Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure

BACKGROUND

We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients.

METHODS

In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group.

CONCLUSIONS

LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.).

Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether either the angiotensin-II-receptor blocker irbesartan or the calcium-channel blocker amlodipine slows the progression of nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes independently of its capacity to lower the systemic blood pressure.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1715 hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes to treatment with irbesartan (300 mg daily), amlodipine (10 mg daily), or placebo. The target blood pressure was 135/85 mm Hg or less in all groups. We compared the groups with regard to the time to the primary composite end point of a doubling of the base-line serum creatinine concentration, the development of end-stage renal disease, or death from any cause. We also compared them with regard to the time to a secondary, cardiovascular composite end point.

RESULTS

The mean duration of follow-up was 2.6 years. Treatment with irbesartan was associated with a risk of the primary composite end point that was 20 percent lower than that in the placebo group (P=0.02) and 23 percent lower than that in the amlodipine group (P=0.006). The risk of a doubling of the serum creatinine concentration was 33 percent lower in the irbesartan group than in the placebo group (P=0.003) and 37 percent lower in the irbesartan group than in the amlodipine group (P<0.001). Treatment with irbesartan was associated with a relative risk of end-stage renal disease that was 23 percent lower than that in both other groups (P=0.07 for both comparisons). These differences were not explained by differences in the blood pressures that were achieved. The serum creatinine concentration increased 24 percent more slowly in the irbesartan group than in the placebo group (P=0.008) and 21 percent more slowly than in the amlodipine group (P=0.02). There were no significant differences in the rates of death from any cause or in the cardiovascular composite end point.

CONCLUSIONS

The angiotensin-II-receptor blocker irbesartan is effective in protecting against the progression of nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. This protection is independent of the reduction in blood pressure it causes.

The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Microalbuminuria and hypertension are risk factors for diabetic nephropathy. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system slows the progression to diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes, but similar data are lacking for hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. We evaluated the renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist irbesartan in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.

METHODS

A total of 590 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria were enrolled in this multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of irbesartan, at a dose of either 150 mg daily or 300 mg daily, and were followed for two years. The primary outcome was the time to the onset of diabetic nephropathy, defined by persistent albuminuria in overnight specimens, with a urinary albumin excretion rate that was greater than 200 microg per minute and at least 30 percent higher than the base-line level.

RESULTS

The base-line characteristics in the three groups were similar. Ten of the 194 patients in the 300-mg group (5.2 percent) and 19 of the 195 patients in the 150-mg group (9.7 percent) reached the primary end point, as compared with 30 of the 201 patients in the placebo group (14.9 percent) (hazard ratios, 0.30 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.61; P< 0.001] and 0.61 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.34 to 1.08; P=0.081 for the two irbesartan groups, respectively). The average blood pressure during the course of the study was 144/83 mm Hg in the placebo group, 143/83 mm Hg in the 150-mg group, and 141/83 mm Hg in the 300-mg group (P=0.004 for the comparison of systolic blood pressure between the placebo group and the combined irbesartan groups). Serious adverse events were less frequent among the patients treated with irbesartan (P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Irbesartan is renoprotective independently of its blood-pressure-lowering effect in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.

Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that for the same blood-pressure control, valsartan would reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality more than amlodipine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

15?245 patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac events participated in a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of therapy based on valsartan or amlodipine. Duration of treatment was event-driven and the trial lasted until at least 1450 patients had reached a primary endpoint, defined as a composite of cardiac mortality and morbidity. Patients from 31 countries were followed up for a mean of 4.2 years.

FINDINGS

Blood pressure was reduced by both treatments, but the effects of the amlodipine-based regimen were more pronounced, especially in the early period (blood pressure 4.0/2.1 mm Hg lower in amlodipine than valsartan group after 1 month; 1.5/1.3 mm Hg after 1 year; p<0.001 between groups). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 810 patients in the valsartan group (10.6%, 25.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 789 in the amlodipine group (10.4%, 24.7 per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15, p=0.49).

INTERPRETATION

The main outcome of cardiac disease did not differ between the treatment groups. Unequal reductions in blood pressure might account for differences between the groups in cause-specific outcomes. The findings emphasise the importance of prompt blood-pressure control in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors such as captopril reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity among patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both. In a double-blind trial, we compared the effect of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan, the ACE inhibitor captopril, and the combination of the two on mortality in this population of patients.

METHODS

Patients receiving conventional therapy were randomly assigned, 0.5 to 10 days after acute myocardial infarction, to additional therapy with valsartan (4909 patients), valsartan plus captopril (4885 patients), or captopril (4909 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 24.7 months, 979 patients in the valsartan group died, as did 941 patients in the valsartan-and-captopril group and 958 patients in the captopril group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group as compared with the captopril group, 1.00; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.11; P=0.98; hazard ratio in the valsartan-and-captopril group as compared with the captopril group, 0.98; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.09; P=0.73). The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5 percent confidence interval for the comparison of the valsartan group with the captopril group was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with regard to mortality (P=0.004) and with regard to the composite end point of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001). The valsartan-and-captopril group had the most drug-related adverse events. With monotherapy, hypotension and renal dysfunction were more common in the valsartan group, and cough, rash, and taste disturbance were more common in the captopril group.

CONCLUSIONS

Valsartan is as effective as captopril in patients who are at high risk for cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction. Combining valsartan with captopril increased the rate of adverse events without improving survival.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).

Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of patients with heart failure have a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, but no therapies have been shown to improve the outcome of these patients. Therefore, we studied the effects of irbesartan in patients with this syndrome.

METHODS

We enrolled 4128 patients who were at least 60 years of age and had New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of at least 45% and randomly assigned them to receive 300 mg of irbesartan or placebo per day. The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for a cardiovascular cause (heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, arrhythmia, or stroke). Secondary outcomes included death from heart failure or hospitalization for heart failure, death from any cause and from cardiovascular causes, and quality of life.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 49.5 months, the primary outcome occurred in 742 patients in the irbesartan group and 763 in the placebo group. Primary event rates in the irbesartan and placebo groups were 100.4 and 105.4 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.35). Overall rates of death were 52.6 and 52.3 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.14; P=0.98). Rates of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes that contributed to the primary outcome were 70.6 and 74.3 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.08; P=0.44). There were no significant differences in the other prespecified outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Irbesartan did not improve the outcomes of patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00095238.)

Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE)

BACKGROUND

To determine whether specific angiotensin II receptor blockade with losartan offers safety and efficacy advantages in the treatment of heart failure over angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibition with captopril, the ELITE study compared losartan with captopril in older heart-failure patients.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 722 ACE inhibitor naive patients (aged 65 years or more) with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure and ejection fractions of 40% or less to double-blind losartan (n = 352) titrated to 50 mg once daily or captopril (n = 370) titrated to 50 mg three times daily, for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the tolerability measure of a persisting increase in serum creatinine of 26.5 mumol/L or more (> or = 0.3 mg/dL) on therapy; the secondary endpoint was the composite of death and/or hospital admission for heart failure; and other efficacy measures were total mortality, admission for heart failure, NYHA class, and admission for myocardial infarction or unstable angina.

FINDINGS

The frequency of persisting increases in serum creatinine was the same in both groups (10.5%). Fewer losartan patients discontinued therapy for adverse experiences (12.2% vs 20.8% for captopril, p = 0.002). No losartan-treated patients discontinued due to cough compared with 14 in the captopril group. Death and/or hospital admission for heart failure was recorded in 9.4% of the losartan and 13.2% of the captopril patients (risk reduction 32% [95% CI -4% to + 55%], p = 0.075). This risk reduction was primarily due to a decrease in all-cause mortality (4.8% vs 8.7%; risk reduction 46% [95% CI 5-69%], p = 0.035). Admissions with heart failure were the same in both groups (5.7%), as was improvement in NYHA functional class from baseline. Admission to hospital for any reason was less frequent with losartan than with captopril treatment (22.2% vs 29.7%).

INTERPRETATION

In this study of elderly heart-failure patients, treatment with losartan was associated with an unexpected lower mortality than that found with captopril. Although there was no difference in renal dysfunction, losartan was generally better tolerated than captopril and fewer patients discontinued losartan therapy. A further trial, evaluating the effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in a larger number of patients with heart failure, is in progress.

The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial

BACKGROUND

The prognostic benefits of blood pressure lowering treatment in elderly hypertensive patients were established more than a decade ago, but are less clear in those with mildly to moderately elevated blood pressure.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether candesartan-based antihypertensive treatment in elderly patients with mildly to moderately elevated blood pressure confers a reduction in cardiovascular events, cognitive decline and dementia.

DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study conducted in 1997-2002.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study was of 4964 patients aged 70-89 years, with systolic blood pressure 160-179 mmHg, and/or diastolic blood pressure 90-99 mmHg, and a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) test score >or= 24. A total of 527 centres in 15 countries participated in the study.

INTERVENTION

Patients were assigned randomly to receive the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan or placebo, with open-label active antihypertensive therapy added as needed. As a consequence, active antihypertensive therapy was extensively used in the control group (84% of patients). Mean follow-up was 3.7 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was major cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal stroke and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Secondary outcome measures included cardiovascular death, non-fatal and fatal stroke and myocardial infarction, cognitive function measured by the MMSE and dementia.

RESULTS

Blood pressure fell by 21.7/10.8 mmHg in the candesartan group and by 18.5/9.2 mmHg in the control group. A first major cardiovascular event occurred in 242 candesartan patients and in 268 control patients; risk reduction with candesartan was 10.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), -6.0 to 25.1, P = 0.19]. Candesartan-based treatment reduced non-fatal stroke by 27.8% (95% CI, 1.3 to 47.2, P = 0.04), and all stroke by 23.6% (95% CI, -0.7 to 42.1, P = 0.056). There were no significant differences in myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. Mean MMSE score fell from 28.5 to 28.0 in the candesartan group and from 28.5 to 27.9 in the control group (P = 0.20). The proportions of patients who had a significant cognitive decline or developed dementia were not different in the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly hypertensive patients, a slightly more effective blood pressure reduction during candesartan-based therapy, compared with control therapy, was associated with a modest, statistically non-significant, reduction in major cardiovascular events and with a marked reduction in non-fatal stroke. Cognitive function was well maintained in both treatment groups in the presence of substantial blood pressure reductions. Both treatment regimens were generally well tolerated.

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.).

Microalbuminuria reduction with valsartan in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a blood pressure-independent effect

BACKGROUND

Elevated urine albumin excretion (UAER) is a modifiable risk factor for renal and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system lowers UAER, but whether this effect is independent of blood pressure (BP) reduction remains controversial. The MicroAlbuminuria Reduction With VALsartan (MARVAL) study was designed to evaluate the BP-independent effect of valsartan on UAER in type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-two patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria, with or without hypertension, were randomly assigned to 80 mg/d valsartan or 5 mg/d amlodipine for 24 weeks. A target BP of 135/85 mm Hg was aimed for by dose-doubling followed by addition of bendrofluazide and doxazosin whenever needed. The primary end point was the percent change in UAER from baseline to 24 weeks. The UAER at 24 weeks was 56% (95% CI, 49.6 to 63.0) of baseline with valsartan and 92% (95% CI, 81.7 to 103.7) of baseline with amlodipine, a highly significant between-group effect (P<0.001). Valsartan lowered UAER similarly in both the hypertensive and normotensive subgroups. More patients reversed to normoalbuminuria with valsartan (29.9% versus 14.5%; P=0.001). Over the study period, BP reductions were similar between the two treatments (systolic/diastolic 11.2/6.6 mm Hg for valsartan, 11.6/6.5 mm Hg for amlodipine) and at no time point was there a between-group significant difference in BP values in either the hypertensive or the normotensive subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

For the same level of attained BP and the same degree of BP reduction, valsartan lowered UAER more effectively than amlodipine in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria, including the subgroup with baseline normotension. This indicates a BP-independent antiproteinuric effect of valsartan.

Olmesartan for the delay or prevention of microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Microalbuminuria is an early predictor of diabetic nephropathy and premature cardiovascular disease. We investigated whether treatment with an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) would delay or prevent the occurrence of microalbuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes and normoalbuminuria.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, controlled trial, we assigned 4447 patients with type 2 diabetes to receive olmesartan (at a dose of 40 mg once daily) or placebo for a median of 3.2 years. Additional antihypertensive drugs (except angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or ARBs) were used as needed to lower blood pressure to less than 130/80 mm Hg. The primary outcome was the time to the first onset of microalbuminuria. The times to the onset of renal and cardiovascular events were analyzed as secondary end points.

RESULTS

The target blood pressure (<130/80 mm Hg) was achieved in nearly 80% of the patients taking olmesartan and 71% taking placebo; blood pressure measured in the clinic was lower by 3.1/1.9 mm Hg in the olmesartan group than in the placebo group. Microalbuminuria developed in 8.2% of the patients in the olmesartan group (178 of 2160 patients who could be evaluated) and 9.8% in the placebo group (210 of 2139); the time to the onset of microalbuminuria was increased by 23% with olmesartan (hazard ratio for onset of microalbuminuria, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.94; P=0.01). The serum creatinine level doubled in 1% of the patients in each group. Slightly fewer patients in the olmesartan group than in the placebo group had nonfatal cardiovascular events--81 of 2232 patients (3.6%) as compared with 91 of 2215 patients (4.1%) (P=0.37)--but a greater number had fatal cardiovascular events--15 patients (0.7%) as compared with 3 patients (0.1%) (P=0.01), a difference that was attributable in part to a higher rate of death from cardiovascular causes in the olmesartan group than in the placebo group among patients with preexisting coronary heart disease (11 of 564 patients [2.0%] vs. 1 of 540 [0.2%], P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Olmesartan was associated with a delayed onset of microalbuminuria, even though blood-pressure control in both groups was excellent according to current standards. The higher rate of fatal cardiovascular events with olmesartan among patients with preexisting coronary heart disease is of concern. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00185159.).

Use of irbesartan to maintain sinus rhythm in patients with long-lasting persistent atrial fibrillation: a prospective and randomized study

BACKGROUND

Data from studies of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors provide evidence that the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system plays a role as a mediator of atrial remodeling in atrial fibrillation. The present study has evaluated the effect of treatment with the angiotensin I type 1 receptor blocker irbesartan on maintaining sinus rhythm after conversion from persistent atrial fibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To be included in the present study, patients must have had an episode of persistent atrial fibrillation for >7 days. The patients were then randomized and scheduled for electrical cardioversion. Two groups of patients were compared: Group I was treated with amiodarone, and group II was treated with amiodarone plus irbesartan. The primary end point was the length of time to a first recurrence of atrial fibrillation. From a total of 186 patients assessed in the study, 154 were analyzed with the use of intention-to-treat analysis. Seventy-five patients were randomly allocated to group I and 79 to group II. After 2 months of follow-up in the intention-to-treat analysis, the group treated with irbesartan had fewer patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation (Kaplan-Meier analysis, 84.79% versus 63.16%, P=0.008). The Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to first recurrence during the follow-up period (median time, 254 days [range, 60 to 710]) also showed that patients treated with irbesartan had a greater probability of remaining free of atrial fibrillation (79.52% versus 55.91%, P=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with amiodarone plus irbesartan had a lower rate of recurrence of atrial fibrillation than did patients treated with amiodarone alone.

Effect of valsartan on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

It is not known whether drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system reduce the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular events in patients with impaired glucose tolerance.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we assigned 9306 patients with impaired glucose tolerance and established cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors to receive valsartan (up to 160 mg daily) or placebo (and nateglinide or placebo) in addition to lifestyle modification. We then followed the patients for a median of 5.0 years for the development of diabetes (6.5 years for vital status). We studied the effects of valsartan on the occurrence of three coprimary outcomes: the development of diabetes; an extended composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, arterial revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina; and a core composite outcome that excluded unstable angina and revascularization.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of diabetes was 33.1% in the valsartan group, as compared with 36.8% in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.92; P<0.001). Valsartan, as compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of either the extended cardiovascular outcome (14.5% vs. 14.8%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07; P=0.43) or the core cardiovascular outcome (8.1% vs. 8.1%; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.14; P=0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance and cardiovascular disease or risk factors, the use of valsartan for 5 years, along with lifestyle modification, led to a relative reduction of 14% in the incidence of diabetes but did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097786.)

The angiotensin-receptor blocker candesartan for treatment of acute stroke (SCAST): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Raised blood pressure is common in acute stroke, and is associated with an increased risk of poor outcomes. We aimed to examine whether careful blood-pressure lowering treatment with the angiotensin-receptor blocker candesartan is beneficial in patients with acute stroke and raised blood pressure.

METHODS

Participants in this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial were recruited from 146 centres in nine north European countries. Patients older than 18 years with acute stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) and systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher were included within 30 h of symptom onset. Patients were randomly allocated to candesartan or placebo (1:1) for 7 days, with doses increasing from 4 mg on day 1 to 16 mg on days 3 to 7. Randomisation was stratified by centre, with blocks of six packs of candesartan or placebo. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. There were two co-primary effect variables: the composite endpoint of vascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke during the first 6 months; and functional outcome at 6 months, as measured by the modified Rankin Scale. Analyses were by intention to treat. The study is registered, number NCT00120003 (ClinicalTrials.gov), and ISRCTN13643354.

FINDINGS

2029 patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups (1017 candesartan, 1012 placebo), and data for status at 6 months were available for 2004 patients (99%; 1000 candesartan, 1004 placebo). During the 7-day treatment period, blood pressures were significantly lower in patients allocated candesartan than in those on placebo (mean 147/82 mm Hg [SD 23/14] in the candesartan group on day 7 vs 152/84 mm Hg [22/14] in the placebo group; p<0·0001). During 6 months' follow-up, the risk of the composite vascular endpoint did not differ between treatment groups (candesartan, 120 events, vs placebo, 111 events; adjusted hazard ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·84-1·41; p=0·52). Analysis of functional outcome suggested a higher risk of poor outcome in the candesartan group (adjusted common odds ratio 1·17, 95% CI 1·00-1·38; p=0·048 [not significant at p≤0·025 level]). The observed effects were similar for all prespecified secondary endpoints (including death from any cause, vascular death, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, stroke progression, symptomatic hypotension, and renal failure) and outcomes (Scandinavian Stroke Scale score at 7 days and Barthel index at 6 months), and there was no evidence of a differential effect in any of the prespecified subgroups. During follow-up, nine (1%) patients on candesartan and five (<1%) on placebo had symptomatic hypotension, and renal failure was reported for 18 (2%) patients taking candesartan and 13 (1%) allocated placebo.

INTERPRETATION

There was no indication that careful blood-pressure lowering treatment with the angiotensin-receptor blocker candesartan is beneficial in patients with acute stroke and raised blood pressure. If anything, the evidence suggested a harmful effect.

FUNDING

South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority; Oslo University Hospital Ullevål; AstraZeneca; Takeda.

Cilostazol has beneficial effects in treatment of intermittent claudication: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Cilostazol is a new phosphodiesterase inhibitor that suppresses platelet aggregation and also acts as a direct arterial vasodilator. This prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of cilostazol for treatment of stable, moderately severe intermittent claudication.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Study inclusion criteria included age > or =40 years, initial claudication distance (ICD) on treadmill (12.5% incline, 3.2 km/h) between 30 and 200 m, and confirmation of diagnosis of chronic lower-extremity arterial occlusive disease. After stabilization and single-blind placebo lead-in, 81 subjects (62 male, 19 female) from 3 centers were randomized unequally (2:1) to 12 weeks of treatment with cilostazol 100 mg PO BID or placebo. Primary outcome measures included ICD and maximum distance walked (absolute claudication distance, or ACD). Secondary outcome measures included ankle pressures, subjective assessments of benefit by patients and physicians, and safety. Treatment and control groups were similar with respect to age, severity of symptoms, ankle pressures, and smoking status. Statistical analyses used intention-to-treat analyses for each of 77 subjects who had > or =1 treadmill test after initiation of therapy. Comparisons between groups were based on logarithms of ratios of ICD and ACD changes from baseline using ANOVA test at last treatment visit. The estimated treatment effect showed a 35% increase in ICD (P<0.01) and a 41% increase in ACD (P<0.01). There was no significant change in resting or postexercise ankle/brachial indexes. Patients' and physicians' subjective assessments corroborated the measured improvements in walking performance observed in the cilostazol-treated group.

CONCLUSIONS

Cilostazol improved walking distances, significantly increasing ICD and ACD. The data suggest cilostazol is safe and well tolerated for the treatment of intermittent claudication.

Efficacy and safety of combined use of aliskiren and valsartan in patients with hypertension: a randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess dual renin system intervention with the maximum recommended doses of aliskiren and valsartan, compared with each drug alone in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

In this double-blind study, 1797 patients with hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure 95-109 mm Hg and 8-h daytime ambulatory diastolic blood pressure > or =90 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to receive once-daily aliskiren 150 mg (n=437), valsartan 160 mg (455), a combination of aliskiren 150 mg and valsartan 160 mg (446), or placebo (459) for 4 weeks, followed by forced titration to double the dose to the maximum recommended dose for another 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 8 endpoint. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT00219180.

FINDINGS

196 (11%) patients discontinued study treatment before the end of the trial (63 in the placebo group, 53 in the aliskiren group, 43 in the valsartan group, and 37 in the aliskiren/valsartan group), mainly due to lack of therapeutic effect. At week 8 endpoint, the combination of aliskiren 300 mg and valsartan 320 mg lowered mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline by 12.2 mm Hg, significantly more than either monotherapy (aliskiren 300 mg 9.0 mm Hg decrease, p<0.0001; valsartan 320 mg, 9.7 mm Hg decrease, p<0.0001), or with placebo (4.1 mm Hg decrease, p<0.0001). Rates of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar in all groups.

INTERPRETATION

The combination of aliskiren and valsartan at maximum recommended doses provides significantly greater reductions in blood pressure than does monotherapy with either agent in patients with hypertension, with a tolerability profile similar to that with aliskiren and valsartan alone.

Effect of candesartan on prevention (DIRECT-Prevent 1) and progression (DIRECT-Protect 1) of retinopathy in type 1 diabetes: randomised, placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Results of previous studies suggest that renin-angiotensin system blockers might reduce the burden of diabetic retinopathy. We therefore designed the DIabetic REtinopathy Candesartan Trials (DIRECT) Programme to assess whether candesartan could reduce the incidence and progression of retinopathy in type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

Two randomised, double-blind, parallel-design, placebo-controlled trials were done in 309 centres worldwide. Participants with normotensive, normoalbuminuric type 1 diabetes without retinopathy were recruited to the DIRECT-Prevent 1 trial and those with existing retinopathy were recruited to DIRECT-Protect 1, and were assigned to candesartan 16 mg once a day or matching placebo. After 1 month, the dose was doubled to 32 mg. Investigators and participants were unaware of the treatment allocation status. The primary endpoints were incidence and progression of retinopathy and were defined as at least a two-step and at least a three-step increase on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale, respectively. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00252733 for DIRECT-Prevent 1 and NCT00252720 for DIRECT-Protect 1.

FINDINGS

1421 participants (aged 18-50 years) were randomly assigned to candesartan (n=711) or to placebo (n=710) in DIRECT-Prevent 1, and 1905 (aged 18-55 years) to candesartan (n=951) or to placebo (n=954) in DIRECT-Protect 1. Incidence of retinopathy was seen in 178 (25%) participants in the candesartan group versus 217 (31%) in the placebo group. Progression of retinopathy occurred in 127 (13%) participants in the candesartan group versus 124 (13%) in the placebo group. Hazard ratio (HR for candesartan vs placebo) was 0.82 (95% CI 0.67-1.00, p=0.0508) for incidence of retinopathy and 1.02 (0.80-1.31, p=0.85) for progression of retinopathy. The post-hoc outcome of at least a three-step increase for incidence yielded an HR of 0.65 (0.48-0.87, p=0.0034), which was attenuated but still significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics (0.71, 0.53-0.95, p=0.046). Final ETDRS level was more likely to have improved with candesartan treatment in both DIRECT-Prevent 1 (odds 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, p=0.0048) and DIRECT-Protect 1 (1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25, p=0.0264). Adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups.

INTERPRETATION

Although candesartan reduces the incidence of retinopathy, we did not see a beneficial effect on retinopathy progression.

Effect of candesartan on progression and regression of retinopathy in type 2 diabetes (DIRECT-Protect 2): a randomised placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy remains a leading cause of visual loss in people of working age. We examined whether candesartan treatment could slow the progression and, secondly, induce regression of retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial in 309 centres worldwide. We recruited normoalbuminuric, normotensive, or treated hypertensive people with type 2 diabetes with mild to moderately severe retinopathy and assigned them to candesartan 16 mg once a day or placebo. After a month, the dose was doubled to 32 mg once per day. Investigators and patients were unaware of the treatment allocation status. Progression of retinopathy was the primary endpoint, and regression was a secondary endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00252694.

FINDINGS

1905 participants (aged 37-75 years) were randomised to candesartan (n=951) or placebo (n=954). 161 (17%) patients in the candesartan group and 182 (19%) in the placebo group had progression of retinopathy by three steps or more on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale. The risk of progression of retinopathy was non-significantly reduced by 13% in patients on candesartan compared with those on placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.70-1.08, p=0.20). Regression on active treatment was increased by 34% (1.34, 1.08-1.68, p=0.009). HRs were not attenuated by adjustment for baseline risk factors or changes in blood pressure during the trial. An overall change towards less severe retinopathy by the end of the trial was observed in the candesartan group (odds 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, p=0.003). Adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups.

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with candesartan in type 2 diabetic patients with mild to moderate retinopathy might induce improvement of retinopathy.

Severe spruelike enteropathy associated with olmesartan

OBJECTIVE

To report the response to discontinuation of olmesartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist commonly prescribed for treatment of hypertension, in patients with unexplained severe spruelike enteropathy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All 22 patients included in this report were seen at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, between August 1, 2008, and August 1, 2011, for evaluation of unexplained chronic diarrhea and enteropathy while taking olmesartan. Celiac disease was ruled out in all cases. To be included in the study, the patients also had to have clinical improvement after suspension of olmesartan.

RESULTS

The 22 patients (13 women) had a median age of 69.5 years (range, 47-81 years). Most patients were taking 40 mg/d of olmesartan (range, 10-40 mg/d). The clinical presentation was of chronic diarrhea and weight loss (median, 18 kg; range, 2.5-57 kg), which required hospitalization in 14 patients (64%). Intestinal biopsies showed both villous atrophy and variable degrees of mucosal inflammation in 15 patients, and marked subepithelial collagen deposition (collagenous sprue) in 7. Tissue transglutaminase antibodies were not detected. A gluten-free diet was not helpful. Collagenous or lymphocytic gastritis was documented in 7 patients, and microscopic colitis was documented in 5 patients. Clinical response, with a mean weight gain of 12.2 kg, was demonstrated in all cases. Histologic recovery or improvement of the duodenum after discontinuation of olmesartan was confirmed in all 18 patients who underwent follow-up biopsies.

CONCLUSION

Olmesartan may be associated with a severe form of spruelike enteropathy. Clinical response and histologic recovery are expected after suspension of the drug.

A comparison of cilostazol and pentoxifylline for treating intermittent claudication

PURPOSE

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of cilostazol and pentoxifylline.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled patients with moderate-to-severe claudication from 54 outpatient vascular clinics, including sites at Air Force, Veterans Affairs, tertiary care, and university medical centers in the United States. Of 922 consenting patients, 698 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to blinded treatment with either cilostazol (100 mg orally twice a day), pentoxifylline (400 mg orally 3 times a day), or placebo. We measured maximal walking distance with constant-speed, variable-grade treadmill testing at baseline and at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Mean maximal walking distance of cilostazol-treated patients (n = 227) was significantly greater at every postbaseline visit compared with patients who received pentoxifylline (n = 232) or placebo (n = 239). After 24 weeks of treatment, mean maximal walking distance increased by a mean of 107 m (a mean percent increase of 54% from baseline) in the cilostazol group, significantly more than the 64-m improvement (a 30% mean percent increase) with pentoxifylline (P <0.001). The improvement with pentoxifylline was similar (P = 0.82) to that in the placebo group (65 m, a 34% mean percent increase). Deaths and serious adverse event rates were similar in each group. Side effects (including headache, palpitations, and diarrhea) were more common in the cilostazol-treated patients, but withdrawal rates were similar in the cilostazol (16%) and pentoxifylline (19%) groups.

CONCLUSION

Cilostazol was significantly better than pentoxifylline or placebo for increasing walking distances in patients with intermittent claudication, but was associated with a greater frequency of minor side effects. Pentoxifylline and placebo had similar effects.

Drug effects on aldosterone/plasma renin activity ratio in primary aldosteronism

Primary aldosteronism is a specifically treatable and potentially curable form of secondary hypertension. The aldosterone/plasma renin activity ratio (ARR) is routinely used as a screening test. Antihypertensive therapy can interfere with the interpretation of this parameter, but a correct washout period can be potentially harmful. We have investigated the effects of therapy with atenolol, amlodipine, doxazosin, fosinopril, and irbesartan on the ARR in a group of 230 patients with suspected primary aldosteronism. The percent change from control of ARR in patients taking amlodipine was -17%+/-32; atenolol, 62%+/-82; doxazosin, -5%+/-26; fosinopril, -30%+/-24; and irbesartan, -43%+/-27. The ARR change induced by atenolol was significantly higher compared with that induced by all other drugs (P<0.0001), and the ARR change induced by irbesartan was significantly lower than that induced by doxazosin (P<0.0001). One of 55 patients from the group taking amlodipine (1.8%) and 4/17 of the patients taking irbesartan (23.5%) gave a false-negative ARR (<50). None of the patients of the groups taking fosinopril, doxazosin, and atenolol displayed a false-negative ARR. Doxazosin and fosinopril can be used in hypertensive patients who need to undergo aldosterone and PRA measurement for the diagnosis of primary aldosteronism; amlodipine gave a very small percentage of false-negative diagnoses. beta-Blockers also do not interfere with the diagnosis of primary aldosteronism, but they can be responsible for an increased rate of false-positive ARRs. The high rate of false-negative diagnoses in patients undergoing irbesartan treatment requires confirmation in a higher number of patients.

Effect of angiotensin receptor blockade and antihypertensive drugs on diastolic function in patients with hypertension and diastolic dysfunction: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Diastolic dysfunction might represent an important pathophysiological intermediate between hypertension and heart failure. Our aim was to determine whether inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which can reduce ventricular hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis, can improve diastolic function to a greater extent than can other antihypertensive agents.

METHODS

Patients with hypertension and evidence of diastolic dysfunction were randomly assigned to receive either the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (titrated to 320 mg once daily) or matched placebo. Patients in both groups also received concomitant antihypertensive agents that did not inhibit the renin-angiotensin system to reach targets of under 135 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and under 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure. The primary endpoint was change in diastolic relaxation velocity between baseline and 38 weeks as determined by tissue doppler imaging. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170924.

FINDINGS

186 patients were randomly assigned to receive valsartan; 198 were randomly assigned to receive placebo. 43 patients were lost to follow-up or discontinued the assigned intervention. Over 38 weeks, there was a 12.8 (SD 17.2)/7.1 (9.9) mm Hg reduction in blood pressure in the valsartan group and a 9.7 (17.0)/5.5 (10.2) mm Hg reduction in the placebo group. The difference in blood pressure reduction between the two groups was not significant. Diastolic relaxation velocity increased by 0.60 (SD 1.4) cm/s from baseline in the valsartan group (p<0.0001) and 0.44 (1.4) cm/s from baseline in the placebo group (p<0.0001) by week 38. However, there was no significant difference in the change in diastolic relaxation velocity between the groups (p=0.29).

INTERPRETATION

Lowering blood pressure improves diastolic function irrespective of the type of antihypertensive agent used.

Valsartan in a Japanese population with hypertension and other cardiovascular disease (Jikei Heart Study): a randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint morbidity-mortality study

BACKGROUND

Drugs that inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system benefit patients at risk for or with existing cardiovascular disease. However, evidence for this effect in Asian populations is scarce. We aimed to investigate whether addition of an angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan, to conventional cardiovascular treatment was effective in Japanese patients with cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

We initiated a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial of 3081 Japanese patients, aged 20-79 years, (mean 65 [SD 10] years) who were undergoing conventional treatment for hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, or a combination of these disorders. In addition to conventional treatment, patients were assigned either to valsartan (40-160 mg per day) or to other treatment without angiotensin receptor blockers. Our primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was registered at clintrials.gov with the identifier NCT00133328.

FINDINGS

After a median follow-up of 3.1 years (range 1-3.9) the primary endpoint was recorded in fewer individuals given valsartan than in controls (92 vs 149; absolute risk 21.3 vs 34.5 per 1000 patient years; hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.79, p=0.0002). This difference was mainly attributable to fewer incidences of stroke and transient ischaemic attack (29 vs 48; 0.60, 0.38-0.95, p=0.028), angina pectoris (19 vs 53; 0.35, 0.20-0.58, p<0.0001), and heart failure (19 vs 36; 0.53, 0.31-0.94, p=0.029) in those given valsartan than in the control group. Mortality or tolerability did not differ between groups.

INTERPRETATION

The addition of valsartan to conventional treatment prevented more cardiovascular events than supplementary conventional treatment. These benefits cannot be entirely explained by a difference in blood pressure control.

Losartan in heart failure. Hemodynamic effects and tolerability. Losartan Hemodynamic Study Group

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to assess the short- and long-term effects of multiple doses of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan in heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A multicenter, placebo-controlled, oral, multidose (2.5, 10, 25, and 50 mg losartan once daily) double-blind comparison in patients with symptomatic heart failure and impaired left ventricular function (ejection fraction < 40%). Invasive 24-hour hemodynamic assessment was performed after the first dose and after 12 weeks of treatment. Clinical status and tolerability of treatment with losartan over the 12-week period were also evaluated. One hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled, of which 134 met the protocol criterion of baseline pulmonary capillary wedge pressure > or = 13 mm Hg. During short-term administration, systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (largest reduction against placebo of 197 dyne.s-1.cm-5 at 4 hours) and blood pressure fell significantly with 50 mg, lesser decreases were seen with 25 mg, and no discernible effects were seen with 2.5 and 10 mg. After 12 weeks of treatment, similar effects were seen on SVR and blood pressure (maximal fall in SVR against placebo, 318 dyne.s-1.cm-5 at 5 hours with 50 mg). In addition, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure fell with 2.5, 25, and 50 mg (largest reduction against placebo of 6.3 mm Hg at 6 hours with 50 mg), cardiac index rose with 25 and 50 mg, and heart rate was lower with all active treatment groups. Active treatment was well tolerated, and excess cough was not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that oral losartan administered to patients with symptomatic heart failure resulted in beneficial hemodynamic effects with short-term administration, with additional beneficial hemodynamic effects seen after 12 weeks of therapy. Clear effects were seen with both 25 and 50 mg, with the greatest effect seen with 50 mg.