Adherence With Once Daily Versus Twice Daily Carvedilol in Patients With Heart Failure: The Compliance and Quality of Life Study Comparing Once-Daily Controlled-Release Carvedilol CR and Twice-Daily I

J Card Fail. 2009 Jun; 15(5): 385-393Udelson JE, Pressler SJ, Sackner-Bernstein J, Massaro J, Ordronneau P, Lukas MA, Hauptman PJ, BACKGROUND: Suboptimal compliance in taking guideline-based pharmacotherapy in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) potentially increases the burden of hospitalizations and diminishes quality of life. By simplifying the medical regimen, once-daily dosing can potentially improve compliance. The Compliance And Quality of Life Study Comparing Once-Daily Controlled-Release Carvedilol CR and Twice-Daily Immediate-Release Carvedilol IR in Patients with Heart Failure (CASPER) Trial was designed to measure differential compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life in chronic HF patients taking carvedilol immediate release (IR) twice daily versus the bioequivalent carvedilol controlled-release (CR) once daily. METHODS AND RESULTS: CASPER was a prospective multicenter, 3-arm, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial for a 5-month period. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate and compare compliance with carvedilol IR twice daily (BID) and carvedilol phosphate CR once daily (QD) in patients with chronic HF who were taking carvedilol IR. Secondary objectives included comparisons of quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire), satisfaction with medication, and brain natriuretic peptide levels between subjects taking the two formulations. A total of 405 patients with chronic HF and left ventricular dysfunction were randomized to: (A) carvedilol IR twice daily, given double blind; (B) carvedilol CR taken in the morning and placebo in the afternoon, given double blind; or (C) carvedilol CR once daily, open label. Compliance was measured using the medication event monitoring system that captures time of bottle opening. The primary end point was a comparison of taking compliance (doses taken divided by total number of prescribed doses over the actual duration of the study) between the double-blind carvedilol IR BID versus the open-label carvedilol CR QD groups. Sample size estimates were based on assumptions of 75% compliance with BID dosing and 90% compliance with QD dosing. Mean compliance with carvedilol IR BID was 89.3% compared with 88.2% for carvedilol CR QD, and differential mean compliance was 1.1% (95% CI -4.4%, 6.6%; ie, not significant). There were no statistically significant differences in compliance between any of the 3 groups, nor differences in quality of life, treatment satisfaction, or physiologic measures among the 3 study arms. There were also no significant differences in adverse events or side effects among patients switching from carvedilol IR to carvedilol CR in arms B or C over the 5-month study duration compared with patients remaining on carvedilol IR. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance among chronic HF patients in the CASPER trial was high at baseline and unaffected by QD versus BID dosing. Over the 5-month follow-up period, there were no differences in adverse events among patients switching from carvedilol IR to CR.