Search

Background: The safety and efficacy of different types of β-blocker therapy in patients with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) and systolic heart failure (HF) are not well described. We assessed whether treatment of systolic HF with carvedilol is efficacious and safe in adults with CKD., Methods and Results: We performed a post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data (n=4217) from 2 multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trials, CAPRICORN (Carvedilol Postinfarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction Study) and COPERNICUS (Carvedilol Prospective Randomized, Cumulative Survival study). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, HF mortality, first HF hospitalization, the composite of cardiovascular mortality or first HF hospitalization, and sudden cardiac death. Non-dialysis-dependent CKD was defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m(2), using the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. CKD was present in 2566 of 4217 (60.8%) of the cohort, 50.4% of whom were randomly assigned to carvedilol therapy. Within the CKD group, treatment with carvedilol decreased the risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.93; P=0.007), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.94; P=0.011), HF mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.88; P=0.003), first hospitalization for HF (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88; P=0.0009), and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.87; P<0.001) but was without significant effect on sudden cardiac death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.05; P=0.098). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm and study type. Carvedilol was generally well tolerated by both groups of patients, with an increased relative incidence in transient increase in serum creatinine without need for dialysis and other electrolyte changes in the CKD patients. However, in a sensitivity analysis among HF subjects with estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (CKD stage 3b), the efficacy of carvedilol was not significantly different from placebo., Conclusions: This analysis suggests that the benefits of carvedilol therapy in patients with systolic left ventricular dysfunction with or without symptoms of HF are consistent even in the presence of mild to moderate CKD. Whether carvedilol therapy is similarly efficacious in HF patients with more advanced kidney disease requires further study.

Background: Suboptimal compliance in taking guideline-based pharmacotherapy in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) potentially increases the burden of hospitalizations and diminishes quality of life. By simplifying the medical regimen, once-daily dosing can potentially improve compliance. The Compliance And Quality of Life Study Comparing Once-Daily Controlled-Release Carvedilol CR and Twice-Daily Immediate-Release Carvedilol IR in Patients with Heart Failure (CASPER) Trial was designed to measure differential compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life in chronic HF patients taking carvedilol immediate release (IR) twice daily versus the bioequivalent carvedilol controlled-release (CR) once daily., Methods and Results: CASPER was a prospective multicenter, 3-arm, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial for a 5-month period. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate and compare compliance with carvedilol IR twice daily (BID) and carvedilol phosphate CR once daily (QD) in patients with chronic HF who were taking carvedilol IR. Secondary objectives included comparisons of quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire), satisfaction with medication, and brain natriuretic peptide levels between subjects taking the two formulations. A total of 405 patients with chronic HF and left ventricular dysfunction were randomized to: (A) carvedilol IR twice daily, given double blind; (B) carvedilol CR taken in the morning and placebo in the afternoon, given double blind; or (C) carvedilol CR once daily, open label. Compliance was measured using the medication event monitoring system that captures time of bottle opening. The primary end point was a comparison of taking compliance (doses taken divided by total number of prescribed doses over the actual duration of the study) between the double-blind carvedilol IR BID versus the open-label carvedilol CR QD groups. Sample size estimates were based on assumptions of 75% compliance with BID dosing and 90% compliance with QD dosing. Mean compliance with carvedilol IR BID was 89.3% compared with 88.2% for carvedilol CR QD, and differential mean compliance was 1.1% (95% CI -4.4%, 6.6%; ie, not significant). There were no statistically significant differences in compliance between any of the 3 groups, nor differences in quality of life, treatment satisfaction, or physiologic measures among the 3 study arms. There were also no significant differences in adverse events or side effects among patients switching from carvedilol IR to carvedilol CR in arms B or C over the 5-month study duration compared with patients remaining on carvedilol IR., Conclusions: Compliance among chronic HF patients in the CASPER trial was high at baseline and unaffected by QD versus BID dosing. Over the 5-month follow-up period, there were no differences in adverse events among patients switching from carvedilol IR to CR.

In the Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial, carvedilol added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers had neutral or beneficial effects on glycemic measures compared with metoprolol tartrate. For the 1235 diabetic hypertensive GEMINI patients, the authors assessed treatment differences by race (white/black/other), age (continuous variable), and sex on hemoglobin A(1c), insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance [HOMA-IR]), and blood pressure. Both treatments significantly reduced blood pressure in all subgroups, but the metabolic effects of carvedilol were more beneficial in subgroups of race and sex. Carvedilol did not affect hemoglobin A(1c) but improved HOMA-IR results in all subgroups, significantly in males and "other race" subgroups. Metoprolol significantly increased hemoglobin A(1c) in all subgroups except "other race," with no effect on HOMA-IR findings. Differences vs metoprolol significantly favored carvedilol for hemoglobin A(1c) in white and female subgroups and favored carvedilol for HOMA-IR in black, "other race," and male subgroups. Carvedilol effects were favorable to adjustment of age as a covariate. In hypertensive patients with diabetes, carvedilol may be a more appropriate choice when beta-blockade is indicated.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Within the treatment armamentarium, beta-blockers have demonstrated efficacy across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease--from modification of a risk factor (ie, hypertension) to treatment after an acute event (ie, myocardial infarction). Recently, the use of beta-blockers as a first-line therapy in hypertension has been called into question. Moreover, beta-blockers as a class are saddled with a misperception of having poor tolerability. However, vasodilatory beta-blockers such as carvedilol have a different hemodynamic action that provides the benefits of beta-blockade with the addition of vasodilation resulting from alpha 1-adrenergic receptor blockade. Vasodilation reduces total peripheral resistance, which may produce an overall positive effect on tolerability. Recently, a new, controlled-release carvedilol formulation has been developed that provides the clinical efficacy of carvedilol but is indicated for once-daily dosing. This review presents an overview of the clinical and pharmacologic carvedilol controlled-release data.

The effects of beta-blockade in addition to more specific renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers on blood pressure (BP) in patients with diabetes are described. After washout of medications other than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, patients were titrated to a BP level <130/80 mm Hg using therapy with carvedilol 6.25 to 25 mg bid (n=498) or metoprolol tartrate 50 to 200 mg bid (n=737). At the end of the beta-blocker titration period, a BP level <130/80 mm Hg was achieved in 37% of carvedilol-treated and 36% of metoprolol-treated participants who continued to receive a renin-angiotensin system blocker. In the approximately 60% of participants in whom a BP level <130/80 mm Hg was not attained with renin-angiotensin system blockade plus beta-blockade, hydrochlorothiazide was added in 43% and 44% of carvedilol and metoprolol groups, respectively; 25% (both arms) also required a calcium channel blocker. Among those in whom goal BP was not achieved, 42% of carvedilol- and 40% of metoprolol-treated participants were not titrated to the highest dose of beta-blocker. The use of carvedilol compared with metoprolol did not effect glycemic control.

Background: In the COMET study, carvedilol improved survival compared to metoprolol tartrate in 3029 patients with NYHA II-IV heart failure and EF <35%, followed for an average of 58 months., Aims: To evaluate whether the effect on overall mortality was specific for a particular mode of death. This may help to identify the mechanism of the observed difference., Methods: Of the 1112 total deaths, 972 were adjudicated as cardiovascular, including 480 sudden, 365 circulatory failure (CF) and 51 stroke deaths. For each mode of death, the effect of pre-specified baseline variables was assessed, including sex, age, NYHA class, aetiology, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, EF, atrial fibrillation, previous myocardial infarction or hypertension, renal function, concomitant medication, and study treatment allocation., Results: In multivariate Cox regression analyses, compared to metoprolol, carvedilol reduced cardiovascular (RR 0.80, CI 0.7-0.91, p=0.0009), sudden (RR 0.77, CI 0.64-0.93, p=0.0073) and stroke deaths (RR 0.37, CI 0.19-0.71, p=0.0027) with a non-significant trend for CF death (RR 0.83, CI 0.66-1.04, p=0.07). Treatment benefit with carvedilol did not differ between modes of death, except for a greater reduction in stroke death with carvedilol (competing risk analysis, p=0.0071 vs CF death). There were no interactions between treatment allocation and baseline characteristics., Conclusion: Mortality reduction with carvedilol compared to metoprolol appears relatively non-specific and could be consistent with a superior effect of carvedilol on cardiac function, arrhythmias or, in view of the greater reduction in stroke deaths, on vascular events.

Context: Although beta-blockers improve symptoms and survival in adults with heart failure, little is known about these medications in children and adolescents., Objective: To prospectively evaluate the effects of carvedilol in children and adolescents with symptomatic systemic ventricular systolic dysfunction., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 161 children and adolescents with symptomatic systolic heart failure from 26 US centers. In addition to treatment with conventional heart failure medications, patients were assigned to receive placebo or carvedilol. Enrollment began in June 2000 and the last dose was given in May 2005 (each patient received medication for 8 months)., Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to twice-daily dosing with placebo, low-dose carvedilol (0.2 mg/kg per dose if weight <62.5 kg or 12.5 mg per dose if weight > or =62.5 kg), or high-dose carvedilol (0.4 mg/kg per dose if weight <62.5 kg or 25 mg per dose if weight > or =62.5 kg) and were stratified according to whether each patient's systemic ventricle was a left ventricle or not., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was a composite measure of heart failure outcomes in patients receiving carvedilol (low- and high-dose combined) vs placebo. Secondary efficacy variables included individual components of this composite, echocardiographic measures, and plasma b-type natriuretic peptide levels., Results: There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the composite end point based on the percentage of patients who improved, worsened, or were unchanged. Among 54 patients assigned to placebo, 30 improved (56%), 16 worsened (30%), and 8 were unchanged (15%); among 103 patients assigned to carvedilol, 58 improved (56%), 25 worsened (24%), and 20 were unchanged (19%). The rates of worsening were lower than expected. The odds ratio for worsened outcome for patients in the combined carvedilol group vs the placebo group was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.36-1.59; P = .47). A prespecified subgroup analysis noted significant interaction between treatment and ventricular morphology (P = .02), indicating a possible differential effect of treatment between patients with a systemic left ventricle (beneficial trend) and those whose systemic ventricle was not a left ventricle (nonbeneficial trend)., Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that carvedilol does not significantly improve clinical heart failure outcomes in children and adolescents with symptomatic systolic heart failure. However, given the lower than expected event rates, the trial may have been underpowered. There may be a differential effect of carvedilol in children and adolescents based on ventricular morphology., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00052026.

Background: Beta blocker treatment may worsen glucose metabolism., Objective: To study the development of new onset diabetes in a large cohort of patients with heart failure treated with either metoprolol or carvedilol., Design: Prospective and retrospective analysis of a controlled clinical trial., Setting: Multinational multicentre study., Patients: 3029 patients with chronic heart failure., Interventions: Randomly assigned treatment with carvedilol (n = 1511, target dose 50 mg daily) or metoprolol tartrate (n = 1518, target dose 100 mg daily)., Results: Diabetic events (diabetic coma, peripheral gangrene, diabetic foot, decreased glucose tolerance or hyperglycaemia) and new onset diabetes (clinical diagnosis, repeated high random glucose level or glucose lowering drugs) were assessed in 2298 patients without diabetes at baseline. Diabetic events occurred in 122/1151 (10.6%) patients in the carvedilol group and 149/1147 (13.0%) patients in the metoprolol group (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.99; p = 0.039). New onset diabetes was diagnosed in 119/1151 (10.3%) v 145/1147 (12.6%) cases in the carvedilol and metoprolol treatment groups (HR = 0.78, CI 0.61 to 0.997; p = 0.048), respectively. Patients with diabetes at baseline had an increased mortality compared with non-diabetic subjects (45.3% v 33.9%; HR = 1.45, CI 1.28 to 1.65). Both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects at baseline had a similar reduction in mortality with carvedilol compared with metoprolol (RR = 0.85; CI 0.69 to 1.06 and RR = 0.82; CI 0.71 to 0.94, respectively)., Conclusion: A high prevalence and incidence of diabetes is found in patients with heart failure over a course of 5 years. New onset diabetes is more likely to occur during treatment with metoprolol than during treatment with carvedilol.

Purpose: Patients with type 2 diabetes are commonly overweight, which can contribute to poor cardiovascular outcomes. beta-blockers may promote weight gain, or hamper weight loss, and are a concern in high-risk patients. The current analysis of the Glycemic Effect in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial evaluates the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate on weight gain in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension., Methods: This prespecified secondary analysis of the GEMINI study (n=1106) evaluated change in body weight after 5 months., Results: Mean (+/-SE) baseline weights were 97.5 (+/-20.1) kg for carvedilol and 96.6 (+/-20.1) kg for metoprolol tartrate. Treatment difference (c vs m) in mean (+/-SE) weight change from baseline was -1.02 (+/-0.21) kg (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.43 to -0.60; P <.001). Patients taking metoprolol had a significant mean (+/-SE) weight gain of 1.19 (+/-0.16) kg (P <.001); patients taking carvedilol did not (0.17 [+/-0.19] kg; P =.36). Metoprolol tartrate-treated patients with body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 had a statistically significant greater weight gain than comparable carvedilol-treated patients. Treatment differences (c vs m) in the obese (BMI >30 kg/m2) and morbidly obese groups (BMI >40 kg/m2) were -0.90 kg (95% CI, -1.5 to -0.3; P =.002) and -1.84 kg (95% CI, -2.9 to -0.8; P =.001), respectively. Pairwise correlation analyses revealed no significant associations between weight change and change in HbA1c, HOMA-IR, or blood pressure., Conclusions: Metoprolol tartrate was associated with increased weight gain compared to carvedilol; weight gain was most pronounced in subjects with hypertension and diabetes who were not taking insulin therapy.

Aims: To determine whether the beneficial effects of carvedilol on insulin resistance (IR) are affected by the concomitant use of insulin sensitizers [thiazolidinediones (TZDs) and metformin]., Methods: Changes in HbA1c and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were assessed over 5 months, comparing carvedilol with metoprolol tartrate according to insulin sensitizer (TZDs and metformin) use., Results: In TZD/metformin users, carvedilol patients showed a 5.4% decrease [95% confidence interval (CI) -11.9, 1.6; P = 0.13] and metoprolol tartrate patients showed a 2.8% decrease (95% CI -8.5, 3.2; P = 0.35) in HOMA-IR. The -2.6% difference between treatments was not significant (95% CI -10.7, 6.2; P = 0.55). In contrast, those not taking TZD/metformin experienced a 13.2% increase in HOMA-IR on metoprolol tartrate (95% CI 3.2, 24.1; P < 0.01) and a 4.8% decrease in HOMA-IR on carvedilol (95% CI -14.6, 6.0; P = 0.37), with a significant treatment difference of -15.9% favouring carvedilol (95% CI -26.6, -3.6; P = 0.01). There was no significant treatment interaction for the use of TZD/metformin and HbA1c. A statistically significant treatment difference was observed for HbA1c after 5 months favouring carvedilol after adjusting for insulin sensitizer use (-0.11%, 95% CI -0.214, -0.009; P = 0.03)., Conclusions: In patients with diabetes and hypertension not taking insulin sensitizers, the use of metoprolol tartrate resulted in a worsening of insulin resistance, an effect not seen with carvedilol. However, in TZD/metformin users the difference between the beta-blockers was not statistically significant.

Background: Community patients with heart failure (HF) are older, less often treated by HF specialists, and have more comorbidity than those in randomized clinical trials. These differences might affect beta-blocker prescribing in HF., Methods: To explore patterns of beta-blocker prescribing for HF in the community and their association with outcomes, we determined carvedilol doses at end titration in 4113 patients from a community-based beta-blocker HF registry according to physician and patient characteristics, HF severity, and rates of hospitalization and death., Results: Female sex, age > or = 65 years, and left ventricular ejection fraction > or = 35% were associated with lower beta-blocker doses. Average daily dose of beta-blocker was lower with worse baseline New York Heart Association class. More patients of cardiologists achieved carvedilol doses > or = 25 mg twice daily, whereas in those of noncardiologists lower doses were more common. Relative risk of HF hospitalizations or all-cause death was significantly lower with higher doses of beta-blocker., Conclusions: Beta-blocker dosing in community HF appears lower than in randomized clinical trials, especially when prescribed by noncardiologists. At all doses, patients taking the beta-blocker carvedilol have a lower incidence of death and HF hospitalization than those discontinuing it, regardless of physician type in the community setting.

Aim: The Glycemic Effect in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial compared the metabolic effects of two beta-blockers in people with type 2 diabetes and hypertension treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade and found differences in metabolic outcomes. In this paper, we report the results of a prespecified secondary analysis of GEMINI that sought to determine the effect of these two beta-blockers on commonly reported symptoms., Methods: The Diabetes Symptom Checklist (DSC), a self-report questionnaire measuring the occurrence and perceived burden of diabetes-related symptoms, was completed by GEMINI participants at baseline and at the end of the study (maintenance month 5). The DSC assessed symptoms in eight domains: psychology (fatigue), psychology (cognitive), neuropathy (pain), neuropathy (sensory), cardiology, ophthalmology, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia., Results: Comparison of the mean change in self-reported diabetes-related symptoms indicated a significant treatment difference favouring carvedilol over metoprolol tartrate in overall symptom score (-0.08; 95% CI -0.15, -0.01; p = 0.02) and in the domains for hypoglycaemia symptoms (-0.12; 95% CI -0.23, -0.02; p = 0.02) and hyperglycaemia symptoms (-0.16; 95% CI -0.27, -0.05; p = 0.005). Carvedilol resulted in fewer perceived diabetes-related symptoms in patients with diabetes and hypertension., Conclusion: Carvedilol resulted in a lower perceived burden of diabetes-related symptoms in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. The addition of a well-tolerated beta-blocker to RAS blockade may improve hypertension treatment and quality of life in patients with diabetes.

Heart failure (HF) in the community differs meaningfully from that in clinical trials, particularly the higher prevalence of patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) typically excluded from clinical trials, thus limiting knowledge of their responsiveness to beta-blocker therapy. From a community-based registry of 4,280 patients with HF starting treatment with the beta blocker carvedilol, we compared characteristics, carvedilol titration, and outcomes of patients according to LVEF >40% or <40% (as in clinical trials) and across the spectrum of LVEF <21%, 21% to 30%, 31% to 40%, and >40%. Patients with preserved EF (LVEF >40%) were older and more often women and hypertensive. Lower LVEF was associated with worse functional class and more HF hospitalizations in the previous year. Carvedilol dose decreased with increasing LVEF. Hospitalization rates for HF related inversely to LVEF before starting carvedilol therapy and decreased from the previous year in all LVEF groups during follow-up. Although 1-year mortality rate decreased from 8% with LVEF < or =20% to 6% with LVEF >40%, adjusted hazard ratios were not significantly different across LVEF groups. Thus, characteristics of community patients with HF vary across the spectrum of LVEF. Patients with HF and preserved EF treated with carvedilol in the community improve symptomatically and experience fewer HF hospitalizations after initiating carvedilol. In conclusion, without a control group, the effect of carvedilol on outcomes is not conclusive and trials of carvedilol in patients with HF and preserved EF should be undertaken.

Objectives: We explored whether vascular protection by carvedilol could contribute to its superior effects in the treatment of heart failure (HF) compared with metoprolol tartrate in the COMET (Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial) study., Background: Full adrenergic blockade by carvedilol and additional (e.g., antioxidative) properties may lead to vascular protection relative to beta-1 blockade alone, and contribute to its efficacy in HF treatment., Methods: Three thousand twenty-nine patients with HF due to ischemic (51%) or idiopathic cardiomyopathy (44%) were randomized double-blind to carvedilol (n = 1,511) or metoprolol (n = 1,518) and followed for 58 months. Vascular end points were cardiovascular death, stroke, stroke death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unstable angina., Results: The effect of carvedilol on cardiovascular death improved consistently in subgroups with prespecified baseline variables. Myocardial infarctions were reported in 69 carvedilol and 94 metoprolol patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.97, p = 0.03). Cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI combined were reduced by 19% in carvedilol (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, p = 0.0009 vs. metoprolol). Unstable angina was reported as an adverse event in 56 carvedilol and in 77 metoprolol patients (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.501 to 0.998, p = 0.049). A stroke occurred in 65 carvedilol and 80 metoprolol patients (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10). Stroke or MI combined occurred in 130 carvedilol and 168 metoprolol patients (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95, p = 0.015), and fatal MI or fatal stroke occurred in 34 carvedilol and in 72 metoprolol patients (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, p = 0.0002). Death after a nonfatal MI or stroke occurred in 61 of 124 carvedilol and in 106 of 160 metoprolol patients (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, p = 0.0086)., Conclusions: Carvedilol improves vascular outcomes better than metoprolol. These results suggest a ubiquitous protective effect of carvedilol against major vascular events.

Heart failure (HF) clinical trials suggest different responses of blacks and whites to beta-blockers. Differences between clinical trial and community settings may also have an impact. The Carvedilol Heart Failure Registry (COHERE) observed experience with carvedilol in 4280 patients with HF in a community setting. This analysis compares characteristics, outcomes, and carvedilol dosing of blacks and whites in COHERE. Compared with whites (n=3433), blacks (n=523) had more severe HF symptoms despite similar systolic function. At similar carvedilol maintenance doses, symptoms improved in 33% of blacks vs 28% of whites, while worsening in 10% and 11%, respectively (both nonsignificant), and HF hospitalization rates were reduced comparably in both groups (-58% vs -56%, respectively; both P<.001). Incidence and hazard ratios of death were similar in blacks and whites (6.9% vs 7.5%, hazard ratio 1.2 vs 1.0, P=.276). Thus carvedilol was similarly effective in blacks and whites with HF in the community setting, consistent with carvedilol clinical trials.

Risk factors for outcomes in heart failure (HF) were derived from populations in clinical trials, at hospital discharge, or in localized geographic or socioeconomic strata before the widespread use of beta blockers. This study observed 4,280 patients in a community-based HF registry for 1 year after completing carvedilol titration. Independent risk factors for death, hospitalization for HF, or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons other than HF were first identified by age-, gender-, and race-adjusted analyses, then by multivariate analysis adjusted simultaneously for all factors. Over this period, 7% of patients died, 11% were hospitalized for HF, 12% were hospitalized for other cardiovascular reasons, and 27% had > or =1 of these events. The most significant outcome predictors were New York Heart Association class III or IV, history of hospitalization for HF or other cardiovascular reasons, and angina pectoris, all associated with increased odds of having an adverse outcome (all p < or =0.001). The left ventricular ejection fraction was not a significant outcome predictor by multivariate analysis. The odds ratio for an adverse outcome was significantly reduced for patients with hypertensive or idiopathic causes of HF and for those whose physicians had graduated from medical school > or =24 years earlier compared with <14 years earlier (all p <0.005). In conclusion, easily obtained historical information predicts clinical outcomes in patients with HF in the year after initiating carvedilol. In this unselected community population, these historical factors were better predictors of risk than the left ventricular ejection fraction.

Women and the elderly are underrepresented in clinical trials of heart failure (HF). The authors analyzed, by sex and age groups, a registry of 4280 community patients initiating carvedilol for HF. Women (n=1485) were older than men (n=2793) and had worse functional class with higher left ventricular ejection fraction and blood pressure. Women also had more HF hospitalizations, less use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and lower doses of carvedilol. Nevertheless, during 1-year follow-up, both groups experienced greater than 40% reductions in HF hospitalizations (P<.001), with mortality of 7.3% in women vs 9.1% in men (P=.085). With increasing age, left ventricular ejection fraction, blood pressure, and functional class increased, whereas angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and carvedilol doses decreased. HF hospitalizations fell at least 40% in all age groups after starting carvedilol (P<.001). Characteristics of women and the elderly with HF in the community suggest increased risk, but both populations respond well after initiating carvedilol.

We compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of repeated dosing with the currently available immediate-release (IR) carvedilol (given twice daily) and a newly developed controlled-release (CR) formulation (given once daily) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). We enrolled 188 patients with stable mild, moderate, or severe heart failure as well as survivors of a recent acute myocardial infarction (MI) with asymptomatic LVD (left ventricular ejection fraction /=2 weeks. Patients were then switched to the corresponding dose of carvedilol CR (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg once daily), and PK variables were reassessed after an additional 2 weeks. The primary measures included trough plasma concentration (C(tau)), maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC([0-t])) for both enantiomers of carvedilol of each formulation of the drug. The AUC((0-t)) and the trough and maximum carvedilol concentrations for both the R(+) and S(-) enantiomers were similar when carvedilol IR was compared with carvedilol CR as follows: 3.125 mg twice daily versus 10 mg once daily, 6.25 mg twice daily versus 20 mg once daily, 12.5 mg twice daily versus 40 mg once daily, and 25 mg twice daily versus 80 mg once daily, respectively. Based on a pooled analysis, the AUC((0-t)), C(max), and C(tau) for both R(+) and S(-) were equivalent for the CR and IR formulations, with point estimates and 90% confidence intervals within the bioequivalence limits of 80%-125%. The fluctuation index (the CR-IR ratio for [C(max) - C(min)]/C(ss) where C(min) is the minimum observed concentration over the dosing interval and C(ss) is the concentration at steady state) for both R(+)- and S(-)-carvedilol was approximately 1, indicating that the peak-to-trough fluctuation in plasma concentration for carvedilol after use of carvedilol CR once daily was similar to that for carvedilol IR given twice daily. The median time to maximum observed plasma concentration (t(max)) was approximately 3 hours longer for both enantiomers after administration of carvedilol CR as compared with carvedilol IR. These data demonstrate that the new carvedilol CR formulation given once daily is equivalent to the currently available carvedilol IR formulation given twice daily in patients with heart failure and asymptomatic post-MI LVD.

Increases in the cardiovascular risk marker microalbuminuria are attenuated by blood pressure reduction using blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. Such changes in microalbuminuria have not been observed when beta-blockers are used. A prespecified secondary end point of the Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives (GEMINI) trial was to examine the effects of different beta-blockers on changes in albuminuria in the presence of renin-angiotensin system blockade. Participants with hypertension and type 2 diabetes were randomized to either metoprolol tartrate (n=737) or carvedilol (n=498) in blinded fashion after a washout period of all antihypertensive agents except for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. Blinded medication was titrated to achieve target blood pressure, with a-5 month follow-up period. The current analysis examined microalbuminuria, using spot urine albumin:creatinine, in participants who had values at screening and trial end. A greater reduction in microalbuminuria was observed for those randomized to carvedilol (-16.2%Delta; 95% confidence interval, -25.3, -5.9; P=0.003). Of those with normoalbuminuria at baseline, fewer progressed to microalbuminuria on carvedilol versus metoprolol (20 of 302 [6.6%] versus 48 of 431 [11.1%], respectively; P=0.03). Microalbuminuria development was not related to differences in blood pressure or achievement of blood pressure goal (68% carvedilol versus 67%, metoprolol). Presence of metabolic syndrome at baseline was the only independent predictor of worsening albuminuria throughout the study (P=0.004). Beta-blockers have differential effects on microalbuminuria in the presence of renin-angiotensin system blockade. These differences cannot be explained by effects on blood pressure or alpha1-antagonism but may relate to antioxidant properties of carvedilol.

Aims: We studied the influence of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and beta-blocker dose on outcome in the 2599 out of 3029 patients in Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) who were alive and on study drug at 4 months after randomization (time of first visit on maintenance therapy)., Methods and Results: By multivariable analysis, baseline HR, baseline SBP, and their change after 4 months were not independently related to subsequent outcome. In a multivariable analysis including clinical variables, HR above and SBP below the median value achieved at 4 months predicted subsequent increased mortality [relative risk (RR) for HR>68 b.p.m. 1.333; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.152-1.542; P<0.0001 and RR for SBP>120 mmHg 0.78; 95% CI 0.671-0.907; P<0.0013]. Achieving target beta-blocker dose was associated with a better outcome (RR 0.779; 95% CI 0.662-0.916; P<0.0025). The superiority of carvedilol as compared to metoprolol tartrate was maintained in a multivariable model (RR 0.767; 95% CI 0.663-0.887; P=0.0004) and there was no interaction with HR, SBP, or beta-blocker dose., Conclusion: Beta-blocker dose, HR, and SBP achieved during beta-blocker therapy have independent prognostic value in heart failure. None of these factors influenced the beneficial effects of carvedilol when compared with metoprolol tartrate at the pre-defined target doses used in COMET.

Context: Beta-blockers have been shown to decrease cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); however, some components of the metabolic syndrome are worsened by some beta-blockers., Objective: To compare the effects of beta-blockers with different pharmacological profiles on glycemic and metabolic control in participants with DM and hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade, in the context of cardiovascular risk factors., Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial (The Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives [GEMINI]) conducted between June 1, 2001, and April 6, 2004, at 205 US sites that compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate on glycemic control. The 1235 participants were aged 36 to 85 years with hypertension (>130/80 mm Hg) and type 2 DM (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 6.5%-8.5%) and were receiving RAS blockers. Participants were followed up for 35 weeks., Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive a 6.25- to 25-mg dose of carvedilol (n = 498) or 50- to 200-mg dose of metoprolol tartrate (n = 737), each twice daily. Open-label hydrochlorothiazide and a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist were added, if needed, to achieve blood pressure target., Main Outcome Measures: Difference between groups in mean change from baseline HbA1c following 5 months of maintenance therapy. Additional prespecified comparisons included change from baseline HbA1c in individual treatment groups, treatment effect on insulin sensitivity, and microalbuminuria., Results: The 2 groups differed in mean change in HbA1c from baseline (0.13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22% to -0.04%; P = .004; modified intention-to-treat analysis). The mean (SD) HbA1c increased with metoprolol (0.15% [0.04%]; P<.001) but not carvedilol (0.02% [0.04%]; P = .65). Insulin sensitivity improved with carvedilol (-9.1%; P = .004) but not metoprolol (-2.0%; P = .48); the between-group difference was -7.2% (95% CI, -13.8% to -0.2%; P = .004). Blood pressure was similar between groups. Progression to microalbuminuria was less frequent with carvedilol than with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04)., Conclusions: Both beta-blockers were well tolerated; use of carvedilol in the presence of RAS blockade did not affect glycemic control and improved some components of the metabolic syndrome relative to metoprolol in participants with DM and hypertension. The effects of the 2 beta-blockers on clinical outcomes need to be compared in long-term clinical trials.

Background: beta-Blockers reduce morbidity and mortality rates in heart failure (HF) clinical trials, but it is unknown whether these findings persist in the community setting., Methods: A registry was created to survey tolerability and outcomes during initiation and 1-year follow-up of beta-blocker treatment with carvedilol in patients with HF treated by cardiologists (CARD) and primary care physicians (PCP) in the community., Results: A total 4280 patients were enrolled (3121 by 259 CARD, 1159 by 129 PCP). Patient age averaged 67 +/- 13 years; 35% were women and 12% were black. The left ventricular ejection fraction averaged 31 +/- 12; New York Heart Association class was II-III in 86% and IV in 3%. Patients of PCP had higher left ventricular ejection fraction, were older, and more frequently were female, black, diabetic, hypertensive, and in New York Heart Association class III/IV. Minimal difficulty titrating carvedilol was noted by >80% of CARD and PCP. Significantly more CARD-treated patients reached carvedilol doses of 25 mg twice daily (49% vs 27%). Kaplan-Meier all-cause mortality rate was 8.5% at 1 year and did not differ between CARD-treated and PCP-treated patients (8.2% vs 9.3%, P =.254). At least one HF hospitalization occurred in 11% of patients during follow-up, compared with 28% in the preceding year., Conclusions: Community-based physicians use carvedilol with success approaching that of clinical trials. Overall mortality rates and HF hospitalizations were in the same low range as in clinical trials. Thus, it appears that results of clinical trials with carvedilol for HF can be translated to the community setting.

Atrial fibrillation affects approximately 2 million people in the United States and is a common comorbidity among patients with heart failure. Clinical studies indicate that the benefits of the beta-blocker carvedilol in patients with heart failure extend to patients with heart failure complicated by atrial fibrillation. The results of the Carvedilol in Atrial Fibrillation Evaluation (CAFE) trial provide support that carvedilol has incremental benefit when added to digoxin for the management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. Additional recent studies suggest that carvedilol may be useful in managing postsurgical atrial fibrillation and also may prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation among patients who undergo cardioversion.

Background: Carvedilol reduces disease progression in heart failure, but to our knowledge, its effects on hospitalizations and costs have not been evaluated., Objectives: We examined the effects on hospitalization frequency and costs in the U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program. This program consisted of four concurrent, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies involving 1,094 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure, which treated patients with placebo or carvedilol for up to 15 months (median, 6.5 months)., Methods: Detailed resource utilization data were collected for all hospitalizations occurring between randomization and the end of follow-up. In-patient care costs were estimated based on observed levels of resource use., Results: Compared with placebo, carvedilol reduced the risk of hospitalization for any reason by 29% (p = 0.009), cardiovascular hospitalizations by 28% (p = 0.034) and heart failure hospitalizations by 38% (p = 0.041). Carvedilol also decreased the mean number of hospitalizations per patient (for cardiovascular reasons 30% [p = 0.02], for heart failure 53% [p = 0.03]). Among hospitalized patients, carvedilol reduced severity of illness during hospital admission, as reflected by shorter length of stay and less frequent use of intensive care. For heart failure hospital admissions, carvedilol decreased mean length of stay by 37% (p = 0.03) and mean number of intensive care unit/coronary care unit days by 83% (p = 0.001), with similar effects on cardiovascular admissions. As a result, estimated inpatient care costs with carvedilol were 57% lower for cardiovascular admissions (p = 0.016) and 81% lower for heart failure admissions (p = 0.022)., Conclusions: Carvedilol added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition reduces hospitalization risk as well as severity of illness and resource utilization during admission in patients with chronic heart failure.

We retrospectively performed stepwise logistic regression analysis on 1,509 patients with chronic heart failure in 4 multicenter United States studies and 1 Australia-New Zealand study to examine the effect of digoxin in patients randomized to carvedilol or placebo. Patients receiving digoxin had more advanced heart failure, the incidence of hospitalization for any cause and the combination of all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization were the same in the digoxin versus no-digoxin groups.

Background: The success of beta-blocking agents in clinical trials of heart failure (HF) has led to a widespread call for their increased use, which assumes these agents will perform as well in the usual care setting. Given the traditional contraindication of the use of beta-blocking agents in HF, and their perception as difficult to use in HF, observing how they perform in the usual care setting could be critical in accelerating their widespread application. Carvedilol is the only beta-blocking agent currently approved in the United States for use in HF., Methods: The Coreg (brand of carvedilol; SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, PA) Heart Failure Registry (COHERE) is intended to collect data on outcomes and other clinical variables in a typical HF population and to observe experience with carvedilol in the hands of community practitioners. COHERE does not include any specific patient selection or exclusion criteria. The decision to use carvedilol is entirely at the discretion of the participant physician, based on evidence of HF as judged by assessments the practitioner usually uses. All patients will be followed for 1 year, with information on outcomes and other clinical variables collected and analyzed at baseline, the end of titration, and at 6 and 12 months after reaching the maximum tolerated dose. About 600 participant physicians selected to be as representative as possible of the community practice setting will enroll approximately 6,000 patients., Conclusions: COHERE will be the first and largest prospective observational experience with a new treatment, ie, carvedilol, in patients with HF managed in the usual care setting and should provide valuable information about this new treatment in this environment compared with the more rigid clinical trials setting.

Many beta-adrenoceptor antagonists are weak partial agonists, possessing significant intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA). Under certain conditions, ISA may be deleterious through stimulation of beta 1- and/or beta 2-adrenoceptors in the heart. Drugs with ISA are particularly problematic in the treatment of congestive heart failure since agents that activate cardiac beta-adrenoceptors, such as xamoterol, have been associated with increases in the incidence of arrhythmia and mortality. Carvedilol was recently approved for the treatment of congestive heart failure, and bucindolol is currently in large clinical trials for this indication. In the present study, the ISA of bucindolol and carvedilol was evaluated in a standard model used to investigate ISA, the pithed rat. Both compounds produced dose-dependent inhibition of the positive-chronotropic effects of the non-selective beta-adrenoceptor agonist, isoproterenol, confirming that these drugs are beta-adrenoceptor antagonists. However, cumulative administration of bucindolol (10-1,000 micrograms/kg i.v.) in the pithed rat produced a significant dose-related increase in heart rate. The maximal increase in heart rate produced by bucindolol was 44% of that obtained with isoproterenol (90 +/- 6vs. 205 +/- 11 bpm, respectively). In marked contrast, cumulative administration of carvedilol (10-1,000 micrograms/kg i.v.) had no significant effect on resting heart rate in the pithed rat. The maximal increase in heart rate elicited by bucindolol (1,000 micrograms/kg i.v.) was inhibited by treatment with the competitive beta-adrenoceptor antagonist, propranolol (99 +/- 8.7 vs. 26 +/- 2.6 bpm), confirming that the ISA observed with bucindolol was mediated through stimulation of myocardial beta-adrenoceptors. Carvedilol, which had no ISA, antagonized the ISA of bucindolol, and was as effective as propranolol in blocking the ISA of bucindolol (99 +/- 8.7 vs. 27 +/- 2.3 bpm). In summary, bucindolol and carvedilol are both potent beta-adrenoceptor antagonists in the pithed rat: however, only bucindolol possesses beta-adrenoceptor-mediated ISA.

Background: Many patients remain markedly symptomatic despite optimal current therapy for heart failure. Beta-blockers have often been viewed as contraindicated in this group because of their potential adverse short-term effects on cardiac function., Methods and Results: One hundred thirty-one patients with severe congestive heart failure were enrolled into a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the vasodilating beta-blocker carvedilol. All patients had symptomatic, advanced heart failure while on standard triple therapy, as evidenced by a mean ejection fraction of 0.22, marked reduction in distance traveled in a 6-minute corridor walk test, and severe impairment in quality of life measured by the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire. After a 2-week, open-label test of 6.25 mg twice daily carvedilol, 105 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either carvedilol (up to 25 mg twice daily, n = 70) or matching placebo (n = 35) for 6 months while background therapy with digoxin, diuretics, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor remained constant. Ten patients (8%) did not complete the open-label period because of adverse events and 11.4% in both the carvedilol and placebo groups dropped out in the double-blind phase. The study was terminated early by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board and follow-up evaluation was therefore aborted before the projected number of patients and follow-up time was achieved. Quality of life, which was the primary endpoint, improved similarly in the carvedilol and placebo groups, whereas the global assessment by the physicians and the patient exhibited a better response to carvedilol (P < .05). Hospitalization and mortality rate were too low to evaluate a difference, and exercise time and New York Heart Association classification did not change significantly in response to the drug. Left ventricular ejection fraction rose significantly (+0.09) in the carvedilol group compared with the placebo group (+0.02, P = .004)., Conclusion: The beta-blocker carvedilol can be safely employed in patients with severe heart failure. Improved left ventricular function with a trend for some improvement in symptoms combined with the experience with the drug in the larger population of less severe patients in this multicenter trial suggests that carvedilol may have a favorable long-term effect in heart failure of diverse severity.

Background: We tested the hypothesis that carvedilol inhibits clinical progression in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure due to left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction., Methods and Results: Patients (n = 366) who had mildly symptomatic heart failure with an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < or = 0.35, had minimal functional impairment (defined as the ability to walk 450 to 550 m on a 6-minute walk test), and were receiving optimal standard therapy, including ACE inhibitors, were randomized double-blind to carvedilol (n = 232) or placebo (n = 134) and followed up for 12 months. The primary end point was clinical progression, defined as death due to heart failure, hospitalization for heart failure, or a sustained increase in heart failure medications. Clinical progression of heart failure occurred in 21% of placebo patients and 11% of carvedilol patients, reflecting a 48% (P = .008) reduction in the primary end point of heart failure progression (relative risk, 0.52; CI, 0.32 to 0.85). This effect of carvedilol was not influenced by sex, age, race, cause of heart failure, or baseline LVEF. Carvedilol also significantly improved several secondary end points, including LVEF, heart failure score, NYHA functional class, and the physician and patient global assessments. Carvedilol reduced all-cause mortality but had no effects on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure scale, the distance walked in 9 minutes on a self-powered treadmill, or cardiothoracic index. The drug was well tolerated., Conclusions: Carvedilol, when added to standard therapy, including an ACE inhibitor, reduces clinical progression in patients who are only mildly symptomatic with well-compensated heart failure.

Background: Carvedilol has improved the symptomatic status of patients with moderate to severe heart failure in single-center studies, but its clinical effects have not been evaluated in large, multicenter trials., Methods and Results: We enrolled 278 patients with moderate to severe heart failure (6-minute walk distance, 150 to 450 m) and a left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 0.35 at 31 centers. After an open-label, run-in period, each patient was randomly assigned (double-blind) to either placebo (n = 145) or carvedilol (n = 133; target dose, 25 to 50 mg BID) for 6 months, while background therapy with digoxin, diuretics, and an ACE inhibitor remained constant. Compared with placebo, patients in the carvedilol group had a greater frequency of symptomatic improvement and lower risk of clinical deterioration, as evaluated by changes in the NYHA functional class (P = .014) or by a global assessment of progress judged either by the patient (P = .002) or by the physician (P < .001). In addition, treatment with carvedilol was associated with a significant increase in ejection fraction (P < .001) and a significant decrease in the combined risk of morbidity and mortality (P = .029). In contrast, carvedilol therapy had little effect on indirect measures of patient benefit, including changes in exercise tolerance or quality-of-life scores. The effects of the drug were similar in patients with ischemic heart disease or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy as the cause of heart failure., Conclusions: These findings indicate that, in addition to its favorable effects on survival, carvedilol produces important clinical benefits in patients with moderate to severe heart failure treated with digoxin, diuretics, and an ACE inhibitor.

The search for the ideal antihypertensive drug is ongoing. Since hypertension initially is a relatively symptom-free disease, it is important that any agent developed be not only efficacious but also safe, with minimal side effects. Additionally such a drug should ideally possess both primary and secondary cardiovascular preventive properties. This review discusses the most commonly used antihypertensive drugs in the light of these goals, and highlights the development of multiaction drugs. Carvedilol, which is a nonselective beta-blocking and alpha 1-blocking drug, with additional Ca(2+)-antagonistic properties, is being developed as an antihypertensive, antianginal drug and as an adjunct therapy in congestive heart failure. The development challenges for this single-entity drug are discussed and evidence for its antihypertensive efficacy, as well as its antianginal efficacy, is presented. The cardioprotective potential of carvedilol based on preclinical experiments is addressed. Finally, the regulatory questions regarding the development of a multiaction drug are highlighted.