RAAS inhibitor dose in HFrEF

Reference: Turgeon RD, et al. Higher versus lower doses of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-2 receptor blockers and beta-blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14(2):e0212907

Bottom line:

The available evidence evaluating dose-response of medications in HFrEF have several caveats that require close scrutiny. With that said, pushing the dose of ACE inhibitors and ARBs appears to:

  • Further reduces the risk of HF worsening or HF hospitalizations over 4-5 years;

  • Increases the risk of side-effects such as lightheadedness, renal dysfunction & hyperkalemia. These are generally predictable, reversible, and manageable with holding or decreasing the ACEI/ARB dose.

The decision to aim for target ACEI/ARB doses must account for the consequences & severity of all of these events in an individual, rather than the relative size of the NNT versus NNHs. For example, HF hospitalizations impair patient quality of life, are costly to the healthcare system, & put patients at risk for numerous complications, such as hospital-acquired infections, VTE, & deconditioning. The severity of ACEI/ARB-related renal dysfunction can range from dialysis-dependent renal failure to a slight creatinine bump that's reversible upon decreasing the ACEI/ARB dose, & most often falls in the latter category.

 

Inclusion criteria from key trials

Baseline patient characteristics from key trials

Interventions in key trials

  • ATLAS

    • I: High-dose lisinopril (32.5-35 mg PO once daily)

      • 91% achieved target dose

      • 27% discontinued study drug

    • C: Low-dose lisinopril (2.5-5 mg PO once daily)

      • 31% discontinued study drug

  • High Enalapril Dose Study

    • I: High-dose enalapril (30 mg BID - 3x target dose in SOLVD)

      • ~45% achieved target dose by year 1

      • Mean achieved dose ~20 mg BID

    • C: Standard target-dose enalapril (10 mg BID)

      • ~80% achieved target dose by year 1

      • Mean achieved dose ~10 mg BID

    • Both groups started at 2.5 mg BID, uptitrated q1 week to target dose

  • NETWORK

    • I-1: Standard target-dose enalapril (10 mg BID)

    • I-2: Half target-dose enalapril (5 mg BID)

    • C: Low-dose enalapril (2.5 mg BID)

    • All started at 2.5 mg BID; standard/half-dose groups doubled after 1 week; standard-dose further doubled 1 week later

  • HEAAL

    • I: Losartan 150 mg once daily

      • Initial 50 mg daily, then uptitrated over 3 weeks

      • 94% achieved target dose

    • C: Losartan 50 mg once daily

Results (meta-analysis forest plots available in the open-access article)

Risk of bias

journal.pone.0212907.g002.PNG

Other issues

  • Inadequate follow-up duration

    • The High Enalapril Dose Study and NETWORK were both at substantial risk of a type 2 error, i.e. falsely concluding that higher doses did not result in additional benefits, as they had short follow-up periods of 6-12 months that may not adequately capture the potential benefits of targeting a higher ACEI dose

  • Contamination bias: High risk

    • The ATLAS trial reported that ~20% of patients in each group started open-label ACEI therapy, which increased overall "ACEI dose" in the low-dose ACEI group and minimized potential differences in outcomes between the 2 treatment groups

  • Run-in phases

    • ATLAS & HEAAL both had active run-in phases to exclude patients prior to randomization who would not tolerate a low-moderate dose of the study drug

      • Safety data from these studies will be lower than seen in an unselected real-world population

Generalizability

  • Of the 4 key trials, ATLAS & HEAAL, which both included only HFrEF patients & used “high” doses that were attainable by >90% of patients in the trial, are the most generalizable to a real-world HFrEF population

  • The High Enalapril Dose Study enrolled a population that is approximately 10 years younger than the usual mean age for HF trials. This is reflected in the higher proportion of patients who could achieve the 10 mg BID dose (80% versus 50% in SOLVD)

  • Background HF medical therapy was seldom reported & none reported device therapy

ARBs vs ACEIs patients post-MI or at high risk of CVD

Dickstein K, et al. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:752-60.

The ONTARGET Investigators. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1547-59.

VALIANT: Pfeffer MA, et al. Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1893-906.

Bottom line:

  • In patients post-MI or at high risk of CVD, telmisartan & valsartan generally prevent CV events as well as ACE inhibitors with similar safety;

  • The combination of ACEI+ARB is no better than monotherapy & increases the risk of adverse events (e.g. hypotension, hyperkalemia & renal impairment);

  • Losartan is inferior to captopril for prevention of CV events.

 

Patients

Interventions

  • OPTIMAAL: ARB vs ACEI
    • ARB: Losartan started at 12.5 mg PO daily; increased to target 50 mg PO daily
      • 83% achieved target dose
    • ACEI: Captopril started at 12.5 mg PO TID; increased to target 50 mg PO TID
      • 81% achieved target dose
  • ONTARGET: ARB, ACEI or combination of both
    • ARB: Telmisartan started at 20 mg PO daily; increased to target 80 mg PO daily
      • 87% achieved target dose
    • ACEI: Ramipril started at 2.5 mg PO daily; increased to target 10 mg PO daily (HOPE dose)
      • 82% achieved target dose
  • VALIANT: ARB, ACEI or combination of both
    • ARB: Valsartan started at 20 mg PO BID; increased to target 160 mg PO BID
    • ACEI: Captopril started at 6.25 mg PO TID; increased to target 50 mg PO TID
    • 56% in each monotherapy group achieved target dose, 47% in combination group achieved target doses

Results @ 2-4.7 years

Generalizability & internal validity

  • Design of these trials essentially identical to the original 'ACEI vs placebo' trials that they mimic
    • I.e. high-quality allocation-concealed double-blind RCTs
  • All 3 trials are non-inferiority trials with fair non-inferiority margins and analyses
    • Note: OPTIMAAL is the only of the 3 that does not demonstrate of the ARB (losartan) & in fact points towards significant inferiority to an ACEI
  • As with the 'ACEI vs placebo' RCTs, results of these trials apply to patients that are post-MI, especially those with clinical HF & LV dysfunction, and those at high risk of CVD

CAPRICORN - Carvedilol in LV dysfunction post-MI

The CAPRICORN Investigators. Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomised trial. Lancet 2001;357:1385-90.

Bottom-line: In patients with LV dysfunction post-MI, carvedilol reduces the risk of death, MI & ventricular arrhythmias (NNT 34 for each) at ~1 year.

Patients (n=1959)

  • Included
    • Age 18+ y
    • 3-21 days post-MI
    • LVEF 40% or less
    • Receiving ACEI >48h with stable dose >24h (or intolerance to ACEI)
  • Excluded
    • Uncontrolled HF or HF requiring IV diuretics or inotropes
    • Unstable angina
    • SBP <90 mm Hg or uncontrolled HTN
    • HR <60 bpm
  • Typical study patient
    • Age 63 y
    • Female 27%
    • Site: Anterior (57%), inferior (21%)
    • PMHx
      • Prior MI 31%, angina 57%
      • Smoker 33%
      • HTN 55%
      • Diabetes 21%
    • BP 121/74 mm Hg
    • HR 77 bpm
    • LVEF 33%
    • Meds
      • ASA 86%
      • ACEI 98%

Interventions

  • I: Carvedilol
    • Initial dose of 6.25 mg PO BID, doubled or halved to max target dose of 25 mg PO BID
    • Conditions for uptitration, done q3-10 days:
      • Absence of clinical HF or adverse events
      • SBP >80 mm Hg & HR >50 bpm
    • 74% achieved target dose
  • C: Matching placebo

Results @ mean 1.3 years

  • Death: Carvedilol 12%, placebo 15% (hazard ratio 0.77, 0.60-0.98), NNT 34
  • Death or CV hospitalization: 35% vs 37% (HR 0.92, 0.80-1.07)
    • HF hospitalization: 12% vs 14% (HT 0.86, 0.67-1.09)
  • Non-fatal MI: 3% vs 6% (HR 0.59, 0.39-0.90), NNT 34%
  • Ventricular arrhythmia (tach/flutter/fib): 0.9% vs 3.9% (HR 0.24, 0.11-0.49), NNT 34

 

A-HeFT, V-HeFT, V-HeFT - Hydralazine+nitrate in HFrEF

Interventions

Results in context

  • V-HeFT was the first trial demonstrating a mortality benefit with any drug for heart failure. It was published prior to studies showing benefits of ACEI/ARB, beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists
    • V-HeFT demonstrated that hydralazine/ISDN improved outcomes in HF, & that this was not due to a generic "vasodilator" effect, as demonstrated by an INCREASE in mortality with prazosin
  • V-HeFT II came hot off the heels of CONSENSUS (published in 1987), which demonstrated a great benefit to ACEI in NYHA class IV HF
    • Although the results of the comparison of enalapril to hydralazine/ISDN in V-HeFT II were not "statistically" significant, with a p=0.08 for mortality, it provided convincing evidence of the superiority of RAAS inhibition with an ACEI over hydralazine/ISDN
    • After V-HeFT II, hydralazine/ISDN was put on the sideline & no further outcome RCTs were conducted until A-HeFT
  • In 1999, subgroup analyses of the two V-HeFT trials demonstrated borderline race-based differences in response to hydralazine/ISDN (p=0.09-0.11 for interaction by race) & formed the basis to conduct A-HeFT
    • Mortality in V-HeFT according to race
      • Black: Hydralazine/ISDN 9.7%, placebo 17.3% (NNT 14)
      • White: Hydralazine/ISDN 16.9%, placebo 18.8%
    • Mortality in V-HeFT II according to race
      • Black: Enalapril 12.8%, hydralazine/ISDN 12.9%
      • White: Enalapril 11.0%, hydralazine/ISDN 14.9% (NNT 26)
    • Of note, these analyses were underpowered to rule out a benefit of hydralazine/ISDN in whites
  • A-HeFT demonstrated a large reduction in mortality with hydralazine/ISDN in black HFrEF patients with mostly NYHA functional class III
    • Hydralazine/ISDN therefore has a role as add-on therapy to ACEI/ARB in symptomatic black HFrEF patients who can tolerate additional vasodilator therapy
    •  It's unclear based on the available evidence if the results of A-HeFT can translate to non-black HFrEF patients. Given the borderline subgroup analyses noted above, hydralazine/ISDN likely still has a role for non-black patients as a 3rd line agent in those who cannot tolerated an ACEI or ARB due to hyperkalemia or renal dysfunction.

 

ARBs in HFrEF (ELITE I & II, CHARM-Alternative, CHARM-Added & Val-HeFT)

ARB HFrEF PIC.png

Results

ARB HFrEF O.png

Safety

  • CHARM-Alternative
    • Any adverse event or lab abnormality: Candesartan 21.5% vs placebo 19.3% (p=0.23)
      • Hypotension leading to D/C: 3.7% vs 0.9% (NNH 36)
      • SCr increase leading to D/C: 6.1% vs 2.7% (NNH 30)
      • Hyperkalemia: 1.9% vs 0.3% (NNH 63)
  • CHARM-Added
    • Any adverse event or lab abnormality: Candesartan 24.2% vs placebo 18.3% (NNH 17)
      • Hypotension leading to D/C: 4.5% vs 3.1%
      • SCr increase leading to D/C: 7.8% vs 4.1%
      • Hyperkalemia: 3.4% vs 0.7%
  • Val-HeFT
    • Drug D/C: Valsartan 9.9% vs placebo 7.2% (NNH 37)
      • Dizziness 1.6% vs 0.4%
      • Hypotension: 1.3% vs 0.8%
      • Renal impairment: 1.1% vs 0.2%

Generalizability of trials adding ARB to ACEI

  • CHARM-Alternative specifically enrolled patients intolerant of ACEI & therefore not receiving these agents, whereas 93% of patients enrolled in Val-HeFT received ACEI therapy
    • Results of CHARM-Added were similar to those of Val-HeFT (HR 0.85 for primary outcome & 0.83 for HF hospital admission)
  • Patients in both trials had overall poor optimization of other HF meds (35-55% on beta-blockers, 5-25% on mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist) at baseline.

Internal validity

  • Low risk of allocation, performance, detection and attrition bias, as all trials were randomized, allocation concealed, double-blind trials with blinded outcome adjudication, loss-to-follow-up <1% and intention-to-treat analysis.