Dataset Information

Randomized evaluation of routine beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction quality of life (RQoL): design and rationale of a multicentre, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Most cases of acute myocardial infarction (MI) in Sweden are treated with long-term β-blocker therapy as secondary prevention. Case studies and patient reports have indicated negative effects of β-blockers including symptoms of depression, fatigue, sexual dysfunction, and general low mood, all related to reduced quality of life (QoL). To date, no recent large-scale, randomized trial has explored the effects of β-blockers on these factors.

Methods and results

The ongoing Randomized Evaluation of Decreased Usage of beta-bloCkErs after myocardial infarction (REDUCE): quality of life (RQoL) study is a multicentre, prospective, randomized pre-specified substudy aiming to evaluate the effects of β-blockers on self-reported measures of QoL. Following randomized allocation to long-term β-blocker or no β-blocker treatment, patients complete a total of six baseline measures pertaining to QoL, sexual functioning, and perceived side effects. Data collection is optionally carried out online through a unique and secure portal and repeated again at two follow-up time points. Recruitment began in July 2018. Data from the first 100 patients showed that at the first follow-up, 93% had completed the questionnaires, which decreased to 81% at the second follow-up. The method of digital data collection was utilized by over half of the patients recruited so far.

Conclusion

Data from the first 100 patients indicate success in terms of study design and recruitment. The RQoL substudy investigates the effects of β-blockers on self-reported measures of QoL in MI patients and will potentially contribute to the limited knowledge of QoL-related side effects reported in conjunction with β-blocker use.

Clinical trial registration

Eudra CT number, 2017-002336-17; Clinical trial.gov identifier, NCT03278509.

SUBMITTER: Humphries S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10230287 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized evaluation of routine beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction quality of life (RQoL): design and rationale of a multicentre, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint study.

Humphries Sophia S Mars Katarina K Hofmann Robin R Held Claes C Olsson Erik M G EMG

European heart journal open 20230410 3

<h4>Aims</h4>Most cases of acute myocardial infarction (MI) in Sweden are treated with long-term β-blocker therapy as secondary prevention. Case studies and patient reports have indicated negative effects of β-blockers including symptoms of depression, fatigue, sexual dysfunction, and general low mood, all related to reduced quality of life (QoL). To date, no recent large-scale, randomized trial has explored the effects of β-blockers on these factors.<h4>Methods and results</h4>The ongoing Rando ...[more]

PMID: 37265820

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis is a key common pathological manifestation in hypertensive heart disease (HHD) progressing to heart failure (HF). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), now a front-line treatment for HF, confer benefits independent of blood pressure, signifying a multifactorial mode of action beyond hemodynamic regulation. We aim to test the hypothesis that compared with angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB) alone, ARNi is more effective in regressing diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis in HHD.MethodsRole of ARNi in Ventricular Remodeling in Hypertensive LVH (REVERSE-LVH) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) clinical trial. Adults with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) according to Asian sex- and age-specific thresholds on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging are randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan (an ARNi) or valsartan (an ARB) in 1:1 ratio for a duration of 52 weeks, at the end of which a repeat CMR is performed to assess differential changes from baseline between the two groups. The primary endpoint is the change in CMR-derived diffuse interstitial fibrosis volume. Secondary endpoints include changes in CMR-derived left ventricular mass, volumes, and functional parameters. Serum samples are collected and stored to assess the effects of ARNi, compared with ARB, on circulating biomarkers of cardiac remodeling. The endpoints will be analyzed with reference to the corresponding baseline parameters to evaluate the therapeutic effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan.DiscussionREVERSE-LVH will examine the anti-fibrotic potential of sacubitril/valsartan and will offer mechanistic insights into the clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in hypertension in relation to cardiac remodeling. Advancing the knowledge of the pathophysiology of HHD will consolidate effective risk stratification and personalized treatment through a multimodal manner integrating complementary CMR and biomarkers into the conventional care approach.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT03553810.

Project description:ObjectivesBecause of the limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study may be an appropriate alternative, as the design allows the assessment of clinical outcomes in clinical practice settings. The Gastrointestinal (GI) Randomized Event and Safety Open-Label Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID) Study (GI-REASONS) was designed to reflect standard clinical practice while including endpoints rigorously evaluated by a blinded adjudication committee. The objective of this study was to assess if celecoxib is associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nonselective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) in standard clinical practice.MethodsThis was a PROBE study carried out at 783 centers in the United States, where a total of 8,067 individuals aged ≥ 55 years, requiring daily NSAIDs to treat osteoarthritis, participated. The participants were randomized to celecoxib or nsNSAIDs (1:1) for 6 months and stratified by Helicobacter pylori status. Treatment doses could be adjusted as per the United States prescribing information; patients randomized to nsNSAIDs could switch between nsNSAIDs; crossover between treatment arms was not allowed, and patients requiring aspirin at baseline were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events.ResultsSignificantly more nsNSAID users met the primary endpoint (2.4% (98/4,032) nsNSAID patients and 1.3% (54/4,035) celecoxib patients; odds ratio, 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.55); P = 0.0003). Moderate to severe abdominal symptoms were experienced by 94 (2.3%) celecoxib and 138 (3.4%) nsNSAID patients (P=0.0035). Other non-GI adverse events were similar between treatment groups. One limitation is the open-label design, which presents the possibility of interpretive bias.ConclusionsCelecoxib was associated with a lower risk of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nsNSAIDs. Furthermore, this trial represents a successful execution of a PROBE study, where therapeutic options and management strategies available in clinical practice were incorporated into the rigor of a prospective RCT.

Project description:BackgroundGlibenclamide is a promising agent for treating brain oedema, but whether it improves clinical outcomes in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of glibenclamide treatment in patients with acute ICH.MethodsThe Glibenclamide Advantage in Treating Oedema after Intracerebral Haemorrhage (GATE-ICH) study was a randomised controlled phase 2 clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the northwest of China, recruiting patients with acute ganglia ICH no more than 72 h after onset from Dec 12, 2018 to Sept 23, 2020. During the first 7 days after enrolment, patients randomly assigned to the glibenclamide group were given glibenclamide orally (1.25 mg, 3/day) and standard care, while patients randomly assigned to the control group were given standard care alone. The computer-generated randomisation sequence was prepared by a statistician not involved in the rest of the study. Randomisation was computer-generated with a block size of four. The allocation results were unblinded to participants and investigators. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with poor outcome (defined as modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score of ≥3) at day 90. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03741530).Findings220 participants were randomised and 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 56 [11] years; sex, 128 [64.0%] male and 72 [36.0%] female) were included in the final analysis, with 101 participants randomly assigned to the control group and 99 to the glibenclamide group. The incidence of poor outcome at day 90 was 20/99 (20.2%) in glibenclamide group and 30/101 (29.7%) in control group (absolute difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.2%-21.8%; P = 0.121) with adjusted odds ratios of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.24-1.20; P = 0.129). No significant difference was found in the overall rates of adverse events or serious adverse events between groups. However, the incidence of asymptomatic hypoglycaemia was significantly higher in glibenclamide group than control group (15/99 [15.2%] vs 0/101 [0.0%]; absolute difference, 15.2%; 95% CI, 7.5%-24.1%; P < 0.001).InterpretationOur study provides no evidence that glibenclamide (1.25 mg, 3/day) significantly reduces the proportion of poor outcome at day 90 after ICH. In addition, glibenclamide could result in higher incidence of hypoglycaemia. Larger trials of glibenclamide with optimised medication regimen are warranted.FundingShaanxi Province Key Research and Development Project (2017DCXL-SF-02-02) and Shaanxi Province Special Support Program for Leading Talents in Scientific and Technological Innovation (tzjhjw).

Project description:BackgroundBeta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction (MI) improves survival. Beta-blocker doses used in clinical practice are often substantially lower than those used in the randomized trials establishing their efficacy.ObjectivesThis study evaluated the association of beta-blocker dose with survival after acute MI, hypothesizing that higher dose beta-blocker therapy will be associated with increased survival.MethodsA multicenter registry enrolled 7,057 consecutive patients with acute MI. Discharge beta-blocker dose was indexed to the target beta-blocker doses used in randomized clinical trials, grouped as >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, >25% to 50%, and >50% of target dose. Follow-up vital status was assessed, with the primary endpoint of time-to-death right-censored at 2 years. Multivariable and propensity score analyses were used to account for group differences.ResultsOf 6,682 patients with follow-up (median 2.1 years), 91.5% were discharged on a beta-blocker (mean dose 38.1% of the target dose). Lower mortality was observed with all beta-blocker doses (p < 0.0002) versus no beta-blocker therapy. After multivariable adjustment, hazard ratios for 2-year mortality compared with the >50% dose were 0.862 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 1.098), 0.799 (95% CI: 0.635 to 1.005), and 0.963 (95% CI: 0.765 to 1.213) for the >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, and >25% to 50% of target dose groups, respectively. Multivariable analysis with an extended set of covariates and propensity score analysis also demonstrated that higher doses were not associated with better outcome.ConclusionsThese data do not demonstrate increased survival in patients treated with beta-blocker doses approximating those used in previous randomized clinical trials compared with lower doses. These findings provide the rationale to re-engage in research to establish appropriate beta-blocker dosing after MI to derive optimal benefit from this therapy. (The PACE-MI Registry Study-Outcomes of Beta-blocker Therapy After Myocardial Infarction [OBTAIN]: NCT00430612).

Project description:IntroductionAlthough β-blockers reduce mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), early reports linking β-blocker use with subsequent depression have potentially limited their use in vulnerable patients. We sought to provide empirical evidence to support or refute this concern by examining the association between β-blocker initiation and change in depressive symptoms in AMI patients.MethodsUsing data from 2 US multicenter, prospective registries of AMI patients, we examined 1-, 6-, and 12-month changes in depressive symptoms after the index hospitalization among patients who were β-blocker-naïve on admission. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the validated 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8), which rates depressive symptoms from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms. A propensity-matched repeated-measures linear regression model was used to compare change in depressive symptoms among patients who were and were not initiated on a β-blocker after AMI.ResultsOf 3,470 AMI patients who were β-blocker-naïve on admission, 3,190 (91.9%) were initiated on a β-blocker and 280 (8.1%) were not. Baseline PHQ-8 scores were higher in patients not initiated on a β-blocker (mean 5.78 ± 5.45 vs 4.88 ± 5.11, P = .005). PHQ-8 scores were progressively lower at 1, 6, and 12 months in both the β-blocker (mean decrease at 12 months 1.16, P < .0001) and no-β-blocker groups (mean decrease 1.71, P < .0001). After propensity matching 201 untreated patients with 567 treated patients, initiation of β-blocker therapy was not associated with a difference in mean change in PHQ-8 scores at 1, 6, or 12 months after AMI (absolute mean difference with β-blocker initiation at 12 months of 0.08, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.96, P = .86).ConclusionsInitiation of β-blocker therapy after AMI was not associated with an increase in depressive symptoms. Restricting β-blocker use because of concerns about depression appears unwarranted and may lead to undertreatment of AMI patients.

Dataset Information

Randomized evaluation of routine beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction quality of life (RQoL): design and rationale of a multicentre, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint study.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusion

Clinical trial registration

Publications

Randomized evaluation of routine beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction quality of life (RQoL): design and rationale of a multicentre, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets