Johan Vanhaecke

BACKGROUND: Patients with systolic heart failure have generally been excluded from statin trials. Acute coronary events are uncommon in this population, and statins have theoretical risks in these patients. METHODS: A total of 5011 patients at least 60 years of age with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV ischemic, systolic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg of rosuvastatin or placebo per day. The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause, any coronary event, death from cardiovascular causes, and the number of hospitalizations. RESULTS: As compared with the placebo group, patients in the rosuvastatin group had decreased levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (difference between groups, 45.0%; P<0.001) and of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (difference between groups, 37.1%; P<0.001). During a median follow-up of 32.8 months, the primary outcome occurred in 692 patients in the rosuvastatin group and 732 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.02; P=0.12), and 728 patients and 759 patients, respectively, died (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.31). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the coronary outcome or death from cardiovascular causes. In a prespecified secondary analysis, there were fewer hospitalizations for cardiovascular causes in the rosuvastatin group (2193) than in the placebo group (2564) (P<0.001). No excessive episodes of muscle-related or other adverse events occurred in the rosuvastatin group. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin did not reduce the primary outcome or the number of deaths from any cause in older patients with systolic heart failure, although the drug did reduce the number of cardiovascular hospitalizations. The drug did not cause safety problems. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00206310.)

BACKGROUND: The association between oxidative modifications of LDL and coronary artery disease (CAD) is suspected but not established. Therefore, the association between plasma levels of oxidized LDL and malondialdehyde (MDA)-modified LDL and acute coronary syndromes and stable CAD was investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population contained 63 patients with acute coronary syndromes (45 with acute myocardial infarction and 18 with unstable angina pectoris), 35 nontransplanted patients with angiographically confirmed stable angina, 28 heart transplant patients with posttransplant CAD, 79 heart transplant patients without CAD, and 65 control subjects. After correction for age, sex, and LDL and HDL cholesterol, plasma levels of oxidized LDL and MDA-modified LDL were significantly higher in patients with CAD than in individuals without CAD (r2=0.57 and r2=0.26, respectively; both P=0.0001). Plasma levels of MDA-modified LDL were significantly higher in patients with acute coronary syndromes than in individuals with stable CAD (r2=0.65; P=0.0001) and were associated with increased levels of troponin I and C-reactive protein (r2=0.39 and r2=0.34, respectively; both P=0.0001). Plasma levels of oxidized LDL were not associated with increased levels of troponin I and C-reactive protein (r2=0.089 and r2=0.063, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated plasma levels of oxidized LDL are associated with CAD. Elevated plasma levels of MDA-modified LDL suggest plaque instability and may be useful for the identification of patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

One-year graft and patient survival are better in adolescent transplant recipients (age 11-19 years) than in younger (age < 11 years) pediatric transplant recipients. However, several groups found that long-term outcomes (> i.e. 5 year post-transplant) in the adolescent age group are significantly worse than in younger transplant recipients. A behavioral factor that could explain an important part of the poorer clinical outcome in adolescent transplant recipients is non-compliance with medication taking. Adolescents, like all organ transplant recipients irrespective of their age, must adhere to a life-long immunosuppressive regimen in addition to other aspects of their therapeutic regimen. Therefore, adolescent transplant recipients, as all transplant patients, should be regarded as a chronically ill patient population in whom behavioral and psychosocial management is equally important as state-of-the-art medical management. This paper provides an overview of the current knowledge on prevalence, clinical consequences, and risk-factors for non-compliance with the immunosuppressive regimen in adolescent transplant recipients and offers some suggestions for adolescent-tailored interventions to improve medication adherence.