Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of the safety and efficacy of oral delapril in patients with congestive heart failure

Assessment of the antihypertensive efficacy of various doses of delapril by office and ambulatory blood pressure measurement: the DEFIND study

This study was undertaken to compare and verify the antihypertensive effects of various delapril doses versus placebo on office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP). After a 2-wk placebo period, 303 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized in a double-blind study to 8 wk of treatment with placebo, or delapril 7.5 mg twice daily, delapril 15 mg twice daily, delapril 30 mg twice daily, or delapril 30 mg once daily. BP changes versus baseline and rates of normalized office systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mm Hg, as well as responder office SBP <140 mm Hg or reduction > or = 20 mm Hg and office DBP <90 mm Hg or reduction > or = 10 mm Hg, were calculated. In the intention-to-treat population (n=296), office SBP and DBP reductions were more notable with 30 mg twice daily (15.6/11.5 mm Hg) and 15 mg twice daily (14.8/12.5 mm Hg) than with other delapril regimens (30 mg once daily: 11.8/10.5 mm Hg; 7.5 mg twice daily: 12.9/10.1 mm Hg) and placebo (P<.05 for DBP; P<.01 for SBP). The same was true for frequency of responders (63.8% and 60.3%; P< or =.05 vs placebo) and normalized patients (58.6% and 53.4%; P<.05 vs placebo). Analysis of ambulatory BPs confirmed the accuracy of office BPs. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 3.4% to 6.7% of patients given delapril and in 6.5% of those given placebo. The lowest effective dose of delapril, 15 mg twice daily, may be recommended as the initial dose for patients who begin treatment with this agent.

A meta-analysis of the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on functional capacity in patients with symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction

AIM

To determine by meta-analysis whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors improve exercise tolerance in patients with symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

After literature search 13 multi-centre double blind parallel group trials that evaluated the effect of ACE inhibitors vs. placebo on exercise duration were selected. Ninety-four percent of patients were in New York Heart Association class II-IV. The studies were combined using the Cochrane meta-analysis program (Review manager version 4.1). Analyses according to treatment period, exercise protocols and publication periods were performed. Treatment with ACE inhibitor over 4-12 weeks resulted in a beneficial effect on exercise duration (P=0.003 and P=0.0008 for 4- and 12-weeks treatment, respectively), but the magnitude of improvements did not exceed 30 s corresponding to only 5% compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the pronounced effect on mortality and morbidity in patients with symptomatic LVSD, ACE inhibitors have improving effect on functional capacity measured as exercise tolerance time.

[Evidence based medical treatment of heart failure]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Recommendations for the treatment of heart failure were carried out by a systematic review of the available evidence of the different pharmacologic treatments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The review focused on the treatment of chronic and systolic heart failure. All the studies published in english about the pharmacologic treatment of heart failure where identified. The evidence of every pharmacologic treatment was classified according to: a) efficacy variables (reduction of mortality and hospitalizations, improvement of functional class, ejection fraction and exercise tolerance), and b) the level of quality of the evidence according to an evaluation scale. The evidence was also reviewed for the comparisons and the combinations of the pharmacologic treatments, as well as for the toxicity and costs of treatments.

RESULTS

The recommendations were defined according to the NYHA functional class and were classified in the A, B and C categories according to the level of quality of the available evidence. The evidence on mortality was considered the most important. First line drugs, the alternatives and other possible treatments were take into account.

CONCLUSIONS

There is enough evidence based on information about some variables such as reduction of mortality or hospitalizations to carry out treatment recommendations in all stages of heart failure. This point out the interest ant the priority of used them in the evaluation and improvement of the results of heart failure.

Disparate results of ACE inhibitor dosage on exercise capacity in heart failure: a reappraisal of vasodilator therapy and study design

Despite manifest benefits of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors on the prognosis of patients with heart failure, there is a lack of consistency in the results of trials investigating the effects of ACE inhibitors on exercise capacity. The inconsistencies cannot be readily explained by variations in effects on known neurohumoral or conventional haemodynamic factors. Drawing on insights from physiology of pump-load interactions, in a normal circulation there is an optimal extent of systemic vasodilation at which the delivery of hydraulic energy from the cardiac pump is maximal (the 'impedance matchpoint'). In heart failure, the vasoconstrictive effects shift the operating point towards mismatch at higher resistances, and optimal vasodilatory therapy would reshift the operating point to the matchpoint. Excessive dosage, however, would cause overvasodilatation leading to a reduction in cardiac power output and consequently compromising exercise ability. High levels of ACE inhibitors may not therefore improve exercise ability. Another potential reason for the observed inconsistencies is that the often used parallel-group study design (ideal for mortality studies) may not be suitable for investigating drug effects on exercise capacity because dropouts from such studies would introduce occult selection biases, thereby confounding treatment effects. In conclusion, this reappraisal of the conflicting observations reported on ACE inhibitor effects on exercise capacity has highlighted a proposition that there is an optimal dosage of ACE inhibitors which will most enhance exercise capacity, and this will require further well designed cross-over studies to elucidate.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the clinical setting of chronic congestive heart failure

The addition of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to digitalis and diuretics in chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) prolongs survival and improves the clinical condition of patients. These actions depend on the inhibition of ACE and are, therefore, common to all ACE inhibitors. Thus, the inclusion of an ACE inhibitor in the therapeutic regimen of chronic CHF is mandatory, whenever feasible. The use of ACE inhibitors in chronic CHF should avoid symptomatic hypotension and inordinate decreases in renal function. To this end, ACE inhibitor therapy should progress by gradually increasing doses, and sodium intake and dosages of diuretics and ACE inhibitors should be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances. ACE inhibitors with short elimination half-lives should be preferred in chronic CHF, since they allow quicker dose adjustment than their longer-acting congeners, and given that compliance with once and twice daily dosing would be similar.