Heart failure
I-PRESERVE: Strike three for RAAS inhibition in preserved-LVEF heart failure
November 12, 2008 | Steve Stiles

New Orleans, LA - About four years of treatment with the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) irbesartan (Avapro, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi-Synthelabo) failed to make a difference in mortality or cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure and preserved LVEF in a randomized trial presented here at the American Heart Association 2008 Scientific Sessions [1].

Dr Peter E Carson

Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (I-PRESERVE) is the third major prospective trial to test the effects of a drug that inhibits parts of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in patients with the common form of heart failure, note its investigators and other observers at the meeting. Some seemed ready or nearly ready to give up on RAAS-active drugs for filling a frustrating gap in heart-disease therapy, an evidence-based pharmacologic approach to the preserved-LVEF form of the syndrome.

The study's presentation at the meeting coincided with its online publication in the New England Journal of Medicine on November 11, 2008 [2].

The results of I-PRESERVE are consistent with both the CHARM-Preserved trial of the ARB candesartan and the PEP-CHF study of the ACE inhibitor perindopril in similar populations, observed Dr Peter E Carson (Washington VA Medical Center, Washington, DC) when presenting the trial.

"For this large group of patients, constituting up to half of all heart failure, there continues to be no specific evidence-based therapy," he observed. "In order for the field to move forward, a better understanding is needed of the mechanisms underlying this syndrome and the additional potential targets for treatment."

What you've shown is that this particular drug, in a population absolutely awash with other drugs inhibiting the RAAS system, doesn't add any further benefit.

Dr Margaret M Redfield (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN), the discussant for Carson's presentation, pointed out that patients in I-PRESERVE were treated with a lot of RAAS-active medications for hypertension. In fact, she said, "in all the trials that have looked at this type of therapy in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, blood pressure has been well controlled." So the study really tested the effect of irbesartan on top of other drugs targeting the same neurohormonal system.

Dr Margaret M Redfield

"I think the three trials taken together don't provide strong support for adding these agents once the blood pressure is well controlled. If you want to use it to control blood pressure, that's a very reasonable approach," Redfield said. "I think [I-PRESERVE] is a very carefully designed and well-performed study and that its results are by and large unambiguous. The findings are important, she said, "because ACE inhibitors and ARBs are very commonly used to treat this condition even though there are no compelling randomized clinical trials to support it."

Dr Philip Poole-Wilson

Panelist Dr Philip Poole-Wilson (Imperial College London, UK), during a question-and-answer period after Carson's presentation, had a different take on the study. "You have here a trial with [about] 40% on ACE inhibitors, [about] 70% on beta blockers, and a quarter on spironolactone. All of those drugs interact with the RAAS system. So what this trial has not shown, in my view, is that inhibiting that system in this group of patients is not beneficial. What you've shown is that this particular drug, in a population absolutely awash with other drugs inhibiting the RAAS system, doesn't add any further benefit."

I-PRESERVE randomized 4128 patients aged >60 years with NYHA class 2-4 heart failure and an LVEF >45% to receive irbesartan or placebo and followed them for a mean of about four years. Excluded were patients with recent ACS or stroke, hypertrophic or restrictive cardiomyopathy, or pericardial or valvular disease.

Irbesartan was initiated at 75 mg/day and titrated to the target dosage of 300 mg/day; the average dosage achieved was 275 mg/day.

Hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes in I-PRESERVE, irbesartan vs placebo, over a mean of 50 months

End point
HR (95% CI)
p
Primary end point*
0.95 (0.86-1.05)
0.35
CV mortality
1.02 (0.87-1.19)
0.85
HF death or hospitalization
1.01 (0.88-1.16)
0.89

*Composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure, MI, unstable angina, arrhythmia, or stroke

Carson said the high prevalence of RAAS-active medications was the result of a special effort to control hypertension in the trial. Although only 25% and 15% of I-PRESERVE patients, respectively, were on ACE inhibitors or the aldosterone inhibitor spironolactone at baseline, the rates increased as the trial progressed. The use of beta blockers, which suppress renin, also climbed.

Use of other RAAS-active drug therapies in patients treated with irbesartan or placebo in I-PRESERVE

Other RAAS-active drug therapy
Placebo group at baseline (%)
Placebo group during follow-up (%)
Irbesartan group at baseline (%)
Irbesartan group during follow-up (%)
ACE inhibitors
25
39
26
38
Spironolactone
15
28
15
27
Beta blockers
58
72
59
72

RAAS=renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system

To download tables as slides, click on slide logo above

With the three negative trials for RAAS-active drugs in this population, Redfield observed, "It's becoming increasingly apparent that the pathophysiology [of preserved-LVEF heart failure] is not as simple as we at first thought. . . . I think we have much more work to do to really understand the pathophysiology of this syndrome and to develop and test novel therapies that may produce a different result."

Dr Milton Packer

Dr Milton Packer (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas), who has championed the idea that most preserved-LVEF heart failure is primarily a disorder of peripheral arterial stiffness and abnormal venous return, commented at a briefing on I-PRESERVE for the media, "There are many of us who believe that there is very little wrong with the heart in these patients, that the abnormalities are primarily in the periphery, and the heart is an innocent bystander. . . . Maybe we ought to find out what we're studying; we don't understand this disease at all."

I-PRESERVE also renews questions about the neurohormonal system that plays such a large role in systolic heart failure as a culprit in the preserved-LVEF form of the syndrome.

According to Dr Barry M Massie (University of California and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco), co-principal investigator of I-PRESERVE along with Carson, there is indeed neurohormonal activation in preserved-LVEF heart failure, but not nearly as much as in systolic HF. "You don't see very high catecholamine levels. There's significantly higher plasma renin activity, higher levels of aldosterone, but only about a third as activated as in low-ejection-fraction heart failure," he told heartwire. "So it's probably less important to the pathophysiology."

Dr Barry M Massie

That idea is supported by I-PRESERVE, he observed; the patients probably didn't have so much neurohormonal activation that they needed so many RAAS-active drugs on board.

On the other hand, it's okay to use ARBs in heart failure with preserved-LVEF, "because they usually have other indications." But, Massie said, it has become clear that they won't improve clinical outcomes when added on top of other RAAS-active therapy.

The ongoing Treatment of Preserved-Cardiac-Function Heart Failure (TOPCAT) trial, he said, is exploring whether spironolactone will improve outcomes in the same setting. The trial is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. "We're very excited that we have at least one last shot at it [targeting the RAAS in preserved-LVEF heart failure], but if that fails, we're going to have to wait for something completely new."

I-PRESERVE was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis. Massie reports receiving grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, and Merck; consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck, Momentum Research, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Scios/Johnson & Johnson, Corthera, and Niles Therapeutics; and lecture fees from Merck. Carson discloses receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, and Merck and lecture fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca. Redfield reports receiving research funding from Scios/Johnson & Johnson, Biosite, Alteon, Medtronic, Guidant, St Jude Medical, CDI, Atcor, and Pfizer; consulting fees from Novartis; and honoraria from Annexion.

Sources
  1. Massie BM, Carson P. The I-PRESERVE Trial: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of irbesartan in the treatment of heart failure in patients with preserved ejection fraction. American Heart Association 2008 Scientific Sessions; November 11, 2008; New Orleans, LA. Late Breaking Clinical Trials Session 3.
  2. Massie BM, Carson PE, McMurray JJ, et al. Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and reserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2008; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0805450. Available at: http://www.nejm.org.



Your comments
I-PRESERVE: Strike three for RAAS inhibition in preserved-LVEF heart failure
# 1 of 7
November 13, 2008 11:58 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
Frustrating
It's frustrating to see Irb not show any benefit over 4 years. Also to see nearly 40% event rates (9-10%/year) and CV mort rates of nearly 3%/year and all mort rates nearly 5%/year.

Once again shows it is BEST to prevent CHF whether with a normal or abnormal EF especially if you are median age of 72. Because your long term survival is complicated.

Again would support diovan or atacand based on their studies. I would need go back and pull those 2 studies to see if there were blatant demo differences other than low EF in those 2 studies. It was interesting to see that less than 25% of these pts had ischemic CHF (perhaps they would have done best on N-3 as in GISSI HF which also had a low rate of ischemic chf in addition to RAAS blockade). Nearly 1/3 had a history of Afib as well which I found interesting. I doubt that 1/3 of my chf'ers has afib and 2/3's of my chf'ers are ischemic.

# 2 of 7
November 14, 2008 07:04 (EST)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
AMAZING
Apologize for the rant in advance. I already blogged this on the AHA blogg section, but can't seem to help myself but drive the point home again.
Mike, all you had to do to get in this study was to come in the door with shortness of breathe and LVH, or shortness of breathe and a LBBB. Your proBNP was nearly normal and in some cases normal. almost half of these patients were on a calcium channel blocker and 1/3 diabetics of which I'd guess that many were filling their monthly actos prescriptions and wondering why the scales were tipping 2 pounds heavier every week.
This type of patient is my favorite patient to see because they can be helped SOOOOooo much with some common sense approaches to changes in their prescriptions to something that doesn't waterlog them, or can be helped with their sleep apnea, etc. OR perhaps their nephrotic syndrome addressed, etc. etc. I would FLUNK any resident who hung a diagnosis of CHF on a patient without FIRST going through all of the things that might make shortness of breathe and peripheral edema better if the echo demonstrated a good EF. THEN, if we could not explain it, we'd cath the patient after several attempts to help them.
The study to have been done would have been to check the EDPs of the patients who were thought to have heart failure. That would have been the interesting first caveat in this trial, just to see how many times we actually got this correct. I'll be willing to bet that many if not most would have had a normal LVEDP. THEN, of those truly with diastolic heart failure, THEN study the right drug FOR the CORRECT diagnosis. Then, we would be fairly certain of the responses.
It amazed me that the design of this study is so flawed that one can hardly glean ANYTHING from it but how often the boat is missed on these poor patients.
AMAZING.
Melissa
# 3 of 7
November 14, 2008 08:28 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
patients
Melissa, I agree with much of this but at the same time realize there are MANY patients like these being treated in our primary care offices (that's me) and 80% were considered stage 3-4 heart failure (I doubt that TZD use comprised more than 3% of the study especially being off label). 40% CCB use is in line with most ischemia, angina and I think CHF studies. Spiro was used aggressively in both arms as the study moved forward. I'm just really impressed by the 4 year event rate in a 'low risk' CHF group if you will. A BNP of 320 while not exciting isn't one that I would want my family or pts to have and yes we get excited when a pt comes in with 800, 1300 or higher. mc
# 4 of 7
November 14, 2008 12:16 (EST)
D Hackam
I agree
If 40% were on CCB then I would expect 4% would have CCB-induced pedal edema. The incidence of edema on the world's most popular medication (amlodipine) is about 10%, higher with felodipine (about 30%). So we are talking a fraction of a fraction. Mike's point about event rates suggest this was a bona fide high cardiac risk population. The 95% CI is a bit wide and perhaps the patient population was just too optimized in terms of other proven CV agents to show any reduction in risk with IRBESARTAN.
# 5 of 7
November 14, 2008 11:14 (EST)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
high risk group for certain
No doubt it's a high risk group. Folks who are short of breathe for whatever cause exhibit sky high mortality rates.
As for he 40% being on calcium channel blockers, remember, this group is a subgroup of patients on calcium channel blockers who can't breathe and/or have big legs. They've already selected themselves out and presented themselves as having difficulty. I'd bet the incidence of weight gain in this group is higher than in just 10%.
I absolutely agree that this is a high risk group, however it would be like treating me for prostate cancer with no improvement over 4 years. If I don't have it, and you've missed the diagnosis, whatever I had to begin with is probably going to get worse.
Not trying to be combative, just have too many of these patients who have other problems that can be found often times if another approach is taken for diagnosis.
Melissa
# 6 of 7
November 19, 2008 02:01 (EST)
Pam Haney
amlodipine
I am a research assistant RN, working in the area of diastolic dysfunction, and DHF. My task has been to focus on CCBs in the treatment of these conditions, or progression.

We have seen a very high incidence of CCB, (specifically amlodipine), induced (for a lack of better wording) chronic constipation in age ranges of 55-65, and around 45% with ascites.

Would love to hear comments from this forum concerning amlodipine and it's association with constipation and ascites.

I would also like to mention that the I-PRESERVE study failed to mention how many people had problems tolerating ARBs due to side effects. Our research shows an almost 25% rate of intolerance for all patients, regardless of diagnoses.

Thanks so much in advance.
# 7 of 7
November 19, 2008 03:08 (EST)
D Hackam
ARBs and CCBs
Pam, I exploit alot of these drugs to treat hypertension in patients at risk for having diastolic heart failure. The literature suggests that ARBs have tolerability pretty close to placebo; the CCB amlodipine is the #1 prescription drug worldwide (or at least it was recently). I do encounter the odd patient who has trouble tolerating these drugs, but they are usually the exception, rather than the role. I think many more would stop an ACE inhibitor due to cough, beta blocker due to anergia/asthenia (low energy), and an alpha blocker due to postural hypotension.

Indeed, ACCOMPLISH, which I hope will be published soon, showed that adding amlodipine to an ACE inhibitor (benazepril) was superior to the strategy of adding hydrochlorothiazide to an ACE inhibitor (again, benazepril), in terms of cardiovascular events, strokes, etc. What I think we are doing less of is adding ARBs to ACEis and other way around (at least in a population similar to ON-TARGET with no CHF). I-PRESERVE will only strengthen that trend.

You have to be logged in to add a comment to this article
Login
Username 
Password 
  Forgot your password?
 
Remember me on this computer
 
Join theheart.org community
Five reasons to become a member of the most trusted source of cardiology news:
1Be part of the conversation in our blogs and discussion forum
2Share your thoughts on our news or educational programs
3Receive exclusive newsletters related to your field of interest
4Access unique continuous medical education content
5See and read what leaders have to say about cardiology today
It is free and it only takes five minutes to join!
 
button
buttonbutton
button
Latest 5 articles from Heart failure
Previews
Featured CME
Inside: Heart failure