Placebo-controlled study of lisinopril in congestive heart failure: a multicentre study

Meta-Analysis on Drug and Device Therapy of New York Heart Association Functional Class IV Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Decades of discovery have heralded significant advancements in the pharmacologic management of HFrEF. However, patients with NYHA IV symptoms remain an under-represented population in almost every clinical trial to date, leaving clinicians with limited evidence with which to guide drug treatment decisions in this patient group with severe heart failure. Randomized controlled trials of adult patients with NYHA IV symptoms of HFrEF randomized to current guideline-recommended medical therapy were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The outcomes of interest included the rate of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure hospitalization. A total of 39 randomized controlled trials were included. A total of 6 studies examined angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, with meta-analyses of 2 demonstrating a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.97, p = 0.03). A total of 11 studies examined β blockers, with meta-analysis of 6 demonstrating a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.92, p = 0.008). A study examined the mineralocorticoid antagonist spironolactone, reporting a reduced risk of all-cause mortality in the NYHA IV subgroup. A total of 6 studies examined device therapy, demonstrating the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable cardiac defibrillator in reducing hospitalization in the NYHA IV subgroup. Although trial evidence exists for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid antagonist therapy in the NYHA IV population, the role of angiotensin receptor blockers is unclear. Ivabradine, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors remain underinvestigated and have not been proved to provide any benefit above standard heart failure therapy in patients with HFrEF and NYHA IV symptoms.

Benefits and adverse effects of ACE inhibitors in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are part of first-line treatment for reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). The aim was to assess the benefits and adverse effects of ACE inhibitors in HFrEF with a focus on important patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparison of ACE inhibitors versus placebo, in HFrEF patients published in French or English. Searches were undertaken of Medline, Cochrane Central, and Embase. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and adverse events.

RESULTS

From 636 articles analysed, 11 were included (13,882 patients). For all-cause mortality (5 RCTs, 9277 patients), the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one death at 6 months was 50 (33-107). The NNT to prevent one death at 12 months (6 RCTs, 13,016 patients) was 63 (35-314). Under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the evidence was of moderate quality. The number needed to harm was 12 (10-15) for cough, 20 (14-31) for hypotension, 23 (17-36) for dizziness, 31 (23-47) for hyperkalaemia, and 49 (30-121) for increased creatinine levels. The quality of evidence was moderate for these criteria except for cough (low quality of evidence).

CONCLUSION

This review focuses on clinical elements necessary in a shared decision-making process. In practice, general practitioners will be able to use these data to discuss ACE inhibitor treatment with HFrEF patients. This study was registered in the PROSPERO registry under the reference number CRD42018096930.

Efficacy of Pharmacologic and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Therapies in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction has been the subject of numerous randomized controlled trials involving medications and cardiac implantable electronic device therapies. As newer effective pharmacological therapies suggest significant reductions in all-cause mortality, the role of additional device therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction deserves further scrutiny. Methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis on the effect of medication and device therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on all-cause mortality was performed. Randomized controlled trials published between January 1980 and July 2017 were identified using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials databases. Pcnetmeta package in R was used to calculate treatment arm-based estimated rates, rate ratios, and probability ranks with 95% credible intervals. Results Combination therapy of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors or ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers) with β-blockers (BBs) alone or in addition to implantable cardiac defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators demonstrated a significant reduction of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo. By probability rank, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist combination therapies have the highest probability of being ranked the best treatment. There was no significant difference in the rate of mortality when comparing angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to implantable cardiac defibrillator+optimal pharmacological combination therapy. Conclusions BB and renin-angiotensin system blockers alone or in combination with defibrillator device therapy have robust evidence for a reduction in mortality compared with placebo. The comparative efficacy of pharmacological therapy with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and device therapy deserves further investigation.

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers on cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Heart failure (HF) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Multiple trials over the past several years have examined the effects of both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of left ventricular dysfunction, both acutely after myocardial infarction and in chronic heart failure. Yet, there is still confusion regarding the relative efficacy of rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition. Our study was conducted to assess efficacy of ACEIs and ARBs in reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in heart failure patients.

Methods

We included randomized clinical trials compared ACEIs and ARBs treatment (any dose or type) with placebo treatment, no treatment, or other anti-HF drugs treatment, reporting cardiovascular or total mortality with an observation period of at least 12 months. Data sources included Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Dichotomous outcome data from individual trials were analyzed using the risk ratio measure and its 95%CI with random-effects/ fixed-effects models. We performed meta-regression analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity. All-cause mortality and CV mortality were thought to be the main outcomes.

Results

A total of 47,662 subjects were included with a mean/median follow-up ranged from 12 weeks to 4.5 years. Of all 38 studies, 32 compared ACEIs with control therapy (included 13 arms that compared ACEIs with placebo, 10 arms in which the comparator was active treatment and 9 arms that compared ACEIs with ARBs), and six studies compared ARBs with placebo. ACEIs treatment in patients with HF reduced all-cause mortality to 11% (risk ratio (RR): 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83–0.96, p = 0.001) and the corresponding value for cardiovascular mortality was 14% (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.78–0.94, p = 0.001). However, ARBs had no beneficial effect on reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. In head-to-head analysis, ACEIs was not superior to ARBs for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular deaths.

Conclusions

In HF patients, ACEIs, but not ARBs reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular deaths. Thus, ACEIs should be considered as first-line therapy to limit excess mortality and morbidity in this population.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-017-0686-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development and Evolution of a Hierarchical Clinical Composite End Point for the Evaluation of Drugs and Devices for Acute and Chronic Heart Failure: A 20-Year Perspective

Traditional approaches to the assessment of new treatments for heart failure have generally evaluated individual components of the syndrome at fixed points in time or have relied on surrogate physiological measures that are poorly correlated with the clinical status of patients. Conventional time-to-event trials that focus on morbidity and mortality represent an important methodological advance, but they generally assign undue weight to clinical events of less importance and are insensitive to difference in functional capacity among individuals who do not experience a clinical event during follow-up. Twenty years ago, a hierarchical clinical composite was developed to address these limitations; it aims to assess the clinical course of patients as a physician would in practice by combining a symptomatic assessment of the patient at each visit with an evaluation of the clinical stability of the patient between visits. The composite does not generate a numeric score by summing arbitrarily assigned weights to certain symptoms or events; instead, the composite ranks relevant measures and outcomes according to clinical priority. In doing so, the clinical composite minimizes the biases created by noncompleting patients in the assessment of symptoms or exercise tolerance while expanding the range of patients who contribute to the treatment difference in a typical morbidity and mortality trial. When applied appropriately, the hierarchical clinical composite end point has reliably distinguished effective from ineffective treatments. The composite may have particular advantages in the evaluation of new devices and transcatheter interventions in chronic heart failure and of new drugs for acute heart failure. Recent modifications enhance its discriminant characteristics and its ability to accurately assess the efficacy of novel interventions for heart failure.

Thirty Years of Evidence on the Efficacy of Drug Treatments for Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatments that reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), β-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these drugs and their combinations regarding all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature review identified 57 randomized controlled trials published between 1987 and 2015, which were compared in terms of study and patient characteristics, baseline risk, outcome definitions, and the observed treatment effects. Despite differences identified in terms of study duration, New York Heart Association class, ejection fraction, and use of background digoxin, a network meta-analysis was considered feasible and all trials were analyzed simultaneously. The random-effects network meta-analysis suggested that the combination of ACEI+BB+MRA was associated with a 56% reduction in mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.44, 95% credible interval 0.26-0.66); ARNI+BB+MRA was associated with the greatest reduction in all-cause mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.19-0.65). A sensitivity analysis that did not account for background therapy suggested that ARNI monotherapy is more efficacious than ACEI or ARB monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The network meta-analysis showed that treatment with ACEI, ARB, BB, MRA, and ARNI and their combinations were better than the treatment with placebo in reducing all-cause mortality, with the exception of ARB monotherapy and ARB plus ACEI. The combination of ARNI+BB+MRA resulted in the greatest mortality reduction.

Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Heart Failure: A Review

Standard drug therapy of systolic heart failure has been evaluated in large-scale randomized clinical trials and includes angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibi tors, which should be used as first-line therapy, diuret ics for the management of extracellular fluid volume excess, and digoxin. In combination with ACE inhibitors and diuretics, with or without digoxin, some β-adrener gic receptor blockers attenuate disease progression and improve outcome in mild-to-moderate systolic heart failure. The pharmacologic management of chronic dia stolic heart failure is largely empirical and directed at reducing symptoms. Symptoms caused by increased ventricular filling pressures may be diminished by diuret ics and nitrovasodilators. Some calcium channel antago nists and most β-blockers prolong diastolic filling time by slowing heart rate, thereby improving the symptoms of diastolic heart failure.

Evidence-based treatment of chronic heart failure

The past two decades have seen a knowledge explosion in the field of cardiovascular diseases, in general, and in the understanding of chronic heart failure (HF) as a complex neurohumoral syndrome in particular. A new staging system for chronic HF has been developed within the last decade to facilitate the evidence-based prescription of medications and medical devices for each of its four stages. The burden of care for patients with chronic HF is substantially provided in primary care settings. Primary care physicians need to understand the underlying pathophysiology of chronic HF, the elements of its evaluation and treatment by stage, and when referral is necessary.

Mediators of chronic heart failure: how drugs work

OBJECTIVE

To critically review the pathophysiology of chronic heart failure at the neurohormonal level, and discuss the effect of present and future therapeutic options on these neurohormones.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search (1986-November 2000) was used to identify important primary literature and reviews. Additional references were obtained from these articles.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Chronic heart failure is a common, progressive disorder with high morbidity and mortality. Progression is due in large part to several redundant neurohormonal responses. The neurohormones include angiotensin II, norepinephrine, aldosterone, endothelin-1, arginine vasopressin, and tumor necrosis factor. These responses are initially adaptive, but become maladaptive in the long term, impairing the function of the heart, vasculature, and kidneys. Counter-regulatory hormones, such as bradykinin and natriuretic peptides, are insufficient to offset the adverse effects of the other neurohormones. Most drugs used to treat chronic heart failure, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-adrenergic antagonists, and spironolactone, achieve their benefits through altering the neurohormonal pathways. New agents that affect more or different neurohormones may soon be available.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple agents are required for treatment of chronic heart failure, as no single agent can counteract all of the various adverse pathways. The appropriate prescription and use of such inherently complex regimens require significant physician and patient education.

[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.

Medical management of mild-to-moderate heart failure before the advent of beta blockers

Clinical trials of beta blockers in heart failure have generally required that patients be receiving optimal drug therapy before randomization to the study medication. Therefore, because beta blockers are used in addition to conventional drug therapy, review of the standard drug therapy of mild-to-moderate heart failure before the advent of beta blockade is essential to understanding the role of beta blockers in the treatment of heart failure. The conventional medical management of systolic heart failure includes angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, which should be used as first-line therapy; diuretics, for the management of body fluid-volume excess; digoxin; and some other vasodilators. These therapies have been evaluated in large-scale, randomized, controlled trials. ACE inhibitors have been shown to significantly attenuate disease progression and improve outcome (ie, morbidity and mortality) in patients with mild-to-moderate systolic heart failure. Controversial or unproven therapies include nonglycoside inotropic agents, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, antiarrhythmic agents, anticoagulants, and calcium channel blockers. The pharmacologic management of diastolic heart failure is largely empirical and is directed at reducing symptoms. Symptoms caused by increased ventricular filling pressures may be treated with diuretics and long-acting nitrates. Some calcium channel blockers and most beta blockers prolong diastolic filling time by slowing heart rate, thereby potentially improving the symptoms of diastolic heart failure. Calcium antagonists, beta blockers, diuretics, and ACE inhibitors may also promote regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and thus improve ventricular compliance, possibly preventing the development of diastolic dysfunction. Because randomized controlled trials of diastolic heart failure are lacking, this review focuses on the conventional management of mild-to-moderate systolic heart failure before the advent of beta blockade.

Outcome of patients with congestive heart failure treated with standard versus high doses of enalapril: a multicenter study. High Enalapril Dose Study Group

OBJECTIVES

We sought to prospectively and randomly compare survival with clinical and hemodynamic variables in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) treated with standard versus high doses of enalapril.

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors produce hemodynamic and symptomatic benefits in patients with CHF, but there is still controversy about the optimal dose in this clinical setting.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-eight patients with advanced CHF (age 56.3+/-12 years) were randomized to receive a maximal tolerated dose of enalapril, up to 20 mg/day in group 1 (mean dose achieved 17.9+/-4.3 mg/day, n = 122) and 60 mg/day in group 2 (mean dose achieved 42+/-19.3 mg/day, n = 126).

RESULTS

At enrollment, patients in group 1 were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class 2.6+/-0.7 and had a mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 117+/-18 mm Hg, a mean heart rate (HR) of 85+/-16 beats/min and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 20.0+/-9.8%. In group 2, patients were in NYHA class 2.6+/-0.7; their SBP was 118+/-17 mm Hg, HR 83+/-15 beats/min and LVEF 18.8+/-8.1%. There were no significant differences in these characteristics between the two groups of patients at enrollment. After 12 months of follow-up, 22 (18%) of 122 patients in group 1 and 23 (18%) of 126 patients in group 2 had died (p = 0.995, with 80% power of the study to detect a delta difference of 13%). The NYHA class was the same (1.9+/-0.7) in both groups; SBP was 111+/-16 and 111+/-17 mm Hg, HR 77+/-12 and 79+/-13 beats/min and LVEF 31+/-19% and 30+/-12% in groups 1 and 2, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant. The study had a power of 80% to detect (p = 0.05) the following changes: 13% in death rate, 0.25 units in NYHA class, 6 mm Hg in SBP, 5 beats/min in HR and 6% in LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were found in survival and clinical and hemodynamic variables between patients receiving standard and those receiving high doses of enalapril.

Low-dose enoximone improves exercise capacity in chronic heart failure. Enoximone Study Group

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to evaluate the effects of low-dose enoximone on exercise capacity.

BACKGROUND

At higher doses the phosphodiesterase inhibitor, enoximone, has been shown to increase exercise capacity and decrease symptoms in heart failure patients but also to increase mortality. The effects of lower doses of enoximone on exercise capacity and adverse events have not been evaluated.

METHODS

This is a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial (nine U.S. centers) conducted in 105 patients with New York Heart Association class II to III, ischemic or nonischemic chronic heart failure (CHF). Patients were randomized to placebo or enoximone at 25 or 50 mg orally three times a day. Treadmill maximal exercise testing was done at baseline and after 4, 8 and 12 weeks of treatment, using a modified Naughton protocol. Patients were also evaluated for changes in quality of life and for increased arrhythmias by Holter monitoring.

RESULTS

By the protocol-specified method of statistical analysis (the last observation carried-forward method), enoximone at 50 mg three times a day improved exercise capacity by 117 s at 12 weeks (p = 0.003). Enoximone at 25 mg three times a day also improved exercise capacity at 12 weeks by 115 s (p = 0.013). No increases in ventricular arrhythmias were noted. There were four deaths in the placebo group and 2 and 0 deaths in the enoximone 25 mg three times a day and enoximone 50 mg three times a day groups, respectively. Effects on degree of dyspnea and patient and physician assessments of clinical status favored the enoximone groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Twelve weeks of treatment with low-dose enoximone improves exercise capacity in patients with CHF, without increasing adverse events.

Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in elderly patients

Lisinopril, the lysine analogue of enalaprilat, is a long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor which is administered once daily by mouth. The efficacy of lisinopril in reducing blood pressure is well established in younger populations, and many trials now show it to be effective in lowering blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension. In comparative and non-comparative clinical trials, 68.2 to 89.1% of elderly patients responded (diastolic pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) to > or = 8 weeks' lisinopril treatment. Age-related differences in antihypertensive efficacy do not appear to be clinically significant, and dosages effective in elderly patients tend to range from 2.5 to 40 mg/day. Dosages usually need to be lower in patients with significant renal impairment. In congestive heart failure, lisinopril 2.5 to 20 mg/day increases exercise duration, improves left ventricular ejection fraction and has no significant effect on ventricular ectopic beats. It is similar in efficacy to enalapril and digoxin and similar or superior to captopril on most end-points. Data from the GISSI-3 post-myocardial infarction trial show that lisinopril reduced mortality and left ventricular dysfunction when given for 42 days starting within 24 hours of the onset of infarction symptoms. Results at 6 weeks and 6 months were similar in elderly and younger patients. Elderly patients, however, among other subgroups, exhibited a strong reduction in risk of low ejection fraction after treatment (-25.5%). Economic studies suggest that lisinopril is cost saving compared with other ACE inhibitors in some markets. When given according to the GISSI-3 protocol, lisinopril appears to be one of the less expensive of the successful ACE inhibitor regimens for acute myocardial infarction. In other trials, patients with diabetic nephropathy and hypertension improved or did not deteriorate during lisinopril treatment. Blood pressure was controlled and reductions or trends towards reductions in albuminuria were observed. These reductions were similar to those in diltiazem, nifedipine and verapamil recipients, and greater than those in patients receiving atenolol. Lisinopril appears to reduce mortality in diabetic patients after myocardial infarction and may also improve neuropathy associated with diabetes. Lisinopril is well tolerated and the profile of adverse events seen is typical of ACE inhibitors as a class. There is a tendency for more elderly than younger patients to discontinue treatment, but this trend is not clearly related to the incidence of adverse events in these age groups. Drug interactions occur with few other agents and are usually clinically significant only between lisinopril and either diuretics or lithium. Lisinopril is, thus, an effective treatment for elderly patients with hypertension, congestive heart failure and acute myocardial infarction and has shown promising benefits in patients with diabetic nephropathy.

Do angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors prolong life in patients with heart failure treated in clinical practice?

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have emerged as a significant advance in the treatment of heart failure; yet only a minority (i.e., 30% to 40%) of eligible patients are being treated with these drugs, and even among treated patients, the doses used in clinical practice are substantially lower than those used in the clinical trials that established the efficacy and safety of these agents. The preference for low doses is based on the belief that low and high doses exert similar benefits but that high doses produce more side effects. Yet, most studies indicate that large doses of ACE inhibitors produce greater hemodynamic and clinical effects than small doses, with no additional toxicity. However, it is uncertain whether the survival effects of these drugs are also related to dose. To address this question, a large multinational, double-blind clinical trial (Assessment of Treatment With Lisinopril and Survival [ATLAS]) was launched to compare the effects of low and high doses of the ACE inhibitor lisinopril on the survival of patients with heart failure. If the study demonstrates that large doses are needed to produce optimal effects on mortality, then the low dose strategies that are now widely used in clinical practice may be inadvertently nullifying the enormous potential benefits that ACE inhibitors might otherwise have on public health.

Clinical benefit of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in chronic heart failure

The ideal therapy for patients with chronic heart failure should reduce symptoms related to pulmonary congestion or low perfusion, prevent the progression of left ventricular dysfunction and, ultimately, should reduce mortality. Extensive studies in humans have investigated the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors on these goals of therapy. As an example, the ACE inhibitor cilazapril significantly improved exercise tolerance, as borne out by a meta-analysis of six placebo-controlled, randomized 3-month trials. Comparison of the effects of cilazapril and captopril vs. placebo in one of the trials documented similar improvement in exercise tolerance (14 vs. 17%). Results from other randomized comparative trials suggest that the improvement in symptoms represents a class effect of ACE inhibitors. A beneficial effect of ACE inhibition on the progression of left ventricular dysfunction has also been demonstrated in the SOLVD trial, and a reduction of mortality has been amply documented in several mortality trials (CONSENSUS I, SOLVD, V-HeFT-II, SAVE, AIRE, SMILE) in patients with or without preceding myocardial infarction. Reports that ACE inhibitors also reduce the incidence of reinfarction after myocardial infarction have not been confirmed in all studies but raise the interesting concept that ACE inhibition may interact, in a beneficial but thus far not well-understood way, with key processes in the development of atherosclerosis, thereby preventing plaque rupture, thrombus formation, and myocardial infarction. Taken together, a large database convincingly demonstrates that ACE inhibitors are effective not only in improving symptoms but also in the prevention of progression of left ventricular dysfunction, in the reduction of mortality, and possibly in stabilizing the atherosclerotic disease process.

Czech and Slovak spirapril intervention study (CASSIS). A randomized, placebo and active-controlled, double-blind multicentre trial in patients with congestive heart failure

A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled multicentre study with spirapril, a new angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), has been conducted in patients with chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) of NYHA classes II-IV. After a placebo run-in period of 1-4 weeks, patients were randomly assigned to one of five treatment groups: placebo (n = 48), spirapril 1.5 mg (n = 48), spirapril 3 mg (n = 53), spirapril 6 mg (n = 51) or enalapril 5/10 mg (n = 48). The primary objective was to assess changes in exercise tolerance, and the secondary objective was an assessment of cardiovascular signs and symptoms, quality of life, ejection fraction and chest X-ray findings. Exercise tolerance increased in all groups; however, no statistically significant differences were found between any of the groups. There was a statistically significant reduction of mortality in the pooled spirapril groups compared with placebo, and a trend for reduction of serious cardiovascular adverse events as well as duration of hospitalization. These effects and improvements in lung congestion appeared to be dose dependent. In patients with moderate to severe heart failure, the combination with first-generation calcium channel blockers had an unfavourable effect on exercise capacity and clinical parameters. Spirapril might be an effective alternative to enalapril in the treatment of patients with CHF. The role of the exercise tolerance test in establishing efficacy of ACEIs in CHF and the widespread use of nifedipine in CHF is questioned.

Effects of 12 weeks of ramipril treatment on the quality of life in patients with moderate congestive heart failure: results of a placebo-controlled trial. Ramipril Study Group

The assessment of quality of life (QoL) has become recognized as an important tool for evaluating heart failure therapy. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril (mean dose 8 mg) was evaluated in 223 patients with moderate chronic congestive heart failure at 24 centers in 4 Nordic countries following a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group design. The follow-up period was 12 weeks. QoL was evaluated using a questionnaire with 47 items, including the disease-specific Severe Heart Failure Questionnaire, the Sleep Dysfunction Scale, and the Psychological General Well-Being Index. In both treatment groups the total score increased from baseline to 12 weeks for both the Severe Heart Failure Questionnaire and for the Psychological Well-Being Index, reflecting relief of symptoms and improved well-being. However, no significant differences between the placebo and ramipril groups could be detected. Only a trend toward improvement in sleep on ramipril compared with placebo therapy was observed. In conclusion, in this placebo-controlled trial no significant effects of 12-week ramipril treatment of QoL could be demonstrated in patients with moderate congestive heart failure.

Exercise testing in heart failure. A critical review

Exercise intolerance is one of the primary characteristics of chronic congestive heart failure (CHF). Therefore, exercise testing has been widely used in the assessment of CHF patients, both to define the severity of the disease and to assess the efficacy of pharmaceutical agents in clinical trials. A number of different exercise tests can be used, although maximal exercise testing is the most common. Maximal exercise capacity can be determined by measuring exercise duration during incremental exercise, or maximal oxygen (O2) consumption, or it can be estimated by anaerobic threshold. While baseline exercise testing in CHF patients accurately identifies and quantifies cardiac failure and determines prognosis, it is of limited value in assessing changes that occur as a result of drug therapy. A key drawback of exercise testing as a measurement of drug effect is the fact that exercise changes produced by drug intervention do not correlate well with changes in the mortality rate. Several examples of the lack of correlation between exercise testing and mortality rates have been observed in clinical trials with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and vasodilators. ACE inhibitors have a modest effect on maximal exercise capacity but they improve survival. It is thought that neuroendocrine activation more closely reflects mortality rates and also the changes in survival observed with pharmacological intervention compared with other modes of evaluation.

Clinical consequences of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor withdrawal in chronic heart failure: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of quinapril. The Quinapril Heart Failure Trial Investigators

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to assess the efficacy, safety and clinical consequences of abrupt cessation of quinapril therapy in a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind withdrawal trial.

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy has assumed a pivotal role in the treatment of chronic heart failure. Quinapril hydrochloride, a nonsulfydryl angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, has shown beneficial clinical effects in previous studies.

METHODS

After > or = 10 weeks of single-blind quinapril therapy, 224 patients with New York Heart Association class II or III heart failure were randomized in double-blind fashion to continue quinapril (n = 114) or to receive placebo (n = 110) for 16 weeks. Changes in treadmill exercise time, New York Heart Association functional class, quality of life and symptoms of heart failure were assessed.

RESULTS

Patients withdrawn to placebo had a significant deterioration in exercise tolerance (median change -16 s with placebo vs. +3 s with quinapril, p = 0.015). New York Heart Association functional class (p = 0.004) and quality of life were improved and signs and symptoms of congestive heart failure were lessened in those remaining on quinapril therapy compared with those receiving placebo. During double-blind treatment, 18 patients were withdrawn from the placebo group because of worsening heart failure compared with 5 patients withdrawn from quinapril treatment (p < 0.001). Rather than a precipitous deterioration of clinical status or early incidence of adverse events, withdrawal from quinapril was associated with steady worsening of heart failure, beginning 4 to 6 weeks after randomization to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Quinapril is effective and safe for maintaining clinical stability in patients with moderate congestive heart failure. Withdrawal of quinapril from patients with heart failure results in a slow progressive decline in clinical status.

How should physicians view heart failure? The philosophical and physiological evolution of three conceptual models of the disease

During the last 50 years, physicians have developed three distinct conceptual models of heart failure that have provided a rational basis for the treatment of the disease. In the 1940s through the 1960s, physicians regarded heart failure principally as an edematous disorder and formulated a cardiorenal model of the disease in an attempt to explain the sodium retention of these patients. This model led to the widespread use of digitalis and diuretics. In the 1970s and 1980s, physicians viewed heart failure principally as a hemodynamic disorder and formulated a cardiocirculatory model of the disease in an attempt to explain patients' symptoms and disability. This model led to the widespread use of peripheral vasodilators and the development of novel positive inotropic agents. Now, in the 1990s, physicians are beginning to think about heart failure as a neurohormonal disorder in an attempt to explain the progression of the disease and its poor long-term survival. This new conceptual framework has led to the widespread use of converting-enzyme inhibitors and the development of beta blockers for the treatment of heart failure. Which conceptual model most accurately describes the syndrome of heart failure and leads physicians to utilize the most effective treatment? This paper critically reviews the available evidence supporting and refuting the validity of all three models of heart failure. We conclude that, to varying degrees, all three approaches provide useful, but incomplete, insights into this physiologically complex and therapeutically challenging disease.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the treatment of clinical heart failure

During the last decade, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) have become cornerstones in the treatment of clinical congestive heart failure. There is convincing evidence that they improve survival and that, in this respect, they are superior to ordinary vasodilators. ACE-I administration also improves New York Heart Association functional class and the left-ventricular function, but their long-term effects on exercise tolerance and quality of life appear modest. During prolonged administration to patients with ischemic left-ventricular dysfunction, ACE-I also significantly reduce the incidence of new ischemic events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina).

Long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition: once-daily lisinopril versus twice-daily captopril in mild-to-moderate heart failure

Once-daily lisinopril (5-20 mg) was compared with twice-daily captopril (12.5-50 mg) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition conducted in 31 centers for 12 weeks in patients with heart failure (New York Heart Association class II-III) who were currently receiving digitalis and/or diuretics. The drugs were compared with regard to their effects on exercise duration, measured with bicycle ergometry, and on ectopic activity, measured using Holter monitoring. Both drugs significantly increased exercise duration after both 6 and 12 weeks of randomized treatment. Neither ACE inhibitor had any significant impact on the hourly rate of either ventricular ectopic counts or couplets, nor was there any difference between treatments with regard to the proportions of patients in whom ventricular ectopic counts were reduced. Both drugs were well tolerated, with no differences observed between treatments. Potassium, urea, and creatinine levels remained stable for both treatments throughout the study.

Comparison of treatment with lisinopril versus enalapril for congestive heart failure

The effect of lisinopril 5-20 mg once daily or enalapril 5-20 mg once daily on exercise capacity, ventricular ectopic activity, and signs and symptoms of heart failure have been studied in 278 patients with mild-to-moderate (New York Heart Association [NYHA] classes II and III) heart failure in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of 12 weeks' duration. Exercise duration was significantly increased by both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment compared with their respective baseline values. There was a trend toward a greater increase in exercise duration on lisinopril after 12 weeks, although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0748). There were no significant treatment differences with respect to the effect of the 2 drugs on ventricular ectopic counts, couplets, or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia. Both drugs were equally effective in improving NYHA grading and symptoms. Neither treatment had any significant effect on mean heart rate or mean blood pressures. Both treatments were equally well tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse events on both drugs were cough, dizziness, fall in blood pressure, vertigo, and myocardial infarction. The results of this study indicate that lisinopril 5-20 mg once daily is at least as effective and well tolerated as enalapril 5-20 mg once daily.

Effects of once-daily benazepril therapy on exercise tolerance and manifestations of chronic congestive heart failure. The Benazepril Heart Failure Study Group

The effects of the long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor benazepril hydrochloride on exercise tolerance and signs and symptoms of congestive heart failure (CHF) were evaluated in a double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Patients with chronic New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms of CHF and an ejection fraction by radionuclide scanning of less than or equal to 35% were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with ascending doses of oral benazepril (n = 114) or placebo (n = 58) once daily, while continuing to receive background therapy with digoxin and diuretics. After randomization, patients were evaluated clinically every 2 weeks during a 12-week, double-blind treatment period. Maximal exercise tolerance was measured before and at specified time points after randomization by graded treadmill exercise testing. At week 12, mean exercise time increased 95 +/- 12 (SEM) seconds in the group receiving benazepril, whereas the increase was 37 +/- 18 seconds in the group receiving placebo (p less than 0.01 for the difference between the groups). There was also greater improvement in overall clinical status and in the signs and symptoms of CHF in benazepril-treated patients than in control subjects. There were 3 deaths in placebo-treated patients and none in benazepril-treated patients (p less than 0.05); the overall incidence of adverse effects was identical in the 2 groups. Benazepril is a well-tolerated angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor that provides clinically important improvement in exercise tolerance and in signs and symptoms when given once daily to patients with CHF receiving background therapy with digoxin and a diuretic.

The clinical pharmacology of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in chronic heart failure

ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) have now been shown to improve symptoms and survival in patients with mild, moderate and severe chronic heart failure. Their mechanism of action is thought to be a combination of RAAS suppression and augmentation of bradykinin and prostaglandins. Although ACE inhibitors improve hemodynamics post myocardial infarction, we do not yet have consistent data on their effects on symptoms or survival in these particular patients. One other potential benefit is their effects on reperfusion injury and free radicals. As yet only minor differences have been found to exist between different ACEIs but increasing attention is now being focussed in this direction.

Acute heart failure: determinants of outcome

We prospectively studied 69 consecutive patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of acute left ventricular failure so as to assess the impact of vasodilators on incidence and morbidity of acute symptomatic left ventricular failure. The determinants of duration of hospitalization, in-hospital mortality and symptomatic status 2 months after discharge were examined. There were 9 in-hospital deaths (13%), and survival at 60 days was 77%. Median duration of hospitalization was 9 days, and 33% of the surviving patients remained in New York Heart Association functional class III-IV 60 days subsequent to discharge. Of the patients, 49 (76%) had previously received treatment for left ventricular failure: 30 (61%) of these had received vasodilators, most commonly angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and nitrates. Ischaemic chest pain was present in 34 (49%) of the patients. Acute utilization of vasodilators (45% of patients) was largely limited to nitrate therapy associated with ischaemic chest pain (P less than 0.01). Multiple logistic regression revealed previous left ventricular failure, advanced age and hypokalaemia as significant correlates of prolonged hospitalization (greater than 9 days). Previous left ventricular failure was also predictive of persistent severe disability two months subsequent to discharge. No factor was a significant predictor of in-hospital death. Although preceding treatment with digoxin and incremental angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor therapy tended to predict brief hospitalization, the parameter of acute ischaemia, other biochemical anomalies and modes of acute or chronic therapy were not significant correlates of any end point. We conclude that preceding disability, rather than mode of treatment, predicts an adverse outcome in acute left ventricular failure.

Effect of long-term enalapril therapy on cardiopulmonary exercise performance in men with mild heart failure and previous myocardial infarction

Forty-one men with documented myocardial infarction greater than 6 months previously were randomized to long-term (48 weeks) therapy with placebo or enalapril on a double-blind basis. All patients were receiving concurrent therapy with digitalis and a diuretic drug for symptomatic heart failure (functional class II or III). The mean age was 64 +/- 7.3 years and no patient suffered from exertional chest pain. Patients underwent maximal cardiopulmonary exertional chest pain. Patients underwent maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing to exhaustion on an ergometer cycle nine times over the course of 48 weeks. Gas exchange data were collected on a breath by breath basis with use of a continuous ramp protocol. In the placebo group (n = 21), the mean (+/- SD) peak oxygen consumption (VO2) at baseline was 18.8 +/- 5.2 versus 18.5 +/- 5.5 ml/kg per min at 48 weeks (-1.4%, p = NS). In the enalapril group (n = 20), the corresponding values were 18.1 +/- 3.1 versus 18.3 +/- 2.6 ml/kg per min (+2.8%, p = NS). The mean VO2 at the anaerobic threshold for the placebo group at baseline study was 13.1 +/- 3.5 versus 12.8 +/- 2.1 ml/kg per min at 48 weeks (-2.2%, p = NS). The corresponding values for the enalapril group were 11.8 +/- 2.3 versus 11.8 +/- 2.4 ml/kg per min (+1.4%, p = NS). The mean total exercise duration in the placebo group at baseline study was 589 +/- 153 versus 620 +/- 181 s at 48 weeks (+5.4%, p = NS).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a comparative review

The chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects, and dosages of the three currently available angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are reviewed. This class of agents effectively inhibits the conversion of angiotensin I to the active vasoconstrictor angiotensin II, a hormone that also promotes, via aldosterone stimulation, increased sodium and water retention. The ACE inhibitors, therefore, are capable of lowering blood pressure primarily by promoting vasodilatation and reducing intravascular fluid volume. Captopril, the first orally active, commercially available ACE inhibitor, is a sulfhydryl-containing compound. Captopril was followed by the introduction of enalapril and lisinopril, two non-sulfhydryl ACE inhibitors. The pharmacokinetic profiles of these three ACE inhibitors differ. Captopril has rapid onset with relatively short duration of action, whereas enalapril and lisinopril have slower onset and relatively long duration of action. Captopril is an active ACE inhibitor in its orally absorbable parent form. In contrast, enalapril must be deesterified in the liver to the metabolite enalaprilat in order to inhibit the converting enzyme; this accounts for its delayed onset of action. Lisinopril does not require metabolic activation to be effective; however, a slow and incomplete absorption pattern explains the delay in onset of activity. Captopril and its disulfide metabolites are primarily excreted in the urine with minor elimination in the feces. Approximately two-thirds of an administered enalapril dose is excreted in the urine as both the parent drug and the metabolite enalaprilat; the remainder of these two substances are excreted in the feces. Lisinopril does not undergo measurable metabolism and approximately one-third is excreted unchanged in the urine with the remaining parent drug being excreted in the feces. The ACE inhibitors lower systemic vascular resistance with a resultant decrease in blood pressure. Their efficacy is comparable to diuretics and beta-blockers in treating patients with mild, moderate, or severe essential and renovascular hypertension. In those patients with severe congestive heart failure (CHF) the ACE inhibitors produce a reduction in systemic vascular resistance, blood pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and pulmonary artery pressure. These drugs may produce improvement in cardiac output and stroke volume and, with chronic administration, may promote regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. The antihypertensive effects of the ACE inhibitors are enhanced when these agents are combined with a diuretic. Captopril and enalapril have been shown to be of particular benefits as adjunctive therapy in patients with congestive heart failure, both in terms of subjective improvement of patient symptoms, and in improving overall hemodynamic status.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

The use of a run-in to enhance compliance

With a run-in, potential subjects are given practice with all or part of the study protocol prior to randomization. The purpose is to exclude poor compliers from the trial and randomize only proven, good compliers. The feasibility of a run-in and the net benefit derived from that strategy depend upon the difficulty of the protocol; the availability of compliance aids during the trial; and the impact of the chosen common practices for all subjects during the run-in on the post-randomization event rates of the groups and the post-randomization blinding of study subjects to their treatment assignments. Two detailed examples of the use of a run-in are presented along with six general recommendations to guide the use of a run-in.

Clinical experience with lisinopril in congestive heart failure. Focus on the older patient

Lisinopril, a long acting, non-sulfhydryl-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, produces an increase in exercise capacity and an improvement in symptoms when administered in a dose of 5 to 20 mg/day to patients with congestive heart failure. There is an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction, and the effectiveness of the drug is not diminished by impairment of renal function (serum creatinine greater than 71.6 mg/dl). Lisinopril is just as effective in older (greater than 65 years of age) patients as in younger patients and is well tolerated among patients of all age groups.

Mild heart failure: diagnosis and treatment

CHF afflicts 15 million persons worldwide despite advances made in its diagnosis and treatment. A thorough physical examination and basic, noninvasive evaluation are essential for establishing the diagnosis of heart failure and for designing an optimal, individualized treatment regimen. Although digitalis and diuretics continue to be used commonly for the treatment of CHF of all severities, the use of vasodilators and ACE inhibitors has increased dramatically, as they are used more widely and earlier in the course of the illness. Because the RAA system contributes significantly to the altered cardiovascular hemodynamics and symptomatology characteristic of heart failure, the ACE inhibitors provide a rational approach to therapy for many patients. Results of controlled clinical trials have shown that selected vasodilators and ACE inhibitors can improve survival in patients with CHF and that patients receiving ACE inhibitors show sustained improvement in clinical class, exercise tolerance, and hemodynamics. Thus the therapeutic spectrum available to the clinician dealing with patients with CHF has broadened substantively over the past decade.

Lisinopril dose-response relationship in essential hypertension

1. This was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel study in 216 patients with mild to moderate (supine diastolic blood pressure = 95-115 mm Hg) essential hypertension. 2. After a 4-week placebo washout, patients were randomized to placebo or lisinopril 1.25, 5.20 or 80 mg once daily for 6 consecutive weeks. Supine and erect blood pressure was measured 24 h postdose at the end of weeks -2, 0, 2, 4, and 6. 3. There was a linear dose-response relationship for both supine and erect blood pressure. Diastolic blood pressure reductions in the lisinopril 20 and 80 mg day-1 groups were significantly greater than in the placebo or lisinopril 1.25 and 5 mg day-1 groups. 4. Lisinopril, at doses up to 80 mg day-1, was well tolerated.

Vasodilator therapy without converting-enzyme inhibition in congestive heart failure--usefulness and limitations

Despite a well-established rationale for pharmacologically induced arterial and venous vasodilatation in congestive heart failure, the clinical usefulness of long-term vasodilator therapy without concomitant converting-enzyme inhibition generally has been disappointing. With the exception of nitrates and, possibly, the combination of nitrates and hydralazine, the use of converting-enzyme inhibitors in many aspects appears preferable in the majority of patients. This article reviews the pathophysiology of inappropriate vasoconstriction in heart failure, the cellular mode of action of the various vasodilators, hemodynamic effects with respect to the peripheral site of action, clinical usefulness and limitations of different vasodilators, and the various determinants of clinical efficacy. Finally, an attempt is made to assess when and how to introduce vasodilator treatment with and without concomitant ACE inhibition.

Lisinopril: a new angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

Lisinopril is a synthetic, nonsulfhydryl, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Its bioavailability is approximately 25% and is not affected by food. Hepatic metabolism is not required for pharmacologic effect, which occurs 1 hour after administration. Peak serum concentration and effect are delayed, occurring 6-8 hours after a single dose and lasting for at least 24 hours. The drug is eliminated primarily by the kidneys. The elimination half-life is 12.6 hours and is prolonged in renal impairment. Lisinopril 10-80 mg once a day is effective in lowering blood pressure in all grades of essential and renovascular hypertension. It is as effective as hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, metoprolol, and nifedipine. Combining lisinopril with hydrochlorothiazide produces a greater degree of blood pressure reduction. Patients with congestive heart failure have demonstrated immediate and prolonged beneficial hemodynamic effects and increased exercise tolerance. Lisinopril is well tolerated. Clinically significant drug interactions have not been reported, but caution should be used when lisinopril is administered with diuretics, nifedipine, or agents that may increase concentrations of potassium. The usual initial oral dosage of lisinopril is 10 mg once a day (range 20-40 mg/day). Lower dosages may be necessary in patients with renal impairment or congestive heart failure, elderly persons, and those receiving diuretics.