AIMS: To determine the efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol in aortic dilation progression in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A phase IIIb, randomized, parallel, double-blind study was conducted in 140 MFS patients, age range: 5-60 years, with maximum aortic diameter <45 mm who receivedlosartan (n = 70) oratenolol (n = 70). Doses were raised to a maximum of 1.4 mg/kg/day or 100 mg/day. The primary end-point was the change in aortic root and ascending aorta maximum diameter indexed by body surface area on magnetic resonance imaging after 36 months of treatment. No serious drug-related adverse effects were observed. Five patients presented aortic events during a follow-up (one in the losartan and four in the atenolol groups, P = 0.366). After 3 years of follow-up, aortic root diameter increased significantly in both groups: 1.1 mm (95% CI 0.6-1.6) in the losartan and 1.4 mm (95% CI 0.9-1.9) in the atenolol group, with aortic dilatation progression being similar in both groups: absolute difference between losartan and atenolol -0.3 mm (95% CI -1.1 to 0.4, P = 0.382) and indexed by BSA -0.5 mm/m2 (95% CI -1.2 to 0.1, P = 0.092). Similarly, no significant differences were found in indexed ascending aorta diameter changes between the losartan and atenolol groups: -0.3 mm/m2 (95% CI -0.8 to 0.3, P = 0.326). CONCLUSION: Among patients with MFS, the use of losartan compared with atenolol did not result in significant differences in the progression of aortic root and ascending aorta diameters over 3 years of follow-up. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To determine the efficacy of losartan vs. atenolol in aortic dilation progression in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A phase IIIb, randomized, parallel, double-blind study was conducted in 140 MFSpatients, age range: 5-60 years, with maximum aortic diameter <45 mm who received losartan (n = 70) or atenolol (n = 70). Doses were raised to a maximum of 1.4 mg/kg/day or 100 mg/day. The primary end-point was the change in aortic root and ascending aorta maximum diameter indexed by body surface area on magnetic resonance imaging after 36 months of treatment. No serious drug-related adverse effects were observed. Five patients presented aortic events during a follow-up (one in the losartan and four in the atenolol groups, P = 0.366). After 3 years of follow-up, aortic root diameter increased significantly in both groups: 1.1 mm (95% CI 0.6-1.6) in the losartan and 1.4 mm (95% CI 0.9-1.9) in the atenolol group, with aortic dilatation progression being similar in both groups: absolute difference between losartan and atenolol -0.3 mm (95% CI -1.1 to 0.4, P = 0.382) and indexed by BSA -0.5 mm/m2 (95% CI -1.2 to 0.1, P = 0.092). Similarly, no significant differences were found in indexed ascending aorta diameter changes between the losartan and atenolol groups: -0.3 mm/m2 (95% CI -0.8 to 0.3, P = 0.326). CONCLUSION: Among patients with MFS, the use of losartan compared with atenolol did not result in significant differences in the progression of aortic root and ascending aorta diameters over 3 years of follow-up. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Jorge Oller; Nerea Méndez-Barbero; E Josue Ruiz; Silvia Villahoz; Marjolijn Renard; Lizet I Canelas; Ana M Briones; Rut Alberca; Noelia Lozano-Vidal; María A Hurlé; Dianna Milewicz; Arturo Evangelista; Mercedes Salaices; J Francisco Nistal; Luis Jesús Jiménez-Borreguero; Julie De Backer; Miguel R Campanero; Juan Miguel Redondo Journal: Nat Med Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Zoe White; Nadia Milad; Arash Y Tehrani; Jennifer Lamothe; James C Hogg; Mitra Esfandiarei; Michael Seidman; Steven Booth; Tillie-Louise Hackett; Mathieu C Morissette; Pascal Bernatchez Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Paul A Roberts; Aaron C W Lin; Brett R Cowan; Alistair A Young; Ralph Stewart Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 2.357