Evaluation of the use of evidence-based angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor criteria for the treatment of congestive heart failure: opportunities for pharmacists to improve patient outcomes

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Initiation and Dose Uptitration in Children With Cardiovascular Disease: A Retrospective Review of Standard Clinical Practice and a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are a mainstay of medical management in pediatric cardiology. However, there are no data defining how best to initiate and uptitrate the dose of these medications in children.

Methods and Results

Retrospective chart review revealed only 24% of our pediatric cardiology inpatients were discharged on predefined optimal doses of ACEIs and few underwent further dose uptitration in the 8 weeks after hospital discharge. Therefore, 2 alternative protocols for initiation of captopril were compared in a prospective randomized clinical trial. A “rapid uptitration” protocol reached an optimal dose on day 3, whereas the alternative, “prolonged uptitration” protocol, reached an optimal dose on day 9. Forty‐6 patients (54% male) were recruited to the trial, with a median age of 0.7 year (IQR 0.5–2.3 years). Captopril was initiated while in intensive care in 39% of patients and on the cardiology ward in 61%. There were no differences between the protocols in episodes of hypotension, symptomatic hypotension, or indices of renal function. Patients following the rapid protocol reached higher doses of captopril (0.93±0.24 versus 0.57±0.38 mg/kg per dose, P<0.0001) and were more likely to have achieved the predefined target (88% versus 43%, P=0.002) and optimal ACEI doses (80% versus 29%, P=0.001) before discharge.

Conclusions

A protocol of rapid ACEI dose uptitration for infants and children with cardiovascular disease can be introduced safely, even in patients receiving intensive care therapy. Compared with standard clinical practice or with a more prolonged protocol, rapid ACEI dose uptitration achieves a higher dosage in this population with no evident disadvantages.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00742040.

Efficacy and safety of supramaximal titrated inhibition of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy

Aims

The optimal dosing strategies for blocking the renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDCM) are poorly known. We sought to determine the long‐term efficacy and safety of supramaximal titration of benazepril and valsartan in patients with IDCM.

Methods and results

480 patients with IDCM in New York Heart Association functional class II–IV and with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% were randomly assigned to extended‐release metoprolol (mean 152 mg/day, range 23.75–190), low‐dose benazepril (20 mg/day), low‐dose valsartan (160 mg/day), high‐dose benazepril (mean 69 mg/day, range 40–80), and high‐dose valsartan (mean 526 mg/day, range 320–640). After a median follow‐up of 4.2 years, high‐dose benazepril and valsartan, compared with their respective low dosages, resulted in 41% and 52% risk reduction in the primary endpoint of all‐cause death or admission for heart failure (P = 0.042 and 0.002), promoted functional improvement, and reversed remodelling as assessed by New York Heart Association classes, quality‐of‐life scores, and echocardiographic recording of left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end‐diastolic volume, mitral regurgitation, and wall motion score index. Compared with metoprolol, high‐dose valsartan reduced risk for the primary endpoint by 46% (P = 0.006), whereas high‐dose benazepril and both low‐dose groups showed no significant difference. Major adverse events involved hypotension and renal impairment but were largely tolerated.

Conclusions

Supramaximal doses of benazepril and valsartan were well tolerated and produced extra benefit than their low dosages in clinical outcome and cardiac reverse remodelling in patients with IDCM and modest‐severe heart failure. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01917149.

Development and validation of algorithms for heart failure patient care: a Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Although heart failure (HF) management is available at primary and secondary care facilities in Malaysia, the optimisation of drug therapy is still suboptimal. Although pharmacists can help bridge the gap in optimising HF therapy, pharmacists in Malaysia currently do not manage and titrate HF pharmacotherapy. The aim of this study was to develop treatment algorithms and monitoring protocols for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers and spironolactone based on extensive literature review for validation and utilization by pharmacists involved in HF management.

METHODS

A Delphi survey involving 32 panellists, from private and government hospitals that provide cardiac services in Malaysia, was conducted to obtain a consensus opinion on the treatment protocols. The panellists completed two rounds of self-administered questionnaires to determine their level of agreement with all the components in the protocols.

RESULTS

Consensus agreement was achieved for most of the sections of the protocols for the four classes of drugs. Panellists' opinions were taken into consideration when amending the components of the protocols that did not achieve consensus opinion. Full consensus agreement was achieved with the second survey conducted, enabling the finalisation of the drug titration protocols.

CONCLUSION

The resulting validated HF titration protocols can be used as a guide for pharmacists when recommending the initiation and titration of HF drug therapy in daily clinical practice. Recommendations should be made in collaboration with the patient's treating physician, with concomitant monitoring of patient's response to the drugs.

Evaluating outpatient pharmacy services: a literature review of specialist heart failure services

Objective

To identify appropriate methods to evaluate a specialist pharmacy service for heart failure patients in an ambulatory care setting.

Method

An extensive literature review was undertaken to identify the published data on evaluative studies of specialist pharmacy services, including those directed at heart failure patients in an ambulatory care model of service provision.

Key findings

Six studies were identified evaluating outpatient pharmacy services for heart failure. The pharmacy services provided in these settings were not well defined. The impact of the pharmacist was compared to ‘usual care’, that is care delivered without a pharmacist, by either a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT), or before and after studies. In most cases the service was delivered by one pharmacist at one site. Services were primarily targeted at patients and focused on medication and lifestyle education, adverse drug reaction monitoring, and compliance/adherence. In all studies, there was a trend for improvement in the outcomes measured. Different study endpoints were examined, including process indicators such as compliance and outcome measures such as morbidity (clinical), quality of life (humanistic), and hospital admissions (economic). The ideal evaluative study would be an adequately powered, prospective, randomised controlled trial, comparing the effect of the pharmacist service to usual care (without the specified pharmacy service). Appropriate study endpoints including process indicators and outcome measures are needed. Identification of specific components and the extent of the service that would provide the most benefit to selected patient groups would be of interest.

Conclusions

Specialist ambulatory care pharmacy services have not been well defined or evaluated in the literature. Limited randomised controlled data exist.

Lack of effect on coronary atherosclerotic disease biomarkers with modest dosing of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II type-1 receptor blocker, and the combination

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers, used alone or in combination, have been shown to improve outcomes in certain populations, primarily when administered in high doses. For stable coronary atherosclerotic disease, however, the relative physiologic effect of these therapies is unclear. Furthermore, because of the notorious subtarget dosing of such agents in clinical practice, we explored the influence of a modest dosing of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers, and the combination on common biologic markers of coronary atherosclerotic disease.

METHODS

This randomized, cross-over study enrolled stable coronary atherosclerotic disease patients (n=20), each receiving three treatments: candesartan 16 mg daily, ramipril 5 mg daily, and candesartan 8 mg plus ramipril 2.5 mg daily. Treatments were administered for 2 weeks with a 2-week washout. Blood samples were collected before and after each treatment. Markers of endothelial function, fibrinolytic balance, and vascular inflammation were measured.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the pretreatment concentrations of angiotensin-converting enzyme or of any measured biologic marker. Relative to pretreatment levels, candesartan alone was the only therapy to exhibit an action on any measured biomarker--a trend toward increased nitric oxide concentrations (P=0.054). Otherwise, no effects on biologic markers were observed with the treatments.

CONCLUSION

This study of various methods of the renin-angiotensin system inhibition in stable coronary atherosclerotic disease patients demonstrates negligible effects of a modest dosing of ramipril and the combination of ramipril plus candesartan on common biologic markers of coronary atherosclerotic disease. Candesartan at modest doses may favorably influence endothelial function. Overall, however, the results indicate that the commonly practiced subtarget dosing of such treatments provides little, if any, benefit pertaining to key physiologic components of coronary atherosclerotic disease.

Pharmaceutical care of patients with heart failure

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a pharmacist-led pharmaceutical care programme, involving optimization of drug treatment and intensive education and self-monitoring of patients with heart failure (HF) within the United Arab Emirates (UAE), on a range of clinical and humanistic outcome measures.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, controlled, longitudinal, prospective clinical trial at Al-Ain Hospital, Al-Ain, UAE. Patients were recruited from the general medical wards and from cardiology and medical outpatient clinics. HF patients who fulfilled the entrance criteria, and had no exclusion criteria present, were identified for inclusion in the study. After recruitment, patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: intervention group or control group. Intervention patients received a structured pharmaceutical care service while control patients received traditional services. Patient follow-up took place when patients attended scheduled outpatient clinics (every 3 months). A total of 104 patients in each group completed the trial (12 months). The patients were generally suffering from mild to moderate HF (NYHA Class 1, 29.5%; Class 2, 50.5%; Class 3, 16%; and Class 4, 4%).

RESULTS

Over the study period, intervention patients showed significant (P < 0.05) improvements in a range of summary outcome measures [AUC (95% confidence limits)] including exercise tolerance [2-min walk test: 1607.2 (1474.9, 1739.5) m.month in intervention patients vs. 1403.3 (1256.5, 1549.8) in control patients], forced vital capacity [31.6 (30.8, 32.4) l.month in the intervention patients vs. 27.8 (26.8, 28.9) in control patients], health-related quality of life, as measured by the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire [463.5 (433.2, 493.9) unit.month in intervention patients vs. 637.5 (597.2, 677.7) in control patients; a lower score in this measure indicates better health-related quality of life]. The number of individual patients who reported adherence to prescribed medications was higher (P < 0.05) in the intervention group (85 vs. 35), as was adherence to lifestyle advice (75 vs. 29) at the final assessment (12 months). There was a tendency to have a higher incidence of casualty department visits by intervention patients, but a lower rate of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

The research provides clear evidence that the delivery of pharmaceutical care to patients with HF can lead to significant clinical and humanistic benefits.

Health care professionals in a heart failure team

A heart failure team that treats heart failure patients often faces the challenge of managing multiple conditions requiring multiple medications and life style changes in an older patient group. A multidisciplinary team approach can optimally diagnose, carefully review and prescribe treatment, and educate and counsel patients and their families about medication use and life style changes. In this paper the possible role of the pharmacist, dietician, physical therapist, psychologist, primary care provider and social worker in heart failure management is discussed.

Undertreatment of congestive heart failure in an Australian setting

AIM

Guidelines for the management of patients with chronic heart failure have undergone change in recent years, with beta-blockers and spironolactone shown to reduce mortality when added to angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, diuretics and digoxin. The aim of this study was to examine the therapeutic management of heart failure in patients admitted to Tasmania's three major public hospitals, with an assessment of the appropriateness of the therapy according to contemporary published guidelines.

METHODS

An extensive range of clinical and demographic data was retrospectively extracted from the medical records of consecutive adult patients admitted to the medical wards of the hospitals with heart failure, either as a primary diagnosis or as a comorbidity, during a 6-month period in late 1999-early 2001.

RESULTS

The 450 patients (57% females) had a mean age of 77.8 +/- 10.2 years, and were being treated with a median of seven drugs on hospital admission. The percentages of patients being treated with the major drugs of interest were: ACE inhibitors (50%), beta-blockers (22%), spironolactone (15%), digoxin (24%), loop diuretics (65%) and angiotensin-II receptor antagonists (8%). Almost 10% were taking a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent. Less than one-half the patients who were receiving an ACE inhibitor were taking a target dose for heart failure. There were no significant differences in the pattern of drug use between the three hospitals. Underuse of heart failure medications was most pronounced in women and elderly patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that current guidelines for the treatment of heart failure are still not being reflected in clinical practice. The relatively low use of drugs shown to improve survival in heart failure is of concern and warrants educational intervention.

Patterns of pharmacotherapy in patients hospitalised for congestive heart failure

BACKGROUND

In the 1990s, a number of cardiovascular drugs were evaluated in randomised clinical trials. Treatment guidelines for heart failure were modified to include these evidence-based treatments.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of new medical treatments for heart failure between 1990 and 1998.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective cohort study of 2764 patients with a first hospital admission for heart failure between 1990 and 1998. The percentage of patients treated with different cardiovascular drugs after hospitalisation was calculated and compared over time. Use of loop diuretics remained steady approximately 80%, digoxin decreased from 57.6 to 42.7%, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors showed a slight increase from 49.8 to 54.8%, beta-blockers almost tripled from 11.3 to 28.7%, low dose prophylactic acetylsalicylic acid quadrupled from 9.9 to 39.9%. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates showed highest continuation rates of drug treatment for antithrombotics and diuretics, intermediate for digoxin and ACE inhibitors and low for beta-blockers. More than a quarter of the users discontinued beta-blockers in the first year after hospitalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an increase in the prescribing of several important drug classes, reflecting changes in treatment guidelines during the study period. However, our findings show that not all patients were receiving optimal treatment. More research into the reasons for this is warranted.

Long-term survival of non-elderly patients with severe heart failure treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors assessment of treatment with captopril and enalapril survival study (ACESS)

The present study examined the effect of treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) on the long-term prognosis in 119 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Conventional therapy was used in 29 patients and 90 patients were treated with ACEIs: 50 were taking captopril and 40 were taking enalapril; 24 were taking > or = 75 mg captopril or > or = 20 mg enalapril daily (high-dose group) and 66 patients received smaller doses (low-dose group). No significant differences between groups were detected with respect to demographics and clinical signs of congestive heart failure (CHF). During follow-up, 65 patients survived and 54 patients died: 34 patients were in group 1 and 20 patients were in the placebo group. Patients treated with ACEIs had a significantly better survival during the first to third year, but the difference was not significant between the high- and low-dose groups. Comparison of the cumulative probability of death in the enalapril and captopril groups showed a trend of significant reduction of mortality by 13% in the enalapril group (p<0.10). These data indicate that ACEIs have a beneficial effect on prolonging the short- and long-term survival in DCM patients, so it is strongly recommended that all patients with DCM should be treated with ACEIs unless contraindicated. In this study, lower doses of ACEI seemed prognostically equivalent to higher doses, and enalapril appeared to be preferable to captopril in the treatment of severe CHF. Additional prospective large studies are necessary to verify the relationship observed here between the optimal dosage as well as the duration of action of different ACEIs and their outcomes.