Renin inhibitors versus angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for primary hypertension

Renin inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Renin inhibitors, which inhibit the first and rate-limiting step in the renin angiotensin system (RAS), are thought to be more effective than other RAS inhibitors in blocking the RAS. Previous meta-analyses have shown that renin inhibitors have a favourable tolerability profile in people with mild-to-moderate hypertension and a blood-pressure-lowering magnitude that is similar to that of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). ARBs inhibit the RAS by interfering with the binding of angiotensin II with its receptors. ARBs are widely prescribed and recommended as first-line therapy by some hypertension guidelines. However, a drug's efficacy in lowering blood pressure cannot be considered as a definitive indicator of its effectiveness in reducing mortality and morbidity. The benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to ARBs in treating hypertension are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to angiotensin receptor blockers in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

On 26 January 2024, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials: Cochrane Hypertension's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) were also searched for ongoing trials. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the bibliographies of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, parallel-design clinical trials comparing renin inhibitors and ARBs for people with primary hypertension. Studies recruiting people with proven secondary hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias using the RoB 1 tool, and entered the data for analysis. We reported dichotomous outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and continuous variables as mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, total cardiovascular events, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAE), serious adverse events (SAE), and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal heart failure or hospitalisation for heart failure, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), and heart rate. We used the GRADE approach to rate our confidence in the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 double-blind RCTs involving 6780 participants with mild primary hypertension and without cardiovascular complications (mean age range 52 to 59 years), with a mean follow-up ranging from four weeks to nine months. Risk of bias was low or unclear for most domains except for other bias, which was high risk for 10 of the 11 trials due to industry funding. All the studies compared aliskiren, the only marketed molecule in the class of renin inhibitors, with an ARB. The ARB comparator was losartan in four trials, valsartan in three trials, irbesartan in three trials, and telmisartan in one trial. There were very limited or no data on cardiovascular outcomes and ESRD. There may be little to no difference between renin inhibitors and ARBs in all-cause mortality (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.64; 3 studies, 1932 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little to no difference between renin inhibitors and ARBs in WDAE (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.02; 9 studies, 4634 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), SAE (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.27; 6 studies, 3283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; 10 studies, 4722 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little to no difference between renin inhibitors and ARBs in lowering SBP (MD -0.25 mmHg, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.56; 10 studies, 4222 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and there may be little to no difference in lowering DBP (MD 0.25 mmHg, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.64; 10 studies, 4222 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available RCT evidence suggests little to no difference between renin inhibitors and ARBs in terms of mortality, SAE, WDAE, adverse events, and blood pressure in people with mild primary hypertension. The evidence was derived from short-term trials with a limited occurrence of morbidity outcomes, leaving any potential differences unknown. Larger RCTs of longer duration with a wider range of participants and a focus on cardiovascular outcomes are needed.

Antihypertensive effect of sinapine extracted from rapeseed meal in 2K1C hypertensive rats

To extract sinapine from rapeseed meal and investigate its antihypertensive function and mechanism. Blood pressure was measured before and after sinapine administration to evaluate sinapine's immediate antihypertensive function. Twokidney, oneclip (2K1C) hypertensive rats were given sinapine for four weeks, with weekly blood pressure monitoring. The renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS), including the levels of renin, angiotensin I (Ang I), angiotensin II (Ang II), aldosterone (ALD), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and other molecules related to blood pressure, such as NO, prostacyclin (PGI2), endothelin-1 (ET1), and thromboxane A2 (TXA2), were measured in rat blood. The impact of sinapine on vascular endothelial cell (A10) calcium and potassium channels was assessed using the patch-clamp technique. One-time or long-term administration of sinapine significantly reduced the rats' systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic pressure (DBP), and mean blood pressure (MBP). Sinapine also decreased the levels of Ang II and ALD. Furthermore, sinapine effectively inhibited ACE activation, increased NO levels, and blocked L-type calcium channels. Sinapine has an antihypertensive function and achieves this process through multiple targets.

Evaluation of RMES, an Automated Software Tool Utilizing AI, for Literature Screening with Reference to Published Systematic Reviews as Case-Studies: Development and Usability Study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important to evidence-based medicine, but the information retrieval and literature screening procedures are burdensome tasks. Rapid Medical Evidence Synthesis (RMES; Deloitte Tohmatsu Risk Advisory LLC) is a software designed to support information retrieval, literature screening, and data extraction for evidence-based medicine.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of RMES for literature screening with reference to published systematic reviews.

METHODS

We used RMES to automatically screen the titles and abstracts of PubMed-indexed articles included in 12 systematic reviews across 6 medical fields, by applying 4 filters: (1) study type; (2) study type + disease; (3) study type + intervention; and (4) study type + disease + intervention. We determined the numbers of articles correctly included by each filter relative to those included by the authors of each systematic review. Only PubMed-indexed articles were assessed.

RESULTS

Across the 12 reviews, the number of articles analyzed by RMES ranged from 46 to 5612. The number of PubMed-cited articles included in the reviews ranged from 4 to 47. The median (range) percentage of articles correctly labeled by RMES using filters 1-4 were: 80.9% (57.1%-100%), 65.2% (34.1%-81.8%), 70.5% (0%-100%), and 58.6% (0%-81.8%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated good performance and accuracy of RMES for the initial screening of the titles and abstracts of articles for use in systematic reviews. RMES has the potential to reduce the workload involved in the initial screening of published studies.

Association between serum cholinesterase and the prevalence of atrial fibrillation in Chinese hypertensive population: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a very common arrhythmia with significant incidence rate and mortality. Several studies have shown a notable correlation between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and AF. It has been observed that serum cholinesterase (SChE) levels are elevated in individuals with fatty liver. However, the relationship between the SChE index and AF is still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the association between the SChE index and the prevalence of AF in patients with hypertension.

METHOD

We collected cross-sectional data from January 2018 to April 2021 based on a retrospective study of cardiovascular disease. A total of 748 patients with hypertension were included, of whom 165 had AF. We used logistic regression models to test the relationship between SChE and the prevalence of AF in hypertensive patients.

RESULT

In hypertensive patients, the SChE index was significantly associated with AF (OR = 0.723, P < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounding factors, this correlation was still significant (OR = 0.778, P < 0.001). The stability of the model was verified by adjusting the variable type of SChE. The data were further stratified according to whether the patient had fatty liver. In the stratified data, the correlation between SChE and atrial fibrillation was still significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that SChE was significantly negatively correlated with the occurrence of AF in patients with hypertension. And this correlation was not affected by whether the patient had fatty liver.

Pathophysiology of Hypertension: The Mosaic Theory and Beyond

Dr Irvine Page proposed the Mosaic Theory of Hypertension in the 1940s advocating that hypertension is the result of many factors that interact to raise blood pressure and cause end-organ damage. Over the years, Dr Page modified his paradigm, and new concepts regarding oxidative stress, inflammation, genetics, sodium homeostasis, and the microbiome have arisen that allow further refinements of the Mosaic Theory. A constant feature of this approach to understanding hypertension is that the various nodes are interdependent and that these almost certainly vary between experimental models and between individuals with hypertension. This review discusses these new concepts and provides an introduction to other reviews in this compendium of Circulation Research.

Renin inhibitors versus angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Renin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. However, a drug's efficacy in lowering blood pressure cannot be considered as a definitive indicator of its effectiveness in reducing mortality and morbidity. The effectiveness and safety of RIs compared to ACE inhibitors in treating hypertension is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to August 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least four weeks follow-up in people with primary hypertension, which compared renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors and reported morbidity, mortality, adverse events or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 11 RCTs involving 13,627 participants, with a mean baseline age from 51.5 to 74.2 years. Follow-up duration ranged from four weeks to 36.6 months. There was no difference between RIs and ACE inhibitors for the outcomes: all-cause mortality: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.18; 5 RCTs, 5962 participants; low-certainty evidence; total myocardial infarction: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.39; 2 RCTs, 957 participants; very low-certainty evidence; adverse events: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants;  moderate-certainty evidence; serious adverse events: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.64; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; low-certainty evidence; and withdrawal due to adverse effects: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.06; 10 RTCs, 6008 participants; low-certainty evidence. No data were available for total cardiovascular events, heart failure, stroke, end-stage renal disease or change in heart rate. Low-certainty evidence suggested that RIs reduced systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -1.72, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.97; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants;  and diastolic blood pressure: MD -1.18, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.72; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants,  to a greater extent than ACE inhibitors, but we judged this to be more likely due to bias than a true effect.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of hypertension, we have low certainty that renin inhibitors (RI) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors do not differ for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. We have low to moderate certainty that they do not differ for adverse events. Small reductions in blood pressure with renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors are of low certainty.  More independent, large, long-term trials are needed to compare RIs with ACE inhibitors, particularly assessing morbidity and mortality outcomes, but also on blood pressure-lowering effect.