The Quinapril Ischemic Event Trial (QUIET): evaluation of chronic ace inhibitor therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function

The ABCs of the 2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline for the management of patients with chronic coronary disease

BACKGROUND

The 2023 Multisociety Guideline for the Management of Chronic Coronary Disease (CCD) updates recommendations for CCD, formerly known as "stable ischemic heart disease." This condition encompasses a spectrum of coronary vascular pathologies from subclinical to clinical ischemic heart disease.

HYPOTHESIS

The new "ABC" mnemonic offers clinicians a streamlined framework for applying Class One Recommendations (COR1) and integrating recent updates into CCD management.

METHODS

A critical analysis of the 2023 CCD guidelines was conducted, with this review highlighting key elements.

RESULTS

The review outlines crucial changes, including novel recommendations supported by current clinical evidence. The focus is on these developments, clarifying their importance for day-to-day clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The review encourages a synergistic approach between primary healthcare providers and cardiologists to develop comprehensive strategies for lifestyle modification and medication therapy in CCD care. Furthermore, it suggests that utilizing comprehensive risk assessment tools can refine medical decision-making, ultimately enhancing patient care and clinical outcomes.

Effect of renin angiotensin system inhibitors on long-term major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with high atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk

The advantage of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in patients with preserved LV systolic function is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the effects of ACEI/ARB in high atherosclerotic risk patients without overt heart failure (HF) on long-term major cardiovascular outcomes (MACEs). The Cohort Of patients with high Risk for cardiovascular Events (CORE-Thailand) registry is a prospective, multicenter, observational, longitudinal study of Thai patients with high atherosclerotic risk. The patients with ejection fraction < 50% were excluded. Among 8513 recruited patients, there were 4246 patients included into final analysis after propensity score matching. At 5-years follow-up, Cox regression analysis showed that ACEI/ARB was significantly associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and HF hospitalization (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96, P = 0.011). The benefit was driven by the reduced all-cause mortality and HF. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that ACEI/ARB decreased risk of long-term MACEs in patients with diabetes (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.94, P = 0.011) and patients not taking statin (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.82, P = 0.002). We demonstrated that the use of ACEI/ARB was associated with reduced risk of long-term MACEs in a large cohort of high atherosclerotic risk patients. Reduction of all-cause mortality and HF were likely the main contributors to the benefit of ACEI/ARB.

The Pivotal Role of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Hypertension Management and Cardiovascular and Renal Protection: A Critical Appraisal and Comparison of International Guidelines

Arterial hypertension is the main preventable cause of premature mortality worldwide. Across Latin America, hypertension has an estimated prevalence of 25.5-52.5%, although many hypertensive patients remain untreated. Appropriate treatment, started early and continued for the remaining lifespan, significantly reduces the risk of complications and mortality. All international and most regional guidelines emphasize a central role for renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASis) in antihypertensive treatment. The two main RAASi options are angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Although equivalent in terms of blood pressure reduction, ACEis are preferably recommended by some guidelines to manage other cardiovascular comorbidities, with ARBs considered as an alternative when ACEis are not tolerated. This review summarizes the differences between ACEis and ARBs and their place in the international guidelines. It provides a critical appraisal of the guidelines based on available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, especially considering that hypertensive patients in daily practice often have other comorbidities. The observed differences in cardiovascular and renal outcomes in RCTs may be attributed to the different mechanisms of action of ACEis and ARBs, including increased bradykinin levels, potentiated bradykinin response, and stimulated nitric oxide production with ACEis. It may therefore be appropriate to consider ACEis and ARBs as different antihypertensive drugs classes within the same RAASi group. Although guideline recommendations only differentiate between ACEis and ARBs in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, clinical evidence suggests that ACEis provide benefits in many hypertensive patients, as well as those with other cardiovascular conditions.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced cough compared with placebo, and other antihypertensives: A systematic review, and network meta-analysis

Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05-2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32-6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient's comorbidity.

Incident Stroke Events in Clinical Trials of Antihypertensive Drugs in Cardiovascular Disease Patients: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Antihypertensive drugs are commonly used in cardiovascular diseases (CVD), less is known about the comparative effectiveness of different antihypertensive drugs on stroke events in CVD patients. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trails comparing the different antihypertensive drugs for stroke events in CVD patients from inception until November, 2022. Pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed to compare of different antihypertensive drugs for the incidence of stroke events in CVD patients. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42022375038). 33 trials involving 141,217 CVD patients were included. The incidence of stroke in CVD patients for each antihypertensive drugs was placebo (3.0%), ACEI (2.4%), ARB (4.1%), CCB (1.8%), β blocker (1.3%), and diuretic (3.6%). Antihypertensive drug was significantly reducing stroke events in CVD patients when compared with placebo (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.89). Specifically, ACEI (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97), ARB (OR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98), CCB (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-to 0.87), and diuretic (OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.95) were significantly reducing stroke events in CVD patients when compared with placebo. Network meta-analysis suggested CCB and diuretic ranked the first and second in reducing the incidence of stroke events in CVD patients with the SUCRA value of 90.9% and 73.8%. CCB and diuretic had the greatest possibility to reduce the incidence of stroke events in CVD patients, while, ACEI was the worst antihypertensive agents in reducing the incidence of stroke events in CVD patients.

Benefits and risks of antihypertensive medication in adults with different systolic blood pressure: A meta-analysis from the perspective of the number needed to treat

Background

The blood pressure (BP) threshold for initial pharmacological treatment remains controversial. The number needed to treat (NNT) is a significant indicator. This study aimed to explore the benefits and risks of antihypertensive medications in participants with different systolic BPs (SBPs), and cardiovascular disease status from the perspective of the NNT.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of 52 randomized placebo-controlled trials. The data were extracted from published articles and pooled to calculate NNTs. The participants were divided into five groups, based on the mean SBP at entry (120–129.9, 130–139.9, 140–159.9, 160–179.9, and ≥180 mmHg). Furthermore, we stratified patients into those with and without cardiovascular disease. The primary outcomes were the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation.

Results

Antihypertensive medications were not associated with MACEs, however, it increased AEs, when the SBP was <140 mmHg. For participants with cardiovascular disease or at a high risk of heart failure and stroke, antihypertensive treatment reduced MACEs when SBP was ≥130 mmHg. Despite this, only 2–4 subjects had reduced MACEs per 100 patients receiving antihypertensive medications for 3.50 years. The number of individuals who needed to treat to avoid MACEs declined with an increased cardiovascular risk.

Conclusion

Pharmacological treatment could be activated when SBP reaches 140 mmHg. For people with cardiovascular disease or at a higher risk of stroke and heart failure, 130 mmHg may be a better therapeutic threshold. It could be more cost-effective to prioritize antihypertensive medications for people with a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

Prognostic Impacts of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Without Heart Failure

Background: Despite the recommendations from mainstream guidelines, the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients without heart failure (HF) is controversial, as its evidence is lacking in the era of reperfusion and intensive secondary preventions. This study aimed to investigate the impacts of ACEI/ARB on outcomes of ACS patients without HF treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: A total of 2,397 non-HF ACS patients treated by PCI were retrospectively recruited. Prognostic impacts of ACEI/ARB were assessed by unadjusted analysis, followed by propensity score matching (PSM) and propensity score matching weight (PSMW) analysis to control the between-group differences. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI).

Results: Among the included patients, 1,805 (75.3%) were prescribed with ACEI/ARB at discharge. The median follow-up time was 727 (433–2016) days, with 129 (5.4%) primary endpoint events, consisting of 55 (2.3%) cases of all-cause death and 74 (3.1%) cases of recurrent MI. The use of ACEI/ARB was not associated with significant risk reduction of primary endpoint events in unadjusted analysis (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64–1.39, p = 0.779), PSM analysis (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.60–1.47, p = 0.784), and PSMW analysis (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.55–1.49, p = 0.704). Similar results were observed for secondary outcomes of all-cause death, cardiac death, and recurrent MI.

Conclusion: For ACS patients without HF, the use of ACEI/ARB was not associated with lower risk of death or recurrent MI after PCI.

Antihypertensive drugs demonstrate varying levels of hip fracture risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

By aggregating the literature, we evaluated the association between use of specific antihypertensive drugs and the risk of hip fractures compared with nonuse.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception of each database until July 30, 2020 to identify articles including patients 18 years of age or older reporting on the association between antihypertensive drugs and the risk of hip fracture. Antihypertensive drugs were restricted to thiazides; beta-blockers; calcium-channel blockers; angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors; and angiotensin receptor blockers. Nonusers encompass all patients that are not using the specific antihypertensive drug that has been reported. Unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the association between antihypertensive drug use and hip fractures were reported. Meta-analysis was performed when a minimum of five studies were identified for each antihypertensive drug class. Quality assessment was done using ROBINS-I tool. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Of 962 citations, 22 observational studies were included; 9 studies had a cohort design and 13 studies were case-control studies. No randomized controlled trials were identified. We found very low certainty of evidence that both thiazides (pooled odds ratio: 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99, p = 0.04) as well as beta-blockers (pooled odds ratio: 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98, p = 0.02) were associated with a reduced hip fracture risk as compared to specific nonuse. One study, reporting on angiotensin receptor blockers, also suggested a protective effect for hip fractures, whereas we found conflicting findings in four studies for calcium-channel blockers and in two studies for ACE inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Among 22 observational studies, we found very low certainty of evidence that, compared to specific nonuse of antihypertensive drugs, use of thiazides, beta-blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with a reduced protective hip fracture risk, while conflicting findings for calcium-channel blockers and ACE inhibitors were found. Given the low quality of included studies, further research -randomized controlled trials- are needed to definitively assess the causal relationship between specific antihypertensive drug classes and (relatively infrequent) hip fractures.

Methodological Aspects of Meta-Analyses Assessing the Effect of Blood Pressure-Lowering Treatment on Clinical Outcomes

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often considered the highest level of evidence, with high impact on clinical practice guidelines. The methodological literature on systematic reviews and meta-analyses is extensive and covers most aspects relevant to the design and interpretation of meta-analysis findings in general. Analyzing the effect of blood pressure-lowering on clinical outcomes poses several challenges over and above what is covered in the general literature, including how to combine placebo-controlled trials, target-trials, and comparative studies depending on the research question, how to handle the potential interaction between baseline blood pressure level, common comorbidities, and the estimated treatment effect, and how to consider different magnitudes of blood pressure reduction across trials. This review aims to address the most important methodological considerations, to guide the general reader of systematic reviews and meta-analyses within our field, and to help inform the design of future studies. Furthermore, we highlight issues where published meta-analyses have applied different analytical strategies and discuss pros and cons with different strategies.

A Bayesian Sequential Design for Clinical Trials with Time-to-Event Outcomes

There is increasing interest in Bayesian group sequential design because of its potential to improve efficiency in clinical trials, to shorten drug development time, and to enhance statistical inference precision without undermining the clinical trial's integrity or validity. We propose a Bayesian sequential design for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes and use alpha spending functions to control the overall type I error rate. Bayes factor is adapted for decision-making at interim analyses. Algorithms are presented to make decision rules and to calculate power of the proposed tests. Sensitivity analysis is implemented to evaluate the impact of different choices of prior parameters on choosing critical values. The power of tests, the expected event size of the proposed design, and the quality of estimators are studied through simulations, and compared with the frequentist group sequential design. Simulations show that at fixed total number of events, the proposed design can achieve greater power and require smaller expected event size when appropriate priors are chosen, compared with the frequentist group sequential design. The feasibility of the proposed design is further illustrated on a real data set.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults 60 years or older

BACKGROUND

This is the second substantive update of this review. It was originally published in 1998 and was previously updated in 2009. Elevated blood pressure (known as 'hypertension') increases with age - most rapidly over age 60. Systolic hypertension is more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease than is diastolic hypertension, and it occurs more commonly in older people. It is important to know the benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment for hypertension in this age group, as well as separately for people 60 to 79 years old and people 80 years or older.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertensionSecondary objectives• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular-specific morbidity and mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension• To quantify the rate of withdrawal due to adverse effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 24 November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of at least one year's duration comparing antihypertensive drug therapy versus placebo or no treatment and providing morbidity and mortality data for adult patients (≥ 60 years old) with hypertension defined as blood pressure greater than 140/90 mmHg.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality; cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality; coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality; and withdrawal due to adverse effects. We modified the definition of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity to exclude transient ischaemic attacks when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes one additional trial (MRC-TMH 1985). Sixteen trials (N = 26,795) in healthy ambulatory adults 60 years or older (mean age 73.4 years) from western industrialised countries with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension (average 182/95 mmHg) met the inclusion criteria. Most of these trials evaluated first-line thiazide diuretic therapy for a mean treatment duration of 3.8 years.Antihypertensive drug treatment reduced all-cause mortality (high-certainty evidence; 11% with control vs 10.0% with treatment; risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.97; cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (moderate-certainty evidence; 13.6% with control vs 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.77; cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (moderate-certainty evidence; 5.2% with control vs 3.4% with treatment; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74; and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity (moderate-certainty evidence; 4.8% with control vs 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.88. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with treatment (low-certainty evidence; 5.4% with control vs 15.7% with treatment; RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.56 to 3.30. In the three trials restricted to persons with isolated systolic hypertension, reported benefits were similar.This comprehensive systematic review provides additional evidence that the reduction in mortality observed was due mostly to reduction in the 60- to 79-year-old patient subgroup (high-certainty evidence; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95). Although cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was significantly reduced in both subgroups 60 to 79 years old (moderate-certainty evidence; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.77) and 80 years or older (moderate-certainty evidence; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87), the magnitude of absolute risk reduction was probably higher among 60- to 79-year-old patients (3.8% vs 2.9%). The reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was primarily due to a reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treating healthy adults 60 years or older with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension with antihypertensive drug therapy reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity, and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity. Most evidence of benefit pertains to a primary prevention population using a thiazide as first-line treatment.

Effects of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system on reducing blood pressure and expression of inflammatory factors in CHD patients: A network meta-analysis

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is an ever-evolving endocrine system with considerable checks and balances on the production and catabolism of angiotensin peptides most likely due to the manifold effects of angiotensins. We aimed to explore the effects of different inhibitors of RAS on blood pressure and expression of inflammatory factors in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). We initially searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library electronic databases with nine eligible randomized controlled trials enrolled. Direct and indirect evidence was combined to calculate the weighted mean difference value and draw surface under the cumulative ranking curves. The results demonstrated that, compared with placebo and enalapril, ramipril had a better effect on reducing systolic blood pressure after short-term usage of drugs (<12 months), while perindopril had better effects on reducing diastolic blood pressure and C-reactive protein expression. Furthermore, after long-term usage of drugs (≥12 months), there was no significant difference among olmesartan, quinapril and candesartan in the treatment of patients with CHD. Perindopril and ramipril had better effects on inhibiting blood pressure and expression of inflammatory factors among eight inhibitors after short-term usage of drugs (<12 months); while quinapril had better effects on reducing blood pressure and expression of inflammatory factor after long-term usage of drugs, and there was little difference in the effects between olmesartan and candesartan (≥12 months). Perindopril may have better short-term effects on reducing blood pressure and expression of inflammatory factor, while quinapril may have better long-term effects on reducing blood pressure and expression of inflammatory factor.

First-line drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical question: What class of drug to use first-line? This review attempted to answer that question.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the mortality and morbidity effects from different first-line antihypertensive drug classes: thiazides (low-dose and high-dose), beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and alpha-blockers, compared to placebo or no treatment.Secondary objectives: when different antihypertensive drug classes are used as the first-line drug, to quantify the blood pressure lowering effect and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse drug effects, compared to placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised 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 contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials (RCT) of at least one year duration, comparing one of six major drug classes with a placebo or no treatment, in adult patients with blood pressure over 140/90 mmHg at baseline. The majority (over 70%) of the patients in the treatment group were taking the drug class of interest after one year. We included trials with both hypertensive and normotensive patients in this review if the majority (over 70%) of patients had elevated blood pressure, or the trial separately reported outcome data on patients with elevated blood pressure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), total cardiovascular events (CVS), decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and withdrawals due to adverse drug effects. We used a fixed-effect model to to combine dichotomous outcomes across trials and calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We presented blood pressure data as mean difference (MD) with 99% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2017 updated search failed to identify any new trials. The original review identified 24 trials with 28 active treatment arms, including 58,040 patients. We found no RCTs for ARBs or alpha-blockers. These results are mostly applicable to adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. The mean age of participants was 56 years, and mean duration of follow-up was three to five years.High-quality evidence showed that first-line low-dose thiazides reduced mortality (11.0% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97); total CVS (12.9% with control versus 9.0% with treatment; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.76), stroke (6.2% with control versus 4.2% with treatment; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77), and coronary heart disease (3.9% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line high-dose thiazides reduced stroke (1.9% with control versus 0.9% with treatment; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61) and total CVS (5.1% with control versus 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), but did not reduce mortality (3.1% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05), or coronary heart disease (2.7% with control versus 2.7% with treatment; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line beta-blockers did not reduce mortality (6.2% with control versus 6.0% with treatment; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07) or coronary heart disease (4.4% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.03), but reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and total CVS (7.6% with control versus 6.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line ACE inhibitors reduced mortality (13.6% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95), stroke (6.0% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82), coronary heart disease (13.5% with control versus 11.0% with treatment; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94), and total CVS (20.1% with control versus 15.3% with treatment; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85).Low-quality evidence showed that first-line calcium channel blockers reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 1.9% with treatment; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.84) and total CVS (8.0% with control versus 5.7% with treatment; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87), but not coronary heart disease (3.1% with control versus 2.4% with treatment; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09), or mortality (6.0% with control versus 5.1% with treatment; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09).There was low-quality evidence that withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with first-line low-dose thiazides (5.0% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 2.38, 95% CI 2.06 to 2.75), high-dose thiazides (2.2% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 4.48, 95% CI 3.83 to 5.24), and beta-blockers (3.1% with control versus 14.4% with treatment; RR 4.59, 95% CI 4.11 to 5.13). No data for these outcomes were available for first-line ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers. The blood pressure data were not used to assess the effect of the different classes of drugs as the data were heterogeneous, and the number of drugs used in the trials differed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

First-line low-dose thiazides reduced all morbidity and mortality outcomes in adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective, but the evidence was of lower quality. First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers were inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides.

Renin-angiotensin system blockade reduces cardiovascular events in nonheart failure, stable patients with prior coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The effects of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade on the clinical outcome in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) are conflicting. We evaluated the long-term effects of RAS blockers (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker) on the clinical outcomes in patients with SCAD without heart failure (HF) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent using a large-scale, multicenter, prospective cohort registry.

METHODS

A total of 5722 patients with SCAD were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the use of RAS blockers after PCI: RAS blocker group included 4070 patients and no RAS blocker group included 1652 patients. Exclusion criteria were left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% and the history of HF or myocardial infarction. A major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 29.7 months, RAS blockers were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of MACE [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.781; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.626-0.975; P=0.015] and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 0.788; 95% CI: 0.627-0.990; P=0.041) but did not affect the risk of coronary revascularization. In the propensity score matched cohort, overall findings were consistent (MACE: adjusted HR: 0.679; 95% CI: 0.514-0.897; P=0.006; all-cause death: adjusted HR: 0.723; 95% CI: 0.548-0.954; P=0.022), and the benefit of RAS blockade was maintained in all predefined subgroups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that RAS blockers were effective preventive therapies for reducing long-term cardiovascular events in patients with SCAD without HF who underwent PCI.

Association of Blood Pressure Lowering With Mortality and Cardiovascular Disease Across Blood Pressure Levels: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

High blood pressure (BP) is the most important risk factor for death and cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide. The optimal cutoff for treatment of high BP is debated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between BP lowering treatment and death and CVD at different BP levels.

DATA SOURCES

Previous systematic reviews were identified from PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect. Reference lists of these reviews were searched for randomized clinical trials. Randomized clinical trials published after November 1, 2015, were also searched for in PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials during February 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials with at least 1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing BP-lowering drugs vs placebo or different BP goals were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted from original publications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations assessment tool. Relative risks (RRs) were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses with Knapp-Hartung modification. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prespecified outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, heart failure, and end-stage renal disease.

RESULTS

Seventy-four unique trials, representing 306 273 unique participants (39.9% women and 60.1% men; mean age, 63.6 years) and 1.2 million person-years, were included in the meta-analyses. In primary prevention, the association of BP-lowering treatment with major cardiovascular events was dependent on baseline systolic BP (SBP). In trials with baseline SBP 160 mm Hg or above, treatment was associated with reduced risk for death (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00) and a substantial reduction of major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87). If baseline SBP ranged from 140 to 159 mm Hg, the association of treatment with mortality was similar (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00), but the association with major cardiovascular events was less pronounced (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). In trials with baseline SBP below 140 mm Hg, treatment was not associated with mortality (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06) and major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04). In trials including people with previous CHD and mean baseline SBP of 138 mm Hg, treatment was associated with reduced risk for major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97), but was not associated with survival (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Primary preventive BP lowering is associated with reduced risk for death and CVD if baseline SBP is 140 mm Hg or higher. At lower BP levels, treatment is not associated with any benefit in primary prevention but might offer additional protection in patients with CHD.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduce mortality compared to angiotensin receptor blockers: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background There are few reviews comparing the long-term outcomes of the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers in a hypertensive population because both are effective in reducing blood pressure. None of them compared angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers with a placebo group in patients with essential hypertension, because few studies exist with this design. Methods A systematic search of PUBMED, LILACS, SCIELO, ICTRP, Cochrane, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 2000 until 31 December 2015 selected prospective studies that reported an association between the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers in the following cardiovascular outcomes: heart failure/hospitalisation, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, total cardiovascular deaths, total deaths and total outcomes. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined by using a fixed-effects model. Results Seventeen studies ( n = 73,761) were included of which 12 studies were randomly assigned to angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy ( n = 24,697) and five to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors ( n = 12,170). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors proved to be significant in reducing total deaths (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.93) and cardiovascular deaths (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.87). Angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy did not show a reduction in total deaths (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.09) or cardiovascular deaths (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.06). For acute myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure/hospitalisation, the reductions were significant for both classes. Conclusion Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker use is similar in preventing major cardiovascular outcomes regarding acute myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure/hospitalisation. However, the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors is more effective in reducing total deaths and cardiovascular deaths than angiotensin II receptor blockers.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults aged 18 to 59 years

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is an important risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events including stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and renal failure. The main goal of treatment is to reduce these events. Systematic reviews have shown proven benefit of antihypertensive drug therapy in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality but most of the evidence is in people 60 years of age and older. We wanted to know what the effects of therapy are in people 18 to 59 years of age.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify antihypertensive drug effects on all-cause mortality in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension. To quantify effects on cardiovascular mortality plus morbidity (including cerebrovascular and coronary heart disease mortality plus morbidity), withdrawal due adverse events and estimate magnitude of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) lowering at one year.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to January 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised 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 contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of at least one year' duration comparing antihypertensive pharmacotherapy with a placebo or no treatment in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension defined as SBP 140 mmHg or greater or DBP 90 mmHg or greater at baseline, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, total cardiovascular (CVS) mortality plus morbidity, withdrawals due to adverse events, and decrease in SBP and DBP. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and a fixed-effect model to combine outcomes across trials. For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD) with 95% CI and a random-effects model as there was significant heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

The population in the seven included studies (17,327 participants) were predominantly healthy adults with mild to moderate primary hypertension. The Medical Research Council Trial of Mild Hypertension contributed 14,541 (84%) of total randomized participants, with mean age of 50 years and mean baseline blood pressure of 160/98 mmHg and a mean duration of follow-up of five years. Treatments used in this study were bendrofluazide 10 mg daily or propranolol 80 mg to 240 mg daily with addition of methyldopa if required. The risk of bias in the studies was high or unclear for a number of domains and led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for all outcomes.Based on five studies, antihypertensive drug therapy as compared to placebo or untreated control may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (2.4% with control vs 2.3% with treatment; low quality evidence; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.13). Based on 4 studies, the effects on coronary heart disease were uncertain due to low quality evidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.19). Low quality evidence from six studies showed that drug therapy may reduce total cardiovascular mortality and morbidity from 4.1% to 3.2% over five years (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (1.3% with control vs 0.6% with treatment; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Very low quality evidence from three studies showed that withdrawals due to adverse events were higher with drug therapy from 0.7% to 3.0% (RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.67 to 13.92). The effects on blood pressure varied between the studies and we are uncertain as to how much of a difference treatment makes on average.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive drugs used to treat predominantly healthy adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension have a small absolute effect to reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity primarily due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity. All-cause mortality and coronary heart disease were not reduced. There is lack of good evidence on withdrawal due to adverse events. Future trials in this age group should be at least 10 years in duration and should compare different first-line drug classes and strategies.

Renin angiotensin system inhibitors for patients with stable coronary artery disease without heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

 To critically evaluate the efficacy of renin angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronary artery disease without heart failure, compared with active controls or placebo.

DESIGN

 Meta-analysis of randomized trials.

DATA SOURCES

 PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases until 1 May 2016.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

 Randomized trials of RASi versus placebo or active controls in patients with stable coronary artery disease without heart failure (defined as left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40% or without clinical heart failure). Each trial had to enroll at least 100 patients with coronary artery disease without heart failure, with at least one year's follow-up. Studies were excluded if they were redacted or compared use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors with angiotensin receptor blockers. Outcomes were death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, incident diabetes, and drug withdrawal due to adverse effects.

RESULTS

 24 trials with 198 275 patient years of follow-up were included. RASi reduced the risk of all cause mortality (rate ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.98), cardiovascular mortality (0.74, 0.59 to 0.94), myocardial infarction (0.82, 0.76 to 0.88), stroke (0.79, 0.70 to 0.89), angina, heart failure, and revascularization when compared with placebo but not when compared with active controls (all cause mortality, 1.05, 0.94 to 1.17; P_interaction=0.006; cardiovascular mortality, 1.08, 0.93 to 1.25, P_interaction<0.001; myocardial infarction, 0.99, 0.87 to 1.12, P_interaction=0.01; stroke, 1.10, 0.93 to 1.31; P_interaction=0.002). Bayesian meta-regression analysis showed that the effect of RASi when compared with placebo on all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality was dependent on the control event rate, such that RASi was only beneficial in trials with high control event rates (>14.10 deaths and >7.65 cardiovascular deaths per 1000 patient years) but not in those with low control event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

 In patients with stable coronary artery disease without heart failure, RASi reduced cardiovascular events and death only when compared with placebo but not when compared with active controls. Even among placebo controlled trials in this study, the benefit of RASi was mainly seen in trials with higher control event rates but not in those with lower control event rates. Evidence does not support a preferred status of RASi over other active controls.

The potential role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in peripheral arterial disease

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and yet remains under-recognized and under-treated. Atherosclerosis is the most common cause of lower extremity PAD and pharmacological interventions that alter this central pathogenic role of atherosclerosis may alter the natural history of PAD. There is growing evidence that the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is a significant mediator of this disease process and that treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors is associated with vasculoprotective effects that are independent of the antihypertensive properties of these agents. Numerous lines of evidence suggest that ACE inhibitors directly inhibit the atherosclerotic process and improve vascular endothelial function. In patients with PAD, ACE inhibitors have been shown to improve peripheral circulation as measured by peripheral arterial blood pressure and by increases in peripheral blood flow. Preliminary evidence suggests that ACE inhibitors might improve clinical symptoms in patients with PAD. Recent evidence has confirmed that ACE inhibition is associated with a decrease in morbidity and mortality in patients with arterial disease without left ventricular dysfunction; this benefit was at least as great for the subset of patients with PAD. Overall, these data support a significant role for the RAS in the pathogenesis of all atherosclerotic diseases (including PAD) and suggest that the benefit is independent of the blood pressure lowering properties of these agents. These studies suggest that ACE inhibitor therapy should be considered in the routine management of individuals with PAD, regardless of whether they have hypertension or left ventricular dysfunction.

Review: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and coronary heart disease prevention

A number of large randomised controlled trials have shown that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, compared with placebo or other blood pressure-lowering drugs, improve coronary heart disease outcomes (fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularisation) in diverse patient groups, e.g. in primary and secondary prevention, those with and without left ventricular dysfunction, and among hypertensive and non-hypertensive subjects. An updated meta-regression analysis which included five major trials in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) (EUROPA, INVEST, ACTION, PEACE and CAMELOT) concluded that ACE inhibitor (ACE-I) therapy has clear benefits in secondary prevention, but there are important and unexplained differences between trials in clinical outcome, baseline cardiovascular risk, blood pressure changes and trial design which deserve further discussion of the underlying mechanisms and clinical interpretation. For example, in placebo-controlled trials the biggest (20—22%) reductions in primary end points (including mortality) have been observed with perindopril and ramipril, whereas trials using trandolapril and quinapril had no effect on survival or recurrent CAD events. This review summarises and compares the major findings of these recent trials, and provides further analysis of the underlying mechanisms and clinical significance of secondary CAD prevention with ACE-I therapy.

Tissue ACE Inhibitors for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Preserved Left Ventricular Function: A Pooled Meta-analysis of Randomized Placebo-controlled Trials

Objective. A pooled meta-analysis of published, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials to evaluate the role of tissue angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with preserved left ventricular function. Sources. Peer-reviewed journals listed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study selection . Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of at least 12 months' duration, in patients with a prior cardiovascular event or at high risk for cardiovascular events, were analyzed. Data synthesis and analysis. A total of 31 555 patients (136 882 patient-years) from 4 trials were selected for the meta-analysis. Relative risk estimations were made using data pooled from these trials, and statistical significance was determined using the χ2 test. The number of patients needed to treat was also calculated for each outcome. Results. Tissue ACE inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke ( P < .001 for each). The need for invasive coronary revascularization was reduced ( P = .03), as was the risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure ( P = .001). The occurrence of new-onset diabetes was also significantly reduced ( P < .001), but the risk of hospitalization for angina was not significantly affected ( P = .677). Treating about 100 patients for about 4.5 years would prevent 1 death, 1 non-fatal myocardial infarction, 1 cardiovascular death, or 1 invasive coronary revascularization. Conclusions. Tissue ACE inhibitors have demonstrated benefit when used for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with preserved left ventricular function in randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Quinapril decreases antifibrinolytic and prooxidative potential of propofol in arterial thrombosis in hypertensive rats

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and propofol both exert hypotensive action and may affect hemostasis. We investigated the influence of quinapril and propofol on hemodynamics and hemostasis in renal-hypertensive rats with induced arterial thrombosis. Two-kidney, one clip hypertensive rats were treated with quinapril (3.0 mg/kg for 10 days), and then received propofol infusion (15 mg/kg/h) during ongoing arterial thrombosis. The hemodynamic and hemostatic parameters were assayed. Quinapril exerted a hypotensive effect increasing after propofol infusion. Quinapril showed an antithrombotic effect with the platelet adhesion reduction, fibrinolysis enhancement and oxidative stress reduction. Propofol did not influence thrombosis; however, it inhibited fibrinolysis and showed prooxidative action. The effect of propofol on fibrinolysis and oxidative stress was significantly lower in quinapril-pretreated rats. Mortality was increased among rats treated with both drugs together. Our study demonstrates that pretreatment with quinapril reduced the adverse effects of propofol on hemostasis. Unfortunately, co-administration of both drugs potentiated hypotension in rats, which corresponds to higher mortality.

Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death in hypertensive individuals

BACKGROUND

High blood pressure is an important public health problem because of associated risks of stroke and cardiovascular events. Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent cardiac events, including myocardial infarction and sudden death (death of unknown cause within one hour of the onset of acute symptoms or within 24 hours of observation of the patient as alive and symptom free).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in preventing sudden death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal myocardial infarction among hypertensive individuals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (all years to January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2016, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2016), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to January 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for hypertension, defined, when possible, as baseline resting systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mmHg and/or resting diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mmHg. Comparisons included one or more antihypertensive drugs versus placebo, or versus no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data. Outcomes assessed were sudden death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and change in blood pressure.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials (39,908 participants) that evaluated antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for a mean duration of follow-up of 4.2 years. This review provides moderate-quality evidence to show that antihypertensive drugs do not reduce sudden death (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.15) but do reduce both non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74, 0.98; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.3% over 4.2 years) and fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90; ARR 0.3% over 4.2 years). Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased in the drug treatment group to 12.8%, as compared with 6.2% in the no treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although antihypertensive drugs reduce the incidence of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, they do not appear to reduce the incidence of sudden death. This suggests that sudden cardiac death may not be caused primarily by acute myocardial infarction. Continued research is needed to determine the causes of sudden cardiac death.

Oxidative stress and early atherosclerosis: novel antioxidant treatment

Atherosclerotic lesions initiate in regions characterized by low shear stress and reduced activity of endothelial atheroprotective molecules such as nitric oxide, which is the key molecule managing vascular homeostasis. The generation of reactive oxygen species from the vascular endothelium is strongly related to various enzymes, such as xanthine oxidase, endothelial nitric oxide synthase and nicotinamide-adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase. Several pharmaceutical agents, including angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptors blockers and statins, along with a variety of other agents, have demonstrated additional antioxidant properties beyond their principal role. Reports regarding the antioxidant role of vitamins present controversial results, especially those based on large scale studies. In addition, there is growing interest on the role of dietary flavonoids and their potential to improve endothelial function by modifying the oxidative stress status. However, the vascular-protective role of flavonoids and especially their antioxidant properties are still under investigation. Indeed, further research is required to establish the impact of the proposed new therapeutic strategies in atherosclerosis.

Long-Term Use of Cardiovascular Drugs: Challenges for Research and for Patient Care

Little is known about the benefits and risks of the long-term use of cardiovascular drugs. Evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) rarely goes beyond a few years of follow-up, but patients are often given continuous treatment with multiple drugs well into old age. We focus on 4 commonly used cardiovascular drug classes: aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors given to patients after myocardial infarction. However, the issues raised apply more broadly to all long-term medications across cardiovascular diseases and the whole of medicine. The evidence and limitations of RCTs are addressed, as well as current practice in pre-licensing trials, the increasing problems of polypharmacy (especially in the elderly), the lack of trial evidence for withdrawal of drugs, the role of regulatory authorities and other stakeholders in this challenging situation, and the potential educational solutions for the medical profession. We conclude with a set of recommendations on how to improve the situation of long-term drug use.

Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes Trials-Is There a Difference?

There is a general sense that most outcomes trials in patients receiving dialysis failed to yield statistically significant benefits, in contrast to many cardiovascular (CV) trials in the general population. It is unknown whether methodologic reasons caused this discrepancy. We performed a systematic MEDLINE search for randomized trials with mortality end points of the 42 compounds most commonly used for CV indications. In total, 115 trials were selected for review. We further reviewed 9 mortality end point trials in patients receiving dialysis. The CV trials in populations not receiving dialysis enrolled from 66 to 33,357 participants with an average of 4,910; 59% of the trials showed statistically significant results. The average hazard ratio (HR) was 0.77, ranging from 0.10 to 1.65; 10 drugs had ≥5 published trials each. In the population receiving dialysis, most drugs were studied in single trials; the average number of patients was 1,500 with a range of 127 to 3,883. The average HR was 0.77 and ranged from 0.06 to 1.30. Only 22% of the trials showed statistically significant results. The limitations listed in the general population and dialysis studies were similar. In conclusion, no apparent methodologic issues were detected (other than sample size) that could justify the lower frequency of randomized trials with statistically significant results in patients receiving dialysis. The most obvious difference was the paucity of trials with each drug in the dialysis cohorts; this lowers the chances of at least 1 trial being successful.

Different Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the associations with overall and cause-specific mortalities in patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been widely used in the treatment of hypertension, but the comparative effectiveness in reducing mortality among different drugs is seldom reported.

METHODS

We identified hypertensive patients who started captopril, enalapril, lisinopril, fosinopril, perindopril, ramipril, or imidapril therapy from Taiwan's National Health Insurance database between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2009. Overall and cause-specific mortalities were ascertained through a linkage to Taiwan's National Death Registry. Patients were followed from the initiation of ACE inhibitors to death, disenrollment, or study termination (31 December 2010). A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), using ramipril as the reference group.

RESULTS

A total of 989,489 hypertensive patients were included, with a mean follow-up ranging from 3.5 years for imidapril to 4.5 years for enalapril. Captopril initiators had the highest overall mortality rate (117.8 per 1,000,000 person-days) as compared to other ACE inhibitors (54.3-79.4 per 1,000,000 person-days). Patients who started captopril therapy had a significantly increased risk of overall mortality (HR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.24-1.31) when compared with ramipril. Enalapril (HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.05-1.11) and fosinopril (HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.05-1.12) were also associated with a modestly increased risk. No difference in mortality was found for lisinopril, perindopril, and imidapril, as compared with ramipril.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences in the mortality risk associated with different ACE inhibitors. However, potential residual confounding effects might still exist.

Combination therapy in hypertension: what are the best options according to clinical pharmacology principles and controlled clinical trial evidence?

Despite extensive debate about the first choice for treating essential hypertension, monotherapy effectively normalizes blood pressure (BP) values in only a limited number of hypertensive patients. Thus, the aim of combination therapy should always be to both improve BP control and to reduce cardiovascular events. Antihypertensive drugs can be effectively combined if they have different and complementary mechanisms of action. This is crucial to obtain additive BP-lowering effects without impacting on tolerability. One typical combination is the association of drugs blocking and stimulating the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) (angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and calcium antagonist or diuretic, respectively). In contrast, some combinations (e.g., calcium antagonists plus diuretics or beta-blockers plus RAS blockers) have no additive BP-lowering effects, while other combinations (e.g., clonidine plus alpha-1 receptor blockers) can have a negative interaction. Regardless, BP reduction is not the only mechanism that reduces cardiovascular risk. Scientific evidence indicates that some drug classes are better than others in this respect, and therefore some drug combinations are also better than others. The results of the ASCOT-BPLA and ACCOMPLISH trials suggested that an ACE inhibitor/calcium antagonist combination had better cardioprotective effects than beta-blocker/diuretic or ACE inhibitor/diuretic combinations. It is worth noting that no controlled clinical trials have used hard endpoints when investigating the effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker/calcium antagonist combination. In conclusion, combination therapy is needed for optimal antihypertensive management, with the first choice being an ACE inhibitor plus a calcium antagonist. This approach should improve BP control and provide better cardiovascular protection.

Update on the role of angiotensin in the pathophysiology of coronary atherothrombosis

BACKGROUND

Coronary atherothrombosis due to atherosclerotic plaque rupture or erosion is frequently associated with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Significant efforts have been made to elucidate the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying acute coronary events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This narrative review is based on the material searched for and obtained via PubMed up to August 2014. The search terms we used were as follows: 'angiotensin, acute coronary syndromes, acute myocardial infarction' in combination with 'atherosclerosis, vulnerability, clinical trial, ACE inhibitors, inflammation'.

RESULTS

Among several regulatory components, the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) was shown as a key pathway modulating coronary atherosclerotic plaque vulnerability. Indeed, these molecules are involved in all stages of atherogenesis. Classically, the RAS is composed by a series of enzymatic reactions leading to the angiotensin (Ang) II generation and activity. However, the knowledge of RAS has expanded and become more complex. The discovery of novel components and their functions has revealed additional pathways that contribute to or counterbalance the actions of Ang II. In this review, we discussed on recent findings concerning the role of different angiotensin peptides in the pathophysiology of ACS and coronary atherothrombosis, exploring the link between these molecules and atherosclerotic plaque vulnerability.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatments selectively targeting angiotensins (including Mas and AT2 agonists, ACE2 recombinant, or Ang-(1-7) and almandine in oral formulations) have been tested in animal studies or in small human subgroups, expanding the perspective in the ACS prevention. These novel strategies, especially in the counter-regulatory axis ACE2/Ang-(1-7)/Mas, might be promising to reduce plaque vulnerability and inflammation.

RAS inhibitors' dose-dependent efficacy: myth or reality?

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of hypertension remains challenging in clinical practice. One major problem is incorrect utilization of the principal drug classes. Drugs from each class are currently used in accordance with an assumption that the blood pressure (BP) lowering effect is dose dependent. While this is true for most drugs, it is not appropriate for all drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system (RAS).

METHODS

This review is based on a PubMed/Cochrane database search for articles on the dose-dependent effect of RAS blockers on BP and cardiovascular protection.

RESULTS

Of the RAS blockers, most angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have a flat dose-response curve for BP decrease, meaning an increase in dose prolongs duration of action, but does not yield greater potency. Perindopril is the only ACE inhibitor to show a real dose-response curve for BP decrease. While the effectiveness of RAS blockers on target organ damage is dose dependent and at least partially unrelated to BP control, there is evidence that the only way to obtain a beneficial effect is to use them at full dose. Thus, RAS blockers need to be used at the correct dose, based on the results of controlled clinical trials and meta-analysis. Furthermore, for all-cause mortality, ACE inhibitors have been shown to be better than ARBs, a specific efficacy supported by perindopril-based studies including ASCOT-BPLA (the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-BP Lowering Arm), ADVANCE (the Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: PreterAx and DiamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation trial) and HYVET (HYpertension in the Very Elderly Trial).

CONCLUSION

In hypertensive patients, a strategy based on ACE inhibitors with dose-dependent efficacy such as perindopril as optimal treatment should lead both to improved BP control and to a better protection from target organ damage, thereby reducing the incidence of cardiovascular events.

Role of ACE I/D gene polymorphisms on the effect of ramipril in inflammatory response and myocardial injury in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafts

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors block angiotensin II formation and release bradykinin, which is effective in the regulation of oxidoinflammatory injury. Some reports denote alterations in the effectiveness of ACE inhibitors in association with ACE insertion/deletion (I/D) gene polymorphisms. This study investigates the effects of ramipril on the oxidoinflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, TNF-alpha) and TnT (myocardial injury marker) and their alteration in association with ACE I/D gene polymorphisms.

METHODS

The study group (n = 51) patients received ramipril before coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), while patients not receiving ramipril (n = 51) constituted the controls. TNFα, IL-6, and IL-8 were evaluated using ELISA and TnT by electrochemiluminescence methods before the induction of anesthesia (t1), at the 20th minute following cross-clamping (t2), at the end of the operation (t3), and at the 24th hour from the commencement of anesthesia (t4). Genotyping was performed by PCR.

RESULTS

Differences between the groups were significant at t4 for the TNFα and at t3 for IL-6 (p < 0.05). The TnT levels increased from t2 onward in the control group and were highest in t3. Changes in t3 and t4 values in both groups according to their t1 values were significant (p < 0.05). However, differences between the groups were insignificant (p > 0.05). The IL-6, IL-8, TNFα, and TnT serum levels had no correlation with the ACE I/D gene polymorphism.

CONCLUSION

Low cytokine and TnT levels in the study group, especially after cross-clamping, may indicate the protective effect of ramipril from oxidoinflammatory injury. This effect did not appear to be associated with the ACE I/D gene polymorphism.

Nonantithrombotic medical options in acute coronary syndromes: old agents and new lines on the horizon

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitute a spectrum of clinical presentations ranging from unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to ST-segment myocardial infarction. Myocardial ischemia in this context occurs as a result of an abrupt decrease in coronary blood flow and resultant imbalance in the myocardial oxygen supply-demand relationship. Coronary blood flow is further compromised by other mechanisms that increase coronary vascular resistance or reduce coronary driving pressure. The goals of treatment are to decrease myocardial oxygen demand, increase coronary blood flow and oxygen supply, and limit myocardial injury. Treatments are generally divided into disease-modifying agents or interventions that improve hard clinical outcomes and other strategies that can reduce ischemia. In addition to traditional drugs such as β-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, newer agents have expanded the number of molecular pathways targeted for treatment of ACS. Ranolazine, trimetazidine, nicorandil, and ivabradine are medications that have been shown to reduce myocardial ischemia through diverse mechanisms and have been tested in limited fashion in patients with ACS. Attenuating the no-reflow phenomenon and reducing the injury compounded by acute reperfusion after a period of coronary occlusion are active areas of research. Additionally, interventions aimed at ischemic pre- and postconditioning may be useful means by which to limit myocardial infarct size. Trials are also underway to examine altered metabolic and oxygen-related pathways in ACS. This review will discuss traditional and newer anti-ischemic therapies for patients with ACS, exclusive of revascularization, antithrombotic agents, and the use of high-intensity statins.

Use of the ACE inhibitor zofenopril in the treatment of ischemic heart disease

Zofenopril, an inhibitor of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), has recently been widely introduced into the pharmaceutical market. Its clinical safety and efficacy has been demonstrated in patients with hypertension and in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (SMILE) project provided valuable information regarding the safety of early onset ACE inhibition with zofenopril after AMI and a greater perception of the early and late benefits. The SMILE-I study demonstrated that most benefits of ACE inhibition may be obtained early after AMI and persist after discontinuation of treatment. The SMILE-II study demonstrated that early zofenopril treatment (initiated <12 h) is safe and associated with a low rate of severe hypotension in thrombolyzed patients with acute myocardial infarction when administered in accordance with an adequate dose-titration scheme. Many other studies of clinical ACE-inhibitors (ACEIs) over the last 30 years have provided us with information in order to understand the effects of ACEIs and have demonstrated that patients benefit from ACEI treatment at different stages of the pathophysiological continuum of cardiovascular diseases. The current guidelines recommend that ACEIs should be used for routine secondary prevention in all patients with coronary artery disease and should be considered for all other patients with coronary or other vascular disease unless contraindicated.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers (ARBs) in Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events: A Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trials

Context. Whether angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) are useful in high risk patients without heart failure is unclear. We perform a meta-analysis of prospective randomized placebo-controlled ACEI or ARB trials studying patients with a combination of risk factors to assess treatment impact on all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Method. A PubMed search was made for placebo-controlled trials recruiting at least 1,200 high risk patients randomized to either ACEI or ARB, with follow-up of at least 2 years. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5 program and Mantel-Haenszel analysis was done with a fixed effects model. Results. Ten trials recruiting 77,633 patients were reviewed. All cause mortality was significantly reduced by ACEI (RR 0.89; P = 0.0008), but not by ARB treatment (RR 1.00; P = 0.89). Cardiovascular mortality and nonfatal MI were also reduced in the ACEI trials but not with ARB therapy. Stroke was significantly reduced in the ACEI trials (RR 0.75; P < 0.00001) and more modestly reduced in the ARB trials (RR 0.90; P = 0.01). Conclusion. ACEI treatment reduced stroke, nonfatal MI, cardiovascular and total mortality in high risk patients, while ARB modestly reduced stroke with no effect on nonfatal MI, cardiovascular and total mortality.

Not all angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are equal: focus on ramipril and perindopril

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are a heterogeneous class, varying in pharmacologic properties, which have different therapeutic impacts on patient profiles, including lipophilicity, tissue-ACE binding, duration of action, half-life, and increased bradykinin availability. Among the ACE inhibitor class, the agent perindopril, in particular, has pleiotropic effects that are not equally shared by other ACE inhibitors, including bradykinin site selectivity and subsequent enhancement of nitric oxide and inhibition of endothelial cell apoptosis. Moreover, there is a large amount of evidence to suggest that perindopril therapy may reduce cardiovascular event rates in patients, yet perindopril is rarely prescribed in the United States. Ramipril is another ACE inhibitor with both a favorable clinical profile and impressive outcomes data. Our review compares the pharmacologic and trial data among perindopril, ramipril, and other ACE inhibitors. In patients with or at high risk for coronary heart disease who do not have heart failure, or in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, perindopril should be among the preferred treatment agents in the ACE inhibitor class. Ramipril has an impressive track record of improving cardiovascular outcomes, too, and should be considered a preferred agent among the ACE inhibitor class.

Nitro-fatty acids: formation, redox signaling, and therapeutic potential

SIGNIFICANCE

Nitrated derivatives of unsaturated fatty acids (nitro-fatty acids) are being formed and detected in human plasma, cell membranes, and tissue, triggering signaling cascades via covalent and reversible post-translational modifications of susceptible nucleophilic amino acids in transcriptional regulatory proteins and enzymes.

RECENT ADVANCES

Nitro-fatty acids modulate metabolic as well as inflammatory signaling pathways, including the p65 subunit of nuclear factor κB and the transcription factor peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ. Moreover, nitro-fatty acids can activate heat shock as well as phase II antioxidant responses. As electrophiles, they also activate the Nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 pathway.

CRITICAL ISSUES

We first discuss the mechanisms of nitro-fatty acid formation as well as their key chemical and biochemical properties, including their capacity to release nitric oxide and exert antioxidant actions. The electrophilic properties of nitro-fatty acids to activate anti-inflammatory signaling pathways are discussed in detail. A critical issue is the influence of nitroarachidonic acid on prostaglandin endoperoxide H synthases, modulating inflammatory processes through redirection of arachidonic acid metabolism and signaling.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Based on this information, we analyze in vivo data supporting nitro-fatty acids as promising pharmacological tools to prevent inflammatory diseases associated with oxidative and nitrative stress conditions. A key future issue is to evaluate whether nitro-fatty acid supplementation would be useful for human diseases linked to inflammation as well as their potential toxicity when administered by long periods of time.

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system for lowering coronary artery disease risk

The renin-angiotensin system when activated exerts proliferative and pro-inflammatory actions and thereby contributes to progression of atherosclerosis, including that occurring in the coronary arteries. It thus contributes as well to coronary artery disease (CAD). Several clinical trials have examined effects of renin-angiotensin system inhibition for primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. These include important trials such as HOPE, EUROPA and PEACE using angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, VALIANT, OPTIMAAL and TRANSCEND using angiotensin receptor blockers, and the ongoing TOPCAT study in patients with preserved ejection fraction heart failure, many of who also have coronary artery disease. Data are unavailable as yet of effects of either direct renin inhibitors or the new angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor agents. Today, inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system is standard-of-care therapy for lowering cardiovascular risk in secondary prevention in high cardiovascular risk subjects.