Life up north: meeting report: nordic astrobiology 2006: origins & distribution of life in the universe.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Astronomy↗
Biomedical subjects
Ake Hjalmarson
Publications and source records attributed to Ake Hjalmarson.
What resting heart rate should one aim for when treating patients with heart failure with a beta-blocker? Experiences from the Metoprolol Controlled Release/Extended Release Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic Heart Failure (MERIT-HF).
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to explore the question: what resting heart rate (HR) should one aim for when treating patients with heart failure with a beta-blocker? BACKGROUND: The interaction of pretreatment and achieved resting HR with the risk-reducing effect of beta-blocker treatment needs further evaluation. METHODS: Cardiovascular risk and risk reduction were analyzed in five subgroups defined by quintiles (Q) of pretreatment resting HR in the Metoprolol Controlled Release/Extended Release Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). RESULTS: Mean baseline HR in the 5 Qs were 71, 76, 81, 87, and 98 beats/min; achieved HR 63, 66, 68, 72, and 75 beats/min; and net change -8, -10, -11, -13, and -14 beats/min, respectively. Baseline HR was related to a number of baseline characteristics. Cardiovascular risk was no different in Q1 to Q4 (placebo groups) but increased in Q5 (HR above 90 beats/min). No relationship was observed between the risk-reducing effect of metoprolol controlled release/extended release (CR/XL) and baseline HR in the five Qs of baseline HR, or achieved HR, or change in HR during follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Metoprolol CR/XL significantly reduced mortality and hospitalizations independent of resting baseline HR, achieved HR, and change in HR. Achieved HR and change in HR during follow-up were closely related to baseline HR; therefore, it was not possible to answer the question posed. Instead, one has to apply a very simple rule: aim for the target beta-blocker dose used in clinical trials, and strive for the highest tolerated dose in all patients with heart failure, regardless of baseline and achieved HR.
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
Economic implications of extended-release metoprolol succinate for heart failure in the MERIT-HF trial: a US perspective of the MERIT-HF trial.
BACKGROUND: The MERIT-HF trial demonstrated improved survival and fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure with extended-release (ER) metoprolol succinate in patients with heart failure. This study sought to estimate the economic implications of this trial from a US perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: A discrete event simulation was developed to examine the course of patients with heart failure. Characteristics of the population modeled, probabilities of hospitalization and death with standard therapy, and risk reductions with ER metoprolol succinate were obtained from Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic Heart Failure (MERIT-HF) and evaluated in weekly cycles. Direct medical costs were estimated from US databases in 2001 US dollars. Uncertainty in inputs was incorporated and analyses were carried out to estimate events prevented total and net costs. The model predicts that ER metoprolol succinate will prevent approximately 7 deaths and 15 hospitalizations from heart failure per 100 patients over 2 years. Compared with standard therapy alone, this translates to a cost reduction between $395 and $1112 per patient, depending on whether the costs of hospitalizations for other causes are included. Savings were maintained in 90% of the simulations. CONCLUSION: This analysis predicts that the positive effect of ER metoprolol succinate on mortality and morbidity demonstrated in MERIT-HF leads to substantial savings.
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
A statin in the treatment of heart failure? Controlled rosuvastatin multinational study in heart failure (CORONA): study design and baseline characteristics.
BACKGROUND: Previous prospective outcome studies of statins have not provided any guidance on benefit-risk in patients with heart failure. AIM: The primary objective is to determine whether rosuvastatin (10 mg) reduces the combined endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke (time to first event). The first secondary endpoint is all-cause mortality. METHODS: CORONA is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Briefly, men and women, aged > or =60 years with chronic symptomatic systolic heart failure of ischemic aetiology and ejection fraction < or =0.40 (NYHA class III and IV) or < or =0.35 (NYHA class II) were eligible if they were not using or in need of cholesterol lowering drugs. RESULTS: Mean age was 73 years (n=5016; 24% women), with 37% in NYHA II and 62% in NYHA III, ejection fraction 0.31, total cholesterol 5.2 mmol/L. Sixty percent have a history of myocardial infarction, 63% hypertension, and 30% diabetes. Patients are well treated for heart failure with 90% on loop or thiazide diuretics, 42% aldosterone antagonists, 91% ACE inhibitor or AT-I blocker, 75% beta-blockers, and 32% digitalis. CONCLUSION: CORONA is important for three main reasons: (1) A positive result is very important because of the high risk of the population studied, the increasing prevalence of elderly patients with chronic symptomatic systolic heart failure in our society, and the health economic issues involved. (2) If negative, new mechanistic questions about heart failure have to be raised. (3) If neutral we can avoid unnecessary polypharmacy.
Age Factors↗
COMET: a proposed mechanism of action to explain the results and concerns about dose.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Adrenergic Antagonists↗
Metoprolol CR/XL in postmyocardial infarction patients with chronic heart failure: experiences from MERIT-HF.
BACKGROUND: The benefit of beta-blockers post-myocardial infarction (MI) was established in the late 1970s. Major advances in the treatment of MI have since occurred. However, patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) were excluded from those trials. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of beta-blockers in post-MI patients with CHF receiving contemporary management. METHODS: This was a prespecified subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized trial: the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Patients with CHF in New York Heart Association class II to IV with an ejection fraction (EF) < or =0.40 and a history of being hospitalized for an acute MI (n = 1926) were randomized to metoprolol succinate controlled release/extended release (CR/XL) versus placebo. Mean EF was 0.28, and the mean follow-up was 1 year. RESULTS: Metoprolol CR/XL reduced total mortality by 40% (95% CI 0.20-0.55, P =.0004), and sudden death by 50% (95% CI 0.26-0.66, P =.0004). The combined end point of all-cause mortality/hospitalization for worsening CHF was reduced by 31% (95% CI 0.16-0.44, P <.0001), and cardiac death/nonfatal acute MI by 45% (95% CI 0.26-0.58, P <.0001). A post-hoc analysis showed that the outcome in patients with earlier revascularization (44%) and outcome in those with more severe CHF (20%) was similar to the entire post-MI population. CONCLUSIONS: In post-MI patients with symptomatic CHF, beta-blockade continues to exert a profound reduction in mortality and morbidity in the presence of contemporary management that includes early and late revascularization, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aspirin, and statins.
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
Hemodynamic improvement and removal of autoantibodies against beta1-adrenergic receptor by immunoadsorption therapy in dilated cardiomyopathy.
The removal of beta(1)-adrenergic receptor (beta(1)AR) autoantibodies by immunoadsorption (IA) has been proposed as a potential mechanism for the improvement of the left ventricular function in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). In the present study, the possible association between removal of the autoantibodies against the human beta(1)AR with the hemodynamic improvement induced by IA was investigated.IA was performed in 22 DCM patients (n=22; NYHA III-IV, EF<30%, stable medication). The beta(1)AR autoantibodies from column eluents (CE) were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and BIAcore methods. CE of 32% (7/22) of the patients was found to be antibody-positive with ELISA or BIAcore. In addition, a bioassay system was also used for the detection of this autoantibody. Seventy-three percent (16/22) of the patients were found to be antibody-positive by this method. However, independent of the beta(1)AR antibody detection method, both antibody-positive and antibody-negative groups showed similar acute and prolonged hemodynamic improvements during IA therapy. Furthermore, antibody-positive and -negative groups received a comparable improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction. These results suggest that different mechanisms are involved in the hemodynamic improvement induced by IA. The beneficial hemodynamic effects induced by IA are not directly associated with the removal of beta(1)AR autoantibodies.
Autoantibodies↗
How should subgroup analyses affect clinical practice? Insights from the Metoprolol Succinate Controlled-Release/Extended-Release Randomized Intervention Trial in Heart Failure (MERIT-HF).
CONTEXT: The Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic Heart Failure (MERIT-HF), the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II), and the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival Study (COPERNICUS) have all demonstrated highly significant positive effects on total mortality as well as total mortality plus all-cause hospitalization in patients with heart failure. While none of these trials are large enough to provide definitive results in any particular subgroup, it is of interest for physicians to examine the consistency of results as regards efficacy and safety for various subgroups or risk groups. OBJECTIVE: To summarize results from both predefined as well as post-hoc subgroup analyses performed in the MERIT-HF trial, and to provide guidance as to whether any subgroup is at increased risk, despite an overall strongly positive effect, and to discuss the difficulties and limitations in conducting such subgroup analyses. For some subgroups we performed metaanalyses with data from the CIBIS II and COPERNICUS trials in order to obtain more robust data on mortality in subgroups with a small number of deaths (e.g. for women). SETTING: MERIT-HF was run in 14 countries, and randomized a total of 3,991 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure (NYHA class II to IV with ejection fraction < or =0.40). Treatment was initiated with a very low dose with careful titration to a maximum target dose of 200 mg metoprolol succinate controlled release/extended release (CR/XL), or highest tolerated dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total mortality (first primary endpoint), total mortality plus all-cause hospitalization (second primary endpoint), and total mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure (first secondary endpoint) analyzed on a time to first event basis. RESULTS: Overall, MERIT-HF demonstrated a 34% reduction in total mortality ( p = 0.00009 nominal) and a 19% reduction for mortality plus all-cause hospitalization ( p = 0.00012). The first secondary endpoint of mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure was reduced by 31% ( p = 0.0000008). The results were remarkably consistent for both primary outcomes and the first secondary outcome across all predefined subgroups as well as nearly all post-hoc subgroups. Metoprolol CR/XL has been very well tolerated, overall as well as in all subgroups analyzed. Overall 87% of the patients reached a dose of 100 mg or more of metoprolol CR/XL once daily, and 64% reached the target dose of 200 mg once daily. CONCLUSION: Our results show that when carefully titrated, metoprolol CR/XL can safely be instituted for the overwhelming majority of outpatients with clinically stable systolic heart failure, with minimal side effects or deterioration. The time has come to overcome the barriers that physicians perceive to beta-blocker treatment, and to provide it to the large number of patients with heart failure in need of this therapy, including also high risk patients like elderly patients, patients with severe heart failure, and patients with diabetes. Because of the increased risk, these are the patients in whom treatment will have the greatest impact as shown by number of lives saved and number of hospitalizations avoided. The target dose should be strived for in all patients who tolerate this dose. We should expect some variation of the treatment effect around the overall estimate as we examine a large number of subgroups due to small sample size in subgroups and due to chance. However, we believe that the best estimate of treatment effect for any particular subgroup should be the overall effect observed in the trial.
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
Dose of metoprolol CR/XL and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure: analysis of the experience in metoprolol CR/XL randomized intervention trial in chronic heart failure (MERIT-HF).
OBJECTIVES: We performed a post-hoc subgroup analysis in the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Chronic Heart Failure (MERIT-HF) with the aim of reporting on the heart rate (HR) response during the titration phase and clinical outcomes from the three-month follow-up visit to end of study in two dosage subgroups: one that had reached more than 100 mg of metoprolol CR/XL once daily (high-dose group; n = 1,202; mean 192 mg) and one that had reached 100 mg or less (low-dose group; n = 412; mean 76 mg). BACKGROUND: Clinicians have questioned whether patients need to reach the target beta-blocker dose to receive benefit. METHODS; Outcome (Cox-adjusted) was compared with all placebo patients with dose available at the three-month visit (n = 1,845). RESULTS: Data indicated somewhat higher risk in the low-dose group compared with the high-dose group. Heart rate was reduced to a similar degree in the two dose groups, indicating higher sensitivity for beta-blockade in the low-dose group. The reduction in total mortality with metoprolol CR/XL compared with placebo was similar: 38% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16 to 55) in high-dose group (p = 0.0022) and also 38% (95% CI, 11 to 57) in the low-dose group (p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Risk reduction was similar in the high- and low-dose subgroups, which, at least partly, may be the result of similar beta-blockade as judged from the HR response. The results support the idea of an individualized dose-titration regimen, which is guided by patient tolerability and the HR response. Further research is needed to shed light on why some patients respond with a marked HR reduction and reduced mortality risk on a relatively small dose of a beta-blocker.
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with stable angina requiring treatment (ACTION trial): randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUND: Calcium antagonists are widely prescribed for angina pectoris but their effect on clinical outcome is controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect of the calcium antagonist nifedipine on long-term outcome in patients with stable angina pectoris. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3825 patients with treated stable symptomatic coronary disease to double-blind addition of nifedipine GITS (gastrointestinal therapeutic system) 60 mg once daily and 3840 to placebo. The primary endpoint was the combination of death, acute myocardial infarction, refractory angina, new overt heart failure, debilitating stroke, and peripheral revascularisation. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years (SD 1.1). Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 310 patients allocated nifedipine died (1.64 per 100 patient-years) compared with 291 people allocated placebo (1.53 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.07 [95% CI 0.91-1.25], p=0.41). Primary endpoint rates were 4.60 per 100 patient-years for nifedipine and 4.75 per 100 patient-years for placebo (0.97 [0.88-1.07], p=0.54). With nifedipine, rate of death and any cardiovascular event or procedure was 9.32 per 100 patient-years versus 10.50 per 100 patient-years for placebo (0.89 [0.83-0.95], p=0.0012). The difference was mainly attributable to a reduction in the need for coronary angiography and interventions in patients assigned nifedipine, despite an increase in peripheral revascularisation. Nifedipine had no effect on the rate of myocardial infarction. INTERPRETATION: Addition of nifedipine GITS to conventional treatment of angina pectoris has no effect on major cardiovascular event-free survival. Nifedipine GITS is safe and reduces the need for coronary angiography and interventions.
Angina Pectoris↗