Key result
New pharmacological treatments for chronic systolic heart failure have yielded weak or disappointing results in recent trials despite compelling theoretical premises.
Why the study?
Do new pharmacological treatments improve the prognosis of patients with chronic systolic heart failure?
Do new pharmacological treatments improve the prognosis of patients with chronic systolic heart failure?
This review highlights that despite theoretical promise, recent pharmacological trials for chronic systolic heart failure have yielded disappointing results, underscoring the need for novel therapeutic strategies.
Disappointing trial results reinforce reliance on established therapies for systolic HF; leaves open discovery of effective new agents.
Heart failure is a major health problem and its prevalence is growing, primarily as a consequence of the aging of the population. Recently, we have witnessed significant progress in reducing the mortality associated with chronic heart failure due to the introduction of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, beta-blocking agents and the use of electrical devices. However, the prognosis of heart failure is still so disappointing that it remains the leading cause of death in developed countries. This grim record impels the search for new therapeutic strategies. The objective of this paper is to briefly review the results of some recent trials that have been put in place to test the effects of drugs that are deemed to be potentially capable of improving the prognosis of chronic systolic heart failure patients. Despite compelling theoretical premises, the results to date appear to be weak or even disappointing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abate et al. (2010) conducted a review in chronic systolic heart failure. Pharmacological treatments was evaluated. New pharmacological treatments for chronic systolic heart failure have yielded weak or disappointing results in recent trials despite compelling theoretical premises.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: