Embed
Email

ACE Inhibitor Dosing Considerations in CHARM

Document Sample
ACE Inhibitor Dosing Considerations in CHARM
Shared by: HC111125145738
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
0
posted:
11/25/2011
language:
English
pages:
19
CM-1









ACE Inhibitor Dosing

Considerations in CHARM



John J.V. McMurray, MD

Professor of Medical Cardiology

Western Infirmary

Glasgow

Scotland

UK

CM-2



What is Optimal Treatment With an

ACE Inhibitor?



Which drug? What dose?



• The evidence-base: randomized controlled

outcome trials



• Studies looking at higher than evidence-

based doses?

Which drug? The ACE inhibitors Used in CM-3



Randomized Controlled Outcome Trials

in Acute MI and CHF

 Captopril (SAVE)



 Ramipril (AIRE)



 Trandolapril (TRACE)



 Lisinopril (ATLAS, GISSI 3)



 Enalapril (CONSENSUS, SOLVD, VHeFT II)







CHARM investigators were advised that these were the

preferred ACE inhibitors – at investigator meetings and in

study protocol

CM-4

46

Clinical Programme Protocol—

CHARM Added

Clinical programme protocol-CHARM









Instructions to Investigators on Dosing of ACEi



―… the investigator is asked to attempt to optimize therapy

for each individual patient. In this component study

baseline therapy with an ACE inhibitor is mandatory. No

dose of an ACE inhibitor is, however, mandated. The

investigator is free to choose the dose of ACE inhibitor that

is optimum for each patient, based on tolerability (e.g.

taking into account blood pressure, renal function etc.) and

information from the large randomized trials. The

investigator is reminded that these trials had target ACE

inhibitor doses (Appendix 1) higher than those commonly

used in clinical practice. Furthermore, the recent ATLAS

study has also shown that larger ACE inhibitor doses

reduce morbidity to a greater extent than lower doses.‖

What dose? Randomized Controlled CM-5



Outcome Trials Using Forced Titration of

ACE Inhibitors in Acute MI and CHF

ACE Target dose, Mean daily

Trial inhibitor mg dose, mg

SAVE (1992) captopril 50 tid 121

SOLVD-T (1991) enalapril 10 bid 16.6

AIRE (1993) ramipril 5 bid 8.7

TRACE (1995) trandolapril 4 qd 3

ATLAS (1999) lisinopril† 2.5 - 5.0 qd 3.2

32.5 - 35 qd 22.5

GISSI 3 (1994) lisinopril 10 mg qd N/A

These were the target doses CHARM investigators advised

to aim for – at investigator meetings and in protocol

† US and European guidelines recommend a target dose of 20 mg/d.

CM-6



Use of ACE Inhibitors:

What happened in CHARM Added?



 Investigators were provided with a list of

preferred ACE inhibitors and doses, based on

randomized controlled outcome trials

 Investigators asked to ensure patients on ―an

individualized optimum‖ dose of ACE inhibitor

at baseline

 Stable dose of ACEi for ≥ 30 days

Which drug? The ACE inhibitors Used in CM-7



Randomized Controlled Outcome Trials

in Acute MI and CHF



 Captopril (SAVE)



 Ramipril (AIRE)



 Trandolapril (TRACE)



 Lisinopril (ATLAS, GISSI 3)



 Enalapril (CONSENSUS, SOLVD, VHeFT II)





CHARM investigators were advised that these were the

preferred ACE inhibitors. Approx. 80% of patients were

treated with one of these evidence-based ACE inhibitors

CM-8



FDA Approved ACE Inhibitors For

Heart Failure

ACE inhibitor CHARM Added

Proportion FDA labeled Baseline

of patients HF dose mean dose

at baseline, % mg/d mg/d

Enalapril 27 5 - 20 (40) 17

Lisinopril 19 5 - 40 (40) 18

Captopril 17 150 - 300 (450) 83

Ramipril 11 10 7

Trandolapril 6 4 2

Perindopril† 6 NA 4

Quinapril 5 20 - 40 25

Fosinopril 5 20 - 40 20

Benazepril† 3 NA 26

Cilazapril†, Moexipril† 1 NA –



† NA = Not FDA approved for heart failure.

CM-9



Dose of ACE Inhibitor:

What happened in CHARM Added?



 Investigators reported that 96% of patients

were taking an individualized, optimum, dose

of ACE inhibitor at baseline (CRF check box)

 Supporting evidence?

Dose of ACE Inhibitor Achieved in CM-10



CHARM Added Compared to Randomized

Outcome Trials Using Forced Titration

ACE-inhibitor Mean dose in Mean dose in

Trial (% in CHARM outcome trial CHARM-Added

Added) (mg) (mg)

SOLVD Enalapril (27%) 16.6 17.0

ATLAS Lisinopril (19%) 3.2† 17.7

22.5†

GISSI 3 Lisinopril N/A 17.7

SAVE Captopril (17%) 121 82.5

AIRE Ramipril (11%) 8.7 7.1

TRACE Trandolapril (6%) 3.0 2.5



† US and European guidelines recommend target dose of 20 mg/d.

CM-11

Dose of ACE Inhibitor (Enalapril) Achieved in

CHARM Added Compared to Randomized

Outcome Trials Using Forced Titration

Target dose, Mean daily

Trial N mg dose, mg

CONSENSUS (1987) 127 20 bid 18.4

SOLVD-T (1991)† 1284 10 bid 16.6

SOLVD-P (1992) 2111 10 bid 16.7

V-HeFT II (1991) 403 10 bid 15.0

OVERTURE (2002) 2884 10 bid 17.7

CARMEN (2004) 190 E only 10 bid 16.8

191 E+Carv 10 bid 14.9

CHARM Added 680 - 17.0





† N.B. active run-in; 49% reached target dose.

CM-12



CHARM Investigators Did Optimize

ACE Inhibitor Dose

Daily dose of ACE inhibitor in CHARM Added compared

to other outcome studies using ―add-on‖ therapy



Trial MERIT-HF CIBIS-2† RALES CHARM Added

Enalapril 14 12.7 15 17.0



Captopril 64 48.3 62 82.5



Lisinopril 16.5 12.8 14.3 17.7



Ramipril 6.2 4.2 - 7.1







† Personal communication.

CM-13



ACE Inhibitor Doses in CHF—CHARM Added

Compared to Community and Hospital Practice

Study/country/setting Captopril Enalapril Lisinopril Ramipril

McGrae, et al, 1997 21 7.7 - -

(US – hospital, n = 612)

Smith, et al, 1998 54 8.9 11.7 -

(US – community [CVHS], n = 129)

McAlister, et al, 1999 (Canada – 62.1 10.7 10.3 -

specialist HF clinic, n = 566)

Chen, et al, 2001 58.8 12.0 10.0 -

(US – hospital, n = 554)

EuroHF study, 2004 (Europe – 57.6 14.4 12.3 5.1

hospital n = 11,304)

IMPROVEMENT-HF, 2002 (UK – 49.6 13.8 11.2 4.6

Community, n = 599)

CHARM Added (n = 2548) 82.5 17.0 17.7 7.1

Would a Larger Than Evidence-Based CM-14



Dose of an ACE Inhibitor Have Made a

Difference?



ACE inhibitor dose response studies



 Many ACE inhibitor dose-response studies



 Most compared low dose(s) to a proven,

evidence-based, dose (eg, NETWORK) or low

dose(s) to a medium/high dose eg, (ATLAS)

 What about comparison of a proven, evidence-

based, dose to an even higher dose?

CM-15



Larger Than Evidence-Based Doses of

ACE Inhibitors – Two Questions:



 Can they be achieved? Note:



• SOLVD-T target enalapril 10 mg bid

49% achieved target;

mean dose achieved 16.6 mg

• CONSENSUS target 20 mg bid

22% achieved target;

mean dose achieved 18.4 mg

 Is there additional benefit?

CM-16





Enalapril 20 mg/d vs 60 mg/d trial

 248 patients with CHF (mean LVEF 19%) randomized to

standard-dose (20 mg/d) or high-dose (60 mg/d)

enalapril. 12 months follow-up

 Doses achieved: 17.9 mg/d and 42.5 mg/d, respectively

 72.5% and 32.5%, respectively reached target dose by

3 months

 No statistically significant or clinically meaningful

difference between groups for change in blood

pressure, heart rate, LVEF or NYHA class

 No significant difference in any clinical outcome (but

small numbers)

Nanas J, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:2090-2095.

Enalapril 20 mg/d vs 60 mg/d Trial: CM-17



Death or HF Hospitalization—Event

Free Survival

100

Freedom from death or HF





80

hospitalization, %





20 mg/d

60 60 mg/d





40





20

p = 0.645



0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (months)

Nanas J, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:2090-2095.

CM-18





Summary: Optimal ACE Inhibitor Treatment

 CHARM Added patients received

• Evidence-based ACE inhibitor (80% of patients)

• ACE inhibitor doses comparable to those

achieved with forced titration (eg, 17 mg

of enalapril)

• Higher doses of ACE inhibitor than in other

recent ―add-on‖ treatment trials

• Much higher doses of ACE inhibitor than in

ordinary clinical practice

 No evidence that exceeding proven dose of ACE

inhibitor is advantageous

CM-19



Conclusion: CHARM Added

ACE Inhibitor Dosing



 Evidence-based treatment with ACE inhibitor

advocated by protocol and used by

investigators

 CHARM Added did test the hypothesis of

whether adding an ARB to a evidence-based

dose of ACE inhibitor would offer further

clinical benefit


Related docs
Other docs by HC111125145738
Analysis of Red-Black Tree
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Lesson 4-2
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
FRENOS JUL-AGO
Views: 2  |  Downloads: 0
New MSU Sickle Cell Trait 11 12
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
BIOGEOCHEMISTRY OF NITROGEN
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Prime Factorization Introduction
Views: 8  |  Downloads: 0
UNIT ALIGNMENT
Views: 2  |  Downloads: 0
Building Mission Success
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
HITTAN
Views: 6  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!