Mullasari Ajit
Madras Medical Mission, Mogappair, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 300037, India.
Cardiol Ther. 2020 Dec;9(2):505-521. doi: 10.1007/s40119-020-00200-8. Epub 2020 Oct 1.
Dosing frequency is an important factor influencing medication compliance in patients with heart failure (HF), which in turn is imperative in achieving the desired therapeutic outcome. Here we assessed the efficacy and safety of ivabradine prolonged-release (PR) once-daily (test) vs. ivabradine immediate-release (IR) twice-daily (reference) formulations in patients with stable chronic HF with systolic dysfunction.
Patients with sinus rhythm and heart rate (HR) ≥ 50 bpm, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% (HF with reduced ejection fraction), on guideline-based standard care, receiving a stable dose of ivabradine IR 5/7.5 mg twice daily for ≥ 1 month were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority study. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to ivabradine PR (10 mg/15 mg) based on the ivabradine IR dosage or continued ivabradine IR (5 mg/7.5 mg). The primary endpoint was change in resting ECG HR from baseline to the end of 3 months, assessed by 12-lead ECG. Safety assessments and 24-h Holter HR monitoring (in a subgroup of patients) were also performed. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the test and reference was less than the margin of 6.5 bpm in the per-protocol set.
A total of 169 out of 180 randomized patients (93.9%) completed the study (PR = 84; IR = 85). The least-square mean (standard error [SE]) for change in HR from baseline to 3 months was 0.76 (1.188; 95% CI -1.59:3.11) in ivabradine PR vs. ivabradine IR, which was within the pre-specified margin of 6.5 bpm, confirming the non-inferiority of ivabradine PR. The change from baseline to 3 months was comparable between the treatment groups for 24-h Holter ECG monitoring (p = 0.3701), mean HR awake (p = 0.3423), and mean HR asleep (p = 0.1501). Thirty-nine treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported; the majority in both groups were of mild or moderate severity and were subsequently resolved. Seven serious adverse events were reported (ivabradine PR = 2; ivabradine IR = 5), of which one was fatal (ivabradine IR group). The bradycardia events reported were comparable between groups.
Ivabradine PR was found to be non-inferior to ivabradine IR in the management of patients with stable CHF, with a comparable safety profile. Once-daily ivabradine PR effectively maintained the HR in patients shifted from the ivabradine IR twice-daily regimen, and thus may aid in improving treatment compliance.
CTRI/2018/04/013464 (Trial Registered Prospectively on 24/04/2018).
给药频率是影响心力衰竭(HF)患者药物依从性的重要因素,而药物依从性对于实现预期治疗效果至关重要。在此,我们评估了缓释伊伐布雷定(PR)每日一次(试验组)与速释伊伐布雷定(IR)每日两次(对照组)制剂在稳定的慢性收缩功能不全HF患者中的疗效和安全性。
本随机、双盲、3期非劣效性研究纳入了窦性心律且心率(HR)≥50次/分钟、左心室射血分数≤40%(射血分数降低的HF)、接受基于指南的标准治疗、稳定剂量的伊伐布雷定IR 5/7.5毫克每日两次且持续≥1个月的患者。根据伊伐布雷定IR剂量,患者按1:1随机分配至伊伐布雷定PR(10毫克/15毫克)组或继续使用伊伐布雷定IR(5毫克/7.5毫克)组。主要终点是从基线到3个月末静息心电图HR的变化,通过12导联心电图评估。还进行了安全性评估和24小时动态心电图HR监测(在部分患者亚组中)。如果试验组与对照组之间差异的95%置信区间上限小于符合方案集6.5次/分钟的界值,则判定为非劣效。
180例随机分组患者中共有169例(93.9%)完成研究(PR组 = 84例;IR组 = 85例)。伊伐布雷定PR组与伊伐布雷定IR组相比,从基线到3个月HR变化的最小二乘均值(标准误[SE])为0.76(1.188;95%置信区间 -1.59:3.11),在预先设定的6.5次/分钟界值范围内,证实了伊伐布雷定PR的非劣效性。治疗组之间在24小时动态心电图监测(p = 0.3701)、清醒时平均HR(p = 0.3423)和睡眠时平均HR(p = 0.1501)方面,从基线到3个月的变化具有可比性。报告了39例治疗期间出现的不良事件(TEAE);两组中大多数为轻度或中度严重程度,随后均得到缓解。报告了7例严重不良事件(伊伐布雷定PR组 = 2例;伊伐布雷定IR组 = 5例),其中1例为致命事件(伊伐布雷定IR组)。两组报告的心动过缓事件具有可比性。
在稳定的CHF患者管理中,发现伊伐布雷定PR不劣于伊伐布雷定IR,且安全性相当。从每日两次伊伐布雷定IR方案转换过来的患者中,每日一次的伊伐布雷定PR有效维持了HR,因此可能有助于提高治疗依从性。
CTRI/2018/04/013464(于2018年4月24日前瞻性注册试验)