Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
2.
N Engl J Med ; 385(25): 2325-2335, 2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575626

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), the use of recombinant human erythropoietin and its derivatives for the treatment of anemia has been linked to a possibly increased risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and other adverse events. Several trials have suggested that hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (PHIs) are as effective as erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in increasing hemoglobin levels. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned patients with CKD who were undergoing dialysis and who had a hemoglobin level of 8.0 to 11.5 g per deciliter to receive an oral HIF-PHI (daprodustat) or an injectable ESA (epoetin alfa if they were receiving hemodialysis or darbepoetin alfa if they were receiving peritoneal dialysis). The two primary outcomes were the mean change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 (noninferiority margin, -0.75 g per deciliter) and the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke), with a noninferiority margin of 1.25. RESULTS: A total of 2964 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) baseline hemoglobin level was 10.4±1.0 g per deciliter overall. The mean (±SE) change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 was 0.28±0.02 g per deciliter in the daprodustat group and 0.10±0.02 g per deciliter in the ESA group (difference, 0.18 g per deciliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.24), which met the prespecified noninferiority margin of -0.75 g per deciliter. During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, a major adverse cardiovascular event occurred in 374 of 1487 patients (25.2%) in the daprodustat group and in 394 of 1477 (26.7%) in the ESA group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.07), which also met the prespecified noninferiority margin for daprodustat. The percentages of patients with other adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CKD undergoing dialysis, daprodustat was noninferior to ESAs regarding the change in the hemoglobin level from baseline and cardiovascular outcomes. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ASCEND-D ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02879305.).


Subject(s)
Anemia/drug therapy , Barbiturates/therapeutic use , Darbepoetin alfa/therapeutic use , Epoetin Alfa/therapeutic use , Glycine/analogs & derivatives , Hematinics/therapeutic use , Renal Dialysis , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/complications , Aged , Anemia/etiology , Barbiturates/adverse effects , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Darbepoetin alfa/adverse effects , Epoetin Alfa/adverse effects , Female , Glycine/adverse effects , Glycine/therapeutic use , Hematinics/adverse effects , Hemoglobins/analysis , Humans , Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-Proline Dioxygenases/antagonists & inhibitors , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/blood , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/therapy , Stroke/epidemiology
3.
N Engl J Med ; 385(25): 2313-2324, 2021 12 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575625

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Daprodustat is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor. In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not undergoing dialysis, the efficacy and safety of daprodustat, as compared with the conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agent darbepoetin alfa, are unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial with blinded adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes, we compared daprodustat with darbepoetin alfa for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD who were not undergoing dialysis. The primary outcomes were the mean change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 and the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). RESULTS: Overall, 3872 patients were randomly assigned to receive daprodustat or darbepoetin alfa. The mean (±SD) baseline hemoglobin levels were similar in the two groups. The mean (±SE) change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 was 0.74±0.02 g per deciliter in the daprodustat group and 0.66±0.02 g per deciliter in the darbepoetin alfa group (difference, 0.08 g per deciliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.13), which met the prespecified noninferiority margin of -0.75 g per deciliter. During a median follow-up of 1.9 years, a first MACE occurred in 378 of 1937 patients (19.5%) in the daprodustat group and in 371 of 1935 patients (19.2%) in the darbepoetin alfa group (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.19), which met the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.25. The percentages of patients with adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CKD and anemia who were not undergoing dialysis, daprodustat was noninferior to darbepoetin alfa with respect to the change in the hemoglobin level from baseline and with respect to cardiovascular outcomes. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ASCEND-ND ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02876835.).


Subject(s)
Anemia/drug therapy , Barbiturates/therapeutic use , Darbepoetin alfa/therapeutic use , Glycine/analogs & derivatives , Hematinics/therapeutic use , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/complications , Aged , Anemia/etiology , Barbiturates/adverse effects , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Darbepoetin alfa/adverse effects , Female , Glycine/adverse effects , Glycine/therapeutic use , Hematinics/adverse effects , Hemoglobins/analysis , Humans , Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-Proline Dioxygenases/antagonists & inhibitors , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/blood , Stroke/epidemiology
4.
N Engl J Med ; 385(20): 1845-1855, 2021 11 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510679

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).


Subject(s)
Aminobutyrates/therapeutic use , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Biphenyl Compounds/therapeutic use , Heart Failure/prevention & control , Myocardial Infarction/drug therapy , Ramipril/therapeutic use , Valsartan/therapeutic use , Aged , Aminobutyrates/adverse effects , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , Biphenyl Compounds/adverse effects , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Double-Blind Method , Drug Combinations , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hypotension/chemically induced , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/complications , Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Proportional Hazards Models , Ramipril/adverse effects , Stroke Volume , Valsartan/adverse effects , Ventricular Dysfunction, Left/etiology
5.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother ; 8(2): 165-178, 2022 02 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-990614

ABSTRACT

AIMS: This meta-analysis provides summary odds ratio (OR) estimates for associations between treatment with (vs. without) renin-angiotensin system blockers and risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (CoViD-19) severity (including case-fatality) in patients with hypertension, and in all patients (irrespective of hypertension). METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and SSRN were searched (2 May 2020 to 12 August 2020) for non-randomized observational CoViD-19 studies. Event/patient numbers were extracted, comparing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) treatment (and each separately), to treatment with neither drug, for the outcomes: (i) likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection; (ii) CoViD-19 severity [including hospitalization, intensive therapy unit (ITU), ventilation]; (iii) case-fatality. The risk of bias was assessed (ROBINS-I). Random-effects meta-analysis estimates were pooled. Eighty-six studies including 459 755 patients (103 317 with hypertension), were analysed. In patients with hypertension, ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment was not associated with a greater likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 60 141 patients (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99-1.14), hospitalization in 5925 patients (OR 0.90, 0.62-1.31), ITU in 7218 patients (OR 1.06, 0.73-1.56), ventilation (or ITU/ventilation/death) in 13 163 patients (OR 0.91, 0.72-1.15) or case-fatality in 18 735 patients with 2893 deaths (OR 0.75, 0.61-0.92). CONCLUSION: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ARBs appear safe in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be discontinued.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020186996.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists , COVID-19 , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , Humans , Renin-Angiotensin System , SARS-CoV-2
6.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 76(20): 2368-2378, 2020 11 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-912306

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly changed clinical care and research, including the conduct of clinical trials, and the clinical research ecosystem will need to adapt to this transformed environment. The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the Academic Research Consortium, composed of academic investigators from the United States and Europe, patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and industry members. A series of meetings were convened to address the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, review options for maintaining or altering best practices, and establish key recommendations for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Endpoint Determination , Humans , Socioeconomic Factors , Statistics as Topic
7.
Eur Heart J ; 41(22): 2109-2117, 2020 06 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-526858

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Coronavirus Infections , Heart Failure , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Research Design/standards , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Europe , Heart Failure/complications , Heart Failure/therapy , Humans , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/standards , Patient Safety , Patient Selection/ethics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL