Long-term safety and tolerability of ambrisentan treatment for pediatric patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: An open-label extension study

This open-label, extension study assessed long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ambrisentan in a pediatric population (age 8- < 18 years) with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Following completion of a 6-month, randomized study, participants entered the long-term extension at individualized ambrisentan dosages (2.5/5/7.5 or 10 mg/day). Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), AEs of special interest, and serious AEs (SAEs); efficacy outcomes included 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC). Thirty-eight of 41 (93%) randomized study participants entered the extension; 21 (55%) completed (reaching age 18 years). Most participants received concomitant phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (n = 25/38, 66%). Median ambrisentan exposure was 3.5 years. Most participants experienced ≥ 1 AE (n = 34/38, 89%), and 21 (55%) experienced SAEs, most commonly worsening PAH (n = 3/38, 8%), acute cardiac failure, pneumonia, or anemia (n = 2/38; 5% each); none considered ambrisentan-related. Seven participants (18%) died, with recorded reasons (MedDRA preferred term): cardiac failure (n = 2), PAH (n = 2), COVID-19 (n = 1), acute right ventricular failure (n = 1), and failure to thrive (n = 1); median time to death: 5.2 years. Anemia and hepatotoxicity AEs were generally mild to moderate and did not require ambrisentan dose adjustment. Assessed at study end in 29 participants (76%), mean 6MWD improved by 17% (standard deviation: 34.3%), and all (29/29, 100%) had improved or unchanged WHO FC.    Conclusion: Long-term weight-based ambrisentan dosing, alone or combined with other PAH therapies in children with PAH aged 8- < 18 years, exhibited tolerability and clinical improvements consistent with prior randomized study results.    Trial registration: NCT01342952, April 27, 2011. What is Known: • The endothelin receptor antagonist, ambrisentan, is indicated for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Previous studies have shown similar efficacy and tolerability in pediatric patients as in adults. What is New: • This open-label extension study assessed the long-term use of ambrisentan in pediatric patients (8-<18 years) with PAH, most of whom were also receiving recommended background PAH treatment. • Weight-based dosing of ambrisentan, given alone or in combination with other PAH therapies, was well tolerated with clinical improvements consistent with prior randomized study results.

Daprodustat and Heart Failure in CKD

Key Points

Background

Patients with CKD are at higher risk of heart failure. The hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor daprodustat is an orally acting alternative to conventional injectable erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD. Whether daprodustat affects the risk of heart failure hospitalization is unknown.

Methods

The Anemia Studies in Chronic Kidney Disease: Erythropoiesis via a Novel Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitor Daprodustat–Dialysis (ASCEND-D; n=2964) and Anemia Studies in Chronic Kidney Disease: Erythropoiesis via a Novel Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitor Daprodustat–Non-Dialysis (ASCEND-ND; n=3872) trials compared daprodustat with conventional ESA in patients with anemia of CKD who did or did not require dialysis, respectively. We identified risk factors of heart failure hospitalization and assessed the effect of daprodustat compared with conventional ESA on heart failure hospitalizations.

Results

History of heart failure, diabetes, and higher systolic BP were independently associated with heart failure hospitalization in both trials, irrespective of treatment assignment. The number of first heart failure hospitalizations was greater in the daprodustat arm in patients not receiving dialysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95 to 1.56], P = 0.12) and in patients receiving dialysis (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.84 to 1.45], P = 0.47), although these differences were not statistically significant. HRs in patients with and without history of heart failure were 1.37 (95% CI, 0.89 to 2.11) versus 1.08 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.46) (P-interaction=0.36) in the ASCEND-ND trial and 1.52 (95% CI, 0.97 to 2.38) versus 0.93 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.30) (P-interaction=0.09) in the ASCEND-D trial, respectively. In post hoc analyses, daprodustat increased total (first and recurrent) heart failure hospitalizations in participants not receiving dialysis (rate ratio, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.92], P = 0.007) but not in participants receiving dialysis (rate ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.39], P = 0.93). Daprodustat did not significantly affect the risk of a composite outcome of first heart failure hospitalization or death.

Conclusions

A greater number of first heart failure hospitalization events occurred in patients treated with daprodustat compared with conventional ESA, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Differences in the number of heart failure hospitalization events were most apparent in patients not receiving dialysis and in patients with history of heart failure.

Podcast

This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/JASN/2024_04_10_ASN0000000000000321.mp3

Pediatric Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Exposure-Response Analysis of Ambrisentan in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Comparison With Adult Data

This study aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model of ambrisentan in pediatric patients (8 to <18 years) with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and compare pediatric ambrisentan systemic exposure with previously reported adult data. Association of ambrisentan exposure with efficacy (6-minute walking distance) and safety (adverse events) were exploratory analyses. A population PK model was developed using pediatric PK data. Steady-state systemic exposure metrics were estimated for the pediatric population and compared with previously reported data in adult patients with PAH and healthy subjects. No covariates had a significant effect on PK parameters; therefore, the final covariate model was the same as the base model. The pediatric population PK model was a 2-compartment model including the effect of body weight (allometric scaling), first-order absorption and elimination, and absorption lag time. Steady-state ambrisentan exposure was similar between the pediatric and adult population when accounting for body weight differences. Geometric mean area under the concentration-time curve at steady state in pediatric patients receiving ambrisentan low dose was 3% lower than in the adult population (and similar in both populations receiving high dose). Geometric mean maximum plasma concentration at steady state in pediatric patients receiving low and high doses was 11% and 18% higher, respectively, than in the adult population. There was no apparent association in the pediatric or adult population between ambrisentan exposure and change in 6-minute walking distance or incidence of ambrisentan-related adverse events in pediatric patients. The similar ambrisentan exposure and exposure-response profiles observed in pediatric and adult populations with PAH suggests appropriateness of body-weight-based dosing in the pediatric population with PAH.

Genetic loci and prioritization of genes for kidney function decline derived from a meta-analysis of 62 longitudinal genome-wide association studies

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reflects kidney function. Progressive eGFR-decline can lead to kidney failure, necessitating dialysis or transplantation. Hundreds of loci from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for eGFR help explain population cross section variability. Since the contribution of these or other loci to eGFR-decline remains largely unknown, we derived GWAS for annual eGFR-decline and meta-analyzed 62 longitudinal studies with eGFR assessed twice over time in all 343,339 individuals and in high-risk groups. We also explored different covariate adjustment. Twelve genome-wide significant independent variants for eGFR-decline unadjusted or adjusted for eGFR-baseline (11 novel, one known for this phenotype), including nine variants robustly associated across models were identified. All loci for eGFR-decline were known for cross-sectional eGFR and thus distinguished a subgroup of eGFR loci. Seven of the nine variants showed variant-by-age interaction on eGFR cross section (further about 350,000 individuals), which linked genetic associations for eGFR-decline with age-dependency of genetic cross-section associations. Clinically important were two to four-fold greater genetic effects on eGFR-decline in high-risk subgroups. Five variants associated also with chronic kidney disease progression mapped to genes with functional in-silico evidence (UMOD, SPATA7, GALNTL5, TPPP). An unfavorable versus favorable nine-variant genetic profile showed increased risk odds ratios of 1.35 for kidney failure (95% confidence intervals 1.03-1.77) and 1.27 for acute kidney injury (95% confidence intervals 1.08-1.50) in over 2000 cases each, with matched controls). Thus, we provide a large data resource, genetic loci, and prioritized genes for kidney function decline, which help inform drug development pipelines revealing important insights into the age-dependency of kidney function genetics.

An observational, non-interventional study for the follow-up of patients with amyloidosis who received miridesap followed by dezamizumab in a phase 1 study

Background

Miridesap depletes circulating serum amyloid P (SAP) and dezamizumab (anti-SAP monoclonal antibody) targets SAP on amyloid deposits, triggering amyloid removal. In a phase 1, first-in-human study (FIHS), progressive amyloid removal was observed in some patients after ≤ 3 cycles of miridesap/dezamizumab.

Methods

This observational, non-interventional study in patients who received miridesap/dezamizumab during the FIHS (planned follow-up: 5 years) evaluated response to treatment based on routine assessments of disease status and key organ function. In a post hoc analysis, patients responding to treatment in the FIHS during follow-up were identified as responders and further categorized as sustained or declining responders.

Results

In the FIHS, 17/23 patients were treatment responders. Of these patients, seven (immunoglobulin light chain [AL], n = 6; serum amyloid A, n = 1) were considered sustained responders and ten (fibrinogen-a alpha chain [AFib], n = 5; AL, n = 4; apolipoprotein A-I, n = 1) were considered declining responders. We primarily present responder patient-level data for functional, cardiac, laboratory and imaging assessments conducted during the follow-up period, with non-responder data presented as supplementary.

Conclusion

No further development of miridesap/dezamizumab is planned in amyloidosis. However, long-term follow-up of these patients may provide insight into whether active removal of amyloid deposits has an impact on disease progression.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01777243. Registered 28 January 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01777243.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-022-02405-7.

Differential and shared genetic effects on kidney function between diabetic and non-diabetic individuals

Reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) can progress to kidney failure. Risk factors include genetics and diabetes mellitus (DM), but little is known about their interaction. We conducted genome-wide association meta-analyses for estimated GFR based on serum creatinine (eGFR), separately for individuals with or without DM (nDM = 178,691, nnoDM = 1,296,113). Our genome-wide searches identified (i) seven eGFR loci with significant DM/noDM-difference, (ii) four additional novel loci with suggestive difference and (iii) 28 further novel loci (including CUBN) by allowing for potential difference. GWAS on eGFR among DM individuals identified 2 known and 27 potentially responsible loci for diabetic kidney disease. Gene prioritization highlighted 18 genes that may inform reno-protective drug development. We highlight the existence of DM-only and noDM-only effects, which can inform about the target group, if respective genes are advanced as drug targets. Largely shared effects suggest that most drug interventions to alter eGFR should be effective in DM and noDM.

Pharmacodynamic evaluation and safety assessment of treatment with antibodies to serum amyloid P component in patients with cardiac amyloidosis: an open-label Phase 2 study and an adjunctive immuno-PET imaging study

BACKGROUND

In a Phase I study treatment with the serum amyloid P component (SAP) depleter miridesap followed by monoclonal antibody to SAP (dezamizumab) showed removal of amyloid from liver, spleen and kidney in patients with systemic amyloidosis. We report results from a Phase 2 study and concurrent immuno-positron emission tomography (PET) study assessing efficacy, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety and cardiac uptake (of dezamizumab) following the same intervention in patients with cardiac amyloidosis.

METHODS

Both were uncontrolled open-label studies. After SAP depletion with miridesap, patients received ≤ 6 monthly doses of dezamizumab in the Phase 2 trial (n = 7), ≤ 2 doses of non-radiolabelled dezamizumab plus [89Zr]Zr-dezamizumab (total mass dose of 80 mg at session 1 and 500 mg at session 2) in the immuno-PET study (n = 2). Primary endpoints of the Phase 2 study were changed from baseline to follow-up (at 8 weeks) in left ventricular mass (LVM) by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and safety. Primary endpoint of the immuno-PET study was [89Zr]Zr-dezamizumab cardiac uptake assessed via PET.

RESULTS

Dezamizumab produced no appreciable or consistent reduction in LVM nor improvement in cardiac function in the Phase 2 study. In the immuno-PET study, measurable cardiac uptake of [89Zr]Zr-dezamizumab, although seen in both patients, was moderate to low. Uptake was notably lower in the patient with higher LVM. Treatment-associated rash with cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis was observed in both studies. Abdominal large-vessel vasculitis after initial dezamizumab dosing (300 mg) occurred in the first patient with immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis enrolled in the Phase 2 study. Symptom resolution was nearly complete within 24 h of intravenous methylprednisolone and dezamizumab discontinuation; abdominal computed tomography imaging showed vasculitis resolution by 8 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike previous observations of visceral amyloid reduction, there was no appreciable evidence of amyloid removal in patients with cardiac amyloidosis in this Phase 2 trial, potentially related to limited cardiac uptake of dezamizumab as demonstrated in the immuno-PET study. The benefit-risk assessment for dezamizumab in cardiac amyloidosis was considered unfavourable after the incidence of large-vessel vasculitis and development for this indication was terminated. Trial registration NCT03044353 (2 February 2017) and NCT03417830 (25 January 2018).

Meta-analysis uncovers genome-wide significant variants for rapid kidney function decline

Rapid decline of glomerular filtration rate estimated from creatinine (eGFRcrea) is associated with severe clinical endpoints. In contrast to cross-sectionally assessed eGFRcrea, the genetic basis for rapid eGFRcrea decline is largely unknown. To help define this, we meta-analyzed 42 genome-wide association studies from the Chronic Kidney Diseases Genetics Consortium and United Kingdom Biobank to identify genetic loci for rapid eGFRcrea decline. Two definitions of eGFRcrea decline were used: 3 mL/min/1.73m2/year or more ("Rapid3"; encompassing 34,874 cases, 107,090 controls) and eGFRcrea decline 25% or more and eGFRcrea under 60 mL/min/1.73m2 at follow-up among those with eGFRcrea 60 mL/min/1.73m2 or more at baseline ("CKDi25"; encompassing 19,901 cases, 175,244 controls). Seven independent variants were identified across six loci for Rapid3 and/or CKDi25: consisting of five variants at four loci with genome-wide significance (near UMOD-PDILT (2), PRKAG2, WDR72, OR2S2) and two variants among 265 known eGFRcrea variants (near GATM, LARP4B). All these loci were novel for Rapid3 and/or CKDi25 and our bioinformatic follow-up prioritized variants and genes underneath these loci. The OR2S2 locus is novel for any eGFRcrea trait including interesting candidates. For the five genome-wide significant lead variants, we found supporting effects for annual change in blood urea nitrogen or cystatin-based eGFR, but not for GATM or LARP4B. Individuals at high compared to those at low genetic risk (8-14 vs. 0-5 adverse alleles) had a 1.20-fold increased risk of acute kidney injury (95% confidence interval 1.08-1.33). Thus, our identified loci for rapid kidney function decline may help prioritize therapeutic targets and identify mechanisms and individuals at risk for sustained deterioration of kidney function.

A catalog of genetic loci associated with kidney function from analyses of a million individuals

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is responsible for a public health burden with multi-systemic complications. Through trans-ancestry meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and independent replication (n = 1,046,070), we identified 264 associated loci (166 new). Of these, 147 were likely to be relevant for kidney function on the basis of associations with the alternative kidney function marker blood urea nitrogen (n = 416,178). Pathway and enrichment analyses, including mouse models with renal phenotypes, support the kidney as the main target organ. A genetic risk score for lower eGFR was associated with clinically diagnosed CKD in 452,264 independent individuals. Colocalization analyses of associations with eGFR among 783,978 European-ancestry individuals and gene expression across 46 human tissues, including tubulo-interstitial and glomerular kidney compartments, identified 17 genes differentially expressed in kidney. Fine-mapping highlighted missense driver variants in 11 genes and kidney-specific regulatory variants. These results provide a comprehensive priority list of molecular targets for translational research.

Metabolic syndrome and the risk of adverse cardiovascular events after an acute coronary syndrome

Background The incremental prognostic value of assessing the metabolic syndrome has been disputed. Little is known regarding its prognostic value in patients after an acute coronary syndrome. Design and methods The presence of metabolic syndrome (2005 International Diabetes Federation) was assessed at baseline in SOLID-TIMI 52, a trial of patients within 30 days of acute coronary syndrome (median follow-up 2.5 years). The primary endpoint was major coronary events (coronary heart disease death, myocardial infarction or urgent coronary revascularization). Results At baseline, 61.6% ( n = 7537) of patients met the definition of metabolic syndrome, 34.7% (n = 4247) had diabetes and 29.3% had both ( n = 3584). The presence of metabolic syndrome was associated with increased risk of major coronary events (adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 1.29, p < 0.0001) and recurrent myocardial infarction (adjHR 1.30, p < 0.0001). Of the individual components of the definition, only diabetes (adjHR 1.48, p < 0.0001) or impaired fasting glucose (adjHR 1.21, p = 0.002) and hypertension (adjHR 1.46, p < 0.0001) were associated with the risk of major coronary events. In patients without diabetes, metabolic syndrome was numerically but not significantly associated with the risk of major coronary events (adjHR 1.13, p = 0.06). Conversely, diabetes was a strong independent predictor of major coronary events in the absence of metabolic syndrome (adjHR 1.57, p < 0.0001). The presence of both diabetes and metabolic syndrome identified patients at highest risk of adverse outcomes but the incremental value of metabolic syndrome was not significant relative to diabetes alone (adjHR 1.07, p = 0.54). Conclusions After acute coronary syndrome, diabetes is a strong and independent predictor of adverse outcomes. Assessment of the metabolic syndrome provides only marginal incremental value once the presence or absence of diabetes is established.

Interleukin-6 and the Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Patients After an Acute Coronary Syndrome: Observations From the SOLID-TIMI 52 (Stabilization of Plaque Using Darapladib-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 52) Trial

Background

Interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) is an inflammatory cytokine implicated in plaque instability in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to evaluate the prognostic implications of IL‐6 post‐ACS.

Methods and Results

IL‐6 concentration was assessed at baseline in 4939 subjects in SOLID‐TIMI 52 (Stabilization of Plaque Using Darapladib—Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 52), a randomized trial of darapladib in patients ≤30 days from ACS. Patients were followed for a median of 2.5 years for major adverse cardiovascular events; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Primary analyses were adjusted first for baseline characteristics, days from index ACS, ACS type, and randomized treatment arm. For every SD increase in IL‐6, there was a 10% higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01‐1.19) and a 22% higher risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure (adj HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.11‐1.34). Patients in the highest IL‐6 quartile had a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (adj HR Q4:Q1 1.57, 95% CI 1.22‐2.03) and cardiovascular death or heart failure (adj HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.6‐3.29). After further adjustment for biomarkers (high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein, lipoprotein‐associated phospholipase A₂ activity, high‐sensitivity troponin I, and B‐type natriuretic peptide), IL‐6 remained significantly associated with the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (adj HR Q4:Q1 1.43, 95% CI 1.09‐1.88) and cardiovascular death or heart failure (adj HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.22‐2.63).

Conclusions

In patients after ACS, IL‐6 concentration is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes independent of established risk predictors and biomarkers. These findings lend support to the concept of IL‐6 as a potential therapeutic target in patients with unstable ischemic heart disease.

Short Sleep Duration, Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Shiftwork, and the Risk of Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients After an Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background

It is unknown whether short sleep duration, obstructive sleep apnea, and overnight shift work are associated with the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients after an acute coronary syndrome.

Methods and Results

SOLID‐TIMI 52 (The Stabilization of PLaques UsIng Darapladib‐Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 52 Trial) was a multinational, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial that enrolled 13 026 patients ≤30 days of acute coronary syndrome. At baseline, all patients were to complete the Berlin questionnaire to assess risk of obstructive sleep apnea and a sleep and shift work survey. Median follow‐up was 2.5 years. The primary outcome was major coronary events (MCE; coronary heart disease death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization). Cox models were adjusted for clinical predictors. Patients who reported <6 hours sleep per night had a 29% higher risk of MCE (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.12–1.49; P<0.001) compared with those with longer sleep. Patients who screened positive for obstructive sleep apnea had a 12% higher risk of MCE (1.12; 1.00–1.24; P=0.04) than those who did not screen positive. Overnight shift work (≥3 night shifts/week for ≥1 year) was associated with a 15% higher risk of MCE (1.15; 1.03–1.29; P=0.01). A step‐wise increase in cardiovascular risk was observed for individuals with more than 1 sleep‐related risk factor. Individuals with all 3 sleep‐related risk factors had a 2‐fold higher risk of MCE (2.01; 1.49–2.71; P<0.0001).

Conclusions

Short sleep duration, obstructive sleep apnea, and overnight shift work are under‐recognized as predictors of adverse outcomes after acute coronary syndrome. Increased efforts should be made to identify, treat, and educate patients about the importance of sleep for the potential prevention of cardiovascular events.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01000727.

Predictors of Nonuse of a High-Potency Statin After an Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the Stabilization of Plaques Using Darapladib-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 52 (SOLID-TIMI 52) Trial

Background

High‐potency statins reduce cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndromes but remain underused in clinical practice. We examined predictors of nonuse of high‐potency statins after acute coronary syndromes.

Methods and Results

The Stabilization of pLaques usIng Darapladib‐Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (SOLID‐TIMI 52) trial enrolled patients after an acute coronary syndrome in 36 countries between 2009 and 2011. Statin use was strongly encouraged throughout the trial, and statin potency was at the discretion of the treating physician. A high‐potency statin was defined as ≥40 mg atorvastatin, ≥20 mg rosuvastatin, or 80 mg simvastatin daily. Predictors of nonuse of high‐potency statins were examined using logistic regression. Of the patients included (n=12 446), 11 850 (95.2%) were treated with a statin at baseline after acute coronary syndrome (median 14 days), but only 5212 (41.9%) were on a high‐potency statin. Selected patient factors associated with nonuse of high‐potency statins included age ≥75 years (odds ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.24–1.56), female sex (odds ratio 1.11, 95% CI 1.02–1.22), renal dysfunction (odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI 1.03–1.32), and heart failure during hospital admission (odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.27–1.62). At 3 months after baseline, only 49% of patients had low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL. Among the 5490 patients (59%) who were not on a high‐potency statin at 3 months, lower low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol was a predictor of nonuse of a high‐potency statin after a median of 2.3 years (odds ratio 1.15 for 10 mg/dL decrease, 95% CI 1.11–1.19).

Conclusion

Despite the widespread use of statins after acute coronary syndromes, most patients are not treated with high‐potency statins early and late after the event, including patients at the highest risk of recurrent cardiovascular events.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01000727.

Effect of darapladib on major coronary events after an acute coronary syndrome: the SOLID-TIMI 52 randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2) has been hypothesized to be involved in atherogenesis through pathways related to inflammation. Darapladib is an oral, selective inhibitor of the Lp-PLA2 enzyme.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of darapladib in patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

SOLID-TIMI 52 was a multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized 13,026 participants within 30 days of hospitalization with an ACS (non-ST-elevation or ST-elevation myocardial infarction [MI]) at 868 sites in 36 countries.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to either once-daily darapladib (160 mg) or placebo on a background of guideline-recommended therapy. Patients were followed up for a median of 2.5 years between December 7, 2009, and December 6, 2013.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point (major coronary events) was the composite of coronary heart disease (CHD) death, MI, or urgent coronary revascularization for myocardial ischemia. Kaplan-Meier event rates are reported at 3 years.

RESULTS

During a median duration of 2.5 years, the primary end point occurred in 903 patients in the darapladib group and 910 in the placebo group (16.3% vs 15.6% at 3 years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.91-1.09]; P = .93). The composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred in 824 in the darapladib group and 838 in the placebo group (15.0% vs 15.0% at 3 years; HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.90-1.09]; P = .78). There were no differences between the treatment groups for additional secondary end points, for individual components of the primary end point, or in all-cause mortality (371 events in the darapladib group and 395 in the placebo group [7.3% vs 7.1% at 3 years; HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.82-1.08]; P = .40). Patients were more likely to report an odor-related concern in the darapladib group vs the placebo group (11.5% vs 2.5%) and also more likely to report diarrhea (10.6% vs 5.6%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients who experienced an ACS event, direct inhibition of Lp-PLA2 with darapladib added to optimal medical therapy and initiated within 30 days of hospitalization did not reduce the risk of major coronary events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01000727.

Study design and rationale for the Stabilization of pLaques usIng Darapladib-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (SOLID-TIMI 52) trial in patients after an acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Higher levels of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) (Lp-PLA(2)) are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events and may play a causal role in atherogenesis. Darapladib inhibits Lp-PLA(2) activity in plasma and in arterial plaques and may confer clinical benefit in preventing cardiovascular events.

STUDY DESIGN

The SOLID-TIMI 52 trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, event-driven trial. Approximately 13,000 subjects are being randomized to darapladib (160 mg enteric-coated tablet daily) or matching placebo within 30 days of hospitalization with an acute coronary syndrome. The primary end point is the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Secondary end points include major and total coronary events, individual components of the primary end point, and all-cause mortality. The study will continue until approximately 1,500 primary end point events have occurred to achieve 90% power to detect a 15.5% reduction in the primary end point. The median treatment duration is anticipated to be approximately 3 years, with a total study duration of approximately 4.1 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The SOLID-TIMI 52 trial will determine the clinical benefit of direct inhibition of Lp-PLA(2) activity with darapladib in patients after an acute coronary syndrome.

Efficacy and Safety of Carvedilol in Treatment of Heart Failure with Chronic Kidney Disease

Background—

The safety and efficacy of different types of β-blocker therapy in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) and systolic heart failure (HF) are not well described. We assessed whether treatment of systolic HF with carvedilol is efficacious and safe in adults with CKD.

Methods and Results—

We performed a post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data (n=4217) from 2 multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trials, CAPRICORN (Carvedilol Postinfarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction Study) and COPERNICUS (Carvedilol Prospective Randomized, Cumulative Survival study). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, HF mortality, first HF hospitalization, the composite of cardiovascular mortality or first HF hospitalization, and sudden cardiac death. Non–dialysis-dependent CKD was defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , using the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. CKD was present in 2566 of 4217 (60.8%) of the cohort, 50.4% of whom were randomly assigned to carvedilol therapy. Within the CKD group, treatment with carvedilol decreased the risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.93; P =0.007), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.94; P =0.011), HF mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.88; P =0.003), first hospitalization for HF (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88; P =0.0009), and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.87; P <0.001) but was without significant effect on sudden cardiac death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.05; P =0.098). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm and study type. Carvedilol was generally well tolerated by both groups of patients, with an increased relative incidence in transient increase in serum creatinine without need for dialysis and other electrolyte changes in the CKD patients. However, in a sensitivity analysis among HF subjects with estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (CKD stage 3b), the efficacy of carvedilol was not significantly different from placebo.

Conclusions—

This analysis suggests that the benefits of carvedilol therapy in patients with systolic left ventricular dysfunction with or without symptoms of HF are consistent even in the presence of mild to moderate CKD. Whether carvedilol therapy is similarly efficacious in HF patients with more advanced kidney disease requires further study.

Controlled-release carvedilol in the management of systemic hypertension and myocardial dysfunction

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Within the treatment armamentarium, beta-blockers have demonstrated efficacy across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease--from modification of a risk factor (ie, hypertension) to treatment after an acute event (ie, myocardial infarction). Recently, the use of beta-blockers as a first-line therapy in hypertension has been called into question. Moreover, beta-blockers as a class are saddled with a misperception of having poor tolerability. However, vasodilatory beta-blockers such as carvedilol have a different hemodynamic action that provides the benefits of beta-blockade with the addition of vasodilation resulting from alpha 1-adrenergic receptor blockade. Vasodilation reduces total peripheral resistance, which may produce an overall positive effect on tolerability. Recently, a new, controlled-release carvedilol formulation has been developed that provides the clinical efficacy of carvedilol but is indicated for once-daily dosing. This review presents an overview of the clinical and pharmacologic carvedilol controlled-release data.

Differential effects of extended-release carvedilol and extended-release metoprolol on lipid profiles in patients with hypertension: results of the Extended-Release Carvedilol Lipid Trial

Some beta-blockers, although they are effective antihypertensive agents, may adversely effect dyslipidemia and decrease insulin sensitivity. beta-blockers without adverse metabolic effects may provide an improvement in long-term hypertension therapy. Hypertensive patients (n = 568) without diabetes, not requiring lipid-lowering therapy, were randomized to once-daily extended-release carvedilol or extended-release metoprolol and titrated to target blood pressure (BP). Co-primary endpoints were comparison between groups in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) or triglycerides at 24 weeks. Extended-release carvedilol was superior to extended-release metoprolol in meeting the primary endpoint of a difference in triglycerides; the median % change in triglycerides being -8.026% (P = .0141; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -15.35, -0.67)] from baseline to 24 weeks. Triglycerides were unchanged with carvedilol and increased with metoprolol. There was no significant difference in effect on HDL. BP was similar between treatment groups. There was a significant decrease with extended-release carvedilol vs. extended-release metoprolol in insulin (-2.56 muU/mL [P = .0213; 95% CI, -4.74 to -0.38]) and c-peptide [(-0.43 ng/mL [P = .0007; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.18]). In hypertension, extended-release carvedilol resulted in lower triglycerides, insulin, and C-peptide levels compared with extended-release metoprolol. Similar effects were observed in high-risk subgroups. Both treatments were well tolerated. This differential metabolic profile could be useful in determining antihypertensive treatment options.

Demographic analyses of the effects of carvedilol vs metoprolol on glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension in the Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) study

In the Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial, carvedilol added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers had neutral or beneficial effects on glycemic measures compared with metoprolol tartrate. For the 1235 diabetic hypertensive GEMINI patients, the authors assessed treatment differences by race (white/black/other), age (continuous variable), and sex on hemoglobin A(1c), insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance [HOMA-IR]), and blood pressure. Both treatments significantly reduced blood pressure in all subgroups, but the metabolic effects of carvedilol were more beneficial in subgroups of race and sex. Carvedilol did not affect hemoglobin A(1c) but improved HOMA-IR results in all subgroups, significantly in males and "other race" subgroups. Metoprolol significantly increased hemoglobin A(1c) in all subgroups except "other race," with no effect on HOMA-IR findings. Differences vs metoprolol significantly favored carvedilol for hemoglobin A(1c) in white and female subgroups and favored carvedilol for HOMA-IR in black, "other race," and male subgroups. Carvedilol effects were favorable to adjustment of age as a covariate. In hypertensive patients with diabetes, carvedilol may be a more appropriate choice when beta-blockade is indicated.

Lowering blood pressure with beta-blockers in combination with other renin-angiotensin system blockers in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes: results from the GEMINI Trial

The effects of beta-blockade in addition to more specific renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers on blood pressure (BP) in patients with diabetes are described. After washout of medications other than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, patients were titrated to a BP level <130/80 mm Hg using therapy with carvedilol 6.25 to 25 mg bid (n=498) or metoprolol tartrate 50 to 200 mg bid (n=737). At the end of the beta-blocker titration period, a BP level <130/80 mm Hg was achieved in 37% of carvedilol-treated and 36% of metoprolol-treated participants who continued to receive a renin-angiotensin system blocker. In the approximately 60% of participants in whom a BP level <130/80 mm Hg was not attained with renin-angiotensin system blockade plus beta-blockade, hydrochlorothiazide was added in 43% and 44% of carvedilol and metoprolol groups, respectively; 25% (both arms) also required a calcium channel blocker. Among those in whom goal BP was not achieved, 42% of carvedilol- and 40% of metoprolol-treated participants were not titrated to the highest dose of beta-blocker. The use of carvedilol compared with metoprolol did not effect glycemic control.

Effects of carvedilol early after myocardial infarction: analysis of the first 30 days in Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction (CAPRICORN)

BACKGROUND

In the CAPRICORN trial, carvedilol reduced all-cause mortality by 23% over a mean follow-up of 1.3 years in clinically stabilized post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) with or without signs of heart failure. This analysis sought to assess the impact of carvedilol within the first 30 days of randomization.

METHODS

The effect of carvedilol initiated after acute MI with LVD (n = 975) was compared with the effect of placebo (n = 984) added to other standard-of-care therapies on mortality, fatal or nonfatal infarction, cardiac arrest, and their composite as well as withdrawals for adverse events during the first 30 days of therapy.

RESULTS

The carvedilol group experienced a reduction in mortality in the first 30 days (19 vs 33, hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.33-1.02); fatal or nonfatal MI (13 vs 23, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29-1.12); the composite end point of death, nonfatal MI, or cardiac arrest (31 vs 53, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.91); and the composite of all-cause mortality or nonfatal MI (29 vs 51, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.90). These effects were similar in direction and magnitude to those observed during the entire trial. The rates of adverse events leading to withdrawal were similar in the carvedilol and placebo groups, except for hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

In clinically stabilized post-MI patients with LVD, there is an early benefit with carvedilol treatment that is similar to that seen during long-term therapy.

Carvedilol for children and adolescents with heart failure: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Although beta-blockers improve symptoms and survival in adults with heart failure, little is known about these medications in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively evaluate the effects of carvedilol in children and adolescents with symptomatic systemic ventricular systolic dysfunction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 161 children and adolescents with symptomatic systolic heart failure from 26 US centers. In addition to treatment with conventional heart failure medications, patients were assigned to receive placebo or carvedilol. Enrollment began in June 2000 and the last dose was given in May 2005 (each patient received medication for 8 months).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to twice-daily dosing with placebo, low-dose carvedilol (0.2 mg/kg per dose if weight <62.5 kg or 12.5 mg per dose if weight > or =62.5 kg), or high-dose carvedilol (0.4 mg/kg per dose if weight <62.5 kg or 25 mg per dose if weight > or =62.5 kg) and were stratified according to whether each patient's systemic ventricle was a left ventricle or not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was a composite measure of heart failure outcomes in patients receiving carvedilol (low- and high-dose combined) vs placebo. Secondary efficacy variables included individual components of this composite, echocardiographic measures, and plasma b-type natriuretic peptide levels.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the composite end point based on the percentage of patients who improved, worsened, or were unchanged. Among 54 patients assigned to placebo, 30 improved (56%), 16 worsened (30%), and 8 were unchanged (15%); among 103 patients assigned to carvedilol, 58 improved (56%), 25 worsened (24%), and 20 were unchanged (19%). The rates of worsening were lower than expected. The odds ratio for worsened outcome for patients in the combined carvedilol group vs the placebo group was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.36-1.59; P = .47). A prespecified subgroup analysis noted significant interaction between treatment and ventricular morphology (P = .02), indicating a possible differential effect of treatment between patients with a systemic left ventricle (beneficial trend) and those whose systemic ventricle was not a left ventricle (nonbeneficial trend).

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary results suggest that carvedilol does not significantly improve clinical heart failure outcomes in children and adolescents with symptomatic systolic heart failure. However, given the lower than expected event rates, the trial may have been underpowered. There may be a differential effect of carvedilol in children and adolescents based on ventricular morphology.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00052026.

Effect of carvedilol and metoprolol on the mode of death in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

In the COMET study, carvedilol improved survival compared to metoprolol tartrate in 3029 patients with NYHA II-IV heart failure and EF <35%, followed for an average of 58 months.

AIMS

To evaluate whether the effect on overall mortality was specific for a particular mode of death. This may help to identify the mechanism of the observed difference.

METHODS

Of the 1112 total deaths, 972 were adjudicated as cardiovascular, including 480 sudden, 365 circulatory failure (CF) and 51 stroke deaths. For each mode of death, the effect of pre-specified baseline variables was assessed, including sex, age, NYHA class, aetiology, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, EF, atrial fibrillation, previous myocardial infarction or hypertension, renal function, concomitant medication, and study treatment allocation.

RESULTS

In multivariate Cox regression analyses, compared to metoprolol, carvedilol reduced cardiovascular (RR 0.80, CI 0.7-0.91, p=0.0009), sudden (RR 0.77, CI 0.64-0.93, p=0.0073) and stroke deaths (RR 0.37, CI 0.19-0.71, p=0.0027) with a non-significant trend for CF death (RR 0.83, CI 0.66-1.04, p=0.07). Treatment benefit with carvedilol did not differ between modes of death, except for a greater reduction in stroke death with carvedilol (competing risk analysis, p=0.0071 vs CF death). There were no interactions between treatment allocation and baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Mortality reduction with carvedilol compared to metoprolol appears relatively non-specific and could be consistent with a superior effect of carvedilol on cardiac function, arrhythmias or, in view of the greater reduction in stroke deaths, on vascular events.

Differential effect of beta-blocker therapy on insulin resistance as a function of insulin sensitizer use: results from GEMINI

AIMS

To determine whether the beneficial effects of carvedilol on insulin resistance (IR) are affected by the concomitant use of insulin sensitizers [thiazolidinediones (TZDs) and metformin].

METHODS

Changes in HbA1c and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were assessed over 5 months, comparing carvedilol with metoprolol tartrate according to insulin sensitizer (TZDs and metformin) use.

RESULTS

In TZD/metformin users, carvedilol patients showed a 5.4% decrease [95% confidence interval (CI) -11.9, 1.6; P = 0.13] and metoprolol tartrate patients showed a 2.8% decrease (95% CI -8.5, 3.2; P = 0.35) in HOMA-IR. The -2.6% difference between treatments was not significant (95% CI -10.7, 6.2; P = 0.55). In contrast, those not taking TZD/metformin experienced a 13.2% increase in HOMA-IR on metoprolol tartrate (95% CI 3.2, 24.1; P < 0.01) and a 4.8% decrease in HOMA-IR on carvedilol (95% CI -14.6, 6.0; P = 0.37), with a significant treatment difference of -15.9% favouring carvedilol (95% CI -26.6, -3.6; P = 0.01). There was no significant treatment interaction for the use of TZD/metformin and HbA1c. A statistically significant treatment difference was observed for HbA1c after 5 months favouring carvedilol after adjusting for insulin sensitizer use (-0.11%, 95% CI -0.214, -0.009; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with diabetes and hypertension not taking insulin sensitizers, the use of metoprolol tartrate resulted in a worsening of insulin resistance, an effect not seen with carvedilol. However, in TZD/metformin users the difference between the beta-blockers was not statistically significant.

Body weight changes with beta-blocker use: results from GEMINI

PURPOSE

Patients with type 2 diabetes are commonly overweight, which can contribute to poor cardiovascular outcomes. beta-blockers may promote weight gain, or hamper weight loss, and are a concern in high-risk patients. The current analysis of the Glycemic Effect in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial evaluates the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate on weight gain in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

METHODS

This prespecified secondary analysis of the GEMINI study (n=1106) evaluated change in body weight after 5 months.

RESULTS

Mean (+/-SE) baseline weights were 97.5 (+/-20.1) kg for carvedilol and 96.6 (+/-20.1) kg for metoprolol tartrate. Treatment difference (c vs m) in mean (+/-SE) weight change from baseline was -1.02 (+/-0.21) kg (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.43 to -0.60; P <.001). Patients taking metoprolol had a significant mean (+/-SE) weight gain of 1.19 (+/-0.16) kg (P <.001); patients taking carvedilol did not (0.17 [+/-0.19] kg; P =.36). Metoprolol tartrate-treated patients with body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 had a statistically significant greater weight gain than comparable carvedilol-treated patients. Treatment differences (c vs m) in the obese (BMI >30 kg/m2) and morbidly obese groups (BMI >40 kg/m2) were -0.90 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to -0.3; P =.002) and -1.84 kg (95% CI, -2.9 to -0.8; P =.001), respectively. Pairwise correlation analyses revealed no significant associations between weight change and change in HbA1c, HOMA-IR, or blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Metoprolol tartrate was associated with increased weight gain compared to carvedilol; weight gain was most pronounced in subjects with hypertension and diabetes who were not taking insulin therapy.

Beta-blocker dosing in community-based treatment of heart failure

BACKGROUND

Community patients with heart failure (HF) are older, less often treated by HF specialists, and have more comorbidity than those in randomized clinical trials. These differences might affect beta-blocker prescribing in HF.

METHODS

To explore patterns of beta-blocker prescribing for HF in the community and their association with outcomes, we determined carvedilol doses at end titration in 4113 patients from a community-based beta-blocker HF registry according to physician and patient characteristics, HF severity, and rates of hospitalization and death.

RESULTS

Female sex, age > or = 65 years, and left ventricular ejection fraction > or = 35% were associated with lower beta-blocker doses. Average daily dose of beta-blocker was lower with worse baseline New York Heart Association class. More patients of cardiologists achieved carvedilol doses > or = 25 mg twice daily, whereas in those of noncardiologists lower doses were more common. Relative risk of HF hospitalizations or all-cause death was significantly lower with higher doses of beta-blocker.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker dosing in community HF appears lower than in randomized clinical trials, especially when prescribed by noncardiologists. At all doses, patients taking the beta-blocker carvedilol have a lower incidence of death and HF hospitalization than those discontinuing it, regardless of physician type in the community setting.

The Safety of Amiodarone in Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty persists about the safety and efficacy of amiodarone for the management of heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We randomized 3029 patients with chronic heart failure to receive carvedilol or metoprolol and followed patients for a median of 58 months. One hundred fifty-five of 1466 patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II and 209 of 1563 in Class III or IV received amiodarone at baseline. Persistence with amiodarone treatment was high and 66% received amiodarone after 4 years. During follow-up, 38.7% and 58.9% of patients receiving amiodarone in NYHA Classes II and III + IV died versus 26.2% and 43.3% not receiving amiodarone (P < .001). This difference was maintained in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.7, P < .001). The difference was explained by an increased risk of death due to circulatory failure (HR 2.4, CI 1.9-3.1, P < .001) in patients receiving amiodarone. Sudden death was not different (HR 1.07, CI 0.8-1.4, P = .7). The increased risk was similar across NYHA classes with HR of 1.60 (CI 1.2-2.1, P < .001) in NYHA Class II versus 1.58 (CI 1.3-1.9, P < .001) in Classes III + IV.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with amiodarone was associated with an increased risk of death from circulatory failure independent of functional class.

beta-blocker use and diabetes symptom score: results from the GEMINI study

AIM

The Glycemic Effect in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial compared the metabolic effects of two beta-blockers in people with type 2 diabetes and hypertension treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade and found differences in metabolic outcomes. In this paper, we report the results of a prespecified secondary analysis of GEMINI that sought to determine the effect of these two beta-blockers on commonly reported symptoms.

METHODS

The Diabetes Symptom Checklist (DSC), a self-report questionnaire measuring the occurrence and perceived burden of diabetes-related symptoms, was completed by GEMINI participants at baseline and at the end of the study (maintenance month 5). The DSC assessed symptoms in eight domains: psychology (fatigue), psychology (cognitive), neuropathy (pain), neuropathy (sensory), cardiology, ophthalmology, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Comparison of the mean change in self-reported diabetes-related symptoms indicated a significant treatment difference favouring carvedilol over metoprolol tartrate in overall symptom score (-0.08; 95% CI -0.15, -0.01; p = 0.02) and in the domains for hypoglycaemia symptoms (-0.12; 95% CI -0.23, -0.02; p = 0.02) and hyperglycaemia symptoms (-0.16; 95% CI -0.27, -0.05; p = 0.005). Carvedilol resulted in fewer perceived diabetes-related symptoms in patients with diabetes and hypertension.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol resulted in a lower perceived burden of diabetes-related symptoms in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. The addition of a well-tolerated beta-blocker to RAS blockade may improve hypertension treatment and quality of life in patients with diabetes.

Comparison of outcomes and usefulness of carvedilol across a spectrum of left ventricular ejection fractions in patients with heart failure in clinical practice

Heart failure (HF) in the community differs meaningfully from that in clinical trials, particularly the higher prevalence of patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) typically excluded from clinical trials, thus limiting knowledge of their responsiveness to beta-blocker therapy. From a community-based registry of 4,280 patients with HF starting treatment with the beta blocker carvedilol, we compared characteristics, carvedilol titration, and outcomes of patients according to LVEF >40% or <40% (as in clinical trials) and across the spectrum of LVEF <21%, 21% to 30%, 31% to 40%, and >40%. Patients with preserved EF (LVEF >40%) were older and more often women and hypertensive. Lower LVEF was associated with worse functional class and more HF hospitalizations in the previous year. Carvedilol dose decreased with increasing LVEF. Hospitalization rates for HF related inversely to LVEF before starting carvedilol therapy and decreased from the previous year in all LVEF groups during follow-up. Although 1-year mortality rate decreased from 8% with LVEF < or =20% to 6% with LVEF >40%, adjusted hazard ratios were not significantly different across LVEF groups. Thus, characteristics of community patients with HF vary across the spectrum of LVEF. Patients with HF and preserved EF treated with carvedilol in the community improve symptomatically and experience fewer HF hospitalizations after initiating carvedilol. In conclusion, without a control group, the effect of carvedilol on outcomes is not conclusive and trials of carvedilol in patients with HF and preserved EF should be undertaken.

Tolerability, safety, and efficacy of beta-blockade in black patients with heart failure in the community setting: insights from a large prospective beta-blocker registry

Heart failure (HF) clinical trials suggest different responses of blacks and whites to beta-blockers. Differences between clinical trial and community settings may also have an impact. The Carvedilol Heart Failure Registry (COHERE) observed experience with carvedilol in 4280 patients with HF in a community setting. This analysis compares characteristics, outcomes, and carvedilol dosing of blacks and whites in COHERE. Compared with whites (n=3433), blacks (n=523) had more severe HF symptoms despite similar systolic function. At similar carvedilol maintenance doses, symptoms improved in 33% of blacks vs 28% of whites, while worsening in 10% and 11%, respectively (both nonsignificant), and HF hospitalization rates were reduced comparably in both groups (-58% vs -56%, respectively; both P<.001). Incidence and hazard ratios of death were similar in blacks and whites (6.9% vs 7.5%, hazard ratio 1.2 vs 1.0, P=.276). Thus carvedilol was similarly effective in blacks and whites with HF in the community setting, consistent with carvedilol clinical trials.

Carvedilol Protects Better Against Vascular Events Than Metoprolol in Heart Failure

OBJECTIVES

We explored whether vascular protection by carvedilol could contribute to its superior effects in the treatment of heart failure (HF) compared with metoprolol tartrate in the COMET (Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial) study.

BACKGROUND

Full adrenergic blockade by carvedilol and additional (e.g., antioxidative) properties may lead to vascular protection relative to beta-1 blockade alone, and contribute to its efficacy in HF treatment.

METHODS

Three thousand twenty-nine patients with HF due to ischemic (51%) or idiopathic cardiomyopathy (44%) were randomized double-blind to carvedilol (n = 1,511) or metoprolol (n = 1,518) and followed for 58 months. Vascular end points were cardiovascular death, stroke, stroke death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unstable angina.

RESULTS

The effect of carvedilol on cardiovascular death improved consistently in subgroups with prespecified baseline variables. Myocardial infarctions were reported in 69 carvedilol and 94 metoprolol patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.97, p = 0.03). Cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI combined were reduced by 19% in carvedilol (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, p = 0.0009 vs. metoprolol). Unstable angina was reported as an adverse event in 56 carvedilol and in 77 metoprolol patients (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.501 to 0.998, p = 0.049). A stroke occurred in 65 carvedilol and 80 metoprolol patients (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10). Stroke or MI combined occurred in 130 carvedilol and 168 metoprolol patients (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95, p = 0.015), and fatal MI or fatal stroke occurred in 34 carvedilol and in 72 metoprolol patients (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, p = 0.0002). Death after a nonfatal MI or stroke occurred in 61 of 124 carvedilol and in 106 of 160 metoprolol patients (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, p = 0.0086).

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol improves vascular outcomes better than metoprolol. These results suggest a ubiquitous protective effect of carvedilol against major vascular events.

Effects of metoprolol and carvedilol on pre-existing and new onset diabetes in patients with chronic heart failure: data from the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET)

BACKGROUND

Beta blocker treatment may worsen glucose metabolism.

OBJECTIVE

To study the development of new onset diabetes in a large cohort of patients with heart failure treated with either metoprolol or carvedilol.

DESIGN

Prospective and retrospective analysis of a controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

Multinational multicentre study.

PATIENTS

3029 patients with chronic heart failure.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomly assigned treatment with carvedilol (n = 1511, target dose 50 mg daily) or metoprolol tartrate (n = 1518, target dose 100 mg daily).

RESULTS

Diabetic events (diabetic coma, peripheral gangrene, diabetic foot, decreased glucose tolerance or hyperglycaemia) and new onset diabetes (clinical diagnosis, repeated high random glucose level or glucose lowering drugs) were assessed in 2298 patients without diabetes at baseline. Diabetic events occurred in 122/1151 (10.6%) patients in the carvedilol group and 149/1147 (13.0%) patients in the metoprolol group (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.99; p = 0.039). New onset diabetes was diagnosed in 119/1151 (10.3%) v 145/1147 (12.6%) cases in the carvedilol and metoprolol treatment groups (HR = 0.78, CI 0.61 to 0.997; p = 0.048), respectively. Patients with diabetes at baseline had an increased mortality compared with non-diabetic subjects (45.3% v 33.9%; HR = 1.45, CI 1.28 to 1.65). Both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects at baseline had a similar reduction in mortality with carvedilol compared with metoprolol (RR = 0.85; CI 0.69 to 1.06 and RR = 0.82; CI 0.71 to 0.94, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A high prevalence and incidence of diabetes is found in patients with heart failure over a course of 5 years. New onset diabetes is more likely to occur during treatment with metoprolol than during treatment with carvedilol.

Predictors of clinical outcomes in patients given carvedilol for heart failure

Risk factors for outcomes in heart failure (HF) were derived from populations in clinical trials, at hospital discharge, or in localized geographic or socioeconomic strata before the widespread use of beta blockers. This study observed 4,280 patients in a community-based HF registry for 1 year after completing carvedilol titration. Independent risk factors for death, hospitalization for HF, or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons other than HF were first identified by age-, gender-, and race-adjusted analyses, then by multivariate analysis adjusted simultaneously for all factors. Over this period, 7% of patients died, 11% were hospitalized for HF, 12% were hospitalized for other cardiovascular reasons, and 27% had > or =1 of these events. The most significant outcome predictors were New York Heart Association class III or IV, history of hospitalization for HF or other cardiovascular reasons, and angina pectoris, all associated with increased odds of having an adverse outcome (all p < or =0.001). The left ventricular ejection fraction was not a significant outcome predictor by multivariate analysis. The odds ratio for an adverse outcome was significantly reduced for patients with hypertensive or idiopathic causes of HF and for those whose physicians had graduated from medical school > or =24 years earlier compared with <14 years earlier (all p <0.005). In conclusion, easily obtained historical information predicts clinical outcomes in patients with HF in the year after initiating carvedilol. In this unselected community population, these historical factors were better predictors of risk than the left ventricular ejection fraction.

Heart Failure in Community Practice: Relationship to Age and Sex in a ?-Blocker Registry

Women and the elderly are underrepresented in clinical trials of heart failure (HF). The authors analyzed, by sex and age groups, a registry of 4280 community patients initiating carvedilol for HF. Women (n=1485) were older than men (n=2793) and had worse functional class with higher left ventricular ejection fraction and blood pressure. Women also had more HF hospitalizations, less use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and lower doses of carvedilol. Nevertheless, during 1-year follow-up, both groups experienced greater than 40% reductions in HF hospitalizations (P<.001), with mortality of 7.3% in women vs 9.1% in men (P=.085). With increasing age, left ventricular ejection fraction, blood pressure, and functional class increased, whereas angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and carvedilol doses decreased. HF hospitalizations fell at least 40% in all age groups after starting carvedilol (P<.001). Characteristics of women and the elderly with HF in the community suggest increased risk, but both populations respond well after initiating carvedilol.

Pharmacokinetic profile of controlled-release carvedilol in patients with left ventricular dysfunction associated with chronic heart failure or after myocardial infarction

We compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of repeated dosing with the currently available immediate-release (IR) carvedilol (given twice daily) and a newly developed controlled-release (CR) formulation (given once daily) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). We enrolled 188 patients with stable mild, moderate, or severe heart failure as well as survivors of a recent acute myocardial infarction (MI) with asymptomatic LVD (left ventricular ejection fraction </=0.40) in a crossover study. PK variables were initially assessed after patients had received carvedilol IR 3.125, 6.25, 12.5, or 25 mg twice daily for >/=2 weeks. Patients were then switched to the corresponding dose of carvedilol CR (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg once daily), and PK variables were reassessed after an additional 2 weeks. The primary measures included trough plasma concentration (C(tau)), maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC([0-t])) for both enantiomers of carvedilol of each formulation of the drug. The AUC((0-t)) and the trough and maximum carvedilol concentrations for both the R(+) and S(-) enantiomers were similar when carvedilol IR was compared with carvedilol CR as follows: 3.125 mg twice daily versus 10 mg once daily, 6.25 mg twice daily versus 20 mg once daily, 12.5 mg twice daily versus 40 mg once daily, and 25 mg twice daily versus 80 mg once daily, respectively. Based on a pooled analysis, the AUC((0-t)), C(max), and C(tau) for both R(+) and S(-) were equivalent for the CR and IR formulations, with point estimates and 90% confidence intervals within the bioequivalence limits of 80%-125%. The fluctuation index (the CR-IR ratio for [C(max) - C(min)]/C(ss) where C(min) is the minimum observed concentration over the dosing interval and C(ss) is the concentration at steady state) for both R(+)- and S(-)-carvedilol was approximately 1, indicating that the peak-to-trough fluctuation in plasma concentration for carvedilol after use of carvedilol CR once daily was similar to that for carvedilol IR given twice daily. The median time to maximum observed plasma concentration (t(max)) was approximately 3 hours longer for both enantiomers after administration of carvedilol CR as compared with carvedilol IR. These data demonstrate that the new carvedilol CR formulation given once daily is equivalent to the currently available carvedilol IR formulation given twice daily in patients with heart failure and asymptomatic post-MI LVD.

The effect of carvedilol on mortality risk in heart failure patients with diabetes: results of a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although beta-blocker therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with chronic heart failure, this class of drugs tends to be underutilized in diabetic patients due to concerns about adverse metabolic effects, especially on glycemic control. No randomized clinical trial has specifically evaluated the effect of beta-blocker therapy on mortality in diabetic patients with heart failure. Previous meta-analyses combining results of heart failure trials with pharmacologically diverse beta-blockers suggest that the survival benefit in diabetic patients may be diminished compared to benefits in non-diabetic patients. However, some trial results indicate that carvedilol, which blocks beta1-, beta2-, and alpha1-receptors and is a potent antioxidant, may produce at least comparable effects in both patient groups.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of carvedilol in patients with heart failure and diabetes, specifically to determine if the survival benefit of carvedilol demonstrated in heart failure trials was as great in the subgroups of patients with diabetes.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed that included 5757 patients with heart failure, 25% of whom had diabetes, from seven large placebo-controlled randomized trials with carvedilol. All large (> 100 patients) placebo-controlled, randomized trials with carvedilol in heart failure were included. The endpoint of all-cause mortality was examined in the overall population, patients without diabetes, and patients with diabetes. The number of patients needed to treat (NNT) for 1 year to prevent one death associated with carvedilol use in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients was also calculated. The log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare the event time distributions of carvedilol versus placebo with respect to the outcome of mortality.

RESULTS

Similar survival benefits were seen with carvedilol use in diabetic and non-diabetic patients (relative risk reductions of 28% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3-46%; p = 0.03] and 37% [95% CI 22-48%; p < 0.001], respectively). There were no significant differences between the relative mortality risk reductions or the NNT with carvedilol use in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients. The NNT for 1 year to prevent one death was 23 for all patients, as well as for non-diabetic patients, and 25 for the diabetic group.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides evidence that the same survival benefit may occur with carvedilol in heart failure patients with and without diabetes. The low NNT in the severe heart failure trial, COPERNICUS, and the diabetic subgroup in this meta-analysis suggests that severe heart failure patients and heart failure patients with diabetes may particularly derive benefit from therapy with carvedilol.

Differential Effects of β-Blockers on Albuminuria in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Increases in the cardiovascular risk marker microalbuminuria are attenuated by blood pressure reduction using blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. Such changes in microalbuminuria have not been observed when β-blockers are used. A prespecified secondary end point of the Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial was to examine the effects of different β-blockers on changes in albuminuria in the presence of renin-angiotensin system blockade. Participants with hypertension and type 2 diabetes were randomized to either metoprolol tartrate (n=737) or carvedilol (n=498) in blinded fashion after a washout period of all antihypertensive agents except for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. Blinded medication was titrated to achieve target blood pressure, with a-5 month follow-up period. The current analysis examined microalbuminuria, using spot urine albumin:creatinine, in participants who had values at screening and trial end. A greater reduction in microalbuminuria was observed for those randomized to carvedilol (−16.2%Δ; 95% confidence interval, −25.3, −5.9; P =0.003). Of those with normoalbuminuria at baseline, fewer progressed to microalbuminuria on carvedilol versus metoprolol (20 of 302 [6.6%] versus 48 of 431 [11.1%], respectively; P =0.03). Microalbuminuria development was not related to differences in blood pressure or achievement of blood pressure goal (68% carvedilol versus 67%, metoprolol). Presence of metabolic syndrome at baseline was the only independent predictor of worsening albuminuria throughout the study ( P =0.004). β-Blockers have differential effects on microalbuminuria in the presence of renin-angiotensin system blockade. These differences cannot be explained by effects on blood pressure or α1-antagonism but may relate to antioxidant properties of carvedilol.

Carvedilol's antiarrhythmic properties: therapeutic implications in patients with left ventricular dysfunction

Carvedilol is a beta- and alpha-adrenergic-blocking drug with clinically important antiarrhythmic properties. It possesses anti-ischemic and antioxidant activity and inhibits a number of cationic channels in the cardiomyocyte, including the HERG-associated potassium channel, the L-type calcium channel, and the rapid-depolarizing sodium channel. The electrophysiologic properties of carvedilol include moderate prolongation of action potential duration and effective refractory period; slowing of atrioventricular conduction; and reducing the dispersion of refractoriness. Experimentally, carvedilol reduces complex and repetitive ventricular ectopy induced by ischemia and reperfusion. In patients, carvedilol is effective in controlling the ventricular rate response in atrial fibrillation (AF), with and without digitalis, and is useful in maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion, with and without amiodarone. In patients with AF and heart failure (HF), carvedilol reduces mortality risk and improves left ventricular (LV) function. Large-scale clinical trials have demonstrated that combined carvedilol and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy significantly reduces sudden cardiac death, mortality, and ventricular arrhythmia in patients with LV dysfunction (LVD) due to chronic HF or following myocardial infarction (MI). Despite intensive neurohormonal blockade, mortality rates remain relatively high in patients with post-MI and nonischemic LVD. Recent trials of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators added to pharmacologic therapy, especially beta blockers, have shown a further reduction in arrhythmic deaths in these patients.

Influence of heart rate, blood pressure, and beta-blocker dose on outcome and the differences in outcome between carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the COMET trial

AIMS

We studied the influence of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and beta-blocker dose on outcome in the 2599 out of 3029 patients in Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) who were alive and on study drug at 4 months after randomization (time of first visit on maintenance therapy).

METHODS AND RESULTS

By multivariable analysis, baseline HR, baseline SBP, and their change after 4 months were not independently related to subsequent outcome. In a multivariable analysis including clinical variables, HR above and SBP below the median value achieved at 4 months predicted subsequent increased mortality [relative risk (RR) for HR>68 b.p.m. 1.333; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.152-1.542; P<0.0001 and RR for SBP>120 mmHg 0.78; 95% CI 0.671-0.907; P<0.0013]. Achieving target beta-blocker dose was associated with a better outcome (RR 0.779; 95% CI 0.662-0.916; P<0.0025). The superiority of carvedilol as compared to metoprolol tartrate was maintained in a multivariable model (RR 0.767; 95% CI 0.663-0.887; P=0.0004) and there was no interaction with HR, SBP, or beta-blocker dose.

CONCLUSION

Beta-blocker dose, HR, and SBP achieved during beta-blocker therapy have independent prognostic value in heart failure. None of these factors influenced the beneficial effects of carvedilol when compared with metoprolol tartrate at the pre-defined target doses used in COMET.

Metabolic effects of carvedilol vs metoprolol in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Beta-blockers have been shown to decrease cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); however, some components of the metabolic syndrome are worsened by some beta-blockers.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of beta-blockers with different pharmacological profiles on glycemic and metabolic control in participants with DM and hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade, in the context of cardiovascular risk factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial (The Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives [GEMINI]) conducted between June 1, 2001, and April 6, 2004, at 205 US sites that compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate on glycemic control. The 1235 participants were aged 36 to 85 years with hypertension (>130/80 mm Hg) and type 2 DM (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 6.5%-8.5%) and were receiving RAS blockers. Participants were followed up for 35 weeks.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive a 6.25- to 25-mg dose of carvedilol (n = 498) or 50- to 200-mg dose of metoprolol tartrate (n = 737), each twice daily. Open-label hydrochlorothiazide and a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist were added, if needed, to achieve blood pressure target.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Difference between groups in mean change from baseline HbA1c following 5 months of maintenance therapy. Additional prespecified comparisons included change from baseline HbA1c in individual treatment groups, treatment effect on insulin sensitivity, and microalbuminuria.

RESULTS

The 2 groups differed in mean change in HbA1c from baseline (0.13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22% to -0.04%; P = .004; modified intention-to-treat analysis). The mean (SD) HbA1c increased with metoprolol (0.15% [0.04%]; P<.001) but not carvedilol (0.02% [0.04%]; P = .65). Insulin sensitivity improved with carvedilol (-9.1%; P = .004) but not metoprolol (-2.0%; P = .48); the between-group difference was -7.2% (95% CI, -13.8% to -0.2%; P = .004). Blood pressure was similar between groups. Progression to microalbuminuria was less frequent with carvedilol than with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Both beta-blockers were well tolerated; use of carvedilol in the presence of RAS blockade did not affect glycemic control and improved some components of the metabolic syndrome relative to metoprolol in participants with DM and hypertension. The effects of the 2 beta-blockers on clinical outcomes need to be compared in long-term clinical trials.