OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan, according to baseline blood pressure (BP), in the 4,576 patients with a low ejection fraction (EF) (<or=0.40) in theCHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) program. BACKGROUND: Hypotension is a predictor of poor prognosis in heart failure, yet many treatments shown to reduce morbidity and mortality lower blood pressure. This paradox creates a dilemma for physicians and may explain why low BP is reported as a reason for under-use of these agents. METHODS: The interaction between treatment and baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was examined with patients divided into 6 SBP categories (<or=100, 101 to 110, 111 to 120, 121 to 130, 131 to 140 and >or=141 mm Hg) and 4 DBP categories (<or=60, 61 to 70, 71 to 80 and >or=81 mm Hg). RESULTS:Low SBP and DBP were associated with worse clinical outcomes. Baseline BP did not modify the effects of candesartan on clinical outcomes: the interaction p value between SBP category and treatment was 0.38 (0.22 for DBP category). For both placebo and candesartan, study drug discontinuation for adverse effects (especially hypotension) was highest in patients in the lowest baseline BP categories. However, the relative risk of discontinuation for hypotension, renal dysfunction, and hyperkalemia in the candesartan compared with placebo group was not increased in patients with a low baseline BP. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low EF heart failure, the relative risks and benefits of candesartan treatment were similar in patients with a low BP compared to those with a higher BP.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan, according to baseline blood pressure (BP), in the 4,576 patients with a low ejection fraction (EF) (<or=0.40) in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) program. BACKGROUND:Hypotension is a predictor of poor prognosis in heart failure, yet many treatments shown to reduce morbidity and mortality lower blood pressure. This paradox creates a dilemma for physicians and may explain why low BP is reported as a reason for under-use of these agents. METHODS: The interaction between treatment and baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was examined with patients divided into 6 SBP categories (<or=100, 101 to 110, 111 to 120, 121 to 130, 131 to 140 and >or=141 mm Hg) and 4 DBP categories (<or=60, 61 to 70, 71 to 80 and >or=81 mm Hg). RESULTS: Low SBP and DBP were associated with worse clinical outcomes. Baseline BP did not modify the effects of candesartan on clinical outcomes: the interaction p value between SBP category and treatment was 0.38 (0.22 for DBP category). For both placebo and candesartan, study drug discontinuation for adverse effects (especially hypotension) was highest in patients in the lowest baseline BP categories. However, the relative risk of discontinuation for hypotension, renal dysfunction, and hyperkalemia in the candesartan compared with placebo group was not increased in patients with a low baseline BP. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low EF heart failure, the relative risks and benefits of candesartan treatment were similar in patients with a low BP compared to those with a higher BP.
Authors: Marco R Di Tullio; Min Qian; John L P Thompson; Arthur J Labovitz; Douglas L Mann; Ralph L Sacco; Patrick M Pullicino; Ronald S Freudenberger; John R Teerlink; Susan Graham; Gregory Y H Lip; Bruce Levin; J P Mohr; Richard Buchsbaum; Conrado J Estol; Dirk J Lok; Piotr Ponikowski; Stefan D Anker; Shunichi Homma Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Matteo Serenelli; Alice Jackson; Pooja Dewan; Pardeep S Jhund; Mark C Petrie; Patrick Rossignol; Gianluca Campo; Bertram Pitt; Faiez Zannad; João Pedro Ferreira; John J V McMurray Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Senthil Selvaraj; Brian L Claggett; Michael Böhm; Stefan D Anker; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Faiez Zannad; Burkert Pieske; Carolyn S P Lam; Inder S Anand; Victor C Shi; Martin P Lefkowitz; John J V McMurray; Scott D Solomon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: F M Cunha; P Lourenço; M Couto; P Tavares; S Silva; J T Guimarães; P Bettencourt Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Wei Fang; Rong Luo; Yibin Tang; Wei Hua; Michael Fu; Weizhong Chen; Li Lai; Xiaoping Li Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 1.817