The comparison of treatment effect and co-morbidity between the genders in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial showed equal benefit of treatment in men and women. Co-morbidities, such as diabetes and coronary artery disease, increased nonfatal cardiac morbidity more in women than in men.

Morbidity, mortality, physiologic and functional parameters in elderly and non-elderly patients in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT)

BACKGROUND

The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) demonstrated the favorable effects of the addition of valsartan to prescribed heart failure (HF) therapy on HF hospitalization, and functional and physiological parameters. As the prevalence of HF morbidity and mortality are increased in the elderly, the effect of valsartan in the elderly is of clinical significance.

METHODS

In this post-hoc analysis, morbidity, mortality, left ventricular (LV) size and function, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), aldosterone, norepinephrine (NE), quality of life, and treatment effect with valsartan were examined by subgroups of 2350 elderly (>or= 65 years) and 2660 non-elderly (< 65 years) patients enrolled in Val-HeFT.

RESULTS

While the overall incidence of morbidity and mortality was higher in the elderly, valsartan produced beneficial effects in reducing risk of morbidity in the elderly by 11.8% (P = .07), and the non-elderly by 14.6% (P = .09). Valsartan had no effect on mortality compared to placebo in the non-elderly, 15.2% vs 15.0% (P = .87), and elderly, 25.1% vs 24.0%, (P = .64). Valsartan had statistically significant beneficial effects in both the elderly and non-elderly on LV size and function, BNP, aldosterone and quality of life. Beneficial effects on NE were also observed with valsartan in both subgroups with statistically significant reductions produced in the non-elderly.

CONCLUSIONS

Val-HeFT demonstrated that elderly patients present with more advanced HF as evidenced by higher morbidity and mortality along with greater neurohormonal activation. In Val-HeFT, valsartan produced a consistent beneficial effect on morbidity, LV function and size, quality of life, and neurohormonal levels in both the elderly and non-elderly.

Valsartan-induced cardioprotection involves angiotensin II type 2 receptor upregulation in dog and rat models of in vivo reperfused myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardioprotection with angiotensin II (AngII) type 1 receptor (AT(1)R) blockade was associated with AngII type 2 receptor (AT(2)R) upregulation and activation during in vivo reperfused myocardial infarction (RMI) in dogs, but it is unclear whether this occurs in rats. Methods and results In vivo hemodynamics, left ventricular (LV) function, infarct size, and AT(1)R/AT(2)R protein (immunoblots) after anterior RMI were measured in rats (60 minutes ischemia, 90 minutes reperfusion, n=30) and dogs (90 minutes ischemia, 120 minutes reperfusion, n=22) randomized to pretreatment with valsartan (10 mg/kg, intravenously) or vehicle control, and vehicle sham groups. AT(1)R blockade was confirmed by inhibition of AngII pressor responses at the dose used. Compared with dog and rat controls, valsartan decreased infarct size (52 versus 31% and 47 versus 33%, respectively), improved left ventricular ejection fraction (-32 versus -14% and -46 versus -21%, respectively), limited infarct expansion and infarct thinning, and improved diastolic function after RMI. In both species, AT(2)R protein in the infarct zone decreased in controls and increased with valsartan. Sham animals showed no changes.

CONCLUSIONS

AT(1)R blockade with valsartan induces short-term cardioprotection associated with enhanced AT(2)R expression in both dog and rat models of in vivo RMI.

Multinational economic evaluation of valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT)

BACKGROUND

The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) compared valsartan versus placebo in 5010 patients taking prescribed background therapy for New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure. Valsartan reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization and improved clinical signs and symptoms of heart failure. We sought to compare resource use, costs, and health outcomes among patients taking prescribed therapy for heart failure and randomly assigned to receive valsartan or placebo.

METHODS

Measures of resource use were based on data collected during the trial. Unit cost estimates were collected from individual countries and converted to 1999 US dollars. Total costs were estimated for hospitalizations, inpatient and outpatient physician services, ambulance transportation, deaths outside the hospital, and outpatient cardiovascular medications.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 23 months. Mean costs for heart failure hospitalizations were 423 dollars lower among patients receiving valsartan (95% CI, -706 to -146). Mean total costs were 9008 dollars for patients receiving valsartan and 8464 dollars for patients receiving placebo, a net incremental cost of 545 dollars (95% CI, -149 to 1148), including the cost of valsartan. There was an overall reduction in total costs of 929 dollars (95% CI, -3243 to 1533) among patients not receiving an ACE inhibitor at baseline but a slight increase in costs of 334 dollars (95% CI, -497 to 1199) among those receiving an ACE inhibitor without a beta-blocker and a 1246 dollars increase (95% CI, 54 to 2230) in patients receiving both an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Valsartan provided clinical benefits at a mean incremental cost of 285 dollars per year during the trial. In patients not taking ACE inhibitors, valsartan was economically attractive, increasing survival while reducing or marginally increasing overall costs.

Severity of left ventricular remodeling defines outcomes and response to therapy in heart failure

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the severity of left ventricular remodeling predicts the response to treatment and outcomes in chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND

Reversal of remodeling should produce the most favorable outcome in patients with the most severe remodeling.

METHODS

In 5010 heart failure patients on background therapy and randomized to valsartan and placebo, serial recordings of left ventricular internal diastolic diameter (LVIDd) and ejection fraction (EF) were read at sites that had to meet qualifying standards before participating. Baseline LVIDd and EF were pooled across treatments and retrospectively grouped by quartiles Q1 to Q4, representing best to worst. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were obtained by the log-rank test. Q1 was compared with Q4 for mortality and combined mortality and morbidity (M + M) from Cox regression risk ratios (RRs). Valsartan versus placebo changes from baseline in LVIDd and EF were analyzed by quartiles from analysis of covariance. Valsartan and placebo were compared by RRs for M + M.

RESULTS

Survival rates were greater in the better quartiles for LVIDd and EF (p < 0.00001). The RR for Q1 versus Q4 in events approached 0.5 for both LVIDd and EF (p < 0.0001). An LVIDd decrease and EF increase were quartile-dependent and greater with valsartan than placebo at virtually all time points. The RR for M + M outcomes favored valsartan in the worse quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Stratification by baseline severity of remodeling showed that patients with worse LVIDd and EF are at highest risk for an event, yet appear to gain the most anti-remodeling effect and clinical benefit with valsartan treatment.

The benefits of valsartan in the treatment of heart failure: results from Val-HeFT

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are the most recent class of anti-hypertensive drug to enter clinical use for chronic heart failure (CHF). In the landmark Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT), valsartan reduced the risk of the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and morbidity by 13.2% over a 2-year follow-up. Although it significantly improved a pre-specified primary endpoint, it did not improve the endpoint of all-cause mortality. Valsartan administered to patients not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) at baseline reduced the endpoint of all-cause mortality by 33% and the combined endpoint of mortality and morbidity by 44%, compared with placebo. Based on these findings, valsartan became the first ARB to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of New York Heart Association class II-IV HF in patients who are intolerant of ACEIs. This review provides a summary of the key Val-HeFT results and their implications in the treatment of CHF patients.

Demographics, Treatment Regimens and the Use of Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers in Heart Failure: Findings from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial

Heart failure is the only major cardiovascular disease with an incidence and prevalence that continue to increase in the developed world. Early identification and correct treatment of the condition are of paramount importance. In recent years, there has been growing interest in identifying the differences between patients in terms of their risk of heart failure and response to treatment. Differences between men and women, different age groups, patients with varying aetiologies or co-morbidities and differences between ethnic groups are only some of the factors that have been identified. This review surveys the available data on differences in responses to treatment, and discusses the use of angiotensin-receptor blockers in heart failure in light of the recent Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

Conclusion: Heart failure is a complex syndrome, a fact that is reflected in the wide spectrum of patient characteristics and breadth of treatments available to physicians. Recommendations will keep evolving as we learn more about the changing aetiology and manifestations of the disease, and as new data become available on old and emerging treatments. The recent addition of ARBs (or at least valsartan) to the list of drugs of benefit in HF is a welcome development. Perhaps the most important message from Val-HeFT is that valsartan significantly reduced the risk of a first morbid event, irrespective of most underlying physiological and demographic parameters. This implies that valsartan will be beneficial in most patients, whether they are old or young, male or female and whatever the aetiology of their HF. As polypharmacy will continue to be the therapy of choice in HF and as no wonder-drug seems to be on the horizon to make the concept obsolete, further blocking the RAS by adding a well-tolerated agent would seem a very welcome expansion of our current treatment options.

Effect of Valsartan on hospitalization: results from Val-HeFT

BACKGROUND

Although current therapies have improved heart failure (HF) outcome, hospitalizations continue at high rates. The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) showed that valsartan reduced the risk of first worsening HF hospitalization by 27.5% versus placebo (P <.001). This article analyzes all-cause and investigator-assessed HF hospitalization in Val-HeFT overall and in subgroups defined by preexisting HF therapy.

METHODS

Val-HeFT was a randomized, double-blind parallel-arm study in which HF patients (New York Heart Association class II-IV) received either valsartan (n = 2511, force-titrated to 160 mg twice daily) or placebo (n = 2499) in addition to prescribed HF therapy. Total and per patient-year investigator-assessed hospitalizations (all-cause or HF) were analyzed according to prescribed therapy at baseline (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEI] and beta-blockers [BB]).

RESULTS

Hospitalization for worsening HF accounted for 35% of all hospitalizations. There were 2856 and 3106 total all-cause hospitalizations in the valsartan and placebo groups, respectively, an 8% reduction (P =.145). Valsartan significantly reduced the overall number of investigator-assessed HF hospitalizations (-22.4%, P =.002) and reduced HF hospitalizations in the combination therapy subgroups (significant for ACEI+/BB- P =.003 and ACEI-/BB- P =.028) except those receiving both ACEI and BB. The benefit of valsartan versus placebo was more pronounced in reducing the number of patients with recurrent HF hospitalization (-20.6%) than single hospitalizations (-8.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of valsartan to prescribed HF therapy demonstrated significant reductions in HF hospitalizations and was particularly beneficial in reducing recurrent HF hospitalization.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers and cardiovascular outcomes: what does the future hold?

The ability of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to lower blood pressure (BP) is well established. ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is) have also been shown to improve the prognosis of a broad range of patients at high cardiovascular risk, including those with heart failure, post-myocardial infarction (MI), and nephropathy. These benefits suggest that interrupting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) with ACE-Is has a widespread vasculoprotective effect, provided that BP is also adequately controlled. Evidence that RAAS blockade by ARBs also improves long-term clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease has started to accumulate, and will be tested further during the coming years as a number of large-scale, prospective trials are completed. These trials are investigating the long-term protective effects of ARBs on morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, acute MI, or established vascular disease. The results should establish the extent to which ARBs exhibit the vasculoprotective properties demonstrated by ACE-Is in patients at high cardiovascular risk. If ARBs are found to provide benefits that are similar to, or even greater than ACE-Is, it may have important implications for drug selection, given the excellent tolerability of ARBs. Some studies are also investigating whether more extensive RAAS blockade using a combination of an ARB and an ACE-I will offer even greater protection than either agent alone.

Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) Trial of Cardiovascular Events in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients: Rationale, Design, and Methods

Hypertension continues to be a major public health issue in the world. To combat this problem, many anti-hypertensive drugs have been developed and proven effective at controlling blood pressure in the last half century. In recent decades, antihypertensive drugs have been shown to have cardiovascular benefits beyond the reduction of blood pressure, and the focus has shifted to clarification of these effects. Angiotensin II receptor antagonists and calcium channel blockers are the most widely used antihypertensive drugs in Japan. However, these two classes of drugs have not yet been compared with respect to their efficacy for treating cardiovascular events. The Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial described herein is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, 2-arm parallel group comparison with a response-dependent dose titration and blinded assessment of endpoints in high-risk hypertensive patients treated with either an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (candesartan cilexetil) or a third-generation calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besilate). The eligibility criteria in this study were 1) age between 20 and 85 years; 2) systolic blood pressure (SBP) > or = 140 mmHg in those below 70 years of age or > or = 160 mmHg in those above 70 years of age or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 90 mmHg on two consecutive measurements at clinic; and 3) at least one of the following high risk factors for cardiovascular events: a) SBP > or = 2180 mmHg or DBP > or = 110 mmHg on two consecutive visits, b) type 2 diabetes mellitus (fasting blood glucose > or = 126 mg/dl, casual blood glucose > or = 200 mg/dl, HbA1c > or = 6.5%, 2 h blood glucose on 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) > or = 200 mg/dl, or current treatment with hypoglycemic therapy), c) history of cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral infarction, or transient ischemic attack until 6 months prior to the screening, d) left ventricular hypertrophy on either echocardiography or ECG, angina pectoris, or history of myocardial infarction until 6 months prior to screening, e) proteinuria or serum creatinine > or = 1.3 mg/dl, and f) symptoms of arteriosclerotic artery obstruction. The therapeutic goals of blood pressure control were set as follows: SBP < 130 mmHg and DBP < 85 mmHg for patients below 60 years of age, SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg for those in their 60s, SBP < 150 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg for those in their 70s, and SBP < 160 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg for those in their 80s. A total of 3,200 patients, equally allocated to each of the two treatment arms, were required based on a two-sided alpha level 0.05 and 90% power. The CASE-J is also the first study to employ the newly developed Automatic Bar Code Data-Capturing/Allocation, Booking & Trial Coding, Data Management (ABCD) system for data collection and management. Enrollment of patients started in September 2001 and ended in December 2002. Follow-up data will be collected every 6 months until December 2005. The CASE-J trial will provide important evidence on the comparative effectiveness of candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine besilate on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among Japanese. In addition, the use of the ABCD system is expected to contribute to the development of more efficient data management systems for large-scale clinical trials.

The role of angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of heart failure patients

Evidence from large, randomized, controlled clinical trials supports the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta blockers, and spironolactone to reduce mortality and morbidity. Despite these effective therapies, event rates related to heart failure remain high. Although ACE inhibitors reduce angiotensin II production, they do not fully suppress the increased angiotensin II production in heart failure. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) directly block the effect of angiotensin II, derived from any source, at the receptor level and have the potential to be as effective or even more effective than ACE inhibitors. The results of a number of clinical studies have demonstrated ARBs are effective and well tolerated. However, no studies have demonstrated a convincing decrease in mortality with ARB use, although a decrease has been observed for heart failure hospitalization. The results from further studies are awaited to clarify the role of ARBs in the treatment of heart failure.

Effects of valsartan on circulating brain natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine in symptomatic chronic heart failure: the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT)

BACKGROUND

Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and norepinephrine (NE) are strongly related to severity of and are independent predictors of outcome in heart failure. The long-term effects of angiotensin receptor blockers on BNP and NE in heart failure patients are not known.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Both BNP and NE were measured in 4284 patients randomized to valsartan or placebo in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 months after randomization. The effects of valsartan were tested by ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values and concomitant ACE inhibitors and/or beta-blockers. BNP and NE concentrations were similar at baseline in the 2 groups and were decreased by valsartan starting at 4 months and up to 24 months. BNP increased over time in the placebo group. At the end point, least-squares mean (+/-SEM) BNP increased from baseline by 23+/-5 pg/mL in the placebo group (n=1979) but decreased by 21+/-5 pg/mL (n=1940) in the valsartan group (P<0.0001). NE increased by 41+/-6 pg/mL (n=1979) and 12+/-6 pg/mL (n=1941) for placebo and valsartan, respectively (P=0.0003). Concomitant therapy with both ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers significantly reduced the effect of valsartan on BNP but not on NE (P for interaction=0.0223 and 0.2289, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In Val-HeFT, the largest neurohormone study in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure, BNP and NE rose over time in the placebo group. Valsartan caused sustained reduction in BNP and attenuated the increase in NE over the course of the study. These neurohormone effects of valsartan are consistent with the clinical benefits reported in Val-HeFT.

Amlodipine versus Angiotensin-receptor blockers for nonhypertension indications

OBJECTIVE

To review the efficacy and safety data of amlodipine and the angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), focusing on heart failure, angina, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and renal protection.

DATA SOURCE

A MEDLINE search (1966-December 2001) was completed using amlodipine, angiotensin-receptor antagonist, losartan, valsartan, candesartan, and telmisartan as key words. English-language articles were identified and included.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All identified articles were evaluated. Articles representative of the subject matter of our review were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Amlodipine and the ARBs lower blood pressure to a similar extent. Amlodipine is an effective antianginal agent, whereas ARBs are not. However, amlodipine is not effective in the treatment of heart failure; ARBs may be useful in this setting. ARBs are also effective in preserving renal function and may provide some protection from restenosis in patients who have had a PCI. The ARBs may also be useful in preventing both diabetic and nondiabetic nephropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant disease states should be considered when choosing between an ARB and amlodipine for the management of hypertension.

Effects of valsartan on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

A subgroup analysis of the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) was performed to evaluate the effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker, valsartan, in the patients with chronic heart failure (HF) not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors.

BACKGROUND

The ACE inhibitors reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with HF. Nonetheless, nearly 20% of potentially eligible patients may not be prescribed ACE inhibitors.

RESULTS

Val-HeFT was an international, randomized, double-blinded trial that compared valsartan with placebo when added to the prescribed treatment of patients with HF. The two primary end points of the study were all-cause mortality and the composite of all-cause mortality and morbidity (sudden death with resuscitation, hospital admission for HF, or administration of intravenous inotropic or vasodilator drugs for >or=4 h without hospital admission). Of the 5,010 patients enrolled in the trial, 366 (7.3%) were not treated with ACE inhibitors at baseline. The effects of valsartan on the primary and secondary end points of the study were assessed in this subgroup of patients.

RESULTS

Both all-cause mortality and combined mortality and morbidity for patients not treated with ACE inhibitors were significantly reduced in the valsartan treatment group compared with the placebo group (17.3% vs. 27.1%, p = 0.017 and 24.9% vs. 42.5%, p < 0.001, respectively). Consistent with the data on clinical events, patients randomized to valsartan showed improvements in physiologic variables, such as ejection fraction, left ventricular internal diameter in diastole, and plasma neurohormone levels. Permanent discontinuation of study treatment because of adverse experiences was comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Val-HeFT has provided the first placebo-controlled outcome data demonstrating a favorable effect of an angiotensin receptor blocker on mortality and morbidity in patients with HF not treated with ACE inhibitors. Based on these results, valsartan appears to be an effective therapy in ACE inhibitor-intolerant patients.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of heart failure

Heart failure treatment centers on antagonism of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and adrenergic nervous system. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been shown to benefit patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction irrespective of symptoms. Despite ACE inhibitor use, left ventricular dysfunction continues to progress in most patients. In addition, ACE inhibitors are substantially underused in patients who would benefit, in large part due to physician concern over potential adverse effects. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been proposed as either potential substitutes for ACE inhibitors or as additive therapy for heart failure patients. The authors will review the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the progression of heart failure, as well as the mechanisms by which ACE inhibitors and ARBs counteract this effect. The clinical evidence to date supporting the use of ARBs in heart failure also will be reviewed. Based on current trials, ARBs are suitable substitutes for ACE inhibitors in patients who have true ACE inhibitor intolerance, but ACE inhibitors should still be considered first-line therapy in the treatment of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure. ARBs are a reasonable additive therapy in patients on maximal ACE inhibitor therapy who remain symptomatic, especially in patients unable to tolerate beta blockade.

The Use of Angiotensin-II Receptor Blockers in Heart Failure

Angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs) have recently been evaluated in large trials to determine their role in the treatment of heart failure. It is clear that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) prevent the effects of an overactive renin-angiotensin aldosterone system and therefore prevent disease progression. Despite this evidence, intolerance (eg, cough) limits the use of ACE-Is in heart failure patients. Improved tolerability makes ARBs attractive alternatives in patients intolerant to ACE-Is. ARBs are also hypothesized to have additional benefits when used in combination with ACE-Is through more complete inhibition of angiotensin-II. However, studies of ARBs in patients with heart failure have not confirmed this hypothesis. This article describes the rationale and evaluates the literature for the use of ARBs in heart failure.

Risk-benefit assessment of angiotensin II receptor antagonists

Inhibiting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system through the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors has proven very useful in the treatment of hypertension, congestive heart failure (CHF) and progressive renal failure. More recently, agents that directly block the angiotensin II Type 1 (AT(1)) receptor--angiotensin II receptor antagonists (AIIRAs)--have been developed. These agents are thought to have a more specific mechanism of action since they do not affect other hormone systems as do the ACE inhibitors. Whether such specificity results in a different efficacy profile is still being determined. However, these drugs are extremely well-tolerated and very safe. AIIRAs are effective in the reduction of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure and compare favourably to other classes of agents. Recent results indicate that at least one AIIRA has a favourable effect on stroke in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. Additional studies with other members of the class will provide further information on similar outcomes. In CHF patients, ACE inhibitors remain the drug of choice and AIIRAs are best utilised in patients who cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor or in those receiving an ACE inhibitor who cannot tolerate a beta-blocker and need additional therapy. AIIRAs are effective in slowing the progression of renal failure in patients with Type II diabetes and may be effective in other proteinuric conditions. Whether they are more or less effective than ACE inhibitors is unknown. Overall, AIIRAs represent an important addition to the armamentarium of cardiovascular therapies with an excellent safety record and an emerging profile of utility in multiple cardiovascular conditions.

Surrogate end points in heart failure

Because of the increasing number of pharmacologic strategies available for treatment of heart failure (HF), the time has come to reassess the adequacy of end points used to evaluate therapeutic efficacy. Interest in the use of surrogate end points in clinical studies is increasing. A surrogate end point is defined as a measurement that can substitute for a true end point for the purpose of comparing specific interventions or treatments in a clinical trial. A true end point is one that is of clinical importance to the patient (e.g., mortality or quality of life), whereas a surrogate end point is one biologically closer to the disease process (e.g., ejection fraction or left ventricular volume in HF). The prime motivation for the use of a surrogate end point concerns the possible reduction in sample size or trial duration. Such reductions have important cost implications and in some cases may influence trial feasibility. Another, perhaps more important, aspect of measuring surrogate end points is that they increase our understanding of the mechanism of action of drugs and thus may help physicians to take a more enlightened approach in managing their patients. In this article we have analyzed the possible potentials of the surrogate end points in clinical studies of patients with chronic HF. Other uses of possible surrogates are discussed, and the limitations in finding true surrogates are mentioned. At this time we conclude there is no well established surrogate in HF.