Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial

BACKGROUND

Half of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) have preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but few treatments have specifically been assessed in such patients. In previous studies of patients with CHF and low LVEF or vascular disease and preserved LVEF, inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system is beneficial. We investigated the effect of addition of an angiotensin-receptor blocker to current treatments.

METHODS

Between March, 1999, and July, 2000, we randomly assigned 3023 patients candesartan (n=1514, target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=1509). Patients had New York Heart Association functional class II-IV CHF and LVEF higher than 40%. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or admission to hospital for CHF. Analysis was done by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Median follow-up was 36.6 months. 333 (22%) patients in the candesartan and 366 (24%) in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.03], p=0.118; covariate adjusted 0.86 [0.74-1.0], p=0.051). Cardiovascular death did not differ between groups (170 vs 170), but fewer patients in the candesartan group than in the placebo group were admitted to hospital for CHF once (230 vs 279, p=0.017) or multiple times. Composite outcomes that included non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke showed similar results to the primary composite (388 vs 429; unadjusted 0.88 [0.77-1.01], p=0.078; covariate adjusted 0.86 [0.75-0.99], p=0.037).

INTERPRETATION

Candesartan has a moderate impact in preventing admissions for CHF among patients who have heart failure and LVEF higher than 40%.

Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are at high risk of cardiovascular death and recurrent hospital admissions. We aimed to find out whether the use of an angiotensin-receptor blocker could reduce mortality and morbidity.

METHODS

In parallel, randomised, double-blind, controlled, clinical trials we compared candesartan with placebo in three distinct populations. We studied patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40% or less who were not receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors because of previous intolerance or who were currently receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, and patients with LVEF higher than 40%. Overall, 7601 patients (7599 with data) were randomly assigned candesartan (n=3803, titrated to 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo (n=3796), and followed up for at least 2 years. The primary outcome of the overall programme was all-cause mortality, and for all the component trials was cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Median follow-up was 37.7 months. 886 (23%) patients in the candesartan and 945 (25%) in the placebo group died (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-1.00], p=0.055; covariate adjusted 0.90 [0.82-0.99], p=0.032), with fewer cardiovascular deaths (691 [18%] vs 769 [20%], unadjusted 0.88 [0.79-0.97], p=0.012; covariate adjusted 0.87 [0.78-0.96], p=0.006) and hospital admissions for CHF (757 [20%] vs 918 [24%], p<0.0001) in the candesartan group. There was no significant heterogeneity for candesartan results across the component trials. More patients discontinued candesartan than placebo because of concerns about renal function, hypotension, and hyperkalaemia.

INTERPRETATION

Candesartan was generally well tolerated and significantly reduced cardiovascular deaths and hospital admissions for heart failure. Ejection fraction or treatment at baseline did not alter these effects.

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers have favourable effects on haemodynamic measurements, neurohumoral activity, and left-ventricular remodelling when added to angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). We aimed to find out whether these drugs improve clinical outcome.

METHODS

Between March, 1999, and November, 1999, we enrolled 2548 patients with New York Heart Association functional class II-IV CHF and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or lower, and who were being treated with ACE inhibitors. We randomly assigned patients candesartan (n=1276, target dose 32 mg once daily) or placebo (n=1272). At baseline, 55% of patients were also treated with beta blockers and 17% with spironolactone. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was done by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

The median follow-up was 41 months. 483 (38%) patients in the candesartan group and 538 (42%) in the placebo group experienced the primary outcome (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.75-0.96], p=0.011; covariate adjusted p=0.010). Candesartan reduced each of the components of the primary outcome significantly, as well as the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. The benefits of candesartan were similar in all predefined subgroups, including patients receiving baseline beta blocker treatment.

INTERPRETATION

The addition of candesartan to ACE inhibitor and other treatment leads to a further clinically important reduction in relevant cardiovascular events in patients with CHF and reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction.

Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative trial

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors improve outcome of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). A substantial proportion of patients, however, experience no benefit from ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. We aimed to find out whether candesartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, could improve outcome in such patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.

METHODS

Between March, 1999, and March, 2001, we enrolled 2028 patients with symptomatic heart failure and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less who were not receiving ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. Patients were randomly assigned candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

The most common manifestation of ACE-inhibitor intolerance was cough (72%), followed by symptomatic hypotension (13%) and renal dysfunction (12%). During a median follow-up of 33.7 months, 334 (33%) of 1013 patients in the candesartan group and 406 (40%) of 1015 in the placebo group had cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.77 [95% CI 0.67-0.89], p=0.0004; covariate adjusted 0.70 [0.60-0.81], p<0.0001). Each component of the primary outcome was reduced, as was the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. Study-drug discontinuation rates were similar in the candesartan (30%) and placebo (29%) groups.

INTERPRETATION

Candesartan was generally well tolerated and reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure and intolerance to ACE inhibitors.

Predictors of mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure

AIMS

We aimed to develop prognostic models for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated data from 7599 patients in the CHARM programme with CHF with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Multi-variable Cox regression models were developed using baseline candidate variables to predict all-cause mortality (n=1831 deaths) and the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization (n=2460 patients with events). Final models included 21 predictor variables for CV death/HF hospitalization and for death. The three most powerful predictors were older age (beginning >60 years), diabetes, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (beginning <45%). Other independent predictors that increased risk included higher NYHA class, cardiomegaly, prior HF hospitalization, male sex, lower body mass index, and lower diastolic blood pressure. The model accurately stratified actual 2-year mortality from 2.5 to 44% for the lowest to highest deciles of predicted risk.

CONCLUSION

In a large contemporary CHF population, including patients with preserved and decreased left ventricular systolic function, routine clinical variables can discriminate risk regardless of EF. Diabetes was found to be a surprisingly strong independent predictor. These models can stratify risk and help define how patient characteristics relate to clinical course.

Red cell distribution width as a novel prognostic marker in heart failure: data from the CHARM Program and the Duke Databank

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to identify potentially novel laboratory markers of risk in chronic heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND

Although a variety of prognostic markers have been described in heart failure, a systematic assessment of routine laboratory values has not been reported.

METHODS

All 2,679 symptomatic chronic heart failure patients from the North American CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) program had a wide range of laboratory measures performed at a core facility, enabling us to assess the relationship between routine blood tests and outcomes using a Cox proportional hazards model. We then replicated our findings in a cohort of 2,140 heart failure patients from the Duke Databank.

RESULTS

Among 36 laboratory values considered in the CHARM program, higher red cell distribution width (RDW) showed the greatest association with morbidity and mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17 per 1-SD increase, p < 0.001). Higher RDW was among the most powerful overall predictors, with only age and cardiomegaly showing a better independent association with outcome. This finding was replicated in the Duke Databank, in which higher RDW was strongly associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.29 per 1 SD, p < 0.001), second only to age as a predictor of outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2 large contemporary heart failure populations, RDW was found to be a very strong independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. Understanding how and why this marker is associated with outcome may provide novel insights into heart failure pathophysiology.

Renal function as a predictor of outcome in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Decreased renal function has been found to be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) with markedly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the prognostic importance of renal function in a broader spectrum of patients with CHF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Candesartan in Heart Failure:Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program consisted of three component trials that enrolled patients with symptomatic CHF, based on use of ACE inhibitors and reduced (< or =40%) or preserved LVEF (>40%). Entry baseline creatinine was required to be below 3.0 mg/dL (265 micromol/L). Routine baseline serum creatinine assessments were done in 2680 North American patients. An analysis of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation and LVEF on risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, as well as on all-cause mortality, was conducted on these 2680 patients. The proportion of patients with eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 was 36.0%; 42.6% for CHARM-Alternative, 33.0% for CHARM-Added, and 34.7% for CHARM-Preserved. During the median follow-up of 34.4 months (total 6493 person-years), the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening CHF occurred in 950 of 2680 subjects. Both reduced eGFR and lower LVEF were found to be significant independent predictors of worse outcome after adjustment for major confounding baseline clinical characteristics. The risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening CHF as well as the risk for all-cause mortality increased significantly below an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 for 45 to 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and 1.86 for <45 mL/min per 1.73 m2 for the primary outcome, both P<0.001, and hazard ratio of 1.50, P=0.006, and 1.91, P=0.001, respectively, for all-cause mortality). The prognostic value of eGFR was not significantly different among the three component trials. There was no significant interaction between renal function, the effect of candesartan, and clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Impaired renal function is independently associated with heightened risk for death, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with CHF with both preserved as well as reduced LVEF. There was no evidence that the beneficial effect of candesartan was modified by baseline eGFR.

Feasibility of treating prehypertension with an angiotensin-receptor blocker

BACKGROUND

Prehypertension is considered a precursor of stage 1 hypertension and a predictor of excessive cardiovascular risk. We investigated whether pharmacologic treatment of prehypertension prevents or postpones stage 1 hypertension.

METHODS

Participants with repeated measurements of systolic pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg and diastolic pressure of 89 mm Hg or lower, or systolic pressure of 139 mm Hg or lower and diastolic pressure of 85 to 89 mm Hg, were randomly assigned to receive two years of candesartan (Atacand, AstraZeneca) or placebo, followed by two years of placebo for all. When a participant reached the study end point of stage 1 hypertension, treatment with antihypertensive agents was initiated. Both the candesartan group and the placebo group were instructed to make changes in lifestyle to reduce blood pressure throughout the trial.

RESULTS

A total of 409 participants were randomly assigned to candesartan, and 400 to placebo. Data on 772 participants (391 in the candesartan group and 381 in the placebo group; mean age, 48.5 years; 59.6 percent men) were available for analysis. During the first two years, hypertension developed in 154 participants in the placebo group and 53 of those in the candesartan group (relative risk reduction, 66.3 percent; P<0.001). After four years, hypertension had developed in 240 participants in the placebo group and 208 of those in the candesartan group (relative risk reduction, 15.6 percent; P<0.007). Serious adverse events occurred in 3.5 percent of the participants assigned to candesartan and 5.9 percent of those receiving placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a period of four years, stage 1 hypertension developed in nearly two thirds of patients with untreated prehypertension (the placebo group). Treatment of prehypertension with candesartan appeared to be well tolerated and reduced the risk of incident hypertension during the study period. Thus, treatment of prehypertension appears to be feasible. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00227318.).

Influence of ejection fraction on cardiovascular outcomes in a broad spectrum of heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular function is a principal determinant of cardiovascular risk in patients with heart failure. The growing number of patients with preserved systolic function heart failure underscores the importance of understanding the relationship between ejection fraction and risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 7599 patients with a broad spectrum of symptomatic heart failure enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) Program. All patients were randomized to candesartan at a target dose of 32 mg once daily or matching placebo and followed up for a median of 38 months. We related left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), measured before randomization at the sites, to cardiovascular outcomes and causes of death. Mean LVEF in patients enrolled in CHARM was 38.8+/-14.9% (median LVEF 36%). Patients with lower LVEF tended to have higher baseline New York Heart Association class. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality increased by 39% for every 10% reduction in ejection fraction below 45% (hazard ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.46), with adjustment for baseline covariates. All-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and all components of cardiovascular death declined with increasing ejection fraction until an ejection fraction of 45%, after which the risk of these outcomes remained relatively stable with increasing LVEF. The absolute change in rate per 100 patient-years for each 10% reduction in LVEF was greatest for sudden death and heart failure-related death. The effect of candesartan in reducing cardiovascular outcomes was consistent across LVEF categories.

CONCLUSIONS

LVEF is a powerful predictor of cardiovascular outcome in heart failure patients across a broad spectrum of ventricular function. Nevertheless, once elevated to a range above 45%, ejection fraction does not further contribute to assessment of cardiovascular risk in heart failure patients.

Recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia 3. Role of the electrophysiologic study in selection of antiarrhythmic regimens

Twenty patients with recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) underwent serial electrophysiological studies (EPS) 1) to determine the predictive value of the EPS in the selection of antiarrhythmic therapy, and 2) to establish the therapeutic efficacy of available antiarrhythmic agents. In each patient VT could be reproducibly initiated by programmed stimulation. After control EPS, the effects of several drugs (lidocaine, procainamide, quinidine, disopyramide and diphenylhydantoin) on the ability to initiate VT were assessed. An oral regimen was chosen on the basis of acute EPS and its effectiveness was evaluated by repeat EPS in 24--72 hours. Blood levels achieved acutely were used as guidelines to chronic therapy. In 14 patients the initiation of VT was prevented by the acute administration of one or more agents. In 13 of these patients, a chronic oral regimen based on these results prevented recurrence of VT with a three- to 27-month follow-up. In the remaining patient, oral therapy could not achieve blood levels of procainamide shown to be effective intravenously, and VT recurred. In six patients no single drug or drug combination was effective during acute EPS, and VT recurred in all while on therapy with the agent shown to make initiation of VT most difficult. Procainamide prevented VT in nine patients; quinidine in three patients; lidocaine in three patients; diphenylhydantoin in two patients; and disopyramide in one patient. The mean duration of EPS studies was 4.5 days. This study suggests that serial EPS provides rapid identification of successful antiarrhythmic therapy and can predict in which patients conventional therapy would be ineffective, thereby identifying patients requiring more aggressive modes of therapy.

Impact of diabetes on outcomes in patients with low and preserved ejection fraction heart failure: an analysis of the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme

AIMS

To determine whether the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes associated with diabetes differs in patients with low and preserved ejection fraction (EF) heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed outcomes in the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme which randomized 7599 patients with symptomatic HF and a broad range of EF. The prevalence of diabetes was 28.3% in patients with preserved EF (>40%) and 28.5% in those with low EF (<or=40%). Diabetes was associated with a greater relative risk of CV death or HF hospitalization in patients with preserved EF [hazard ratio (HR) 2.0 (1.70-2.36)] than in patients with low EF [HR 1.60 (1.44-1.77); interaction test P = 0.0009]. For all-cause mortality, the risk conferred by diabetes was similar in both low and preserved EF groups. The effect of candesartan in reducing CV morbidity and mortality outcomes was not modified by having diabetes at baseline (P = 0.09 test for interaction).

CONCLUSION

Diabetes was an independent predictor of CV morbidity and mortality in patients with HF, regardless of EF. The relative risk of CV death or HF hospitalization conferred by diabetes was significantly greater in patients with preserved when compared with those with low EF HF.

Influence of nonfatal hospitalization for heart failure on subsequent mortality in patients with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic heart failure (HF) are at increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events. We used data from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) trials to assess the influence of nonfatal hospitalizations for HF on subsequent mortality rates in a broad spectrum of HF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the present study, 7599 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV HF and reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were randomized to placebo or candesartan. We assessed the risk of death after discharge from a first hospitalization for HF using time-updated Cox proportional-hazards models on 7572 patients for whom discharge data were available. Of 7572 patients, 1455 (19%) had at least 1 HF hospitalization, and 586 of 1819 deaths occurred after discharge from an HF hospitalization. The mortality rate was increased after HF hospitalizations, even after adjustment for baseline predictors of death (hazard ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.83 to 3.50). Longer duration of HF hospitalization enhanced the risk of dying, as did repeat HF hospitalizations. Moreover, risk of death was highest within a month of discharge and then declined progressively over time, particularly for death resulting from HF progression and for sudden cardiac death. We observed a similar pattern of risk associated with all-cause hospitalization, although the magnitude was less than that with HF hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic HF, the risk of death is greatest in the early period after discharge after a hospitalization for HF and is directly related to the duration and frequency of HF hospitalizations. These findings suggest a role for increased surveillance in the early postdischarge period of greatest vulnerability after an HF admission.

Atrial fibrillation and risk of clinical events in chronic heart failure with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction: results from the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program, which enrolled patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and a broad range of ejection fractions (EFs).

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of adverse CV outcomes in patients with CHF and reduced EF. The risk of AF in patients with CHF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (PEF) is unknown.

METHODS

A total of 7,599 patients with symptomatic CHF were randomized to candesartan or placebo. Patients were divided by baseline EF (< or =40% or >40%) in low or preserved EF groups. Major outcomes were cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and all-cause mortality. Median follow-up was 37.7 months.

RESULTS

A total of 670 (17%) patients in the low EF group and 478 (19%) in the PEF group had AF at baseline. Atrial fibrillation predicted a high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality regardless of baseline EF. Patients with AF and low EF had the highest absolute risk for adverse CV outcomes. However, AF was associated with greater relative increased risk of the major outcomes in patients with PEF than in patients with low EF: hazard ratio 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45 to 2.06) versus 1.29 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.46), respectively. The same was true for the risk of all-cause mortality. Candesartan was associated with similar treatment effects regardless of baseline rhythm.

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of CV outcomes in patients with CHF and either reduced EF or PEF. Candesartan improved outcomes similarly regardless of baseline rhythm.

Limitations of routine long-term electrocardiographic monitoring to assess ventricular ectopic frequency

Variations in the frequency of ventricular premature depolarizations (VPDs) were evaluated with three consecutive 24-hour long-term electrocardiography monitor recordings from 15 clinically stable patients with various cardiac disorders. Mean hourly VPD frequencies ranged from 37--1,801 per hour. Data were subjected to 4 and 5 factor nested analyses of variance. The extent of spontaneous variation in arrhythmia frequency that occurred in individual patients from day to day was 23%, between 8-hour periods within days was 29%, and from hour to hour was 48%. In addition, the variability between repeated three-day monitoring periods over time was quantified in five patients and found to be 37%. This analysis determined that to distinguish a reduction in VPD frequency attributable to therapeutic intervention rather than biologic or spontaneous variation alone required a greater than 83% reduction in VPD frequency if only two-24-hour monitoring periods were compared, and greater than 65% reduction if two 72-hour periods were compared. The limitations of routine 24-hour electrocardiographic monitoring must be considered in diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making.

Adherence to candesartan and placebo and outcomes in chronic heart failure in the CHARM programme: double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is an important cause of hospital admission and death. Poor adherence to medication is common in some chronic illnesses and might reduce the population effectiveness of proven treatments. Because little is known about adherence in patients with CHF and about the consequences of non-adherence, we assessed the association between adherence and clinical outcome in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) programme.

METHODS

CHARM was a double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial, comparing the effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan with placebo in 7599 patients with CHF. Median follow-up was 38 months. The proportion of time patients took more than 80% of their study medication was defined as good adherence and 80% or less as poor adherence. We used a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with adherence as a time-dependent covariate in the model, to examine the association between adherence and mortality in the candesartan and placebo groups.

FINDINGS

We excluded 187 patients because of missing information on adherence. In the time-dependent Cox regression model, after adjustment for predictive factors (demographics, physiological and severity-of-illness variables, smoking history, and number of concomitant medications), good adherence was associated with lower all-cause mortality in all patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.75, p<0.0001). The adjusted HR for good adherence was similar in the candesartan (0.66, 0.55-0.81, p<0.0001) and placebo (0.64, 0.53-0.78, p<0.0001) groups.

INTERPRETATION

Good adherence to medication is associated with a lower risk of death than poor adherence in patients with CHF, irrespective of assigned treatment. This finding suggests that adherence is a marker for adherence to effective treatments other than study medications, or to other adherence behaviours that affect outcome. Understanding these factors could provide an opportunity for new interventions, including those aimed at improving adherence.

Body Mass Index and Prognosis in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

In individuals without known cardiovascular disease, elevated body mass index (BMI) (weight/height2) is associated with an increased risk of death. However, in patients with certain specific chronic diseases, including heart failure, low BMI has been associated with increased mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined the influence of BMI on prognosis using Cox proportional hazards models in 7599 patients (mean age, 65 years; 35% women) with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association class II to IV) and a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fractions (mean, 39%) in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. During a median follow-up of 37.7 months, 1831 patients died. After adjustment for potential confounders, compared with patients with BMI between 30 and 34.9, patients in lower BMI categories had a graded increase in the risk of death. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.22 (1.06 to 1.41), 1.46 (1.24 to 1.71), and 1.69 (1.43 to 2.01) among those with BMI of 25 to 29.9, 22.5 to 24.9, and < 22.5, respectively. The increase in risk of death among patients with BMI > or = 35 was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.43). The association between BMI and mortality was not altered by age, smoking status, or left ventricular ejection fraction (P for interaction >0.20). However, lower BMI was associated with a greater risk of all-cause death in patients without edema but not in patients with edema (P for interaction <0.0001). Lower BMI was associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular death and noncardiovascular death. Baseline BMI did not influence the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure or due to all causes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with symptomatic heart failure and either reduced or preserved left ventricular systolic function, underweight or low BMI was associated with increased mortality, primarily in patients without evidence of fluid overload (edema).

Liver function abnormalities and outcome in patients with chronic heart failure: data from the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program

AIMS

The prevalence and importance of liver function test (LFT) abnormalities in a large contemporary cohort of heart failure patients have not been systematically evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We characterized the LFTs of 2679 patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity program (CHARM). We used multivariable modelling to assess the relationships between baseline LFT values and long-term outcomes. Liver function test abnormalities were common in patients with chronic heart failure, ranging from alanine aminotransferase elevation in 3.1% of patients to low albumin in 18.3% of patients; total bilirubin was elevated in 13.0% of patients. In multivariable analysis, elevated total bilirubin was the strongest LFT predictor of adverse outcome for both the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HR 1.21 per 1 SD increase, P<0.0001) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.19 per 1 SD increase, P<0.0001). Even after adjustment for other variables, elevated total bilirubin was one of the strongest independent predictors of poor prognosis (by global chi-square).

CONCLUSION

Bilirubin is independently associated with morbidity and mortality. Changes in total bilirubin may offer insight into the underlying pathophysiology of chronic heart failure.

Mortality and Morbidity Reduction With Candesartan in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Background— Patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure (CHF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a high risk of death and hospitalization for CHF deterioration despite therapies with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, β-blockers, and even an aldosterone antagonist. To determine whether the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan decreases cardiovascular mortality, morbidity, and all-cause mortality in patients with CHF and depressed LVEF, a prespecified analysis of the combined Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) low LVEF trials was performed. CHARM is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international trial program.

Methods and Results— New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II through IV CHF patients with an LVEF of ≤40% were randomized to candesartan or placebo in 2 complementary parallel trials (CHARM-Alternative, for patients who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors, and CHARM-Added, for patients who were receiving ACE inhibitors). Mortality and morbidity were determined in 4576 low LVEF patients (2289 candesartan and 2287 placebo), titrated as tolerated to a target dose of 32 mg once daily, and observed for 2 to 4 years (median, 40 months). The primary outcome (time to first event by intention to treat) was cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization for each trial, with all-cause mortality a secondary end point in the pooled analysis of the low LVEF trials. Of the patients in the candesartan group, 817 (35.7%) experienced cardiovascular death or a CHF hospitalization as compared with 944 (41.3%) in the placebo group (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; P <0.001) with reduced risk for both cardiovascular deaths (521 [22.8%] versus 599 [26.2%]; HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.75 to 0.95]; P =0.005) and CHF hospitalizations (516 [22.5%] versus 642 [28.1%]; HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.68 to 0.85]; P <0.001). It is important to note that all-cause mortality also was significantly reduced by candesartan (642 [28.0%] versus 708 [31.0%]; HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.98]; P =0.018). No significant heterogeneity for the beneficial effects of candesartan was found across prespecified and subsequently identified subgroups including treatment with ACE inhibitors, β-blockers, an aldosterone antagonist, or their combinations. The study drug was discontinued because of adverse effects by 23.1% of patients in the candesartan group and 18.8% in the placebo group; the reasons included increased creatinine (7.1% versus 3.5%), hypotension (4.2% versus 2.1%), and hyperkalemia (2.8% versus 0.5%), respectivelyt (all P <0.001).

Conclusion— Candesartan significantly reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with CHF and LVEF ≤40% when added to standard therapies including ACE inhibitors, β-blockers, and an aldosterone antagonist. Routine monitoring of blood pressure, serum creatinine, and serum potassium is warranted.

Characterization of health-related quality of life in heart failure patients with preserved versus low ejection fraction in CHARM

BACKGROUND

Limited comparative studies assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQL) in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved vs. low ejection fraction (LVEF) have been disparate.

AIMS

The aims of this study were a) to characterize HRQL in a large population of HF patients with preserved and low LVEF and b) to determine the factors associated with worse HRQL.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA Class II-IV) enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) HRQL study completed the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at randomization. Patients were stratified into 2 HF cohorts: preserved LVEF (>40%) and low LVEF (<or=40%).

RESULTS

In 2709 of the eligible 2744 (98.6%) patients, the summary scores ranged from 0 to 105 (mean 40.9). There were no differences in overall responses of HF patients with preserved vs. low LVEF (41.1 vs. 40.8). Independent factors associated with worse HRQL in both populations included female gender, younger age, higher body mass index, lower systolic blood pressure, greater symptom burden, and worse functional status.

CONCLUSIONS

In symptomatic HF patients, HRQL is equally impaired in both preserved and low LVEF populations. Targeting improvement in symptoms and HRQL is an important treatment objective in all HF patients.

Clinical Correlates and Consequences of Anemia in a Broad Spectrum of Patients With Heart Failure

Background— We wished to determine the prevalence of, potential mechanistic associations of, and clinical outcomes related to anemia in patients with heart failure and a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Methods and Results— In multivariable analyses, we examined the associations between hemoglobin and baseline characteristics, laboratory variables, and outcomes in 2653 patients randomized in the CHARM Program in the United States and Canada. Anemia was equally common in patients with preserved (27%) and reduced (25%) LVEF but was more common in black and older patients. Anemia was associated with ethnicity, diabetes, low body mass index, higher systolic and lower diastolic blood pressure, and recent heart failure hospitalization. More than 50% of anemic patients had a glomerular filtration rate <60 mL · min −1 · 1.73 m −2 compared with <30% of nonanemic patients. Despite an inverse relationship between hemoglobin and LVEF, anemia was associated with an increased risk of death and hospitalization, a relationship observed in patients with both reduced and preserved LVEF. There were 133 versus 69 deaths and 527 versus 352 hospitalizations per 1000 patient-years of follow-up in anemic versus nonanemic patients (both P <0.001). The effect of candesartan in reducing outcomes was independent of hemoglobin.

Conclusions— Anemia was common in heart failure, regardless of LVEF. Lower hemoglobin was associated with higher LVEF yet was an independent predictor of adverse mortality and morbidity outcomes. In heart failure, the causes of anemia and the associations between anemia and outcomes are probably multiple and complex.

Albuminuria in chronic heart failure: prevalence and prognostic importance

BACKGROUND

Increased excretion of albumin in urine might be a marker of the various pathophysiological changes that arise in patients with heart failure. Therefore our aim was to assess the prevalence and prognostic value of a spot urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

UACR was measured at baseline and during follow-up of 2310 patients in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) Programme. The prevalence of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, and the predictive value of UACR for the primary composite outcome of each CHARM study--ie, death from cardiovascular causes or admission to hospital with worsening heart failure--and death from any cause were assessed.

FINDINGS

1349 (58%) patients had a normal UACR, 704 (30%) had microalbuminuria, and 257 (11%) had macroalbuminuria. The prevalence of increased UACR was similar in patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions. Patients with an increased UACR were older, had more cardiovascular comorbidity, worse renal function, and a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus than did those with normoalbuminuria. However, a high prevalence of increased UACR was still noted among patients without diabetes, hypertension, or renal dysfunction. Elevated UACR was associated with increased risk of the composite outcome and death even after adjustment for other prognostic variables including renal function, diabetes, and haemoglobin A1c. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the composite outcome in patients with microalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria was 1.43 (95% CI 1.21-1.69; p<0.0001) and for macroalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria was 1.75 (1.39-2.20; p<0.0001). The adjusted values for death were 1.62 (1.32-1.99; p<0.0001) for microalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria, and 1.76 (1.32-2.35; p=0.0001) for macroalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria. Treatment with candesartan did not reduce or prevent the development of excessive excretion of urinary albumin.

INTERPRETATION

Increased UACR is a powerful and independent predictor of prognosis in heart failure.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Sex Differences in Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis in a Broad Spectrum of Patients With Heart Failure

Background— We wished to test previous hypotheses that sex-related differences in mortality and morbidity may be due to differences in the cause of heart failure or in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by comparing fatal and nonfatal outcomes in women and men with heart failure and a broad spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction.

Methods and Results— We compared outcomes in 2400 women and 5199 men randomized in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program using multivariable regression analyses. A total of 1188 women (50%) had a low LVEF (≤0.40), and 1212 had a preserved LVEF (>0.40). Among the men, 3388 (65%) had a low LVEF, and 1811 had a preserved LVEF. A total of 1216 women (51%) and 3465 men (67%) had an ischemic cause of their heart failure. All-cause mortality was 21.5% in women and 25.3% in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.86; P <0.001). Fewer women (30.4%) than men (33.3%) experienced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91; P <0.001). The risks of sudden death (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.85) and death due to worsening heart failure (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89) were reduced to a comparable extent. The adjusted risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was also lower in women (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95), mainly because of a reduced risk of heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.97). Women had a lower risk of death irrespective of cause of heart failure or LVEF.

Conclusions— Among patients with heart failure, women have lower risks of most fatal and nonfatal outcomes that are not explained, as previously suggested, by LVEF or origin of the heart failure.

Prevention of atrial fibrillation in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure by candesartan in the Candesartan in Heart failure: assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequent in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Experimental and small patient studies have demonstrated that blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may prevent AF. In the CHARM program, the effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity were evaluated in a broad spectrum of patients with symptomatic CHF. CHARM provided the opportunity to prospectively determine the effect of candesartan on the incidence of new AF in this CHF population.

METHODS

7601 patients with symptomatic CHF and reduced or preserved left ventricular systolic function were randomized to candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily, mean dose 24 mg) or placebo in the 3 component trials of CHARM. The major outcomes were cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The incidence of new AF was a prespecified secondary outcome. Median follow-up was 37.7 months. A conditional logistic regression model for stratified data was used.

RESULTS

6446 patients (84.8%) did not have AF on their baseline electrocardiogram. Of these, 392 (6.08%) developed AF during follow-up, 177 (5.55%) in the candesartan group and 215 (6.74%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.812, 95% CI 0.662-0.998, P = .048). After adjustment for baseline covariates, the odds ratio was 0.802 (95% CI 0.650-0.990, P = .039). There was no heterogeneity of the effects of candesartan in preventing AF between the 3 component trials (P = .57).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan reduced the incidence of AF in a large, broadly-based, population of patients with symptomatic CHF.

Effect of Candesartan on Cause-Specific Mortality in Heart Failure Patients

Background— Patients with heart failure are at increased risk of sudden death and death attributed to progressive pump failure. We assessed the effect of candesartan on cause-specific mortality in patients enrolled in the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program.

Methods and Results— The CHARM program consisted of 3 component trials that enrolled patients with symptomatic heart failure: CHARM-Alternative (n=2028; LVEF⩽40% and ACE intolerant), CHARM-Added (n=2548; LVEF⩽40%, already on ACE inhibitors), and CHARM-Preserved (n=3023; LVEF >40%). Patients were randomized to candesartan, titrated to 32 mg QD, or placebo and were followed up for a median of 37.7 months. All deaths were reviewed by a blinded adjudication committee and categorized according to prespecified definitions on the basis of a narrative and source documentation. The number and rate of deaths by cause were calculated for each of the component trials and the overall program. Of all the patients, 8.5% died suddenly, and 6.2% died of progressive heart failure. Candesartan reduced both sudden death (HR 0.85 [0.73 to 0.99], P =0.036) and death from worsening heart failure (HR 0.78 [0.65 to 0.94], P =0.008). These reductions were most apparent in the patients with LVEF⩽40%.

Conclusions— Candesartan reduced sudden death and death from worsening heart failure in patients with symptomatic heart failure, although this reduction was most apparent in patients with systolic dysfunction.

Analysing recurrent hospitalizations in heart failure: a review of statistical methodology, with application to CHARM-Preserved

AIMS

Heart failure is characterized by recurrent hospitalizations, but often only the first event is considered in clinical trial reports. In chronic diseases, such as heart failure, analysing all events gives a more complete picture of treatment benefit. We describe methods of analysing repeat hospitalizations, and illustrate their value in one major trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved study compared candesartan with placebo in 3023 patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function. The heart failure hospitalization rates were 12.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in the placebo and candesartan groups, respectively. The repeat hospitalizations were analysed using the Andersen-Gill, Poisson, and negative binomial methods. Death was incorporated into analyses by treating it as an additional event. The win ratio method and a method that jointly models hospitalizations and mortality were also considered. Using repeat events gave larger treatment benefits than time to first event analysis. The negative binomial method for the composite of recurrent heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death gave a rate ratio of 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.91, P = 0.003], whereas the hazard ratio for time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-1.00, P = 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with preserved EF, candesartan reduces the rate of admissions for worsening heart failure, to a greater extent than apparent from analysing only first hospitalizations. Recurrent events should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of future clinical trials in heart failure.