CM-1 ACE Inhibitor Dosing Considerations in CHARM John J.V. McMurray, MD Professor of Medical Cardiology Western Infirmary Glasgow Scotland UK.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Long Distance Titration of Heart Failure Medications by Telephone Calls Anne E. Steckler, RN, Heba Wassif, MD, Kalkidan Bishu, MD, Gardar Sigurdsson, MD,
Advertisements

Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS III) Trial
Horng H Chen MD on behalf of the NHLBI Heart Failure Clinical Research Network Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure (ROSE AHF):
The Importance of Beta-Blockers in Patients with Heart Failure: A Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) Analysis.
Discussant Inder Anand, MD, FRCP, D Phil (Oxon.)
McMurray JJV, Young JB, Dunlap ME, Granger CB, Hainer J, Michelson EL et al on behalf of the CHARM investigators Relationship of dose of background angiotensin-converting.
ACEIs, ARBs, or DRI for Adults With Hypertension Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
CONSENSUS: Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study Purpose To determine whether the ACE inhibitor enalapril reduces mortality in patients.
Purpose To determine whether metoprolol controlled/extended release
CHARM Program: 3 Component trials comparing candesartan with placebo.
MIRACL, Val-HeFT, Cheney Clinical Trial Commentary Dr Eric Topol Chairman and Professor, Department of Cardiology Director of the Joseph J Jacobs Center.
חזק בהגנה לבבית Valsartan in Heart Failure
SOLVD (Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction)
HEART FAILURE MANAGEMENT -RAAS BLOCKERS FAZIL BISHARA SR- CARDIOLOGY
Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Treatment of Diabetes in People with Heart Failure Chapter 28 Jonathan G. Howlett, John C. MacFadyen.
Pharmacological Treatment of Hypertension Update 2012.
Clinical Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, MHS; Gregg.
Heart Failure Ben Starnes MD FACC Interventional Cardiology
ATLAS Clinical Trial Commentary Dr Eric Topol Chairman and Professor, Department of Cardiology Director of the Joseph J Jacobs Center for Thrombosis and.
Appendix: Clinical Guidelines VBWG. I Intervention is useful and effective III Intervention is not useful or effective and may be harmful A Data derived.
CHARM-Alternative: Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity - Alternative Purpose To determine whether the angiotensin.
CHARM-Preserved: Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity - Preserved Purpose To determine whether the angiotensin.
Assessment, Targets, Thresholds and Treatment Bryan Williams NICE clinical guideline 127.
Massie I-PRESERVE Trial Irbesartan in heart failure with preserved EF Co-PIs: Barry Massie and Peter Carson Executive Committee M. Komajda, R. McKelvie,
Effects on outcomes of heart rate reduction by ivabradine in patients with congestive heart failure: is there an influence of beta-blocker dose? Systolic.
Clinical implications. Burden of coronary disease 56 millions deaths worldwide in millions deaths worldwide in % due to CV disease (~ 16.
CB-1 Background James B. Young, MD Chair, Division of Medicine Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
Management of Chronic Stable Angina AIMGP Seminar Series Mirek Otremba 2007.
May 2005 EP Show The EP Show COMPANION and CARE-HF Eric Prystowsky MD Director, Clinical Electrophysiology Laboratory St Vincent Hospital Indianapolis,
Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through COMbination Therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension The First Outcomes Trial of Initial Therapy With.
RALES: Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Purpose To determine whether the aldosterone antagonist spironolactone reduces mortality in patients with.
AIRE: Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy study Purpose To determine whether the ACE inhibitor ramipril reduces mortality in patients with evidence of heart.
Heart failure: The national burden AHA. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2005 update. Koelling TM et al. Am Heart J. 2004;147:74-8. VBWG Affects 1 million.
HOPE: Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation study Purpose To evaluate whether the long-acting ACE inhibitor ramipril and/or vitamin E reduce the incidence.
Evidence-Based Medicine ACE-Inhibitor and ARB; combination therapy
The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial ONTARGET.
Review of an article Not all Angiotension-Converting Enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are Equal: Focus on Ramipril and Perindopril DiNicolantonio J, Lavie C, O’Keefe.
Camm J, et al. On Behalf of The SHIFT Gothenburg, Cardiac safety of selective heart rate reduction with Ivabradine in chronic heart failure. Poster, Heart.
Treatment and Risk in Heart Failure: Gaps in Evidence or Quality? Pamela N. Peterson, MD MSPH; John S. Rumsfeld, MD PhD; Li Liang PhD; Adrian F. Hernandez,
CI-1 ATACAND ® (candesartan cilexetil) Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee Rockville, Maryland February 24, 2005 C.
COMET: Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial Purpose To compare the effects of carvedilol (a β 1 -, β 2 - and α 1 -receptor blocker) and short-acting.
Heart rate in heart failure: Heart rate in heart failure: risk marker or risk factor? A subanalysis of the SHIFT trial on behalf of the Investigators M.
Relationship of background ACEI dose to benefits of candesartan in the CHARM-Added trial.
OVERTURE FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting July 19, 2002 Milton Packer, M.D., FACC Columbia University College of Physicians.
Candesartan in Heart Failure Presented at European Society of Cardiology 2003 CHARM Trial.
Interim Chair, Medicine Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston, MA
SS-1 Candesartan Support Slides. SS-2 Baseline Beta-Blocker Charm Added β-blocker Of patients on β-blockers Mean daily dose of β-blocker CandesartanPlacebo.
CR-1 Candesartan in HF Benefit/Risk James B. Young, MD Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
The MICRO-HOPE. Microalbuminuria, Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Reference Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation.
Ten Year Outcome of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Medical Therapy in Patients with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Results of the Surgical Treatment.
Date of download: 7/9/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: Making Sense of Statistics in Clinical Trial Reports:
Program outline This program highlights the Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition (PEACE) trial—providing an overview of ACE.
Clinical Trial Commentary
JOURNAL REVIEW HEART FAILURE MANAGEMENT – BETA BLOCKERS
HOPE: Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation study
Prior Trials of RAAS Inhibitors
CLINICAL DILEMMAS IN HEART FAILURE:
RAAS Blockade: Focus on ACEI
The following slides highlight a report on presentations at a Hotline Session and a Satellite Symposium of the European Society of Cardiology 2003 Congress.
Section III: Neurohormonal strategies in heart failure
INOVATE-HF Trial design: Patients with heart failure (HF) were randomized to device implant for vagus nerve stimulation (n = 436) versus optimal medical.
PARADIGM-HF Trial design: Participants with NYHA class II-IV and LVEF ≤40% were randomized to LCZ mg twice daily (n = 4,187) vs. enalapril 10 mg.
SIGNIFY Trial design: Participants with stable coronary artery disease without clinical heart failure and resting heart rate >70 bpm were randomized to.
Table of Contents Why Do We Treat Hypertension? Recommendation 5
Section III: Neurohormonal strategies in heart failure
ß-blocker therapy for heart failure at the turn of the millennium
Pharmacological Treatment of Hypertension Update 2012
Uptitration of Medications in HF: Start Low but Aim High and Stay High
The following slides highlight a report on a presentation at the American College of Cardiology 2004, Scientific Sessions, in New Orleans, Louisiana on.
Presentation transcript:

CM-1 ACE Inhibitor Dosing Considerations in CHARM John J.V. McMurray, MD Professor of Medical Cardiology Western Infirmary Glasgow Scotland UK

CM-2 What is Optimal Treatment With an ACE Inhibitor? Which drug? What dose? The evidence-base: randomized controlled outcome trials Studies looking at higher than evidence- based doses?

CM-3 Which drug? The ACE inhibitors Used in Randomized Controlled Outcome Trials in Acute MI and CHF Captopril (SAVE) Ramipril (AIRE) Trandolapril (TRACE) Lisinopril (ATLAS, GISSI 3) Enalapril (CONSENSUS, SOLVD, VHeFT II) CHARM investigators were advised that these were the preferred ACE inhibitors – at investigator meetings and in study protocol

CM-4 Clinical Programme Protocol— CHARM Added Instructions to Investigators on Dosing of ACEi “… the investigator is asked to attempt to optimize therapy for each individual patient. In this component study baseline therapy with an ACE inhibitor is mandatory. No dose of an ACE inhibitor is, however, mandated. The investigator is free to choose the dose of ACE inhibitor that is optimum for each patient, based on tolerability (e.g. taking into account blood pressure, renal function etc.) and information from the large randomized trials. The investigator is reminded that these trials had target ACE inhibitor doses (Appendix 1) higher than those commonly used in clinical practice. Furthermore, the recent ATLAS study has also shown that larger ACE inhibitor doses reduce morbidity to a greater extent than lower doses.” 46 Clinical programme protocol-CHARM

CM-5 What dose? Randomized Controlled Outcome Trials Using Forced Titration of ACE Inhibitors in Acute MI and CHF Trial ACE inhibitor Target dose, mg Mean daily dose, mg SAVE (1992)captopril50 tid121 SOLVD-T (1991)enalapril10 bid16.6 AIRE (1993)ramipril5 bid8.7 TRACE (1995)trandolapril4 qd3 ATLAS (1999)lisinopril † qd qd GISSI 3 (1994)lisinopril10 mg qdN/A These were the target doses CHARM investigators advised to aim for – at investigator meetings and in protocol † US and European guidelines recommend a target dose of 20 mg/d.

CM-6 Use of ACE Inhibitors: What happened in CHARM Added? Investigators were provided with a list of preferred ACE inhibitors and doses, based on randomized controlled outcome trials Investigators asked to ensure patients on “an individualized optimum” dose of ACE inhibitor at baseline Stable dose of ACEi for ≥ 30 days

CM-7 Which drug? The ACE inhibitors Used in Randomized Controlled Outcome Trials in Acute MI and CHF Captopril (SAVE) Ramipril (AIRE) Trandolapril (TRACE) Lisinopril (ATLAS, GISSI 3) Enalapril (CONSENSUS, SOLVD, VHeFT II) CHARM investigators were advised that these were the preferred ACE inhibitors. Approx. 80% of patients were treated with one of these evidence-based ACE inhibitors

CM-8 FDA Approved ACE Inhibitors For Heart Failure ACE inhibitorCHARM Added Proportion of patients at baseline, % FDA labeled HF dose Baseline mean dose mg/d Enalapril (40)17 Lisinopril (40)18 Captopril (450)83 Ramipril11107 Trandolapril642 Perindopril † 6NA4 Quinapril Fosinopril Benazepril † 3NA26 Cilazapril †, Moexipril † 1NA– † NA = Not FDA approved for heart failure.

CM-9 Dose of ACE Inhibitor: What happened in CHARM Added? Investigators reported that 96% of patients were taking an individualized, optimum, dose of ACE inhibitor at baseline (CRF check box) Supporting evidence?

CM-10 Dose of ACE Inhibitor Achieved in CHARM Added Compared to Randomized Outcome Trials Using Forced Titration Trial ACE-inhibitor (% in CHARM Added) Mean dose in outcome trial (mg) Mean dose in CHARM-Added (mg) SOLVDEnalapril (27%) ATLASLisinopril (19%)3.2 † 22.5 † 17.7 GISSI 3LisinoprilN/A17.7 SAVECaptopril (17%) AIRERamipril (11%) TRACETrandolapril (6%) † US and European guidelines recommend target dose of 20 mg/d.

CM-11 TrialN Target dose, mg Mean daily dose, mg CONSENSUS (1987)12720 bid18.4 SOLVD-T (1991) † bid16.6 SOLVD-P (1992) bid16.7 V-HeFT II (1991)40310 bid15.0 OVERTURE (2002) bid17.7 CARMEN (2004)190 E only 191 E+Carv 10 bid CHARM Added Dose of ACE Inhibitor (Enalapril) Achieved in CHARM Added Compared to Randomized Outcome Trials Using Forced Titration † N.B. active run-in; 49% reached target dose.

CM-12 CHARM Investigators Did Optimize ACE Inhibitor Dose TrialMERIT-HF CIBIS-2 † RALES CHARM Added Enalapril Captopril Lisinopril Ramipril Daily dose of ACE inhibitor in CHARM Added compared to other outcome studies using “add-on” therapy † Personal communication.

CM-13 ACE Inhibitor Doses in CHF—CHARM Added Compared to Community and Hospital Practice Study/country/settingCaptoprilEnalaprilLisinoprilRamipril McGrae, et al, 1997 (US – hospital, n = 612) Smith, et al, 1998 (US – community [CVHS], n = 129) McAlister, et al, 1999 (Canada – specialist HF clinic, n = 566) Chen, et al, 2001 (US – hospital, n = 554) EuroHF study, 2004 (Europe – hospital n = 11,304) IMPROVEMENT-HF, 2002 (UK – Community, n = 599) CHARM Added (n = 2548)

CM-14 Would a Larger Than Evidence-Based Dose of an ACE Inhibitor Have Made a Difference? Many ACE inhibitor dose-response studies Most compared low dose(s) to a proven, evidence-based, dose (eg, NETWORK) or low dose(s) to a medium/high dose eg, (ATLAS) What about comparison of a proven, evidence- based, dose to an even higher dose? ACE inhibitor dose response studies

CM-15 Larger Than Evidence-Based Doses of ACE Inhibitors – Two Questions: Can they be achieved? Note: SOLVD-T target enalapril 10 mg bid 49% achieved target; mean dose achieved 16.6 mg CONSENSUS target 20 mg bid 22% achieved target; mean dose achieved 18.4 mg Is there additional benefit?

CM-16 Enalapril 20 mg/d vs 60 mg/d trial 248 patients with CHF (mean LVEF 19%) randomized to standard-dose (20 mg/d) or high-dose (60 mg/d) enalapril. 12 months follow-up Doses achieved: 17.9 mg/d and 42.5 mg/d, respectively 72.5% and 32.5%, respectively reached target dose by 3 months No statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference between groups for change in blood pressure, heart rate, LVEF or NYHA class No significant difference in any clinical outcome (but small numbers) Nanas J, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:

CM mg/d 60 mg/d Nanas J, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36: p = Enalapril 20 mg/d vs 60 mg/d Trial: Death or HF Hospitalization—Event Free Survival Freedom from death or HF hospitalization, % Time (months)

CM-18 Summary: Optimal ACE Inhibitor Treatment CHARM Added patients received Evidence-based ACE inhibitor (80% of patients) ACE inhibitor doses comparable to those achieved with forced titration (eg, 17 mg of enalapril) Higher doses of ACE inhibitor than in other recent “add-on” treatment trials Much higher doses of ACE inhibitor than in ordinary clinical practice No evidence that exceeding proven dose of ACE inhibitor is advantageous

CM-19 Conclusion: CHARM Added ACE Inhibitor Dosing Evidence-based treatment with ACE inhibitor advocated by protocol and used by investigators CHARM Added did test the hypothesis of whether adding an ARB to a evidence-based dose of ACE inhibitor would offer further clinical benefit