Eric L Michelson

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, ENG, United Kingdom

Are you Eric L Michelson?

Claim your profile

Publications (75)783.8 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heart failure is characterized by recurrent hospitalizations, but often only the first event is considered in clinical trial reports. In chronic diseases, such as heart failure, analysing all events gives a more complete picture of treatment benefit. We describe methods of analysing repeat hospitalizations, and illustrate their value in one major trial. The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved study compared candesartan with placebo in 3023 patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function. The heart failure hospitalization rates were 12.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in the placebo and candesartan groups, respectively. The repeat hospitalizations were analysed using the Andersen-Gill, Poisson, and negative binomial methods. Death was incorporated into analyses by treating it as an additional event. The win ratio method and a method that jointly models hospitalizations and mortality were also considered. Using repeat events gave larger treatment benefits than time to first event analysis. The negative binomial method for the composite of recurrent heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death gave a rate ratio of 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.91, P = 0.003], whereas the hazard ratio for time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-1.00, P = 0.050). In patients with preserved EF, candesartan reduces the rate of admissions for worsening heart failure, to a greater extent than apparent from analysing only first hospitalizations. Recurrent events should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of future clinical trials in heart failure.
    European Journal of Heart Failure 01/2014; 16(1):33-40. · 5.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This White Paper, prepared by members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, discusses several important issues regarding the evaluation of blood pressure (BP) responses to drugs being developed for indications not of a direct cardiovascular (CV) nature. A wide range of drugs are associated with off-target BP increases, and both scientific attention and regulatory attention to this topic are increasing. The article provides a detailed summary of scientific discussions at a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium-sponsored Think Tank held on July 18, 2012, with the intention of moving toward consensus on how to most informatively collect and analyze BP data throughout clinical drug development to prospectively identify unacceptable CV risk and evaluate the benefit-risk relationship. The overall focus in on non-CV drugs, although many of the points also pertain to CV drugs. Brief consideration of how clinical assessment can be informed by nonclinical investigation is also outlined. These discussions present current thinking and suggestions for furthering our knowledge and understanding of off-target drug-induced BP increases and do not represent regulatory guidance.
    American heart journal 04/2013; 165(4):477-88. · 4.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent advances in electrocardiographic monitoring and waveform analysis have significantly improved the ability to detect drug-induced changes in cardiac repolarization manifested as changes in the QT/corrected QT interval. These advances have also improved the ability to detect drug-induced changes in cardiac conduction. This White Paper summarizes current opinion, reached by consensus among experts at the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, on the assessment of electrocardiogram-based safety measurements of the PR and QRS intervals, representing atrioventricular and ventricular conduction, respectively, during drug development.
    American heart journal 04/2013; 165(4):489-500. · 4.65 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ability to make informed benefit-risk assessments for potentially cardiotoxic new compounds is of considerable interest and importance at the public health, drug development, and individual patient levels. Cardiac imaging approaches in the evaluation of drug-induced myocardial dysfunction will likely play an increasing role. However, the optimal choice of myocardial imaging modality and the recommended frequency of monitoring are undefined. These decisions are complicated by the array of imaging techniques, which have varying sensitivities, specificities, availabilities, local expertise, safety, and costs, and by the variable time-course of tissue damage, functional myocardial depression, or recovery of function. This White Paper summarizes scientific discussions of members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium on the main factors to consider when selecting nonclinical and clinical cardiac function imaging techniques in drug development. We focus on 3 commonly used imaging modalities in the evaluation of cardiac function: echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and radionuclide (nuclear) imaging and highlight areas for future research.
    American heart journal 12/2012; 164(6):846-55. · 4.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between baseline resting heart rate and outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) according to baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and cardiac rhythm. Elevated resting heart rate is associated with worse outcomes in patients with HF and reduced LVEF. Whether this association is also found in patients with HF and preserved LVEF is uncertain, as is the predictive value of heart rate in patients in atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients enrolled in the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) Program were divided into groups by tertiles of baseline heart rate. Cox proportional hazard models were used to investigate the association between heart rate and pre-specified outcomes in the overall population as well as in subgroups defined according to LVEF (≤ 40% vs. >40%) and presence (or absence) of AF at baseline. After adjusting for predictors of poor prognosis, patients in the highest heart rate tertile had worse outcomes when compared with those in the lowest heart rate group (e.g., for the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospital stay hazard ratio: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 1.36, p < 0.001). The relationship between heart rate and outcomes was similar across LVEF categories and was not influenced by beta-blocker use (p value for interaction >0.10 for both endpoints). However, amongst patients in AF at baseline, heart rate had no predictive value (p value for interaction <0.001). Resting heart rate is an important predictor of outcome in patients with stable chronic HF without AF, regardless of LVEF or beta-blocker use.
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 05/2012; 59(20):1785-95. · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conventional composite outcomes in heart failure (HF) trials, for example, time to cardiovascular death or first HF hospitalization, have recognized limitations. We propose an alternative outcome, days alive and out of hospital (DAOH), which incorporates mortality and all hospitalizations into a single measure. A refinement, the patient journey, also uses functional status (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class) measured during follow-up. The CHARM program is used to illustrate the methodology. CHARM randomized 7,599 patients with symptomatic HF to placebo or candesartan, with median follow-up of 38 months. We related DAOH and percent DAOH (ie, percentage of time spent alive and out of hospital) to treatment using linear regression adjusting for follow-up time. Mean increase in DAOH for patients on candesartan versus placebo was 24.1 days (95% CI 9.8-38.3 days, P < .001). The corresponding mean increase in percent DAOH was 2.0% (95% CI 0.8%-3.1%, P < .001). These findings were dominated by reduced mortality (23 days) but enhanced by reduced time in hospital (1 day). Percent time spent in hospital because of HF was reduced by 0.10% (95% CI 0.04%-0.14%, P < .001). The patient journey analysis showed that patients in the candesartan group spent more follow-up time in NYHA classes I and II and less in NYHA class IV. Days alive and out of hospital, especially percent DAOH, provide a valuable tool for summarizing the overall absolute treatment effect on mortality and morbidity. In future HF trials, percent DAOH can provide a useful alternative perspective on the effects of treatment.
    American heart journal 11/2011; 162(5):900-6. · 4.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims A substantial proportion of patients with heart failure have preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HF-PEF). Previous studies have reported mixed results whether survival is similar to those patients with heart failure and reduced EF (HF-REF). Methods and results We compared survival in patients with HF-PEF with that in patients with HF-REF in a meta-analysis using individual patient data. Preserved EF was defined as an EF ≥ 50%. The 31 studies included 41 972 patients: 10 347 with HF-PEF and 31 625 with HF-REF. Compared with patients with HF-REF, those with HF-PEF were older (mean age 71 vs. 66 years), were more often women (50 vs. 28%), and have a history of hypertension (51 vs. 41%). Ischaemic aetiology was less common (43 vs. 59%) in patients with HF-PEF. There were 121 [95% confidence interval (CI): 117, 126] deaths per 1000 patient-years in those with HF-PEF and 141 (95% CI: 138, 144) deaths per 1000 patient-years in those with HF-REF. Patients with HF-PEF had lower mortality than those with HF-REF (adjusted for age, gender, aetiology, and history of hypertension, diabetes, and atrial fibrillation); hazard ratio 0.68 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.71). The risk of death did not increase notably until EF fell below 40%. Conclusion Patients with HF-PEF have a lower risk of death than patients with HF-REF, and this difference is seen regardless of age, gender, and aetiology of HF. However, absolute mortality is still high in patients with HF-PEF highlighting the need for a treatment to improve prognosis.
    European Heart Journal 08/2011; · 14.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine whether ticagrelor increased the risk of ventricular pauses compared with clopidogrel and whether these pauses were associated with any clinical bradycardic events in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes. Ticagrelor, an oral reversibly binding P2Y(12) inhibitor, provides more potent and consistent inhibition of platelet aggregation than clopidogrel but in a phase II study was associated with increased risk for ventricular pauses. A prospective continuous electrocardiographic (cECG) assessment was therefore performed within the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) study comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. Patients in the cECG assessment had planned 7-day cECG recording initiated at the time of randomization (week 1), which was within 24 h of symptom onset, and then repeated at 1 month after randomization during the convalescent phase. The principal safety endpoint was the incidence of ventricular pauses lasting at least 3 s. Investigators also reported symptomatic bradycardic adverse events during the entire study duration (median 277 days). A total of 2,908 patients were included in the cECG assessment, of whom 2,866 (98.5%) had week 1 recordings, 1,991 (68.4%) had 1-month recordings, and 1,949 (67.0%) had both. During the first week after randomization, ventricular pauses ≥3 s occurred more frequently in patients receiving ticagrelor than clopidogrel (84 [5.8%] vs. 51 [3.6%]; relative risk: 1.61; p = 0.006). At 1 month, pauses ≥3 s occurred overall less frequently and were similar between treatments (2.1% vs. 1.7%). Most were ventricular pauses, and the greatest excess associated with ticagrelor were asymptomatic, sinoatrial nodal in origin (66%), and nocturnal. There were no differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the incidence of clinically reported bradycardic adverse events, including syncope, pacemaker placement, and cardiac arrest. In the PLATO cECG assessment, more patients treated with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel had ventricular pauses, which were predominantly asymptomatic, sinoatrial nodal in origin, and nocturnal and occurred most frequently in the acute phase of acute coronary syndromes. There were no apparent clinical consequences related to the excess in ventricular pauses in patients assigned to ticagrelor. (A Comparison of AZD6140 and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [PLATO]; NCT00391872).
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 05/2011; 57(19):1908-16. · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is unknown whether there is an interaction between aspirin and angiotensin receptor blockers on outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). The efficacy and safety of candesartan vs. placebo was assessed in 7599 patients with symptomatic HF and reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the CHARM programme according to baseline aspirin use. Patients were randomized to candesartan or matching placebo and were followed for a median of 38 months. Aspirin was used in 4246 (55.9%) of patients at baseline. When compared with placebo, candesartan use was associated with lower event rates for cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome) in both the aspirin group (28 vs. 31.9%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90) and non-aspirin group (33 vs. 38%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.91). Baseline aspirin use did not modify the effectiveness of candesartan in reducing the risk of CV death or HF hospitalization in CHARM overall (P = 0.64) or in the CHARM individual trials. In addition, there was no significant interaction between aspirin therapy and candesartan in terms of discontinuation of study drug due to adverse reactions (P = 0.72). There appears to be no significant modification of the benefit of candesartan on CV mortality and morbidity outcomes or safety by concomitant use of aspirin in patients with chronic HF.
    European Journal of Heart Failure 04/2010; 12(7):738-45. · 5.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are common partners. Bronchodilators are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with pulmonary disease. The outcome of patients with HF prescribed bronchodilators is poorly defined. The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme randomized 7599 patients with symptomatic HF to receive candesartan or placebo. The relative risk conveyed by bronchodilator therapy was examined using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. The prevalence of bronchodilator therapy was similar in patients with reduced and preserved systolic function (respectively, 8.7 vs. 9.2%, P = 0.46). Beta-blocker utilization was markedly lower in patients receiving bronchodilators compared with those without (overall 31.9 vs. 57.6%, P < 0.0001). Bronchodilator use was associated with increased all-cause mortality [HR 1.26 (1.09-1.45), P = 0.0015], cardiovascular death [HR 1.21 (1.03-1.42), P = 0.0216], HF hospitalization [HR 1.49 (1.29-1.72), P < 0.0001], and major adverse cardiovascular events [HR 1.32 (1.17-1.76), P < 0.0001]. The adverse outcomes were consistent in patients with reduced and preserved systolic function. No significant interaction was observed between bronchodilators and beta-blockade with respect to outcomes. Bronchodilator use is a powerful independent predictor of worsening HF and increased mortality in a broad spectrum of patients with HF. Whether this relates to a toxic effect of bronchodilators, underlying pulmonary disease, or both is unclear and warrants further investigation.
    European Journal of Heart Failure 03/2010; 12(6):557-65. · 5.25 Impact Factor
  • Journal of The American College of Cardiology - J AMER COLL CARDIOL. 01/2010; 55(10).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although many patients with heart failure have incomplete adherence to prescribed medications, predisposing factors remain unclear. This analysis investigates factors associated with adherence, with particular emphasis on age and sex. A multivariable regression analysis of 7599 heart failure patients from the CHARM trial was done to evaluate factors associated with adherence. Adherence was measured as the proportion of time patients took more than 80% of study medication. The mean age was 66 years (SD 11) and 31.5% (n = 2400) were women. Women were slightly less adherent than men (87.3 vs. 89.8%, P = 0.002), even in adjusted, multivariable models (treatment, P = 0.006; placebo P = 0.004; and overall P < 0.001). However, all-cause mortality was lower in women (21.5%) than in men (25.3%) (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.86; P < 0.001), but patients with a low adherence regardless of sex had a higher mortality. Age, severity of heart failure, number of medications, and smoking status were not associated with adherence. Women, particularly those <75 years of age, were less likely to be adherent in this large sample of patients with symptomatic heart failure. Understanding factors associated with adherence may provide opportunities for intervention.
    European Journal of Heart Failure 11/2009; 11(11):1092-8. · 5.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increased excretion of albumin in urine might be a marker of the various pathophysiological changes that arise in patients with heart failure. Therefore our aim was to assess the prevalence and prognostic value of a spot urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) in patients with heart failure. UACR was measured at baseline and during follow-up of 2310 patients in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) Programme. The prevalence of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, and the predictive value of UACR for the primary composite outcome of each CHARM study--ie, death from cardiovascular causes or admission to hospital with worsening heart failure--and death from any cause were assessed. 1349 (58%) patients had a normal UACR, 704 (30%) had microalbuminuria, and 257 (11%) had macroalbuminuria. The prevalence of increased UACR was similar in patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions. Patients with an increased UACR were older, had more cardiovascular comorbidity, worse renal function, and a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus than did those with normoalbuminuria. However, a high prevalence of increased UACR was still noted among patients without diabetes, hypertension, or renal dysfunction. Elevated UACR was associated with increased risk of the composite outcome and death even after adjustment for other prognostic variables including renal function, diabetes, and haemoglobin A1c. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the composite outcome in patients with microalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria was 1.43 (95% CI 1.21-1.69; p<0.0001) and for macroalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria was 1.75 (1.39-2.20; p<0.0001). The adjusted values for death were 1.62 (1.32-1.99; p<0.0001) for microalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria, and 1.76 (1.32-2.35; p=0.0001) for macroalbuminuria versus normoalbuminuria. Treatment with candesartan did not reduce or prevent the development of excessive excretion of urinary albumin. Increased UACR is a powerful and independent predictor of prognosis in heart failure. AstraZeneca.
    The Lancet 09/2009; 374(9689):543-50. · 39.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Electrocardiographic measures can facilitate the identification of patients at risk of death after acute coronary syndromes. This study evaluates a new risk metric, morphologic variability (MV), which measures beat-to-beat variability in the shape of the entire heart beat signal. This metric is analogous to heart rate variability (HRV) approaches, which focus on beat-to-beat changes in the heart rate. MV was calculated using a dynamic time-warping technique in 764 patients from the DISPERSE2 (TIMI 33) trial for whom 24-hour continuous electrocardiograph was recorded within 48 hours of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. The patients were evaluated during a 90-day follow-up for the end point of death. Patients with high MV showed an increased risk of death during follow-up (hazard ratio 8.46; p <0.001). The relationship between high MV and death could be observed even after adjusting for baseline clinical characteristics and HRV measures (adjusted hazard ratio 6.91; p = 0.001). Moreover, the correlation between MV and HRV was low (R < or =0.25). These findings were consistent among several subgroups, including patients under the age of 65 and those with no history of diabetes or hyperlipidemia. In conclusion, our results suggest that increased variation in the entire heart beat morphology is associated with a considerably elevated risk of death and may provide information complementary to the analysis of heart rate.
    The American journal of cardiology 02/2009; 103(3):307-11. · 3.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prevalence and importance of liver function test (LFT) abnormalities in a large contemporary cohort of heart failure patients have not been systematically evaluated. We characterized the LFTs of 2679 patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity program (CHARM). We used multivariable modelling to assess the relationships between baseline LFT values and long-term outcomes. Liver function test abnormalities were common in patients with chronic heart failure, ranging from alanine aminotransferase elevation in 3.1% of patients to low albumin in 18.3% of patients; total bilirubin was elevated in 13.0% of patients. In multivariable analysis, elevated total bilirubin was the strongest LFT predictor of adverse outcome for both the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HR 1.21 per 1 SD increase, P<0.0001) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.19 per 1 SD increase, P<0.0001). Even after adjustment for other variables, elevated total bilirubin was one of the strongest independent predictors of poor prognosis (by global chi-square). Bilirubin is independently associated with morbidity and mortality. Changes in total bilirubin may offer insight into the underlying pathophysiology of chronic heart failure.
    European Journal of Heart Failure 02/2009; 11(2):170-7. · 5.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of incident diabetes during follow-up of nondiabetic patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) in the Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program. A total of 1,620 nondiabetic patients had full baseline datasets. We compared baseline demographic, medication, and laboratory data for patients who did or did not develop diabetes and conducted logistic regression and receiver operator characteristic curve analyses. Over a median period of 2.8 years, 126 of the 1,620 patients (7.8%) developed diabetes. In multiple logistic regression analysis, the following baseline characteristics were independently associated with incident diabetes in decreasing order of significance by stepwise selection: higher A1C (odds ratio [OR] 1.78 per 1 SD increase; P < 0.0001), higher BMI (OR 1.64 per 1 SD increase; P < 0.0001), lipid-lowering therapy (OR 2.05; P = 0.0005), lower serum creatinine concentration (OR 0.68 per 1 SD increase; P = 0.0018), diuretic therapy (OR 4.81; P = 0.003), digoxin therapy (OR 1.65; P = 0.022), higher serum alanine aminotransferase concentration (OR 1.15 per 1 SD increase; P = 0.027), and lower age (OR 0.81 per 1 SD increase; P = 0.048). Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, A1C and BMI yielded areas under the curve of 0.723 and 0.712, respectively, increasing to 0.788 when combined. Addition of other variables independently associated with diabetes risk minimally improved prediction of diabetes. In nondiabetic patients with CHF in CHARM, A1C and BMI were the strongest predictors of the development of diabetes. Other minor predictors in part reflected CHF severity or drug-associated diabetes risk. Identifying patients with CHF at risk of diabetes through simple criteria appears possible and could enable targeted preventative measures.
    Diabetes care 02/2009; 32(5):915-20. · 7.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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). 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. 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.
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 01/2009; 52(24):2000-7. · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We explored the impact of having a hospital admission for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the subsequent prognosis among patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). A total of 7599 patients with CHF, New York Heart Association Classes II-IV, were randomly assigned to candesartan or placebo. We assessed the risk of death after a first ACS using time-updated Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for baseline predictors. During a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, 1174 patients experienced at least one ACS. Myocardial infarction (MI) was the first ACS in 442 subjects and unstable angina (UA) in 732. After these events, 219 (49.5%) and 167 (22.8%) patients died during follow-up. The early risk of death was more pronounced after MI: 30.2% died within 30 days compared with 3.6% after UA. After an ACS event, the risk of death declined steadily over time, although 18 months after an MI the risk was still twice that of patients without an ACS. Patients with CHF, who develop an ACS, have markedly increased subsequent mortality, particularly in the early phase after an MI.
    European Heart Journal 12/2008; 30(3):338-45. · 14.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ageing may affect drug efficacy and safety in patients with heart failure (HF). The Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme offered an opportunity to study the relationship between increasing age and the efficacy and safety of treatment in an uniquely broad spectrum of patients with symptomatic HF and either reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. A total of 7599 patients in NYHA Class II-IV HF were randomized to candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily, mean dose 24 mg) or placebo, including 3169 patients age >70 years. Mean follow-up was 37.7 months. The proportional hazards model was used to estimate the treatment effect on efficacy and safety within five age groups: <50 years (n = 605) (8% of all study patients), 50-59 years (n = 1474) (19%), 60-69 years (n = 2351) (31%), 70-79 years (n = 2474) (33%), and > or =80 years (n = 695) (9%). The risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome) increased from 24% in the lowest age group to 46% in the highest age group (and mortality from 13 to 42%). The relative reduction in risk of the primary outcome with candesartan (15% in the overall study population) was similar irrespective of age. Consequently, the absolute benefit was greater with advancing age (3.8 patients avoided a primary outcome per 100 patients treated in the lowest age group compared with 6.8 in the highest). Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation were more frequent in the candesartan group: placebo/candesartan risk (%), lowest compared with highest age category: hyperkalemia (0.0/1.6 vs. 0.6/2.7), increased serum creatinine (1.0/3.9 vs. 6.1/5.4) and hypotension (1.7/2.0 vs. 2.8/5.7). Older patients were at a greater absolute risk of adverse CV mortality and morbidity outcomes but derived a similar relative risk reduction and, therefore, a greater absolute benefit from treatment with candesartan, despite receiving a somewhat lower mean daily dose of candesartan. Adverse effects were more common with candesartan than with placebo, although the relative risk of adverse effects was similar across age groups. The benefit to risk ratio for candesartan was thus favourable across all age groups.
    European Heart Journal 12/2008; 29(24):3022-8. · 14.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The curiosity that leanness is associated with poor survival in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) needs further insight by investigating the impact of weight loss on prognosis in a large sample of patients across a broad spectrum of both reduced and preserved left ventricular (LV) systolic function. We investigated the change in weight over 6 months in 6933 patients in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme, and its association with subsequent mortality (1435 deaths) over a median 32.9 months follow-up using Cox proportional hazard models to account for the impact of body mass index and other risk predictors. We then used time-updated Cox models to relate each patient's ongoing data on annual weight change to their mortality hazard. The percentage weight loss over 6 months had a highly significant monotonically increasing association with excess mortality, both for cardiovascular and for other causes of death. Patients with 5% or greater weight loss in 6 months had over a 50% increase in hazard compared with those with stable weight. Weight loss carried a particularly high risk in patients who were already lean at study entry. Findings were similar in the presence of dependent oedema, preserved or reduced LV ejection fraction, and treatment with candesartan, although weight loss was significantly less common on candesartan. The time-updated analyses revealed an even stronger link between weight loss and short-term risk of dying, i.e. risk increased more than four-fold for patients whose last recorded annual weight loss exceeded 10%. Weight gain had a more modestly increased short-term mortality risk. Weight loss accelerates in the year prior to death. Weight loss and leanness are important predictors of poor prognosis in CHF. Being lean and losing weight is particularly bad. The detection of weight change, and particularly weight loss, should be considered as an adverse sign prompting further evaluation.
    European Heart Journal 10/2008; 29(21):2641-50. · 14.10 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

6k Citations
783.80 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2006–2011
    • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
      • Department of Medical Statistics
      London, ENG, United Kingdom
    • Sahlgrenska University Hospital
      Goeteborg, Västra Götaland, Sweden
    • Montreal Heart Institute
      Montréal, Quebec, Canada
  • 2010
    • Liverpool Heart And Chest Hospital
      Liverpool, England, United Kingdom
  • 2009
    • University of Colorado
      • Division of Cardiology
      Denver, CO, United States
  • 2003–2009
    • University of Glasgow
      Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
  • 1999–2009
    • Duke University
      Durham, North Carolina, United States
  • 2008
    • Hamilton Health Sciences
      Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris
      Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France
    • University of Gothenburg
      Goeteborg, Västra Götaland, Sweden
  • 2004–2008
    • University of Michigan
      • • Department of Internal Medicine
      • • Division of Cardiovascular Medicine
      Ann Arbor, MI, United States
  • 2007
    • Partners HealthCare
      Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • 2004–2007
    • Brigham and Women's Hospital
      • • Center for Brain Mind Medicine
      • • Department of Medicine
      Boston, MA, United States
  • 2000–2007
    • North Carolina Clinical Research
      Raleigh, North Carolina, United States
  • 2003–2006
    • Duke University Medical Center
      • Division of Cardiology
      Durham, North Carolina, United States
  • 2005
    • McMaster University
      Hamilton, Ontario, Canada