Efficacy of enalapril in essential hypertension and its comparison with atenolol

Pharmacogenetic study of CES1 gene and enalapril efficacy

Enalapril is an orally administered angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor which is widely prescribed to treat hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure. It is an ester prodrug that needs to be activated by carboxylesterase 1 (CES1). CES1 is a hepatic hydrolase that in vivo biotransforms enalapril to its active form enalaprilat in order to produce its desired pharmacological impact. Several single nucleotide polymorphisms in CES1 gene are reported to alter the catalytic activity of CES1 enzyme and influence enalapril metabolism. G143E, L40T, G142E, G147C, Y170D, and R171C can completely block the enalapril metabolism. Some polymorphisms like Q169P, E220G, and D269fs do not completely block the CES1 function; however, they reduce the catalytic activity of CES1 enzyme. The prevalence of these polymorphisms is not the same among all populations which necessitate to consider the genetic panel of respective population before prescribing enalapril. These genetic variations are also responsible for interindividual variability of CES1 enzyme activity which ultimately affects the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of enalapril. The current review summarizes the CES1 polymorphisms which influence the enalapril metabolism and efficacy. The structure of CES1 catalytic domain and important amino acids impacting the catalytic activity of CES1 enzyme are also discussed. This review also highlights the importance of pharmacogenomics in personalized medicine.

Impact Assessment of Pharmaceutical Care in the Management of Hypertension and Coronary Risk Factors after Discharge

INTRODUCTION

Almost 50% of the 17.5 million deaths worldwide from cardiovascular disease have been associated with systemic arterial hypertension (SAH). Into this scenario, Pharmaceutical Care (PC) has been inserted in order to improve the management of SAH and reduce its risks.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes and healthcare assistance achieved after discharge of hypertension patients from the PC program.

METHODS

This is a quasi-experimental study with historical controls. Retrospective data collection from 2006 to 2012 was begun in 2013 and included a PC program performed over one year. PC was performed in two basic units of the public health system in Ribeirão Preto-SP, Brazil, where the pharmacist followed up 104 hypertensive patients. The clinical indicators of systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), triglycerides, total-cholesterol, high and low density lipoprotein cholesterol were collected, as well as care indicators related to the number of consultations (basic, specialized and emergency care) and antihypertensive drugs used. The coronary risk of patients by the Framingham risk score was also calculated. For the analysis, the data were divided into three periods, 2006-2008 as pre-PC, 2009 as PC and 2010-2012 as post-PC.

RESULTS

In the pre-PC period, 54.4%, 79.0% and 27.3% of patients presented satisfactory levels of SBP, DBP and total-cholesterol, respectively. In the post-PC period, the percentages were 93.0% for SBP and DBP [p <0.001] and 60.6% for total-cholesterol [p <0.001]. The average number of consultations per patient/year in primary care was 1.66 ± 1.43 and 2.36 ± 1.73, [p = 0.012]; and for emergency care was 1.70 ± 1.43 and 1.06 ± 0.81, [p = 0.002] in the pre-PC and post-PC periods, respectively. The pre-PC Framingham risk in the last year was 14.3% ± 10.6 and the average post-PC was 10.9% ± 7.9.

CONCLUSION

PC was effective in the control of blood pressure and total-cholesterolafter discharge of the hypertensive patients from PC program.

Clinical efficacy and safety of telmisartan 80 mg once daily compared with enalapril 20 mg once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: results of a multicentre study

The efficacy and safety of once-daily telmisartan 80 mg vs. once-daily enalapril 20 mg in the treatment of essential hypertension were evaluated in a multicentre, single-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. In total, 68 patients (49 females, 19 males) with mild-to-moderate hypertension, defined as morning supine systolic blood pressure (SBP) 141-149 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-114 mmHg, were enrolled. After a 4-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with telmisartan or enalapril administered once daily in the morning for 8 weeks. No statistically significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics of patients in either group. Both SBP and DBP were decreased in both treatment groups, but the reductions were statistically different in favour of telmisartan (SBP, p = 0.013; DBP, p = 0.002). The incidence of adverse effects was lower in the telmisartan group, with the absence of cough. In conclusion, telmisartan is more effective and better tolerated than enalapril for the treatment of hypertension and has the advantage that it does not cause cough.

Enalapril versus atenolol in the treatment of hypertensive smokers

A randomised crossover study has been done to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of enalapril and atenolol in 45 smoking, hypertensive men. Treatment was started with enalapril 20 mg/d or atenolol 50 mg/d and, if necessary, the doses were doubled after 4 weeks to achieve a sitting diastolic blood pressure < or = 95 mm Hg, after which hydrochlorothiazide was added, if necessary. Both drugs lowered blood pressure significantly. However, enalapril was more efficient in lowering both systolic and diastolic blood pressure; the mean difference was significant after both 4 and 8 weeks in the sitting systolic (11.6 mm Hg and 7.9 mm Hg) and diastolic (3.3 mm Hg and 3.0 mm Hg) pressures and in the erect systolic pressures (8.2 mm Hg and 7.2 mm Hg), and after 8 weeks in the supine systolic pressure, too (8.9 mm Hg). The effect on enalapril was especially marked in moderate (< 20 cigarettes/day) smokers. The need for diuretics was also significantly less in the enalapril group. It appears that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors may be superior to beta-adrenoceptor blockers in the treatment of hypertensive smoking patients.

Atenolol. A reappraisal of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in cardiovascular disorders

Atenolol is a selective beta 1-adrenoceptor antagonist with a duration of activity of at least 24 hours. The scope of therapeutic use of the drug has been expanded and become better defined since it was first reviewed in the Journal in 1979. Atenolol is effective and generally well tolerated in patients with all grades of hypertension. Data from comparative studies show that when administered orally, atenolol reduces blood pressure to a similar extent, and in a similar proportion of patients, as usual therapeutic doses of other beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (such as acebutolol, celiprolol, betaxolol, indenolol, metoprolol, nadolol, pindolol, propranolol, tertatolol), angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (e.g. captopril, enalapril and lisinopril), calcium antagonists (e.g. amlodipine, diltiazem, felodipine, isradipine, nitrendipine, nifedipine, verapamil), doxazosin, ketanserin and alpha-methyldopa. Atenolol effectively lowers blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension and in women with hypertension associated with pregnancy, and improves objective and subjective indices in patients with stable angina pectoris. Oral atenolol is used for preventing recurrence of supraventricular arrhythmias once control is achieved by intravenous administration of atenolol. Early intervention with intravenous atenolol followed by oral maintenance therapy reduces infarct recurrence and cardiovascular mortality in patients with known or suspected myocardial infarction. There is also encouraging evidence of reduced mortality from cardiovascular disease during long term therapy with atenolol in patients with hypertension. Atenolol is well tolerated in most patients. Increases in plasma levels of both total triglycerides and very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) triglycerides have accompanied atenolol therapy although the clinical relevance, if any, of longer term metabolic effects has yet to be determined. Its low lipid solubility and limited brain penetration results in a lower incidence of central nervous system effects than that associated with propranolol. After many years of clinical usage atenolol is a well established treatment option in several areas of cardiovascular medicine such as mild to moderate hypertension and stable angina pectoris. Furthermore, it has also shown potential in the treatment of some cardiac arrhythmias and has been associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality in patients with hypertension and in patients with myocardial infarction.