Impact of Statin Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Chronic Heart Failure Patients According to Beta-Blocker Use: Results of CIBIS II

Does affirmative action reduce disparities in healthcare use by Indigenous peoples? Evidence from Australia's Indigenous Practice Incentives Program

Globally, Indigenous populations experience poorer health but use less primary healthcare than their non-Indigenous counterparts. In 2010, the Australian government introduced a targeted reform aimed at reducing these disparities. The reform reduced, or abolished prescription medicine co-payments and provided financial incentives for GPs to better manage chronic disease care for Indigenous peoples. Exploiting the framework of a natural experiment, we investigate how the reform affected these health disparities in primary and specialist healthcare utilization using longitudinal administrative data from 75,826 Australians, including 1896 Indigenous peoples, with cardiovascular disease. The differences-in-differences estimates indicate that the reform increased primary healthcare use among Indigenous peoples, including 12.9% more prescription medicines, 6.6% more GP services, and 34.0% more chronic disease services, but also reduced specialist attendances by 11.8%. Increases in primary care were larger for those who received the largest co-payment relief and lived in metropolitan regions, whereas the reduction in specialist attendances was concentrated among lower income Indigenous patients. Affirmative action can reduce inequalities in Indigenous use of primary healthcare, albeit careful design is required to ensure that benefits are equitable and do not lead to substitution away from valuable, or necessary, care.

Effects of a Secondary Prevention Combination Therapy with beta-Blocker and Statin on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients

BACKGROUND The efficacy of a beta-blocker or statin alone versus combination therapy is uncertain. We compared the effects of a combination of beta-blocker and statin with those of one-drug therapies with regard to the occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). MATERIAL AND METHODS From 2011 to 2013, 636 ACS patients were included. Based on their risk category, enrolled subjects were assigned into 4 groups receiving consistent beta-blocker and/or statin treatment: no therapy group (n=139), with never use or inconsistent use beta-blocker and statin; beta-blocker monotherapy group (n=71); statin monotherapy group (n=149); and cotherapy group (n=277). RESULTS Men composed 66.8% of the cohort, which had a mean age of 60.42±9.83 years. Compared with the no therapy group, the statin monotherapy group and cotherapy group had a lower risk of MACE (statin monotherapy group: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.60, P<.001; cotherapy group: adjusted HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.28, P<.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that, compared with beta-blocker monotherapy and statin monotherapy, cotherapy significantly reduced the risks of MACE occurrences in ACS patients (beta-blocker monotherapy group: adjusted HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13-0.59, P=.001; statin monotherapy group: adjusted HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-0.98, P=.044). CONCLUSIONS Beta-blocker and statin combination therapy lowered the risk of developing MACE in ACS patients.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Association is not causation: treatment effects cannot be estimated from observational data in heart failure

Aims

Treatment 'effects' are often inferred from non-randomized and observational studies. These studies have inherent biases and limitations, which may make therapeutic inferences based on their results unreliable. We compared the conflicting findings of these studies to those of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to pharmacological treatments for heart failure (HF).

Methods and results

We searched Medline and Embase to identify studies of the association between non-randomized drug therapy and all-cause mortality in patients with HF until 31 December 2017. The treatments of interest were: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), statins, and digoxin. We compared the findings of these observational studies with those of relevant RCTs. We identified 92 publications, reporting 94 non-randomized studies, describing 158 estimates of the 'effect' of the six treatments of interest on all-cause mortality, i.e. some studies examined more than one treatment and/or HF phenotype. These six treatments had been tested in 25 RCTs. For example, two pivotal RCTs showed that MRAs reduced mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, only one of 12 non-randomized studies found that MRAs were of benefit, with 10 finding a neutral effect, and one a harmful effect.

Conclusion

This comprehensive comparison of studies of non-randomized data with the findings of RCTs in HF shows that it is not possible to make reliable therapeutic inferences from observational associations. While trials undoubtedly leave gaps in evidence and enrol selected participants, they clearly remain the best guide to the treatment of patients.

Korean Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is skyrocketing worldwide, and is closely associated with serious morbidity and mortality. In particular, HF is one of the main causes for the hospitalization and mortality in elderly individuals. Korea also has these epidemiological problems, and HF is responsible for huge socioeconomic burden. However, there has been no clinical guideline for HF management in Korea. 
The present guideline provides the first set of practical guidelines for the management of HF in Korea and was developed using the guideline adaptation process while including as many data from Korean studies as possible. The scope of the present guideline includes the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic HF with reduced/preserved ejection fraction of various etiologies.

Statin therapy in heart failure: for good, for bad, or indifferent?

Statins are effective in the prevention of coronary events and the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. However, their efficacy and safety in patients with heart failure (HF) is still a matter of debate. On the basis of literature evidence from subgroup analysis, retrospective, prospective cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials, in this review we try to answer the following question: Is statin therapy in HF patients for good, for bad, or indifferent? Some studies showed a negative impact of low cholesterol levels in patients with severe HF (endotoxin-lipoprotein hypothesis and coenzyme Q10 hypothesis). On the other hand, a large amount of literature demonstrates that in patients with HF, statins have a positive impact on survival and other outcomes, regardless of whether the HF was of ischemic or nonischemic origin, which is related to a combination of mechanisms (pleiotropic effects and cholesterol reduction). Much of this evidence, however, comes from observational and retrospective studies and subgroup analyses of statin use in patients with HF. Randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of statins in HF (GISSI-HF and CORONA) did not show a benefit in mortality for patients with HF randomized to receive statins. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis found that statin therapy does not decrease all-cause or cardiovascular mortality but significantly decreases the rate of hospitalization for worsening HF and increased left ventricular ejection fraction compared with placebo.

Statins in heart failure: do we need another trial?

Statins lower serum cholesterol and are employed for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Clinical evidence from observational studies, retrospective data, and post hoc analyses of data from large statin trials in various cardiovascular conditions, as well as small scale randomized trials, suggest survival and other outcome benefits for heart failure. Two recent large randomized controlled trials, however, appear to suggest statins do not have beneficial effects in heart failure. In addition to lowering cholesterol, statins are believed to have many pleotropic effects which could possibly influence the pathophysiology of heart failure. Following the two large trials, evidence from recent studies appears to support the use of statins in heart failure. This review discusses the role of statins in the pathophysiology of heart failure, current evidence for statin use in heart failure, and suggests directions for future research.

Statins in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy: an update on our current clinical and pathophysiological understanding

Statins are a cornerstone in reducing cardiovascular events. Studies show that statins are beneficial even in patients with normal or low cholesterol levels, indicating pleiotropic mechanisms of therapeutic benefit apart from their antihyperlipidemic effect. Non-randomised, observational and retrospective studies suggest that statins are associated with better outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) of both ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiologies. While cholesterol reduction and plaque stabilisation likely play a role in reducing cardiovascular events in ischaemic HF patients, the mechanisms underlying the benefit in non-ischaemic HF patients is less clear. This review suggests the pleiotropic effects of statin therapy can beneficially alter the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the clinical benefit observed in non-ischaemic HF patients.

Potential role of statins in the treatment of heart failure

Based on the findings of retrospective studies, there has been growing interest in the potential therapeutic benefits of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy in patients with heart failure. The first published prospective randomized study of statins in heart failure patients did not demonstrate improved clinical outcomes (death and nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke) after treatment with 10 mg daily of rosuvastatin when compared with placebo. However, use of rosuvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization when compared with placebo and was well tolerated. Until further information becomes available, routine use of statins is not recommended in the heart failure population.

Statin treatment for patients with heart failure

Statins may be beneficial for the prevention and treatment of heart failure, as indicated by large observational studies, small prospective studies, and post hoc analyses of cardiovascular databases. Two large, prospective, controlled trials have, however, shown that rosuvastatin has neutral effects on the survival of patients with chronic heart failure. The benefits of statin treatment seem to mostly result from their ability to halt disease progression in heart failure, particularly in patients with coronary artery disease. Based on these results, statin treatment might only be useful for the prevention of heart failure, and possibly in patients with new-onset heart failure. This Review highlights data from observational data analyses as well as from the large prospective trials investigating the safety and efficacy of statins in patients with heart failure. The results from these studies and their implications for the timing of initiating statin therapy in this patient population are also discussed.

Statins and congestive heart failure

Despite many post hoc analyses of cardiovascular databases in recent years suggesting a benefit of statins in the prevention and treatment of congestive heart failure (HF), a prospective study of statin therapy on two clinically relevant end points--HF morbidity and survival--had not been reported until 2007. However, a large-scale prospective trial, Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA), has just reported its primary results. These results somewhat surprisingly show no survival benefit in a group of patients with ischemic systolic HF given low-dose rosuvastatin. In addition to this uncertainty generated by the results of CORONA, there remains additional uncertainty in the existing, predominantly retrospective data on statins because of the potential bias in study designs, use of post hoc subgroup analyses, and lack of mechanistic data. This review critically evaluates the recent literature in this area.

Translating evidence into practice: use of statins in real-world patients with heart failure

Heart failure is a common and serious disorder affecting more than 5 million patients in the United States. Although clinical trials have shown that several therapies improve outcomes, translation of evidence into practice is imperfect. This "quality chasm" ultimately leads to lost opportunities for decreasing morbidity and mortality. As more evidence is gathered for statins in heart failure, it will be important to continuously assess implementation of statins in eligible heart failure patients, as well as to identify opportunities for and barriers to improvement. This article reviews the conceptual basis for driving evidence-based medicine by focusing on quality of care for heart failure patients.

Congestive heart failure in the elderly diabetic

The elderly diabetic is a potential congestive heart failure patient. Cardiac involvement is multifactorial, particularly ischemic conditions because of the accumulation at that age of vascular risk factors and therefore the frequency of coronary damages. The elderly diabetic very often has high blood pressure, with the risk of developing a hypertensive heart disease. Beyond these issues, the effects of chronic hyperglycaemia and insulin resistance on the heart specifically alter left ventricle compliance and therefore diastolic function, thus accelerating the effects proper to aging. No specific recommendation has been published on the management of the elderly diabetic with congestive heart failure. Even at an advanced age, with a clinical diagnosis of congestive heart failure that is sometimes difficult to make, the cardiological evaluation should be conducted rigorously within a global evaluation, and treatment should follow the same rules as in younger patients, with great caution given to the iatrogenic risks inherent to this population.

Drug Insight: statins for nonischemic heart failure—evidence and potential mechanisms

While 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, also known as statins, have a well-established in role in the treatment and prevention of ischemic coronary artery disease, their utility in the setting of heart failure (HF) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction remains under investigation. Although a reduction in LDL is the major effect of statin therapy, pleiotropic effects have been demonstrated, which could be responsible for the reduction in morbidity and mortality seen with statin use in patients with HF. Patients with both ischemic and nonischemic HF have been shown to have improved survival with statin therapy, and patients receiving statin therapy are less likely to develop HF. Studies have demonstrated that statins reduce inflammation, improve endothelial function, decrease thrombogenicity, and improve LV and autonomic function. In this Review, we present the literature supporting the pleiotropic effects of statin therapy in patients with HF or LV dysfunction, and discuss the mechanisms by which statins might elicit the improvements in morbidity and mortality seen in these patients.

Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of High-Dose HMG CoA Reductase Inhibitor Therapy on Ventricular Remodeling, Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines and Neurohormonal Parameters in Patients With Chronic Systolic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Statins decrease mortality in patients with coronary artery disease. However, chronic heart failure (CHF) patients were often excluded in such trials. Statins possess pharmacologic properties (independent of cholesterol lowering) that may be beneficial on ventricular remodeling in such patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a 6-month randomized placebo (PBO)-controlled study of rosuvastatin (ROS) in patients with systolic (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <40%) CHF of ischemic or nonischemic etiology. The primary end point was change in LVEF by radionuclide ventriculogram. Secondary end points included change in echocardiographic parameters, neurohormonal and inflammatory markers, Packer composite score, death, and heart failure hospitalization. Patients were well matched for baseline values. Compared with PBO (n = 46), ROS patients (n = 40) had a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (PBO +3, ROS -54%, P < .001). There was no significant change in LVEF by radionuclide ventriculogram (PBO +5.3, ROS +3.2%), fractional shortening by echocardiographic (PBO +2.7, ROS +1.8%), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (PBO -1.7, ROS +0.8 mm), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (PBO -1.9, ROS +0.1 mm). Plasma norepinephrine, endothelin-1, brain natriuretic peptide, hsCRP, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6, patient global assessment, Packer composite, death/heart failure hospitalization, and adverse events were similar between PBO and ROS.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being safe and effective at decreasing plasma cholesterol, high-dose ROS did not beneficially alter parameters of LV remodeling. Reasons for absence of benefit are uncertain, but may include patient population studied, high dose of ROS used or high use of effective background CHF medications.