A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Lisinopril and Losartan for the Treatment of Cardiomyopathy in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

Hugh D. Allen, Kevin M. Flanigan, Philip T. Thrush, Igor Dvorchik, Han Yin, Charles Canter, Anne M. Connolly, Mark D Parrish, Craig M McDonald, Elizabeth Braunlin, Steven D. Colan, John Day, Basil Darras, Jerry R. Mendell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) (lisinopril) vs. an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (losartan) for the treatment of cardiomyopathy (CM) in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Background: Development of CM is universal in boys with DMD. ACE-I and ARB have both been suggested as effective treatment options. ARBs have been associated with skeletal muscle regeneration in a mouse model of DMD. The question of which, if either, is more effective for CM treatment in DMD remains. The purpose of this multicenter double-blind prospective study was to compare efficacy and safety of lisinopril versus losartan in the treatment of newly diagnosed CM in boys with DMD. Methods: Echocardiographic technician inter- and intraobserver variability were tested on 2 separate days on 2 different boys with DMD CM. Results were compared with paired t-testing. Twenty-two boys with newly diagnosed DMD CM (echocardiographic ejection fraction (EF) 10% EF drop. Three boys in the aCE-I group had 3 visits, due to study funding termination. Two were withdrawn because of low EF. All their data are included in the analysis for as long as they remained in the study. Mean EF's were similar at baseline (47.5%- ACE-I, 48.4%- ARB). After 1 year each group significantly improved to 54.6% and 55.2% respectively (p=.02). There was no difference between the 2 treatment groups at 1 year. Conclusions: Inter-observer and intra-observer reliability studies showed no differences between echocardiographers on serial examinations. EF improved equally in the two groups. There is no therapeutic difference in EF improvement between lisinopril and losartan over the one-year duration for treatment of boys with DMD-related CM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01982695.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberecurrents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865
JournalPLoS Currents
Issue numberDEC
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Lisinopril
Losartan
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Cardiomyopathies
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors
Therapeutics
Safety
Observer Variation
Double-Blind Method
Regeneration
Skeletal Muscle
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Allen, H. D., Flanigan, K. M., Thrush, P. T., Dvorchik, I., Yin, H., Canter, C., ... Mendell, J. R. (2013). A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Lisinopril and Losartan for the Treatment of Cardiomyopathy in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. PLoS Currents, (DEC), [ecurrents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865]. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865

A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Lisinopril and Losartan for the Treatment of Cardiomyopathy in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. / Allen, Hugh D.; Flanigan, Kevin M.; Thrush, Philip T.; Dvorchik, Igor; Yin, Han; Canter, Charles; Connolly, Anne M.; Parrish, Mark D; McDonald, Craig M; Braunlin, Elizabeth; Colan, Steven D.; Day, John; Darras, Basil; Mendell, Jerry R.

In: PLoS Currents, No. DEC, ecurrents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865, 2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Allen, HD, Flanigan, KM, Thrush, PT, Dvorchik, I, Yin, H, Canter, C, Connolly, AM, Parrish, MD, McDonald, CM, Braunlin, E, Colan, SD, Day, J, Darras, B & Mendell, JR 2013, 'A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Lisinopril and Losartan for the Treatment of Cardiomyopathy in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy', PLoS Currents, no. DEC, ecurrents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865
Allen, Hugh D. ; Flanigan, Kevin M. ; Thrush, Philip T. ; Dvorchik, Igor ; Yin, Han ; Canter, Charles ; Connolly, Anne M. ; Parrish, Mark D ; McDonald, Craig M ; Braunlin, Elizabeth ; Colan, Steven D. ; Day, John ; Darras, Basil ; Mendell, Jerry R. / A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Lisinopril and Losartan for the Treatment of Cardiomyopathy in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. In: PLoS Currents. 2013 ; No. DEC.
@article{a7bad54d35004a23a2cff1f52580da59,
title = "A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Lisinopril and Losartan for the Treatment of Cardiomyopathy in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy",
abstract = "Objectives: This study sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) (lisinopril) vs. an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (losartan) for the treatment of cardiomyopathy (CM) in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Background: Development of CM is universal in boys with DMD. ACE-I and ARB have both been suggested as effective treatment options. ARBs have been associated with skeletal muscle regeneration in a mouse model of DMD. The question of which, if either, is more effective for CM treatment in DMD remains. The purpose of this multicenter double-blind prospective study was to compare efficacy and safety of lisinopril versus losartan in the treatment of newly diagnosed CM in boys with DMD. Methods: Echocardiographic technician inter- and intraobserver variability were tested on 2 separate days on 2 different boys with DMD CM. Results were compared with paired t-testing. Twenty-two boys with newly diagnosed DMD CM (echocardiographic ejection fraction (EF) 10{\%} EF drop. Three boys in the aCE-I group had 3 visits, due to study funding termination. Two were withdrawn because of low EF. All their data are included in the analysis for as long as they remained in the study. Mean EF's were similar at baseline (47.5{\%}- ACE-I, 48.4{\%}- ARB). After 1 year each group significantly improved to 54.6{\%} and 55.2{\%} respectively (p=.02). There was no difference between the 2 treatment groups at 1 year. Conclusions: Inter-observer and intra-observer reliability studies showed no differences between echocardiographers on serial examinations. EF improved equally in the two groups. There is no therapeutic difference in EF improvement between lisinopril and losartan over the one-year duration for treatment of boys with DMD-related CM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01982695.",
author = "Allen, {Hugh D.} and Flanigan, {Kevin M.} and Thrush, {Philip T.} and Igor Dvorchik and Han Yin and Charles Canter and Connolly, {Anne M.} and Parrish, {Mark D} and McDonald, {Craig M} and Elizabeth Braunlin and Colan, {Steven D.} and John Day and Basil Darras and Mendell, {Jerry R.}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1371/currents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "PLoS Currents",
issn = "2157-3999",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "DEC",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Lisinopril and Losartan for the Treatment of Cardiomyopathy in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

AU - Allen, Hugh D.

AU - Flanigan, Kevin M.

AU - Thrush, Philip T.

AU - Dvorchik, Igor

AU - Yin, Han

AU - Canter, Charles

AU - Connolly, Anne M.

AU - Parrish, Mark D

AU - McDonald, Craig M

AU - Braunlin, Elizabeth

AU - Colan, Steven D.

AU - Day, John

AU - Darras, Basil

AU - Mendell, Jerry R.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Objectives: This study sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) (lisinopril) vs. an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (losartan) for the treatment of cardiomyopathy (CM) in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Background: Development of CM is universal in boys with DMD. ACE-I and ARB have both been suggested as effective treatment options. ARBs have been associated with skeletal muscle regeneration in a mouse model of DMD. The question of which, if either, is more effective for CM treatment in DMD remains. The purpose of this multicenter double-blind prospective study was to compare efficacy and safety of lisinopril versus losartan in the treatment of newly diagnosed CM in boys with DMD. Methods: Echocardiographic technician inter- and intraobserver variability were tested on 2 separate days on 2 different boys with DMD CM. Results were compared with paired t-testing. Twenty-two boys with newly diagnosed DMD CM (echocardiographic ejection fraction (EF) 10% EF drop. Three boys in the aCE-I group had 3 visits, due to study funding termination. Two were withdrawn because of low EF. All their data are included in the analysis for as long as they remained in the study. Mean EF's were similar at baseline (47.5%- ACE-I, 48.4%- ARB). After 1 year each group significantly improved to 54.6% and 55.2% respectively (p=.02). There was no difference between the 2 treatment groups at 1 year. Conclusions: Inter-observer and intra-observer reliability studies showed no differences between echocardiographers on serial examinations. EF improved equally in the two groups. There is no therapeutic difference in EF improvement between lisinopril and losartan over the one-year duration for treatment of boys with DMD-related CM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01982695.

AB - Objectives: This study sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) (lisinopril) vs. an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (losartan) for the treatment of cardiomyopathy (CM) in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Background: Development of CM is universal in boys with DMD. ACE-I and ARB have both been suggested as effective treatment options. ARBs have been associated with skeletal muscle regeneration in a mouse model of DMD. The question of which, if either, is more effective for CM treatment in DMD remains. The purpose of this multicenter double-blind prospective study was to compare efficacy and safety of lisinopril versus losartan in the treatment of newly diagnosed CM in boys with DMD. Methods: Echocardiographic technician inter- and intraobserver variability were tested on 2 separate days on 2 different boys with DMD CM. Results were compared with paired t-testing. Twenty-two boys with newly diagnosed DMD CM (echocardiographic ejection fraction (EF) 10% EF drop. Three boys in the aCE-I group had 3 visits, due to study funding termination. Two were withdrawn because of low EF. All their data are included in the analysis for as long as they remained in the study. Mean EF's were similar at baseline (47.5%- ACE-I, 48.4%- ARB). After 1 year each group significantly improved to 54.6% and 55.2% respectively (p=.02). There was no difference between the 2 treatment groups at 1 year. Conclusions: Inter-observer and intra-observer reliability studies showed no differences between echocardiographers on serial examinations. EF improved equally in the two groups. There is no therapeutic difference in EF improvement between lisinopril and losartan over the one-year duration for treatment of boys with DMD-related CM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01982695.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84901762941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84901762941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/currents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865

DO - 10.1371/currents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865

M3 - Article

JO - PLoS Currents

JF - PLoS Currents

SN - 2157-3999

IS - DEC

M1 - ecurrents.md.2cc69a1dae4be7dfe2bcb420024ea865

ER -