1 / 39

Heart Failure (HF) Findings: Are They Real?

ALLHAT. Heart Failure (HF) Findings: Are They Real?. Stanley S. Franklin, MD, FACP, FACC Clinical Professor of Medicine University of California at Irvine Associate Medical Director UCI Heart Disease Prevention Program Irvine, California. Presenter Disclosure Information.

perkinsrobert
Download Presentation

Heart Failure (HF) Findings: Are They Real?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ALLHAT Heart Failure (HF) Findings:Are They Real? Stanley S. Franklin, MD, FACP, FACC Clinical Professor of Medicine University of California at Irvine Associate Medical Director UCI Heart Disease Prevention Program Irvine, California

  2. Presenter Disclosure Information Stanley S. Franklin, MD, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FASN DISCLOSURE INFORMATION: The following relationships exist related to this presentation: Speakers bureau for: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck. Consultant for: AtCor Medical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck

  3. ALLHAT HF Objectives • Characterize HF in ALLHAT by its antecedent risk factors and underlying conditions. • Examine occurrence of HF by treatment groups overall, in subgroups, and over time. • Examine post-HF mortality overall and by treatment group. Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  4. ALLHAT Decision to StopDoxazosin Arm • Futility of finding a significant difference for primary outcome compared to chlorthalidone • Statistically significant 25 percent higher rate of major cardiovascular events, including near twofold higher rate of HF (hospitalized, treated out-of-hospital, or fatal)

  5. ALLHAT Blood Pressure TrialDesign • Randomized, practice –based • Double-blind (not PROBE) • Diagnoses assigned by clinic investigators guided by protocol-defined diagnostic criteria • Randomization stratified by clinic • Exclude: h/o symptomatic HF (stage C) and/or known LVEF <35%

  6. Baseline Characteristics ALLHAT Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  7. ALLHAT Hospitalized/ Fatal HF by ALLHAT Treatment Group .1 .08 Chlorthalidone Amlodipine Lisinopril .06 Cumulative Event Rate .04 .02 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  8. ALLHAT HF Before and After 1 Year • A test of the proportional hazards assumption for Cox regression revealed that RRs were not constant over time. Therefore, a Cox regression that used a time-dependent indicator variable (<=1 year versus >1 year) was utilized. Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  9. ALLHAT Chlorthalidone Amlodipine Lisinopril Hospitalized/ Fatal HF by ALLHAT Treatment Group Within 1 Year and >1 Year .1 .02 .08 .06 Cumulative Hosp/Fatal HF Rate .01 .04 .02 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 .5 1 Years to Hosp/Fatal HF Years to Hosp/Fatal HF Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  10. ALLHAT Hospitalized/fatal HF in Subgroups - Amlodipine / Chlorthalidone Relative Risks from Baseline to 1 Year of Follow-up Relative Risk (95% CI) Favors Amlodipine Favors Chlorthalidone Total 2.22 (1.69 - 2.91) Age < 65 2.89 (1.62 - 5.17) Age ≥ 65 2.06 (1.51 - 2.80) Non-Black 2.12 (1.49 - 3.01) Black 2.37 (1.55 - 3.63) Men 2.27 (1.56 - 3.30) Women 2.17 (1.46 - 3.21) Diabetic 2.71 (1.83 - 4.02) Non-Diabetic 1.83 (1.25 - 2.67) 0.50 1 2 3 4 5 6 Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  11. ALLHAT Hospitalized/fatal HF in Subgroups - Amlodipine / Chlorthalidone Relative Risks After 1 Year of Follow-up Relative Risk (95% CI) Favors Amlodipine Favors Chlorthalidone Total 1.22 (1.08 - 1.38) Age < 65 1.38 (1.10 - 1.73) Age ≥ 65 1.17 (1.02 - 1.35) Non-Black 1.20 (1.04 - 1.39) Black 1.28 (1.03 - 1.58) Men 1.28 (1.09 - 1.50) Women 1.16 (0.97 - 1.39) Diabetic 1.23 (1.04 - 1.46) Non-Diabetic 1.21 (1.02 - 1.43) 0.50 1 2 3 4 5 6 Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  12. ALLHAT Hospitalized/fatal HF in Subgroups - Lisinopril / Chlorthalidone Relative Risks from Baseline to 1 Year of Follow-up Relative Risk (95% CI) Favors Lisinopril Favors Chlorthalidone Total 2.08 (1.58 - 2.74) Age < 65 2.53 (1.39 - 4.59) Age ≥ 65 1.98 (1.45 - 2.70) Non-Black 2.04 (1.43 - 2.90) Black 2.15 (1.39 - 3.33) Men 1.80 (1.22 - 2.67) Women 2.40 (1.63 - 3.54) Diabetic 1.99 (1.31 - 3.05) Non-Diabetic 2.16 (1.50 - 3.10) 0.50 1 2 3 4 5 Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  13. ALLHAT 0.96 (0.85 - 1.10) 0.95 (0.74 - 1.23) 0.97 (0.84 - 1.13) 0.90 (0.77 - 1.06) 1.10 (0.88 - 1.37) Total 1.02 (0.86 - 1.21) Age < 65 0.89 (0.73 - 1.09) Age ≥ 65 1.01 (0.84 - 1.22) Non-Black 0.93 (0.77 - 1.12) Black Men Women Diabetic Non-Diabetic Hospitalized/fatal HF in Subgroups - Lisinopril / Chlorthalidone Relative Risks After 1 Year of Follow-up Relative Risk (95% CI) Favors Lisinopril Favors Chlorthalidone 0.50 1 2 Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  14. ALLHAT 4 Unanswered Questions 1. Can the early divergence of HF curves in the treatment arms be explained by the preferential discontinuation of diuretics upon entry into ALLHAT?

  15. ALLHAT Potential Confounders • Confounders by indication: why was the patient placed on a specific class of drug prior to participation in the study? • Missing data: approximately one third of HF cases lacked information on specific drugs used prior to entry into ALLHAT Grimm R, et al J Am Cardiol Coll 2007;49:350A

  16. ALLHAT Baseline Characteristics of Participants with HF within First Year Following Randomization Grimm R, et al J Am Cardiol Coll 2007;49:350A

  17. ALLHAT Validation of Case-Only Analyses • A technique know as case-only analyses was used to examine if there was interaction between prior drugs and treatment effects. • Does “any prior meds (yes/no)” have the same interaction effect with treatment on outcomes in a “cases and non-cases” analysis versus a “case only analysis” ? Grimm R, et al J Am Cardiol Coll 2007;49:350A

  18. ALLHAT Interaction OR between prior use of diuretic and treatment effects in HF • Prior use of antihypertensive agents: 39% diuretics 37% ACEIs 47% CCBs • Prior use of diuretic on “A” effect for new HF: A vs C: OR 1.08 (0.53-2.21, p=0.83) • Prior use of diuretic on “L” effect for new HF: L vs C: OR 1.33 (0.65-2.74, p=0.44) Grimm R, et al J Am Cardiol Coll 2007;49:350A

  19. ALLHAT Summary • Patients on any prior BP med (vs. none) were at higher risk of developing HF. • No evidence for any statistically significant interaction between prior drug type (e.g., diuretic) and treatment effect for HF, overall or during the first year • These findings suggest that the type of BP drug at entry is not a major determinant of the HF results. Grimm R, et al J Am Cardiol Coll 2007;49:350A

  20. ALLHAT 2. How accurate is the diagnosis of HF?

  21. ALLHAT Origin of the HF Validation Study • HF endpoint defined as treated in hospital or out-of-hospital or fatal • A component of combined CVD (CHD, stroke, HF, PAD) – pre-specified secondary outcome • Systematic central review of hospitalized HF events initiated in 2001, on advice of the DSMB Einhorn PT, et al. Am Heart J 2007;153:42-53

  22. ALLHAT HF Validation Study Objectives • Evaluate ALLHAT site physician-assigned diagnoses • Evaluate treatment effects reported in December 2002 (JAMA. 2002;288:2981-2997) • Compare RRs of validated HF between randomized treatment groups with RRs reported in 2002 • Evaluate incidence of validated HF and examine subsequent mortality rates as indicators of clinical significance of HF Einhorn PT, et al. Am Heart J 2007;153:42-53

  23. HF Validation Study ALLHAT • 2850 hospital records for 1987 patients received. • 2778 records of 1935 patients suitable for review. • Centrally abstracted by cardiology fellow blinded to treatment assignment. • Each record independently reviewed by two reviewers. • For algorithmic criteria (ALLHAT and Framingham), diagnoses were assigned by computer. • Reviewers’ clinical judgment entered as yes, no, don’t know. Einhorn PT, et al. Am Heart J 2007;153:42-53.

  24. HF Validation Study ACEI versus diuretic ALLHAT Definition, Relative Risk and 95% Confidence Intervals 0.50 1 2 Favors Lisinopril Favors Chlorthalidone * Pre-specified endpoint of treated in hospital or as outpatient or fatal

  25. ALLHAT 100 90 80 70 60 % agreement 50 40 30 20 10 0 ALLHAT Reviewers Framingham1 Framingham 2 Percent agreement with investigator-assigned diagnosis of HF Einhorn PT, et al. Am Heart J 2007;153:42-53.

  26. ALLHAT HF Outcome VerifiedClinically Significant • ALLHAT site physician diagnoses confirmed in most patients • Treatment differences based on site physician reports corroborated when applying validation criteria sets • RRs approximating these for the HF prespecified endpoint • 6-year incidence rates of validated HF events comparable to those of stroke (5.6%) and to about half of non-fatal MI+CHD deaths (11.4%) • High mortality rates subsequent to validated hospitalized HF (55% at 5 years) Einhorn PT, et al. Am Heart J 2007;153:42-53.

  27. ALLHAT 3. How important are the blood pressure differences in the three treatment arms?

  28. ALLHAT BP Results by Treatment Group Compared to chlorthalidone: SBP significantly higher in the amlodipine group (~1 mm Hg) and the lisinopril group (~2 mm Hg, and in blacks ~4 mm Hg) Compared to chlorthalidone: DBP significantly lower in the amlodipine group (~1 mm Hg).

  29. ALLHAT BP Differences • Adjustment for follow-up SBP as time-dependent covariates in a Cox regression model only slightly modified the relative risks • Amlodipine/chlorthalidone 2.22  2.16 first year, 1.22  1.18 after 1 year • Lisinopril/chlorthalidone 2.08  2.01 first year, 0.96  0.93 after 1 year Davis BH, et al. Circulation 2006;113:2201-10

  30. Exposure to different rates of BP Reduction • Early, inadequate blood pressure responses are never fully corrected (ALLHAT, Syst-Eur, SCOPE, ASCOT, VALUE) • The comparator was never able to catch up to the active drug after short differences in initial BP despite attempts to increase therapy. Benefit-Differences Persists Over Time Time

  31. ALLHAT What we don’t and never will know! • • 24 hour blood pressure ? • • Night time blood pressure ? • • Central blood pressure ?

  32. ALLHAT 4. How can differences in secondary endpoints be termed significant when primary endpoints are equal in all three treatment arms?

  33. ALLHAT Drug comparisons for HF • Chlorthalidone vs Amlodipine: RR 1.35 (95% CI 1.21-1.50, p<0.0013) and consistent with external data: Meta-analysis: RR 1.30 (1.21-1.47) in favor of Diuretics/ß blocker over CCBs for preventing HF. (BPLTT Collaboration Lancet, 2003;362:1527) Yusuf SY, Circulation 2006;113:2166

  34. ALLHAT Drug comparisons for HF • Chlorthalidone vs lisinopril: HF RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.07-1.31), p<0.001 ―Pre-specified endpoint of treated in hospital or as outpatient or fatal (Einhorn PT, et al. Am Heart J 2007;153:42-53) and consistent with external data: Network meta–analysis: RR 0.88 (0.80-0.96) p<0.01 in favor of a diuretic over ACEI for preventing HF. (Psaty BM, et al. JAMA 2003;289:2534-2544)

  35. ALLHAT Final Conclusions • Chlorthalidone was superior to amlodipine in both time periods in preventing HF in the aggregate and in all subgroups: age, race, sex, diabetic history. • Chlorthalidone was superior to lisinopril in preventing HF during the first year of treatment; thereafter, the 2 drugs were equally effective in preventing HF. • The ALLHAT studies confirmed that thiazide-type diuretics should be a preferred first-step drug treatment for prevention of HF in high-risk patients with hypertension and/or post MI.

  36. Postscript: What constitutes optimal treatment of ACC/AHA stage A or B HF to prevent progression to stage C—overt symptomatic HF?

  37. Systolic Dysfunction Smoking Dyslipidemia Diabetes MI HF Hypertension Normal LV Structure and Function LV Remodeling Subclinical LV Dysfunction Overt Heart Failure ACC/AHA Stage A Stage B Stage C Heart Failure: Causal Mechanisms Diastolic Dysfunction LVH Obesity Diabetes Vasan RS and Levy D. Archives Int Med 1996

  38. Current ACC/AHA Guidelines: Management of HF as Applied to ALLHAT Patients • ALLHAT patients were divided between stage A and B categories (Stage C patients were excluded). • For the stage A patients (high risk without structural abnormalities), ACEIs and diuretics are recommended for treatment of HTN. • For the stage B patients (structural heart disease), ACEIs and diuretics are recommended for treatment of HTN; ACEIs and BBs are recommended for post MI, LVH, and reduced LVEF. • Therefore, poly-pharmacy will be necessary in the majority of patients for optimal control of HTN (Stage A and B) and for treatment of structural heart disease (Stage B). Hunt. et al. Circulation 2005;112:1825-1852

  39. JNC-7 Guidelines for HF Treatment • “HF is a ‘compelling indication’ for the use of ACEI. Abundant evidence exists to justify their use with all stages of HF.” • “Blood pressure targets in HF have not been firmly established. In most successful trials SBP were lowered to the range of 110-130 mm Hg.” • Therefore, ACEI (or ARB)/diuretic combinations, rather than single agents, are necessary in the majority of patients for achieving ‘optimal control’ of HTN, preventing and/or reversing structural heart damage, and preventing progression to overt HF. JNC- 7 Report. JAMA 2003;289:2560-72.

More Related