Ethnic differences - intrinsic and extrinsic factors
Ethnic differences - intrinsic and extrinsic factors
Ethnic differences - intrinsic and extrinsic factors
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Study populations - <strong>Ethnic</strong> <strong>differences</strong> –<br />
<strong>intrinsic</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>extrinsic</strong> <strong>factors</strong>.<br />
What impact in Heart Failure outcome<br />
trials ?<br />
Faiez Zannad<br />
CIC-INSERM, U 961<br />
Hypertension <strong>and</strong> Heart Failure Division<br />
department of Cardiology,<br />
University hospital of Nancy, France<br />
DGOS
Disclosures<br />
Faiez Zannad<br />
• Research Grants<br />
• BG Medicine<br />
• Roche Diagnostics<br />
• Consultancy<br />
• Novartis, Resmed, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Takeda,<br />
Servier, Boehringer, Bayer, Relypsa, J&J.
Pitt B et al. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 709-717<br />
3<br />
RALES<br />
Only one HF clinical trial that Japan has ever participated.<br />
However, the number of enrolled patients was as few as 14.<br />
1,663 patients were r<strong>and</strong>omized from 15 countries
China<br />
Variations by Etiology<br />
Rheumatic heart disease 19%<br />
IHD 46%<br />
Dilated cardiomyopathies 8%<br />
Hypertensive 13%<br />
Congenital heart dis. 3%<br />
Other CVD 7%<br />
Based on nationwide survey of 10,000<br />
patients admitted for heart failure in China,<br />
Year 2000<br />
Zhengming Chen (HF Trialists 2009)
Patterns of hospital treatment for heart<br />
failure in China, 2000<br />
Diuretics 19%<br />
Digitalis 40%<br />
Nitrate 53%<br />
Ca ++ antagonists 10%<br />
β-blocker 19%<br />
ACE-I 40%<br />
ARB 4%<br />
Aldoseterone antagonists 20%<br />
Dopamine 14%<br />
Zhengming Chen (HF Trialists 2009)
India - Mortality by<br />
socio-economic strata<br />
Rich Upr mid Lowr mid Poor P<br />
Death rate<br />
(un-adj)<br />
5.5 5.9 6.5 8.2
Comparison of Trials <strong>and</strong> Registries<br />
OPTIMIZE<br />
N=48,612<br />
ADHERE<br />
N=105,388<br />
Mean age 73.1 (14.2) 72.6 (13.9) 71<br />
% African<br />
American<br />
18% 20%<br />
% Male 48% 48% 53%<br />
Mean LVEF 39 (17.6) 34.4 (16.1)<br />
EuroHeart Failure<br />
Survey (overall)<br />
N=10,701<br />
CAD 50% 57%<br />
HTN 71% 73% 53%<br />
DM 42% 44% 27%<br />
Renal<br />
insufficiency<br />
Atrial<br />
fibrillation<br />
20% 30% 17%<br />
31% 31% 42%
Clinical Outcomes: Registries <strong>and</strong><br />
Trials<br />
OPTIMIZE-<br />
HF<br />
ADHERE<br />
EuroHeart<br />
Failure<br />
Survey<br />
Length of Stay, Median (days) 4 (3,7) 4.1 11<br />
In-Hospital Mortality (%) 1,834 (3.8) 4.0<br />
739<br />
(6.9%)<br />
60- to 90-Day Readmission Rate<br />
(%)<br />
60- to 90-Day Mortality Rate (%)<br />
(includes in-hospital deaths)<br />
1,715 (29.6) NA<br />
571 (9.9) NA<br />
24.2%<br />
(90-day)<br />
1408<br />
(13.5%)
Regional <strong>differences</strong> of specific<br />
complications in Diabetes in ADVANCE.<br />
Clarke PM et al Plos Medicine 2010
Contributions of specific complications to<br />
total hospital use during the ADVANCE<br />
study, in Diabetes, by region.<br />
Clarke PM et al Plos Medicine 2010
Heart failure event rate/year<br />
Asia: 0.4<br />
Europe + NZ: 1.0%
Efficacy of Vasopressin antagonism<br />
in hEart failuRE: outcome Study with<br />
Tolvaptan (EVEREST)
EVEREST<br />
Key Entry Criteria<br />
Inclusions<br />
• Hospitalization for HF 1+)<br />
– Dyspnea<br />
Exclusions<br />
• Recent or planned revascularization or device implant<br />
• STEMI during hospitalization<br />
• Systolic BP 3.5 mg%; K >5.5 mEq/L; Hgb
EVEREST<br />
Different clinical background<br />
15<br />
Blair JE, Zannad F, Konstam MA, et al. JACC. 2008;52(20):1640-8<br />
J E Blair et al. JACC 2008
Etiology in Brazil : Chagas disease<br />
Probability of survival relative to the etiology of HF<br />
Freitas HFG. Int J Cardiol 2005;102:239-247.
EVEREST<br />
Different comorbidities<br />
17<br />
Blair JE, Zannad F, Konstam MA, et al. JACC. 2008;52(20):1640-8<br />
J E Blair et al. JACC 2008
EVEREST<br />
Different severity<br />
Blair JE, Zannad F, Konstam MA, et al. JACC. 2008;52(20):1640-8<br />
18 J E Blair et al. JACC 2008
EVEREST<br />
Different treatment<br />
19<br />
Blair JE, Zannad F, Konstam MA, et al. JACC. 2008;52(20):1640-8<br />
J E Blair et al. JACC 2008
EVEREST: ALL Cause Mortality<br />
Blair JE, Zannad F, Konstam MA, et al. JACC. 2008;52(20):1640-8
EVEREST:<br />
CV Death + HF Hospitalozation<br />
Blair JE, Zannad F, Konstam MA, et al. JACC. 2008;52(20):1640-8
EVEREST<br />
Cumulative mortality (24 month FU) vs. North America<br />
after adjustment for baseline <strong>differences</strong><br />
Overall mortality<br />
CVD + hospitalization<br />
South America<br />
South Americans die<br />
more<br />
Western Europe<br />
Eastern Europe<br />
0 1.0 1.5 2.0<br />
HR (0.95% CI)<br />
0 1.0 1.5 2.0<br />
HR (0.95% CI)<br />
Eastern<br />
Europeans<br />
hospitalized<br />
less<br />
22<br />
Blair JE, Zannad F, Konstam MA, et al. JACC. 2008;52(20):1640-8
International <strong>differences</strong> in LOS <strong>and</strong> 30-day all-cause<br />
readmission rates (ASCEND)<br />
among patients discharged alive <strong>and</strong> LOS
International <strong>differences</strong> in LOS <strong>and</strong> 30-day all-cause<br />
readmission rates (ASCEND)<br />
among patients discharged alive <strong>and</strong> LOS
Relationship between initial LOS <strong>and</strong> 30-day<br />
readmission (ASCEND)<br />
Level of<br />
hierarchical<br />
model<br />
Patient<br />
Site<br />
Country<br />
Effect<br />
All-cause<br />
readmissions<br />
Pt<br />
estimate<br />
95% CI<br />
P-<br />
value<br />
0.975 0.956 0.995 0.015<br />
HF Readmissions 0.951 0.924 0.980 0.001<br />
All-cause<br />
readmissions<br />
0.934 0.884 0.985 0.013<br />
HF Readmissions 0.902 0.838 0.971 0.006<br />
All-cause<br />
readmissions<br />
0.849 0.749 0.963 0.013<br />
HF Readmissions 0.796 0.669 0.946 0.012
Relationship between initial LOS <strong>and</strong> 30-day<br />
readmission – US vs OUS (ASCEND)<br />
Level of<br />
hierarchical<br />
model<br />
Country<br />
US only<br />
Effect<br />
All-cause<br />
readmissions<br />
Pt<br />
estimate<br />
95% CI p-value<br />
0.849 0.749 0.963 0.013<br />
HF Readmissions 0.796 0.669 0.946 0.012<br />
All-cause<br />
readmissions<br />
0.915 0.842 0.990 0.034<br />
HF Readmissions 0.867 0.773 0.971 0.014
•America vs. EU<br />
•No difference in death rate.<br />
• Higher All cause hospitalizations (non CV hosp),<br />
• Persisted even after adjustment for baseline imbalance<br />
Pitt B; Zannad F; Gheorghiade M, et al., Int J Cardiol.,2009
Pitt B; Zannad F; Gheorghiade M, et al., Int J Cardiol.,2009<br />
Subgroup analyses based on regions have<br />
rarely changed the main results of HF trials<br />
(No interaction found)<br />
Subgroup analysis based on regions<br />
No change in the main results (No interaction found)<br />
EPHESUS
Baseline Characterístics<br />
Europe<br />
R o W<br />
Age (y) 64.7 60.1<br />
Men % 76 76<br />
IHD % 68 67<br />
NYHA II, % 49 49<br />
NYHA III/IV, % 51 51<br />
AMI % 56 56<br />
Diabetes, % 36 31<br />
Hypertension, % 67 66
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov<br />
Subgroup analysis based on regions<br />
Important change in the main results (interaction found)<br />
MERIT-HF The FDA sub-analysis<br />
All cause Death<br />
Death + Hosp Death + HF Hosp
Survival analysis of beta-blocker trials by US<br />
vs. non-US enrollment<br />
O’Connor et al, ACC 2010
Massie B. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011; 58:923-924<br />
“The provocative major finding of the analysis is<br />
that there appears to be a lesser survival benefit of<br />
BB that were studied in North American patients<br />
than in patients enrolled in the rest of the world”<br />
“However, most important, one cannot exclude the<br />
play of chance in these findings”
Exon 7 NOS3 in afro-american (AA) pts<br />
A-HeFT <strong>and</strong> GRACE registry<br />
NOS3<br />
exon 7<br />
GRACE<br />
Non-AA<br />
GRACE<br />
A-A<br />
A-<br />
HeFT<br />
Asp-Asp<br />
(%)<br />
Asp-Glu<br />
(%)<br />
Glu-Glu<br />
(%)<br />
14 2 1<br />
45 31 20<br />
41 67 79<br />
Taylor A et al , Circulation 2007<br />
McNamara DM et al. Journal of<br />
Cardiac Failure Vol. 15 No. 3 2009
Endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene<br />
polymorphisms<br />
+1<br />
26 exons<br />
-1468 -922 -786 intron 4a/b exon 7 intron 13 intron 18 intron 23<br />
(Т/А) (A/G) (T/C) (27 bp repeat) (G894T) (CA repeat) (A/C) (G/T)<br />
(more than 15 polymorphisms have been identify in eNOS gene)<br />
‣ Т-786С polymorphism in eNOS gene promoter<br />
‣ 27-base pair (bp) repeat polymorphism in intron 4<br />
‣ G894T (Glu 298 Asp) polymorphism in exon 7
The frequency of CC genotype of eNOS gene<br />
promoter in different populations (controls)<br />
%<br />
20<br />
16<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
Italy UK Spaine France Canada Ukraine Japan<br />
*<br />
1. Colombo MG, et al. // Clin. Chem. (2003)Vol. 49. – P.389-395; 2. Jeerooburkhan N, et al.// Hypertension.(2001)Vol. 38. – P. 1054-1061;<br />
3. Alvarez R., et al. // Nitric Oxide.( 2001)Vol.5, N4. - P.343-348; 4. Poirier O, et al.// Eur. J. Clin. Invest.(1999) Vol. 29. – P.284–290;<br />
5. Hyndman ME, et al.// Hypertension. (200)Vol. 39. – P. 919-925; 6. Iwai N, et al. // Circulation. (1999)Vol. 100. – P.2231-2236.
The a 2C<br />
Del322-325 <strong>and</strong> b 1<br />
Arg389<br />
receptors act synergistically to increase<br />
the risk of heart failure in blacks<br />
Small, K. et al. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1135-1142
BEST<br />
Therapeutic response (CV Mortality) to bucindolol<br />
was strongly influenced by 2C receptor genotype.<br />
Bucindolol A2<br />
Placebo A2<br />
Bristow, M et al. Circ Heart Fail. 2010;3:21-28.
Conclusions<br />
• Despite relatively strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, patient<br />
populations remained heterogeneous among regions in<br />
– Patient baseline characteristics,<br />
– Therapies, <strong>and</strong> medications<br />
– <strong>and</strong> also in outcome.<br />
• Differences are most likely related to varying<br />
– HF epidemiology, etiology, socio economic status<br />
– health care systems, access to health resources<br />
• Rather than regional <strong>differences</strong>, genetic variations may<br />
be more relevant
Conclusions<br />
• Globalization of trials is a necessity<br />
• Regional <strong>differences</strong> should not play against<br />
globalization of clinical trials<br />
• Subgroup analyses based on regions have<br />
rarely changed the main results of HF trials (No<br />
interaction found)<br />
• Balance among regions represented in a trial is<br />
important in order to avoid over-representation<br />
of a region <strong>and</strong> interpretation bias.