Safety and Efficacy of Istaroxime 1.0 and 1.5 µg/kg/min for Patients With Pre-Cardiogenic Shock.

INTRODUCTION: Istaroxime was shown, in a small study, to increase systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with pre-cardiogenic shock (CS) due to acute heart failure (AHF). OBJECTIVES: In the current analysis, we describe the effects of 2 doses of istaroxime 1.0 (Ista-1) and 1.5 µg/kg/min (Ista-1.5). METHODS: The target dose of istaroxime, administered in a double-blind, placebo-controlled fashion, was 1.5 µg/kg/min in the first cohort (n = 24), and it was reduced to 1.0 µg/kg/min in subsequent patients (n = 36). RESULTS: Ista-1 was associated with numerically larger effects on SBP area under the curve, with a 93.6% relative increase from baseline during the first 6 hours with Ista-1 vs 39.5% for Ista-1.5, and with a 49.4% and 24.3% relative increase, respectively, at 24 hours. Compared to placebo, Ista-1.5 had more worsening HF events until day 5 and fewer days alive out of hospital (DAOH) through day 30. Ista-1 had no worsening HF events, and DAOH to day 30 were significantly increased. Effects on echocardiographic measures were similar, although decreases in left ventricular end systolic and diastolic volumes were numerically larger in the Ista-1 group. Ista-1, but not Ista-1.5, showed numerically smaller creatinine increases and larger decreases in natriuretic peptides as compared to placebo. There were 5 serious adverse events in Ista-1.5 (4 of which were cardiac) but only 1 in Ista-1. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pre-CS due to AHF, istaroxime 1.0 µg/kg/min induced beneficial effects on SBP and DAOH. Clinical benefits appear to be reached at dosages less than 1.5 ug/kg/min.

Safety and efficacy of istaroxime in patients with acute heart failure-related pre-cardiogenic shock - a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study (SEISMiC).

AIMS: We examined the effects of istaroxime in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) related Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stage B pre-cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty patients with AHF without acute myocardial infarction with pre-CS, defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg without hypoperfusion, venous lactate ≥2 mmol/L and/or mechanical or inotropic support, were randomized to istaroxime 1.0-1.5 µg/kg/min or placebo for 24 h. The primary endpoint, the adjusted area under the curve (AUC) change in SBP from time of treatment to 6 h, was 53.1 (standard error [SE] 6.88) mmHg × hour versus 30.9 (SE 6.76) mmHg × hour with istaroxime versus placebo (p = 0.017). Adjusted SBP AUC at 24 h was 291.2 (SE 27.5) versus 208.7 (SE 27.0) mmHg × hour (p = 0.025). At 24 h, some echocardiographic measurements improved with istaroxime versus placebo including cardiac index (+0.21 L/min/m2 ; p = 0.016), left atrial area (-1.8 cm2 ; p = 0.008), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (-12.0 ml; p = 0.034). There were no significant differences in pulse pressure, laboratory measurements, serious adverse events or adverse events between the treatment groups except for more nausea, vomiting and infusion site pain in the istaroxime-treated patients. In a post-hoc analysis, patients receiving ≤1.0 µg/kg/min versus 1.5 µg/kg/min had similar increase in blood pressure, but a trend towards less adverse events. CONCLUSION: In a phase 2a study of patients with AHF related pre-CS, istaroxime improved blood pressure and some echocardiography measures related to heart failure and was well tolerated.

Treatment with 24 hour istaroxime infusion in patients hospitalised for acute heart failure: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: Istaroxime is a first-in-class agent which acts through inhibition of the sarcolemmal Na+ /K+ pump and activation of the SERCA2a pump. This study assessed the effects of a 24 h infusion of istaroxime in patients hospitalised for acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We included patients hospitalised for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and E/e' > 10. Patients were randomised to a 24 h intravenous infusion of placebo or istaroxime at doses of 0.5 µg/kg/min (cohort 1: placebo n = 19; istaroxime n = 41) or 1.0 µg/kg/min (cohort 2: placebo n = 20, istaroxime n = 40). The primary endpoint of change in E/e' ratio from baseline to 24 h decreased with istaroxime vs. placebo (cohort 1: -4.55 ± 4.75 istaroxime 0.5 µg/kg/min vs. -1.55 ± 4.11 placebo, P = 0.029; cohort 2: -3.16 ± 2.59 istaroxime 1.0 µg/kg/min vs. -1.08 ± 2.72 placebo, P = 0.009). Both istaroxime doses significantly increased stroke volume index and decreased heart rate. Systolic blood pressure increased with istaroxime, achieving significance with the high dose. Self-reported dyspnoea and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide improved in all groups without significant differences between istaroxime and placebo. No significant differences in cardiac troponin absolute values or clinically relevant arrhythmias were observed during or after istaroxime infusion. Serious cardiac adverse events (including arrhythmias and hypotension) did not differ between placebo and istaroxime groups. The most common adverse events were injection site reactions and gastrointestinal events, the latter primarily with istaroxime 1.0 µg/kg/min. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalised for AHF with reduced ejection fraction, a 24 h infusion of istaroxime improved parameters of diastolic and systolic cardiac function without major cardiac adverse effects.

Prospective observational study of early respiratory management in preterm neonates less than 35 weeks of gestation.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for management of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) recommend continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as the primary mode of respiratory support even in the most premature neonates, reserving endotracheal intubation (ETI) for rescue surfactant or respiratory failure. The incidence and timing of ETI in practice is poorly documented. METHODS: In 27 Level III NICUs in the US (n = 19), Canada (n = 3) and Poland (n = 5), demographics and baseline characteristics, respiratory support modalities including timing of ETI, administration of surfactant and caffeine/other methylxanthines, and neonatal morbidities were prospectively recorded in consecutive preterm neonates following written parental consent. Infants were divided into three groups according to gestational age (GA) at birth, namely 26-28, 29-32 and 33-34 weeks. Statistical comparisons between groups were done using Chi-Square tests. RESULTS: Of 2093 neonates (US = 1507, 254 Canada, 332 Poland), 378 (18%) were 26-28 weeks gestational age (GA), 835 (40%) were 29-32 weeks, and 880 (42%) were 33-34 weeks. Antenatal steroid use was 81% overall, and approximately 89% in neonates ≤32 weeks. RDS incidence and use of ventilatory or supplemental oxygen support were similar across all sites. CPAP was initiated in 43% of all infants, being highest in the 29-32-week group, with a lower proportion in other GA categories (p < 0.001). The overall rate of ETI was 74% for neonates 26-28 weeks (42% within 15 min of birth, 49% within 60 min, and 57% within 3 h), 33% for 29-32 weeks (13 16 and 21%, respectively), and 16% for 33-34 weeks (5, 6 and 8%, respectively). Overall intubation rates and timing were similar between countries in all GAs. Rates within each country varied widely, however. Across US sites, overall ETI rates in 26-28-week neonates were 30-60%, and ETI within 15 min varied from 0 to 83%. Similar within 15-min variability was seen at Polish sites (22-67%) in this GA, and within all countries for 29-32 and 33-34-week neonates. CONCLUSION: Despite published guidelines for management of RDS, rate and timing of ETI varies widely, apparently unrelated to severity of illness. The impact of this variability on outcome is unknown but provides opportunities for further approaches which can avoid the need for ETI.

Parental preferences regarding administration of an animal-derived versus a synthetic medication to newborn infants.

AIM: We examined the perceptions of parents with regard to animal-derived versus synthetic medications of comparable efficacy. We hypothesized that this issue is a concern in neonatal care and that the perceptions of parents from one geographical location would be similar to those of another. METHODS: A survey was distributed to parents of neonates admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit of a southeastern hospital. RESULTS: Of 153 parents surveyed, 150 (98%) responded. More mothers than fathers completed the surveys (113 vs. 34). Fifty-six percent of participants indicated a college or higher education; 40% had an income of $51,000/yr or higher. Thirty-four percent of parents had concerns about animal-derived medications, 41% preferred a synthetic medication of equivalent efficacy, and 69% would like to be informed if a medication was animal-derived. CONCLUSION: Parents have concerns about exposing neonates to animal-derived medication and wish to be informed if an animal-derived medication is being considered.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis of in-hospital costs resulting from reintubation in preterm infants treated with lucinactant, beractant, or poractant alfa.

OBJECTIVES: Reintubation and subsequent mechanical ventilation (MV) in preterm infants after surfactant replacement therapy are associated with excess morbidity and mortality and likely increase in-hospital costs. Specific surfactant therapy selection for prevention of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants receiving conventional MV may impact not only clinical outcomes but also pharmacoeconomic outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a pharmacoeconomic analysis of the impact of surfactant selection and reintubation and subsequent MV of preterm infants on health care resource utilization. Rates of reintubation and duration of MV after reintubation were determined from 1546 preterm infants enrolled in two surfactant trials comparing lucinactant to beractant and poractant alfa. Hospital costs were obtained from a 2010 US database from 1564 preterm infants with RDS, with a direct cost of $2637 per day for MV in the neonatal intensive care unit. Cost of reintubation by study and treatment was estimated as the incidence of reintubation multiplied by days on MV therapy after reintubation multiplied by cost per day for direct MV costs, standardized per 100 surfactant-treated infants. RESULTS: There were no differences between studies or treatment groups in the overall extubation rate. Average MV duration following reintubation was similar between groups in both trials; however, reintubation rates were significantly lower (p<0 05) for infants treated with lucinactant than for those receiving beractant or poractant alfa. The observed differences in reintubation rates resulted in a projected cost saving of $160,013 to $252,203 per 100 infants treated with lucinactant versus animal-derived surfactants. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, higher reintubation rates following successful extubation in preterm infants receiving animal-derived surfactant preparations significantly increased estimated in-hospital costs, primarily due to excess costs associated with MV. This analysis suggests that surfactant selection may have a significant pharmacoeconomic impact on cost of patient care. Additional cost assessment of potential reduction in reintubation-associated morbidity is warranted.

A pilot, randomized, controlled clinical trial of lucinactant, a peptide-containing synthetic surfactant, in infants with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVE: Inhibition of surfactant function and abnormal surfactant synthesis lead to surfactant dysfunction in children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We evaluated whether intratracheal lucinactant, a synthetic, peptide-containing surfactant, was safe and well-tolerated in infants with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and assessed its effects on clinical outcomes. METHODS AND MAIN RESULTS: Infants ≤ 2 yrs of age with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were enrolled in a phase II, double-blind, multinational, placebo-controlled randomized trial across 36 pediatric intensive care units. Infants requiring mechanical ventilation with persistent hypoxemia meeting acute lung injury criteria were randomized to receive intratracheal lucinactant (175 mg/kg) or air placebo. One retreatment was allowed 12-24 hrs after initial dosing if hypoxemia persisted. Peri-dosing tolerability of intratracheal lucinactant and adverse experiences were assessed. Mechanical ventilation duration was analyzed using analysis of variance. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used for categorical variables.We enrolled 165 infants (84 lucinactant; 81 placebo) with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. There were no significant differences in baseline subject characteristics, with the exception of a lower positive end-expiratory pressure and higher tidal volume in placebo subjects. The incidence of transient peri-dosing bradycardia and desaturation was significantly higher in the lucinactant treatment group. There were no statistical differences between groups for other adverse events or mortality. Oxygenation improved in infants randomized to receive lucinactant as indicated by fewer second treatments (67% lucinactant vs. 81% placebo, p = .02) and a trend in improvement in partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to fraction of inspired oxygen from eligibility to 48 hrs after dose (p = .06). There was no significant reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation with lucinactant (geometric least square means: 4.0 days lucinactant vs. 4.5 days placebo; p = .254). In a subset of infants (n = 22), the duration of mechanical ventilation in children with acute lung injury (partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to fraction of inspired oxygen >200) was significantly shorter with lucinactant (least square means: 2.4 days lucinactant vs. 4.3 days placebo; p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated infants with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with intratracheal lucinactant appeared to be generally safe. An improvement in oxygenation and a significantly reduced requirement for retreatment suggests that lucinactant might improve lung function in infants with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Flushing and other dermatologic adverse events associated with extended-release niacin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Niacin lowers levels of atherogenic apolipoprotein-B-containing lipoproteins, including lipoprotein(a), and raises levels of atheroprotective high-density lipoproteins. However, cutaneous flushing has been a major impediment to the clinical use of niacin. OBJECTIVE: Extended-release niacin (niacin ER) is a once-daily prescription niacin formulated to limit flushing. An analysis of flushing events with niacin ER should facilitate its clinical use. METHODS: The analysis pools previously unpublished data on flushing and related side effects from four randomized, double-blind studies of niacin ER, and also reviews long-term data on flushing from a 96-week open label, uncontrolled study. RESULTS: Among 333 patients treated with niacin ER (once daily at bedtime) for 3 to 6 months, 83% reported at least one flushing episode, compared to 18% of patients treated with placebo or gemfibrozil. Approximately 50% had ≤5 flushing events, and only 5% reported >20 flushing events. The majority (76%) of patients treated with niacin ER rated flushing events as mild to moderate in intensity; 6% of patients withdrew due to flushing. In an 8-week comparison of niacin ER once daily at bedtime with immediate-release niacin three times daily at equivalent total daily doses, the total number of flushing events was 76% lower in the niacin ER group. CONCLUSION: Niacin ER can help control flushing events while providing favorable effects on lipids and lipoproteins. The generalizability of this analysis may be limited by self-selection and motivation of research subjects, and further studies of flushing in the clinical practice setting are warranted.

Effectiveness of aggressive management of dyslipidemia in a collaborative-care practice model.

The Cardiovascular Risk Identification and Treatment Center was established in 1997, adopting a collaborative-care clinic model for the purpose of improving the management of high-risk patients with dyslipidemia. This was a retrospective analysis of 417 high-risk patients with > or =1 year of follow-up laboratory data. Analysis included changes in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), non-HDL, triglycerides, and total cholesterol to HDL ratio; lipoprotein goal achievement; Framingham risk score; liver function; and cardiovascular events. At baseline, 66% of patients had coronary heart disease (CHD) or equivalent risk, 45% were not receiving dyslipidemia therapy, and 29% were on statin monotherapy. After 3 years in the program, 56% were receiving combination therapy, 41% were on monotherapy, and 2% were not on therapy. The 3 most common treatment regimens were statin plus niacin (36%), statin alone (22%), and niacin alone (14%). All lipoproteins improved from baseline (p <0.001). Overall, 62% to 74% of patients reached singular lipid goals and 35% achieved combined lipid goals. Patients with Framingham 10-year CHD risk of >20% were reduced from 6% to <1%. Only 29 patients (7.0%) had a cardiovascular event, including 5 (1.0%) who experienced a myocardial infarction. Aspartate aminotransferase/alanine transferase elevation >3 times normal occurred in 1% of patients. In conclusion, a collaborative-care practice model adopting individualized, aggressive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment strategies is highly effective in achieving lipid goals, is sustainable, and is safe. Furthermore, this approach yields reduced projected 10-year CHD risk. A low rate of cardiovascular events was observed.

Long-term safety and efficacy of a once-daily niacin/lovastatin formulation for patients with dyslipidemia.

Combination therapy is increasingly recommended for patients with multiple lipid disorders, especially those at high risk for coronary events. We investigated the long-term safety and effectiveness of a new drug formulation containing once-daily extended-release niacin and lovastatin. A total of 814 men and women (mean age 59 years) with dyslipidemia were enrolled in a 52-week multicenter, open-label study. We used 4 escalating doses (niacin/lovastatin in milligrams): 500/10 for the first month, 1,000/20 for the second, 1,500/30 for the third, and 2,000/40 for the fourth month through week 52. Dose-dependent effects were observed for all major lipid parameters. At week 16, mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides were reduced by 47% and 41%, respectively; mean high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol was increased by 30% (all p <0.001). LDL/HDL cholesterol and total/HDL cholesterol ratios were also decreased by 58% and 48%, respectively. These effects persisted through week 52, except for the mean increase in HDL cholesterol, which had increased to 41% at 1 year. Lipoprotein (a) and C-reactive protein also decreased in a dose-related manner (by 25% and 24%, respectively, on 2,000/40 mg; p <0.01 vs baseline). Treatment was generally well tolerated. The most common adverse event was flushing, which caused 10% of patients to withdraw. Other adverse events included gastrointestinal upset, pruritus, rash, and headache. Drug-induced myopathy did not occur in any patient. The incidence of elevated liver enzymes to >3 times the upper limit of normal was 0.5%. Once-daily niacin/lovastatin exhibits substantial effects on multiple lipid risk factors and represents a significant new treatment option in the management of dyslipidemia.