1.
Impact of treatment crossovers on clinical outcomes in the rate and rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation: Insights from the AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management) trial.
Maan, A, Zhang, Z, Qin, Z, Wang, Y, Dudley, S, Dabhadakar, K, Refaat, M, Mansour, M, Ruskin, JN, Heist, EK
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE. 2017;(7):770-778
Abstract
We investigated the rates and reasons for crossover to alternative treatment strategies and its impact on mortality in patients who were enrolled in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) trial. Over a mean follow-up period of 3.5 years, 842 patients underwent crossover to the alternative treatment arms in AFFIRM. The rate of crossover from rhythm to rate control (594/2,033, 29.2%) was more frequent than the rate of crossover from rate to rhythm control (248/2,027, 12.2%, P < 0.0001). The leading reasons for crossover from rhythm to rate control were failure to achieve or maintain sinus rhythm (272/594, 45.8%) and intolerable adverse effects (122/594, 20.5%). In comparison, the major reasons for crossover from rate to rhythm control were failure to control atrial fibrillation symptoms (159/248, 64.1%) and intolerable adverse effects (9/248, 3.6%). This difference in crossover pattern was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). There was a significantly decreased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.78, P < 0.0001) and cardiac mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.88, P = 0.008) in the subgroup of patients who crossed over from rhythm to rate control as compared to those who continued in rhythm control. There was a nonsignificant trend toward decreased all-cause (adjusted HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.53-1.10, P = 0.14) and cardiac mortality (adjusted HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.42-1.18, P = 0.18) in patients who crossed over from rate to rhythm control as compared to those who continued rate control.
2.
Atenolol as a comparator in outcome trials in hypertension: a correct choice in the past, but not for the future?
Dahlöf, B, Devereux, RB, Kjeldsen, SE, Lyle, PA, Zhang, Z, Edelman, JM
Blood pressure. 2007;(1):6-12
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Twelve years after the design of the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, which showed superiority of losartan- vs atenolol-based therapy for cardiovascular outcomes, we reviewed the literature for the effect of beta-blockers compared with initial placebo or no treatment on reduction of cardiovascular events to re-evaluate atenolol as the comparator in the LIFE study. METHODS A literature search was conducted in September 2006 for randomized, controlled trials comparing beta-blockers with/without diuretics with placebo or no treatment in patients with hypertension and without recent cardiovascular morbidity. We calculated risk reductions for combined cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death, stroke, and coronary heart disease from groups of trials using atenolol first-line and all beta-blockers first-line. RESULTS Five studies met the criteria. Significant risk reductions for cardiovascular events and stroke occurred in groups receiving treatment with atenolol or all beta-blockers, and for cardiovascular death in the all beta-blocker analysis. In meta-analysis of beta-blocker vs placebo or no treatment trials, risk reductions were 19% for combined cardiovascular events (95% CI 0.73-0.91, p<0.001), 15% for cardiovascular death (0.73-0.99, p = 0.037), 32% for stroke (0.57-0.82, p<0.001), and 10% for coronary heart disease (0.78-1.04, p = 0.146). CONCLUSIONS Beta-blocker-based antihypertensive therapy significantly reduces cardiovascular risk in hypertension compared with placebo or no treatment. Atenolol was an appropriate comparator in the LIFE study. As the results of the LIFE study and other recent trials demonstrate superiority of newer agents over atenolol, this agent is not an appropriate reference drug for future trials of cardiovascular risk in hypertension.