Search

BACKGROUND: Guideline-recommended doses of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), and β blockers are similar for men and women with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), even though there are known sex differences in pharmacokinetics of these drugs. We hypothesised that there might be sex differences in the optimal dose of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers in patients with HFrEF.METHODS: We did a post-hoc analysis of BIOSTAT-CHF, a prospective study in 11 European countries of patients with heart failure in whom initiation and up-titration of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers was encouraged by protocol. We included only patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and excluded those who died within the first 3 months. Primary outcome was a composite of time to all-cause mortality or hospitalisation for heart failure. Findings were validated in ASIAN-HF, an independent cohort of 3539 men and 961 women with HFrEF.FINDINGS: Among 1308 men and 402 women with HFrEF from BIOSTAT-CHF, women were older (74 [12] years vs 70 [12] years, pINTERPRETATION: This study suggests that women with HFrEF might need lower doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers than men, and brings into question what the true optimal medical therapy is for women versus men.FUNDING: European Commission.

Aims:\ud Recurrent hospitalizations are a major part of the disease burden in heart failure (HF), but conventional analyses consider only the first event. We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent events, incorporating all HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) deaths in PARADIGM-HF, using a variety of statistical approaches advocated for this type of analysis.\ud \ud Methods and results:\ud In PARADIGM-HF, a total of 8399 patients were randomized and followed for a median of 27 months. We applied various recurrent event analyses, including a negative binomial model, the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin, Wei, Ying and Yang (LWYY) methods, and a joint frailty model, all adjusted for treatment and region. Among a total of 3181 primary endpoint events (including 1251 CV deaths) during the trial, only 2031 (63.8%) were first events (836 CV deaths). Among a total of 1195 patients with at least one HF hospitalization, 410 (34%) had at least one further HF hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril reduced the risk of recurrent HF hospitalization using the negative binomial model [rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–0.89], the WLW method [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.71–0.89], the LWYY method (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68–0.90), and the joint frailty model (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66–0.86) (all P

OBJECTIVE: Studies have suggested a beneficial effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition. To explore whether the ACE inhibitor ramipril has a direct effect on the microvasculature beyond the blood pressure (BP) lowering effect, we investigated whether ramipril improved coronary microvascular function in normotensive women with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD).METHODS: We included 63 normotensive women with angina, no epicardial stenosis>50% and CMD defined as a coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR)RESULTS: Follow-up was available on 55 patients. BP remained unchanged during treatment in both groups. CFVR improved in both the ramipril (p = 0.004) and placebo group (p = 0.026) with no difference between groups (p = 0.63). Symptoms improved in both groups with no significant between-group differences. No changes were detected in parameters of systolic and diastolic function. No serious adverse reactions were reported.CONCLUSIONS: In normotensive women with angina and CMD, treatment with ramipril had no significant effect on CFVR or symptoms compared with placebo. The effect of ACE inhibition previously reported may be mediated by blood pressure reduction.

Double-blind, randomized controlled studies of longer than 1 week in duration comparing the antiproteinuric potential of long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers with that of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are lacking. Therefore, we performed such a study in patients with nondiabetic renal disease and proteinuria. After a 4-week wash-out period in which patients did not use any medication known to affect proteinuria, 21 patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either the calcium channel blocker amlodipine (Amlo, 5 to 10 mg) or the ACE-inhibitor lisinopril (Lis, 5 to 10 mg). Throughout the 16-week study period, blood pressure, creatinine clearances, and proteinuria were measured every 2 weeks. In addition, device-measured blood pressure and renal hemodynamic studies were performed at the start and end of the study. Systolic blood pressure fell in the Lis group from 163+/-7 (SEM) to 140+/-8 mm Hg (P < .01) and from 157+/-10 to 147+/-6 mm Hg in the Amlo group; diastolic blood pressure fell from 101+/-3 to 86+/-7 mm Hg in the Lis group and from 98+/-3 to 91+/-2 mm Hg in the Amlo group. Renal hemodynamics were not affected by amlodipine treatment, whereas a fall in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was seen in lisinopril-treated patients (from 55+/-11 to 50+/-10 mL/min; P < .01). Amlodipine did not significantly affect proteinuria. Lisinopril induced a decline in the protein-creatinine ratio with a maximal effect reached after 12 to 16 weeks of therapy (from 0.39+/-0.17 to 0.26 +/-0.11 g/mmol; P < .009). In conclusion, we could not demonstrate an antiproteinuric effect of the long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine, whereas therapy with the ACE-inhibitor lisinopril resulted in a decrease in proteinuria. Amlodipine did not affect renal hemodynamics, whereas lisinopril induced a fall in GFR.

Double-blind, randomized controlled studies of longer than 1 week in duration comparing the antiproteinuric potential of long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers with that of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are lacking. Therefore, we performed such a study in patients with nondiabetic renal disease and proteinuria. After a 4-week wash-out period in which patients did not use any medication known to affect proteinuria, 21 patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either the calcium channel blocker amlodipine (Amlo, 5 to 10 mg) or the ACE-inhibitor lisinopril (Lis, 5 to 10 mg). Throughout the 16-week study period, blood pressure, creatinine clearances, and proteinuria were measured every 2 weeks. In addition, device-measured blood pressure and renal hemodynamic studies were performed at the start and end of the study. Systolic blood pressure fell in the Lis group from 163+/-7 (SEM) to 140+/-8 mm Hg (P < .01) and from 157+/-10 to 147+/-6 mm Hg in the Amlo group; diastolic blood pressure fell from 101+/-3 to 86+/-7 mm Hg in the Lis group and from 98+/-3 to 91+/-2 mm Hg in the Amlo group. Renal hemodynamics were not affected by amlodipine treatment, whereas a fall in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was seen in lisinopril-treated patients (from 55+/-11 to 50+/-10 mL/min; P < .01). Amlodipine did not significantly affect proteinuria. Lisinopril induced a decline in the protein-creatinine ratio with a maximal effect reached after 12 to 16 weeks of therapy (from 0.39+/-0.17 to 0.26 +/-0.11 g/mmol; P < .009). In conclusion, we could not demonstrate an antiproteinuric effect of the long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine, whereas therapy with the ACE-inhibitor lisinopril resulted in a decrease in proteinuria. Amlodipine did not affect renal hemodynamics, whereas lisinopril induced a fall in GFR.

Double-blind, randomized controlled studies of longer than 1 week in duration comparing the antiproteinuric potential of long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers with that of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are lacking. Therefore, we performed such a study in patients with nondiabetic renal disease and proteinuria. After a 4-week wash-out period in which patients did not use any medication known to affect proteinuria, 21 patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either the calcium channel blocker amlodipine (Amlo, 5 to 10 mg) or the ACE-inhibitor lisinopril (Lis, 5 to 10 mg). Throughout the 16-week study period, blood pressure, creatinine clearances, and proteinuria were measured every 2 weeks. In addition, device-measured blood pressure and renal hemodynamic studies were performed at the start and end of the study. Systolic blood pressure fell in the Lis group from 163+/-7 (SEM) to 140+/-8 mm Hg (P < .01) and from 157+/-10 to 147+/-6 mm Hg in the Amlo group; diastolic blood pressure fell from 101+/-3 to 86+/-7 mm Hg in the Lis group and from 98+/-3 to 91+/-2 mm Hg in the Amlo group. Renal hemodynamics were not affected by amlodipine treatment, whereas a fall in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was seen in lisinopril-treated patients (from 55+/-11 to 50+/-10 mL/min; P < .01). Amlodipine did not significantly affect proteinuria. Lisinopril induced a decline in the protein-creatinine ratio with a maximal effect reached after 12 to 16 weeks of therapy (from 0.39+/-0.17 to 0.26 +/-0.11 g/mmol; P < .009). In conclusion, we could not demonstrate an antiproteinuric effect of the long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine, whereas therapy with the ACE-inhibitor lisinopril resulted in a decrease in proteinuria. Amlodipine did not affect renal hemodynamics, whereas lisinopril induced a fall in GFR.