PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Milton Packer

Publications and source records attributed to Milton Packer.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Targeted anticytokine therapy in patients with chronic heart failure: results of the Randomized Etanercept Worldwide Evaluation (RENEWAL).

BACKGROUND: Studies in experimental models and preliminary clinical experience suggested a possible therapeutic role for the soluble tumor necrosis factor antagonist etanercept in heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction < or =0.30 were enrolled in 2 clinical trials that differed only in the doses of etanercept used. In RECOVER, patients received placebo (n=373) or subcutaneous etanercept in doses of 25 mg every week (n=375) or 25 mg twice per week (n=375). In RENAISSANCE, patients received placebo (n=309), etanercept 25 mg twice per week (n=308), or etanercept 25 mg 3 times per week (n=308). The primary end point of each individual trial was clinical status at 24 weeks. Analysis of the effect of the 2 higher doses of etanercept on the combined outcome of death or hospitalization due to chronic heart failure from the 2 studies was also planned (RENEWAL). On the basis of prespecified stopping rules, both trials were terminated prematurely owing to lack of benefit. Etanercept had no effect on clinical status in RENAISSANCE (P=0.17) or RECOVER (P=0.34) and had no effect on the death or chronic heart failure hospitalization end point in RENEWAL (etanercept to placebo relative risk=1.1, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33, P=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: The results of RENEWAL rule out a clinically relevant benefit of etanercept on the rate of death or hospitalization due to chronic heart failure.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Analytical and clinical evaluation of the Bayer ADVIA Centaur automated B-type natriuretic peptide assay in patients with heart failure: a multisite study.

BACKGROUND: B-Type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is released from the left ventricle of the heart into the circulation in response to ventricular stretching and volume overload. Increased BNP concentrations are associated with heart failure (HF). METHODS: We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the Bayer ADVIA Centaur BNP assay. Studies included precision, analytical correlation (against the Shionogi ShionoRIA and Biosite Triage BNP assays), BNP results for blood collected in plastic tubes containing EDTA vs other collection tubes, high-dose hook effect, detection limits, and interferences. The clinical performance was tested on 2243 blood samples collected from 983 apparently healthy individuals, 538 patients with chronic disease but without HF (renal insufficiency, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and hypertension), and 722 patients with HF (New York Heart Association classes I-IV). RESULTS: The ADVIA Centaur assay had total imprecision (CV) of 3.4%, 2.9%, and 2.4% at BNP concentrations of 48, 461, and 1768 ng/L, respectively. The Passing-Bablok correlations to the ShionoRIA and Triage were as follows: ADVIA Centaur = 1.11(ShionoRIA) - 1.19 ng/L (r = 0.98); ADVIA Centaur = 0.78(Triage) + 5.89 ng/L (r = 0.92), respectively. Of the different blood collection tubes, only EDTA plastic tubes (with and without the barrier gel) were acceptable. The lower detection limit was 0.5 ng/L, and there were no interferences from common analytes, other neuropeptides, or unusual antibodies. BNP exhibited different reference intervals according to age and gender. BNP concentrations increased progressively as the severity of HF increased. CONCLUSIONS: The ADVIA Centaur is the first commercially available BNP assay for use on an automated immunochemistry platform. This assay has good analytical and clinical performance characteristics for diagnosing HF.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with hypertension: the Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest that existing antihypertensive agents may not have sufficient efficacy to control blood pressure (BP) in many patients. Omapatrilat, an agent under development, has been shown to have significantly greater antihypertensive efficacy than existing agents, but may also carry increased risk of angioedema. We compared the efficacy and safety of omapatrilat to a representative angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, enalapril. METHODS: The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week trial in 25,302 patients with untreated or uncontrolled hypertension conducted in 3298 office-based sites in 12 countries. Subjects were randomized to omapatrilat 10 mg or enalapril 5 mg as initial therapy for hypertension (group 1, n = 9292), replacement for existing antihypertensive therapy (group 2, n =11,224), or in addition to existing antihypertensive therapy (group 3, n = 4751). Study drug was force-titrated at week 2 and electively titrated at weeks 4 and 6 to a maximum of omapatrilat 80 mg or enalapril 40 mg once daily. At weeks 8 and 16, adjunctive antihypertensive medications were added electively to achieve target BP. RESULTS: Omapatrilat reduced systolic BP 3.6 mm Hg more than enalapril at week 8, and was associated with less use of adjunctive antihypertensive therapy by week 24 (19% v 27%; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Subjects randomized to omapatrilat were more likely to reach BP target, regardless of demographics or comorbid conditions and whether omapatrilat was used as initial therapy, replacement for existing therapy, or in addition to existing therapy. Angioedema was more frequent with omapatrilat than enalapril (2.17% v 0.68%). Two omapatrilat-treated subjects experienced angioedema with airway compromise, which was successfully treated. CONCLUSIONS: Omapatrilat provided broadly superior antihypertensive efficacy when used in a setting resembling clinical practice. Angioedema was more common than with enalapril but life-threatening angioedema was rare. The risk-benefit profile for omapatrilat in clinical use therefore appears likely to be favorable in appropriate patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

The Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Heart Failure trial (WATCH): rationale, design, and baseline patient characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The role of anticoagulation in patients with chronic heart failure has long been an area of interest and controversy. Traditionally the goal of anticoagulation has been to prevent embolic events, but recent trials also demonstrated that oral anticoagulation also prevents vascular events in patients with prior myocardial infarction, who constitute the majority of heart failure patients. Although antiplatelet agents also reduce postinfarction vascular events, few data are available in heart failure patients, and some evidence suggests that aspirin may also have the potential to worsen heart failure morbidity and mortality, possibly by interfering with the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Methods and results The Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure (WATCH) trial was undertaken to determine the optimal antithrombotic agent for heart failure patients. WATCH was a prospective-randomized trial in which symptomatic heart failure patients in sinus rhythm with ejection fractions < or =35% taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (unless not tolerated) and diuretics were randomized to open-label warfarin (target International Normalized Ratio 2.5-3.0) or double-blind antiplatelet therapy with aspirin 162 mg or clopidogrel 75 mg. Two primary comparisons were specified: anticoagulation with warfarin versus antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel versus antiplatelet therapy with aspirin. The primary outcome is the composite of death from all causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke analyzed as time to first event using the intent-to-treat approach. The secondary endpoint was the broader composite of death from all causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalizations for worsening heart failure, unstable angina pectoris, and systemic or pulmonary artery embolic events. Additional prespecified analyses include heart failure events, coronary events, and resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Although the trial was designed to enter 4500 patients, it was terminated 18 months prematurely in June 2003 by the VA Cooperative Study Program because of poor enrollment with a resulting reduction of its power to achieve its original objective. This manuscript describes the study rationale, protocol design, and the baseline characteristics of the 1587 patients who were entered into the study. The WATCH trial will help define the optimal approach to antithrombotic therapy in the contemporary management of patients with chronic heart failure resulting from left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Do evidence-based treatments provide incremental benefits to patients with congestive heart failure already receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors? A secondary analysis of one-year outcomes from the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), use of submaximal doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ie, low-dose ACE inhibitors) represents usual care in routine clinical practice, whereas high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin have each been shown to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether treatment with high dose-ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin would each provide incremental benefits over that achieved with usual care and whether concurrent use of high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and digoxin would provide maximal benefits. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled, active-comparator trial. Specifically, we studied 1-year outcomes data from the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival trial (ATLAS), which assessed high-dose ACE inhibitors (mean dosage, 33.2 mg daily lisinopril) versus low-dose ACE inhibitors (mean dosage, 4.5 mg daily lisinopril) in patients of any age with advanced CHF in 287 centers in 19 countries in the 1990s. In our analysis, patients were classified by their use of low-dose or high-dose ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and/or digoxin at the time of randomization. The primary outcome of interest was the ATLAS composite end point of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for any reason at 1 year. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: The 3164 patients in the ATLAS study had a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years; 2516 patients (80%) were men and 648 (20%) were women; mean (SD) left-ventricular ejection fraction was 23% (6%); and 2671 patients (84%) had New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms. At 1 year, the mortality rate was 13% (408 patients); 43% (1369 patients) had > or =1 hospitalization; and the composite end point of mortality or hospitalization was 47% (1489 patients). Most patients (2873; 91%) remained on their initial treatment regimen. Compared with low-dose ACE inhibitors (n = 471), the composite end point decreased incrementally with the use of high-dose ACE inhibitors (n = 475) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.93; P = NS), high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers (n = 72) (aOR, 0.89; P = NS), and high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin (n = 77) (aOR, 0.47; P = 0.006). In absolute proportions, patients receiving high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin for 1 year had 12% fewer deaths and hospitalizations than patients receiving low-dose ACE inhibitors alone. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care for patients with CHF, in this analysis, an evidence-based strategy that incorporated high-dose ACE inhibitors plus beta-blockers plus digoxin was associated with incrementally greater reductions in morbidity and mortality. These findings support treatment guidelines that recommend the concurrent use of all available proven efficacious treatment in patients with advanced CHF.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2004

Issues in regulatory guidelines for data monitoring committees.

As clinical trials have emerged as the major research method for evaluating new interventions, the process for monitoring intervention safety and benefit has also evolved. The Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) has become the standard approach to implement this responsibility for many Phase III trials. Recent draft guidelines on the operation of DMCs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised issues that need further clarification or discussion, especially for industry sponsored trials. These include, the time when DMCs are needed, the role of the independent statistician to support the DMC, and sponsor participation at DMC meetings. This paper provides an overview of these issues, based on the discussions at the January, 2003 workshop sponsored by Duke Clinical Research Institute.

Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees↗
PubMed2003

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot trial of infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor-alpha, in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure: results of the anti-TNF Therapy Against Congestive Heart Failure (ATTACH) trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and preliminary clinical data have suggested that tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFalpha) may play a role in the evolution and progression of heart failure and that inhibition of TNFalpha may favorably modify the course of the disease. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody to TNFalpha, in patients with moderate-to-severe heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients with stable New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction <or=35% were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=49), infliximab 5 mg/kg (n=50), or infliximab 10 mg/kg (n=51) at 0, 2, and 6 weeks after randomization and were followed-up prospectively for 28 weeks. Neither dose of infliximab improved clinical status at 14 weeks, the primary endpoint of the study, despite suppression of inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and interleukin-6) and a modest increase in ejection fraction in the patients receiving 5 mg/kg (P=0.013). Furthermore, after 28 weeks, 13, 10, and 20 patients were hospitalized for any reason in the placebo, 5 mg/kg infliximab, and 10 mg/kg infliximab groups, respectively. The combined risk of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure through 28 weeks was increased in the patients randomized to 10 mg/kg infliximab (hazard ratio 2.84, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 7.97; nominal P=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term TNFalpha antagonism with infliximab did not improve and high doses (10 mg/kg) adversely affected the clinical condition of patients with moderate-to-severe chronic heart failure.

Antibodies, Monoclonal↗
PubMed2003

Effects of initiating carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure: results from the COPERNICUS Study.

CONTEXT: Beta-blockers remain underused despite their established utility for improving outcome in heart failure. Concerns that initiation of treatment produces few immediate benefits and may have important risks may be deterring widespread use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the early effects of the beta-blocker carvedilol in patients with severe heart failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from October 28, 1997, to March 20, 2000, at 334 hospital centers in 21 countries among 2289 patients with symptoms of heart failure at rest or with minimal exertion who were clinically euvolemic and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 25%. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive carvedilol, with start dosage of at 3.125 mg twice daily with uptitration to a target dosage of 25 mg twice daily (n = 1156), or placebo (n = 1133), in addition to their usual medications for heart failure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Death, hospitalization, or permanent withdrawal from study drug, as well as adverse events during the first 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The carvedilol group experienced no increase in cardiovascular risk but instead had fewer patients who died (19 vs 25; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.35); who died or were hospitalized (134 vs 153; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.07); or who died, were hospitalized, or were permanently withdrawn from treatment (162 vs 188; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03). These effects were similar in direction and magnitude to those observed during the entire study, and were apparent particularly in the 624 patients with recent or recurrent decompensation or a very depressed left ventricular ejection fraction. Differences in favor of carvedilol became apparent as early as 14 to 21 days following initiation of treatment. Worsening heart failure was the only serious adverse event with a frequency greater than 2% and was reported with similar frequency in the placebo and carvedilol groups (6.4% vs 5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that, in clinically euvolemic patients, the relation of benefit to risk during initiation of treatment with carvedilol is similar to that seen during long-term therapy with the drug. Our findings should provide the reassurance needed to encourage the high levels of use that are warranted by the results of long-term clinical trials.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2003

Vasopressor response to angiotensin II infusion in patients with chronic heart failure receiving beta-blockers.

BACKGROUND: A synergistic interaction between the angiotensin II (Ang II) type 1 receptor and alpha1-adrenergic receptors has been described. We hypothesized that the nonselective beta-antagonist carvedilol, through its alpha1-adrenergic blocking properties, may modulate vascular reactivity to Ang II in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Accordingly, we compared the vasopressor response to infused Ang II in patients treated with carvedilol and metoprolol, a selective beta-antagonist. METHODS AND RESULTS: All subjects were treated with carvedilol or metoprolol for at least 3 months. ACE inhibitor therapy was standardized to enalapril 40 mg/d or the maximally tolerated dose. Exogenous Ang II was administered as sequential intravenous bolus injections (2.5 to 30 ng/kg) titrated to a rise in radial artery systolic pressure of > or =20 mm Hg. The dose of Ang II required to elicit a change of 20 mm Hg in radial artery systolic pressure (PD20) defined the vasopressor response to Ang II. Twenty subjects with CHF (mean left ventricular ejection fraction 28+/-9%, New York Heart Association class II [n=13] and III [n=7]) were studied. There was no correlation between plasma Ang II levels and PD20. However, the PD20 was significantly higher in patients treated with carvedilol than in those treated with metoprolol (20 [range 2.5 to 30] versus 5 [range 2.5 to 10] ng/kg, P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: The vasopressor response to Ang II infusion in patients treated with carvedilol was significantly lower than in patients treated with metoprolol. Whether this is due to the alpha1-adrenergic blocking or other ancillary properties of carvedilol warrants further investigation.

Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists↗
PubMed2003

Do beta-blockers prolong survival in heart failure only by inhibiting the beta1-receptor? A perspective on the results of the COMET trial.

Experimental and clinical studies indicate that carvedilol exerts multiple antiadrenergic effects in addition to beta(1)-receptor blockade, but the prognostic importance of these actions has long been debated. This controversy has now been substantially advanced by the results of the recently completed Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET), which showed that carvedilol (25 mg twice daily) reduced mortality by 17% when compared with metoprolol (50 mg twice daily), P=.0017--a result that was consistent with the differences seen across earlier controlled trials with beta-blockers in survivors of an acute myocardial infarction and in patients with chronic heart failure. Questions have been raised about the interpretation of these findings in view of the fact that the trial did not use the dose or formulation of metoprolol that was shown to prolong life in a placebo-controlled trial (ie, Metoprolol CR/XL [Controlled Release] Randomized Intervention Trial in Heart Failure). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses, however, indicate that the dosing regimen of metoprolol selected for use in the COMET trial produces a magnitude and time course of beta(1)-blockade during a 24-hour period that is similar to the dose of carvedilol targeted for use in the trial. These analyses suggest that the observed difference in the mortality effects of metoprolol and carvedilol is not related to a difference in the magnitude or time course of their beta(1)-blocking effects but instead reflect antiadrenergic effects of carvedilol in addition to beta(1)-blockade.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2002

Relation of circulating cardiac myosin light chain 1 isoform in stable severe congestive heart failure to survival and treatment with flosequinan.

The myocardial contractile protein myosin light chain 1 isoform (MLC-1) is released into the circulation during myocyte necrosis and could thus be a marker of low-grade myocardial damage and of poor prognosis in patients with heart failure. Two hundred eighteen patients with stable heart failure (ejection fraction [EF] <35%) and in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III to IV had MLC-1 measured at baseline and 1 month after being randomized to the direct vasodilator flosequinan or placebo. Patients were followed a mean of 302 +/- 142 days. The prognostic value of an increase in MLC-1 above the 98th percentile of normal controls was compared with that of conventional prognostic variables in heart failure. MLC-1 was increased in over half of patients at baseline and 1 month, and this was associated with increased age, NYHA class IV, and renal insufficiency. By Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, patients with a baseline increase in MLC-1 had a greater mortality (26%) than those without an increase (15%) (p = 0.043). A significant interaction among MLC-1, survival, and treatment was found (p = 0.043). In the placebo group, MLC-1 was associated with increased mortality (29% vs 12%, p = 0.025), whereas there was no significant difference among patients receiving flosequinan. In a multivariate logistic regression model including age, treatment, and left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, the MLC-1 chain was most predictive of mortality (p = 0.049). Thus, circulating MLC-1 is elevated in over half of patients with stable severe heart failure, and this increase is associated with a poor prognosis. Flosequinan treatment eliminates this association, highlighting the complexity of the relation between cardiac myocyte damage, drug treatment, and mortality.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Effect of carvedilol on the morbidity of patients with severe chronic heart failure: results of the carvedilol prospective randomized cumulative survival (COPERNICUS) study.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blocking agents improve functional status and reduce morbidity in mild-to-moderate heart failure, but it is not known whether they produce such benefits in severe heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 2289 patients with symptoms of heart failure at rest or on minimal exertion and with an ejection fraction <25% (but not volume-overloaded) to double-blind treatment with either placebo (n=1133) or carvedilol (n=1156) for an average of 10.4 months. Carvedilol reduced the combined risk of death or hospitalization for a cardiovascular reason by 27% (P=0.00002) and the combined risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure by 31% (P=0.000004). Patients in the carvedilol group also spent 27% fewer days in the hospital for any reason (P=0.0005) and 40% fewer days in the hospital for heart failure (P<0.0001). These differences were as a result of both a decrease in the number of hospitalizations and a shorter duration of each admission. More patients felt improved and fewer patients felt worse in the carvedilol group than in the placebo group after 6 months of maintenance therapy (P=0.0009). Carvedilol-treated patients were also less likely than placebo-treated patients to experience a serious adverse event (P=0.002), especially worsening heart failure, sudden death, cardiogenic shock, or ventricular tachycardia. CONCLUSION: In euvolemic patients with symptoms at rest or on minimal exertion, the addition of carvedilol to conventional therapy ameliorates the severity of heart failure and reduces the risk of clinical deterioration, hospitalization, and other serious adverse clinical events.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2002

Comparison of omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure: the Omapatrilat Versus Enalapril Randomized Trial of Utility in Reducing Events (OVERTURE).

BACKGROUND: Combined inhibition of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and neutral endopeptidase (NEP) may produce greater benefits in heart failure than ACE inhibition alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 5770 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure to double-blind treatment with either the ACE inhibitor enalapril (10 mg BID, n=2884) or to the ACE-NEP inhibitor omapatrilat (40 mg once daily, n=2886) for a mean of 14.5 months. The primary end point-the combined risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure requiring intravenous treatment--was used prospectively to test both a superiority and noninferiority hypothesis (based on the effect of enalapril in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction [SOLVD] Treatment Trial). A primary end point was achieved in 973 patients in the enalapril group and in 914 patients in the omapatrilat group (hazard ratio 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03, P=0.187)--a result that fulfilled prespecified criteria for noninferiority but not for superiority. The omapatrilat group also had a 9% lower risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization (P=0.024) and a 6% lower risk of death (P=0.339). Post hoc analysis of the primary end point with the definition used in the SOLVD Treatment Trial (which included all hospitalizations for heart failure) showed an 11% lower risk in patients treated with omapatrilat (nominal P=0.012). CONCLUSION: Omapatrilat reduces the risk of death and hospitalization in chronic heart failure but was not more effective than ACE inhibition alone in reducing the risk of a primary clinical event. Between-group differences in favor of omapatrilat observed in secondary and post hoc analyses warrant further study.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors↗