Comparison between zofenopril and ramipril in combination with acetylsalicylic acid in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: results of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, European study (SMILE-4)

Adjunctive therapy with an oral H2S donor provides additional therapeutic benefit beyond SGLT2 inhibition in cardiometabolic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have emerged as a potent therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Hydrogen sulphide (H2S), a well-studied cardioprotective agent, could be beneficial in HFpEF. SGLT2i monotherapy and combination therapy involving an SGLT2i and H2S donor in two preclinical models of cardiometabolic HFpEF was investigated.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Nine-week-old C57BL/6N mice received L-NAME and a 60% high fat diet for five weeks. Mice were then randomized to either control, SGLT2i monotherapy or SGLT2i and H2S donor, SG1002, for five additional weeks. Ten-week-old ZSF1 obese rats were randomized to control, SGLT2i or SGLT2i and SG1002 for 8 weeks. SG1002 monotherapy was investigated in additional animals. Cardiac function (echocardiography and haemodynamics), exercise capacity, glucose handling and multiorgan pathology were monitored during experimental protocols.

KEY RESULTS

SGLT2i treatment improved E/e' ratio and treadmill exercise in both models. Combination therapy afforded increases in cardiovascular sulphur bioavailability that coincided with improved left end-diastolic function (E/e' ratio), exercise capacity, metabolic state, cardiorenal fibrosis, and hepatic steatosis. Follow-up studies with SG1002 monotherapy revealed improvements in diastolic function, exercise capacity and multiorgan histopathology.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

SGLT2i monotherapy remediated pathological complications exhibited by two well-established HFpEF models. Adjunctive H2S therapy resulted in further improvements of cardiometabolic perturbations beyond SGLT2i monotherapy. Follow-up SG1002 monotherapy studies inferred an improved phenotype with combination therapy beyond either monotherapy. These data demonstrate the differing effects of SGLT2i and H2S therapy while also revealing the superior efficacy of the combination therapy in cardiometabolic HFpEF.

Zofenopril versus ramipril in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction with systolic dysfunction: A retrospective study

Introduction:

Prognostic benefits of zofenopril over ramipril in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction have been reported by the SMILE study, but these benefits have not been tested in clinical practice in the Chinese population. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of zofenopril plus aspirin against ramipril plus aspirin in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Methods:

Patients in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction received 30 mg zofenopril (ZF cohort, N=191) or 5 mg ramipril (RP cohort, N=256) b.i.d. plus 100 mg aspirin/day. Data regarding hospitalisation for cardiovascular disease, non-cardiovascular events and mortality were collected and analysed.

Results:

During 1 year of treatment, 47 (25%) patients in the ZF cohort and 97 (40%) patients in the RP cohort were hospitalised due to cardiovascular disease (p=0.002), and three (2%) patients in the ZF cohort and 14 (6%) patients in the RP cohort died (p=0.043). Lower incidences of dry cough (p=0.001) and anaemia (p=0.049) were reported in the ZF cohort.

Conclusions:

The study recommends zofenopril with 100 mg aspirin for a longer period in patients with acute myocardial infarction with systolic dysfunction.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition: Beyond Blood Pressure Control-The Role of Zofenopril

The extensive use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) as antihypertensive agents and the huge amount of data collected in clinical trials and post-marketing studies has allowed the extending of the indication of ACEIs beyond blood pressure control. Current guidelines recommend ACEIs in symptomatic patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to decrease the risk of heart failure hospitalization, and also in patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-elevation with or without post-AMI ventricular dysfunction. Analyzing the association between the choice of an ACEI after AMI with the risk of mortality and re-infarction, a class effect, rather than the superiority of some agents, has been described. The focus of this review is centered on the role of ACEIs in addition to and beyond blood pressure control. It summarizes clinical evidence on the use of these agents in cardiovascular diseases, with a specific interest in the experience with zofenopril, which presents a peculiar pharmacological profile that may contribute to additional clinical benefits in some identifiable populations of patients. Indeed, the presence of a sulfhydryl group in its structure confers on zofenopril high anti-oxidant and anti-ischemic properties involving the activation of the H₂S system, resulting in a cardioprotective effect. The efficacy and safety of zofenopril have been extensively evaluated and proved in the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation (SMILE) program in numerous clinical settings. The pharmacological features and ancillary characteristics of zofenopril with potent cardioprotective effects seem to differentiate it from other ACEIs and to confer further benefits to patients.

Drug-Drug Interactions in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Systematic Review

Drug-drug interaction (DDI) is defined as a clinically significant change in the exposure and/or response to a drug caused by co-administration of another drug which may result in a precipitation of an adverse event or alteration of its therapeutic effects. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of DDIs that were actually observed or evaluated in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with particular focus on DDIs with clinical relevance. Electronic searches of the literature were conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EBSCO, Scopus, Google Scholar and SCIndeks. A total of 117 articles were included in the review. This review showed that ACS patients can be exposed to a variety of DDIs with diverse outcomes which include decreased efficacy of antiplatelet drugs, thrombolytics or anticoagulants, increased risk of bleeding, rhabdomyolysis, hepatotoxicity, adverse effects on cardiovascular system (e.g. QT interval prolongation, arrhythmias, excessive bradycardia, severe hypotension), serotonin syndrome and drug-induced fever. Majority of the DDIs involved antiplatelet drugs (e.g. aspirin, clopidogrel and ticagrelor). Evidence of some of the reported DDIs is inconclusive as some of the studies have shown conflicting results. There is a need for additional post-marketing and population-based studies to evaluate the true effects of disease states and other factors on the clinical outcomes of DDIs. Clinicians should be attentive to the potential for DDIs and their associated harm in order to minimize or, if possible, avoid medication-related adverse events in ACS patients.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug effects on renal and cardiovascular function: from physiology to clinical practice

Excessive or inappropriate use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can affect cardiovascular and renal function. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, both non-selective and selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors, are among the most widely used drugs, especially in the elderly, with multiple comorbidities. Exposition to a polypharmacy burden represents a favourable substrate for the onset of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced deleterious effects. Cardiovascular and renal issues concerning the occurrence of myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, heart failure and arterial hypertension, as well as acute or chronic kidney damage, become critical for clinicians in their daily practice. We discuss current available knowledge regarding prostanoid physiology in vascular, cardiac and renal systems, pointing out potential negative non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related issues in clinical practice.

Efficacy of Zofenopril Alone or in Combination with Hydrochlorothiazide in Patients with Kidney Dysfunction

Hypertension and kidney disease often coexist, further increasing the risk of future cardiovascular events. Treatment of hypertensive adults with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in case of concomitant kidney disease may slow disease progression. The third-generation liphophilic angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril, administered alone or combined with a thiazide diuretic, has proved to be effective in lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients and to reduce the risk of fatal and non-fatal events in post-acute myocardial infarction and heart failure. In almost three-hundred hypertensive patients with kidney impairment zofenopril administered for 12 weeks showed a similar blood pressure-lowering effect irrespective of the stage of the disease, with larger effects in combination with a thiazide diuretic, particularly in patients with slightly or moderately impaired kidney function. In animal models, zofenopril produced a significant and long-lasting inhibition of kidney angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and prevented kidney morphological and functional alterations following kidney ischemia-reperfusion injury. Treatment of hypertensive patients for 18 weeks with a combination of zofenopril 30 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg resulted in a reduction in albumin creatinine ratio of 8.4 mg/g (49.6% reduction from baseline values) and no changes in glomerular filtration rate, variations in line with those obtained in the control group treated with a combination of irbesartan 150 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Thus, some preliminary evidence exists to support that relatively long-term treatment with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril alone or combined with hydrochlorothiazide is effective in controlling blood pressure and may confer some kidney protection due to ACE inhibition properties.

Interactions between the Cyclooxygenase Metabolic Pathway and the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone Systems: Their Effect on Cardiovascular Risk, from Theory to the Clinical Practice

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke are the most common and serious long-term complications of hypertension. Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) significantly reduces their incidence and cardiovascular mortality. The RAAS activation plays an important role in pathogenesis of CVD, resulting in increased vascular resistance, proliferation of vascular-smooth-muscle-cells, and cardiac hypertrophy. Drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) are demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events in population with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The cyclooxygenase inhibitors limit the beneficial effect of RAAS-inhibitors, which in turn may be important in subjects with hypertension, CAD, and congestive heart failure. These observations apply to most of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and ASA at high doses. Nevertheless, there is no strong evidence confirming presence of similar effects of cardioprotective ASA doses. The benefit of combined therapy with low-doses of ASA is-in some cases-significantly higher than that of monotherapy. So far, the significance of ASA in optimizing the pharmacotherapy remains not fully established. A better understanding of its influence on the particular CVD should contribute to more precise identification of patients in whom benefits of ASA outweigh the complication risk. This brief review summarizes the data regarding usefulness and safety of the ASA combination with drugs acting directly on the RAAS.

Efficacy of zofenopril in combination with amlodipine in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual patient data analysis of four randomized, double-blind, controlled, prospective studies

OBJECTIVE

In the four SMILE (Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation) studies, early administration of zofenopril in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) showed beneficial effects as compared to placebo and other angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). This study investigated whether the concomitant administration of the dihydropyridine calcium channel-blocker amlodipine may improve zofenopril efficacy to prevent cardiovascular events in post-AMI patients.

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data from the four large randomized SMILE studies. The primary endpoint was the 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.

RESULTS

In total, 3488 patients were considered, 303 (8.7%) treated with concomitant amlodipine. Baseline systolic blood pressure and prevalence of metabolic syndrome were higher in amlodipine treated patients. The 1-year occurrence of major cardiovascular outcomes was significantly reduced in patients receiving concomitant treatment with amlodipine (hazard ratio, HR = 0.66; and 95% confidence interval, CI = 0.44-0.98; p = .039). After accounting for treatment with amlodipine, the risk of cardiovascular events was significantly reduced with zofenopril compared to placebo (HR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.63-0.97; p = .026]. Among ACEI-treated patients, the zofenopril plus amlodipine combination reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 38%, compared to the combination of other ACEIs plus amlodipine [HR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.61-0.94); p = .013). The prognostic benefit of concomitant treatment with zofenopril plus amlodipine was independent from blood pressure lowering.

CONCLUSIONS

Zofenopril had a positive impact on prognosis in post-AMI patients, compared to other ACEIs. Concomitant administration of amlodipine may help to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events at 1 year.

Efficacy of zofenopril in combination with thiazide diuretics in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of four randomized, double-blind, controlled, prospective studies

Background

In the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation (SMILE) studies, early administration of zofenopril after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was prognostically beneficial as compared to placebo and other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), such as lisinopril and ramipril. Here, we investigated whether zofenopril efficacy could be affected by a concomitant use of thiazide diuretics (TDs).

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data from the SMILE studies. Patients treated with other diuretics than TDs were excluded. The primary study endpoint was the 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for CV causes, with or without TD.

Results

Among 2,995 patients, 263 (8.8%) were treated with a combination including a TD (TD+), whereas 2,732 (91.2%) were not treated with any diuretic (TD−). Proportions of subjects who were treated with TD were equally distributed (p=0.774) within the placebo, zofenopril, and other ACEIs groups. The 1-year risk of major cardiovascular events was similar in TD+ (18.3%) and TD− (16.8%) patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.74–1.45; p=0.838). After stratifying per concomitant treatment and TD, the 1-year risk of CV events was significantly lower with zofenopril than with placebo (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55–0.88; p=0.002) and other ACEIs (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.46–0.74; p=0.0001). Treatment with ACEIs and TD as concomitant therapy was associated with a larger blood pressure (BP) reduction (p=0.0001 for systolic BP and p=0.045 for diastolic BP).

Conclusion

In post AMI patients, zofenopril maintained its positive impact on prognosis compared to placebo or other ACEIs, regardless concomitant TD administration. In this setting, TD shows advantages in managing the most difficult hypertensive patients.

Effects of the concomitant administration of xanthine oxidase inhibitors with zofenopril or other ACE-inhibitors in post-myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of individual data of four randomized, double-blind, prospective studies

Background

Oxidative stress is increased in hyperuricemic patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Use of sulfhydryl ACE-inhibitors (ACEIs), such as zofenopril or captopril, plus xanthine oxidase inhibitors (XOIs), may potentially result in enhanced antioxidant effects and improved survival.

Objective

We verified the benefit of such combination in a randomly stratified sample of 525 of the 3630 post-AMI patients of the four randomized prospective SMILE (Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation) studies.

Methods

One hundred sixty-five (31.4%) patients were treated with XOIs (79 under zofenopril, 86 placebo, lisinopril or ramipril), whereas 360 were not (192 zofenopril, 168 placebo or other ACEIs). In these four groups, we separately estimated the 1-year combined risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE, death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes).

Results

MACE occurred in 10.1% of patients receiving zofenopril + XOIs, in 18.6% receiving placebo or other ACEIs + XOIs, in 13.5% receiving zofenopril without XOIs and in 22.0% receiving placebo or other ACEIs, but no XOIs (p = 0.034 across groups). Rate of survival free from MACE was significantly larger under treatment with zofenopril + XOIs than with other ACEIs with no XOIs [hazard ratio: 2.29 (1.06–4.91), p = 0.034]. A non-significant trend for superiority of zofenopril + XOIs combination was observed vs. zofenopril alone [1.19 (0.54–2.64), p = 0.669] or vs. placebo or other ACEIs + XOIs [1.82 (0.78–4.26), p = 0.169].

Conclusions

Our retrospective analysis suggests an improved survival free from MACE in post-AMI patients treated with a combination of an urate lowering drug with antioxidant activity and an ACEI, with best effects observed with zofenopril.

Efficacy and Safety of Zofenopril Versus Ramipril in the Treatment of Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure: A Review of the Published and Unpublished Data of the Randomized Double-Blind SMILE-4 Study

Zofenopril is a lipophilic, sulfhydryl group-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor, characterized by wide tissue distribution, long duration of action, and pleiotropic effects on endothelial dysfunction. Its clinical efficacy and safety have been described in the four randomized controlled trials of the SMILE program, which globally enrolled more than 3600 patients in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) setting. The SMILE-4 study specifically selected patients with left ventricular dysfunction at admission, and compared the effects of zofenopril or ramipril in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Zofenopril demonstrated its superiority over ramipril in reducing the combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes both in the overall population included in the original study and in subgroups of patients at highest risk, namely hypertensive and diabetic subjects. The effects of the early treatment with zofenopril were sustained over time, and, after 5 years of follow-up, zofenopril increased the survival likelihood and reduced the hospitalization rate. Compared to ramipril, zofenopril was cost-effective with a number to treat of 13 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 2125.45 euros for any additional event prevented. Furthermore, in real-world settings, zofenopril decreased the risk of death in patients with heart failure, particularly in men, and in subjects older than 76 years or with ejection fraction lower than 54%. These results support the early use of zofenopril immediately after AMI, even in the presence of comorbidities, and its maintenance over time to reduce the risk of heart failure.

FUNDING

Menarini International Operations Luxembourg S.A.

Early Treatment With Zofenopril and Ramipril in Combination With Acetyl Salicylic Acid in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results of a 5-Year Follow-up of Patients of the SMILE-4 Study

The SMILE-4 study showed that in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) after acute myocardial infarction, early treatment with zofenopril plus acetyl salicylic acid is associated with an improved 1-year survival, free from death or hospitalization for cardiovascular (CV) causes, as compared to ramipril plus acetyl salicylic acid. We now report CV outcomes during a 5-year follow-up of the patients of the SMILE-4 study. Three hundred eighty-six of the 518 patients completing the study (51.2%) could be tracked after the study end and 265 could be included in the analysis. During the 5.5 (±2.1) years of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 27.8% of patients originally randomized and treated with zofenopril and in 43.8% of patients treated with ramipril [odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval, 0.65 (0.43-0.98), P = 0.041]. Such a result was achieved through a significantly larger reduction in CV hospitalization under zofenopril [OR: 0.61 (0.37-0.99), P = 0.047], whereas reduction in mortality rate with zofenopril did not achieve statistical significance versus ramipril [OR: 0.75 (0.36-1.59), P = 0.459]. These results were in line with those achieved during the initial 1-year follow-up. Benefits of early treatment of patients with LVD after acute myocardial infarction with zofenopril are sustained over many years as compared to ramipril.

Efficacy of Zofenopril Compared With Placebo and Other Angiotensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Previous Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Pooled Individual Data Analysis of 4 Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled, Prospective Studies

In the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (SMILE) 1, 3, and 4 studies, early administration of zofenopril in acute myocardial infarction showed to be prognostically beneficial versus placebo or ramipril. The SMILE-2 showed that both zofenopril and lisinopril are safe and showed no significant differences in the incidence of major cardiovascular (CV) complications. In this pooled analysis of individual data of the SMILE studies, we evaluated whether the superior efficacy of zofenopril is maintained also in patients with ≥1 CV risk factor (CV+, n = 2962) as compared to CV− (n = 668). The primary study end point was set to 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for CV causes. The risk of CV events was significantly reduced with zofenopril versus placebo either in the CV+ (−37%; hazard ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.51–0.78; P = 0.0001) or in the CV− group (−55%; hazard ratio: 0.45; 0.26–0.78; P = 0.004). Also, the other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduced the risk of major CV outcomes, though the reduction was not statistically significant versus placebo (CV+: 0.78; 0.58–1.05; P = 0.107; CV−: 0.71; 0.36–1.41; P = 0.334). The benefit was larger in patients treated with zofenopril than other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, with a statistically significant difference for CV+ (0.79; 0.63–0.99; P = 0.039) versus CV− (0.62; 0.37–1.06; P = 0.081). In conclusion, zofenopril administered to patients after acute myocardial infarction has a positive impact on prognosis, regardless of the patient's CV risk profile.

How important is aspirin adherence when evaluating effectiveness of low-dose aspirin?

Low-dose aspirin (LDA) is advocated for women at high-risk of pre-eclampsia, providing a modest, 10%, reduction in risk. Cardiology meta-analyses demonstrate 18% reduction in serious vascular events with LDA. Non-responsiveness to aspirin (sometimes termed aspirin resistance) and variable clinical effectiveness are often attributed to suboptimal adherence. The aim of this review was to identify the scope of adherence assessments in RCTs evaluating aspirin effectiveness in cardiology and obstetrics and discuss the quality of information provided by current methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, limited to humans and English language, for RCTs evaluating aspirin in cardiology; 14/03/13-13/03/16 and pregnancy 1957-13/03/16. Search terms; 'aspirin', 'acetylsalicylic acid' appearing adjacent to 'myocardial infarction' or 'pregnancy', 'pregnant', 'obstetric' were used. 38% (25/68) of obstetric and 32% (20/62) of cardiology RCTs assessed aspirin adherence and 24% (6/25) and 29% (6/21) of obstetric and cardiology RCTs, respectively, defined acceptable adherence. Semi-quantitative methods (pill counts, medication weighing) prevailed in obstetric RCTs (93%), qualitative methods (interviews, questionnaires) were more frequent in obstetrics (67%). Two obstetric RCTs quantified serum thromboxane B₂ and salicylic acid, but no quantitative methods were used in cardiology Aspirin has proven efficacy, but suboptimal adherence is widespread and difficult to accurately quantify. Little is currently known about aspirin adherence in pregnancy. RCTs evaluating aspirin effectiveness show over-reliance on qualitative adherence assessments vulnerable to inherent inaccuracies. Reliable adherence data is important to assess and optimise the clinical effectiveness of LDA. We propose that adherence should be formally assessed in future trials and that development of quantitative assessments may prove valuable for trial protocols.

Efficacy of Ace Inhibition with Zofenopril, Lisinopril, or Ramipril in Postacute Myocardial Infarction Patients With or Without Metabolic Syndrome: A Pooled Individual Data Analysis of Four Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled, Prospective Studies

Background: The metabolic syndrome (MS) is a clustering of different cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, which further enhances the risk of death and CV complications in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. In the present meta-analysis of individual data of the four randomized, prospective SMILE studies, we evaluated the efficacy of zofenopril vs. lisinopril, ramipril, and placebo on 1-year CV morbidity and mortality, according to the presence (+) or absence (−) of the MS.

Methods: 2203 (63.2%) of the 3488 patients were classified as MS+, 1285 (36.8%) as MS−. Five hundred two MS+ and 380 MS− were treated with placebo, 1134 and 608 with zofenopril 30–60 mg/die, 340 and 175 with lisinopril 5–10 mg/die, and 227 and 122 with ramipril 10 mg/die. Treatment was continued for 6 to 48 weeks.

Results: The 1-year risk of a major CV event was similar (P = 0.420) in MS+ (18.1%) and MS− (18.0%) patients [HR and 95% confidence interval: 0.92 (0.76–1.12)]. After accounting for MS+/MS−, the 1-year risk of CV events vs. placebo was significantly lower under zofenopril [0.79 (0.63–0.97); P = 0.028] and lisinopril [0.65 (0.47–0.89); P = 0.007], but larger under ramipril [2.57 (1.94–3.93); P = 0.0001]. Treatment with zofenopril was associated with a statistically significant (P = 0.0001) reduction in CV risk as compared with the other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [MS+: 0.52 (0.42–0.66); MS−: 0.52 (0.38–0.73)].

Conclusions: In post-AMI patients with MS, zofenopril treatment is associated with a clinically relevant reduction in long-term CV morbidity and mortality, compared with placebo, with an efficacy similar to lisinopril, but better than ramipril.

Cardioprotective role of zofenopril in hypertensive patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of the SMILE studies

PURPOSE

The four SMILE studies demonstrated that early administration of zofenopril following acute myocardial infarction is prognostically beneficial compared to placebo or other angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. In the present retrospective pooled analysis of individual SMILE studies, we evaluated the efficacy of zofenopril on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in 1880 hypertensive and 1662 normotensive patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four hundred and forty-nine hypertensives and 486 normotensives were treated with placebo, 980 and 786 with zofenopril 30-60 mg daily, 252 and 259 with lisinopril 5-10 mg daily, 199 and 131 with ramipril 10 mg daily, for 6 to 48 weeks.

RESULTS

The 1-year risk of death or hospitalization for CV causes was significantly reduced with zofenopril and lisinopril vs. placebo in both hypertensive (HR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.48-0.86; p = .003 and .60, .36-.99; p = .049, respectively) and normotensive patients (0.56, 0.42-0.75; p = .0001 and .51, .28-.90; p = .020), whereas this was not the case for ramipril (hypertensives: 1.02, 0.69-1.52; p = .918; normotensives: 0.91, 0.59-1.41; p = .670). Zofenopril significantly reduced the risk of CV outcomes vs. the other two ACE-inhibitors pooled together in hypertensive (0.76; 0.58-0.99; p = .045), but not in normotensive patients (0.77; 0.55-1.10; p = .150).

CONCLUSIONS

In cardiac patients of the SMILE studies with arterial hypertension treatment with the ACE-inhibitor zofenopril was beneficial in reducing the 1-year risk of CV events as compared to placebo and ramipril. An efficacy similar to that of zofenopril was observed with lisinopril.

Zofenopril and Ramipril in Combination with Acetyl Salicylic Acid in Postmyocardial Infarction Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: A Retrospective Analysis of the SMILE-4 Randomized, Double-Blind Study in Diabetic Patients

OBJECTIVE

In the SMILE-4 study, zofenopril + acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) was more effective than ramipril + ASA on 1-year prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated drug efficacy in subgroups of patients, according to a history of diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

The primary study endpoint was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Diabetes was defined according to medical history (previous known diagnosis).

RESULTS

A total of 562 of 693 (81.0%) patients were classified as nondiabetics and 131 (18.9%) as diabetics. The adjusted rate of MACE was lower under zofenopril than under ramipril in both nondiabetics [27.9% vs. 34.9% ramipril; odds ratio, OR and 95% confidence interval: 0.55 (0.35, 0.86)] and diabetics [30.9% vs. 41.3%; 0.56 (0.18, 1.73)], although the difference was statistically significant only for the nondiabetic group (P = 0.013). Zofenopril was superior to ramipril as regards to the primary study endpoint in the subgroup of 157 patients with uncontrolled blood glucose (≥ 126 mg/dL), regardless of a previous diagnosis of diabetes [0.31 (0.10, 0.90), P = 0.030]. Zofenopril significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in both nondiabetics [0.64 (0.43, 0.96), P = 0.030] and diabetics [0.38 (0.15, 0.95), P = 0.038], whereas it was not better than ramipril in terms of prevention of cardiovascular deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril plus ASA in the prevention of long-term MACE also in the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus.

Zofenopril and ramipril in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: A propensity analysis of the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (SMILE) 4 study

Introduction:

This was a propensity score analysis of the prospective, randomized, double-blind Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (SMILE) 4 study in which one-year treatment with zofenopril 60 mg plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg gave superior results compared to ramipril 10 mg plus ASA in terms of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by left ventricular dysfunction (LVD).

Materials and methods:

A total of 716 patients of the intention-to-treat population were divided into homogeneous propensity quintiles (Q) using a logistic regression model (QI: best risk profile; QV: worst risk profile).

Results:

Treatment was associated with a similar low rate of major cardiovascular events in any Q. However, the efficacy of zofenopril was better than that of ramipril in QII, QV, and particularly QIII (odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval: 0.43 (0.21–0.87), p<0.05]. This result was primarily attributed to a decrease in the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization, particularly striking in the QIII (OR: 0.40, 0.19-0.85; p<0.05). Mortality rate did not significantly differ between the two treatments in any Q.

Conclusions:

In the SMILE-4 study the propensity analysis confirmed the efficacy of zofenopril in the prevention of long-term cardiovascular outcomes irrespective of the cardiovascular risk profile of post-AMI patients.

Zofenopril Protects Against Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury by Increasing Nitric Oxide and Hydrogen Sulfide Bioavailability

Background

Zofenopril, a sulfhydrylated angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), reduces mortality and morbidity in infarcted patients to a greater extent than do other ACEIs. Zofenopril is a unique ACEI that has been shown to increase hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) bioavailability and nitric oxide (NO) levels via bradykinin‐dependent signaling. Both H₂S and NO exert cytoprotective and antioxidant effects. We examined zofenopril effects on H₂S and NO bioavailability and cardiac damage in murine and swine models of myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury.

Methods and Results

Zofenopril (10 mg/kg PO) was administered for 1, 8, and 24 hours to establish optimal dosing in mice. Myocardial and plasma H₂S and NO levels were measured along with the levels of H₂S and NO enzymes (cystathionine β‐synthase, cystathionine γ‐lyase, 3‐mercaptopyruvate sulfur transferase, and endothelial nitric oxide synthase). Mice received 8 hours of zofenopril or vehicle pretreatment followed by 45 minutes of ischemia and 24 hours of reperfusion. Pigs received placebo or zofenopril (30 mg/daily orally) 7 days before 75 minutes of ischemia and 48 hours of reperfusion. Zofenopril significantly augmented both plasma and myocardial H₂S and NO levels in mice and plasma H₂S (sulfane sulfur) in pigs. Cystathionine β‐synthase, cystathionine γ‐lyase, 3‐mercaptopyruvate sulfur transferase, and total endothelial nitric oxide synthase levels were unaltered, while phospho‐endothelial nitric oxide synthase¹¹⁷⁷ was significantly increased in mice. Pretreatment with zofenopril significantly reduced myocardial infarct size and cardiac troponin I levels after I/R injury in both mice and swine. Zofenopril also significantly preserved ischemic zone endocardial blood flow at reperfusion in pigs after I/R.

Conclusions

Zofenopril‐mediated cardioprotection during I/R is associated with an increase in H₂S and NO signaling.

Cardioprotective role of zofenopril in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of four randomised, double-blind, controlled, prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Early administration of zofenopril following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) proved to be prognostically beneficial in the four individual randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, prospective SMILE (Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation) studies. In the present analysis, we evaluated the cumulative efficacy of zofenopril by pooling individual data from the four SMILE studies.

METHODS

3630 patients with AMI were enrolled and treated for 6-48 weeks with zofenopril 30-60 mg/day (n=1808), placebo (n=951), lisinopril 5-10 mg/day (n=520) or ramipril 10 mg/day (n=351). The primary study end point of this pooled analysis was set to 1 year combined occurrence of death or hospitalisation for cardiovascular (CV) causes.

RESULTS

Occurrence of major CV outcomes was significantly reduced with zofenopril versus placebo (-40%; HR=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; p=0.0001) and versus the other ACE inhibitors (-23%; HR=0.77, 0.63 to 0.95; p=0.015). The risk reduction observed under treatment with the other ACE inhibitors was nearly statistically significant (-22%; HR=0.78, 0.60 to 1.02; p=0.072). The benefit of zofenopril versus placebo was already evident after the first 6 weeks of treatment (-28%; HR=0.72, 0.54 to 0.97; p=0.029), while this was not the case for the other ACE inhibitors (-19%; HR=0.81, 0.57 to 1.17; p=0.262). In this early phase of treatment, zofenopril showed a non-significant trend towards a larger reduction in CV events versus the other ACE inhibitors (-11%; HR=0.89, 0.69 to 1.15; p=0.372).

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled data analysis from the SMILE Programme confirms the favourable effects of zofenopril treatment in patients with post-AMI and its long-term benefit in terms of prevention of CV morbidity and mortality.

Randomised comparison of zofenopril and ramipril plus acetylsalicylic acid in postmyocardial infarction patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a post hoc analysis of the SMILE-4 Study in patients according to levels of left ventricular ejection fraction at entry

Objective

Conflicting evidence exists on the benefits of treating patients with coronary artery disease and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with an ACE inhibitor. This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 Study sought to compare the efficacy of zofenopril 60 mg plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus ramipril 10 mg plus ASA 100 mg in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure, according to an impaired or preserved LVEF.

Methods

The primary study end point was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalisation for cardiovascular causes. A preserved LVEF was defined by a baseline LVEF >40% and an impaired one by an LVEF ≤40%.

Results

448 patients (63%) had preserved and 262 (37%) had impaired LVEF. The primary end point occurred in 125 patients with preserved (28%) and 106 patients with impaired LVEF (41%, p=0.001). In the first group, the rate of major cardiovascular events was significantly lower under zofenopril than under ramipril (23% vs 33%; OR and 95% CI 0.60, 0.39 to 0.91; p=0.016). This was also the case for patients with impaired LVEF, though between-group difference was not statistically significant (38% zofenopril vs 44% ramipril; OR 0.77, 0.47 to 1.26; p=0.297). LVEF values significantly (p<0.0001) increased during the follow-up in both subsets with no between-treatment differences. However, improvement rates in LVEF (increase ≥5%) were higher in patients with impaired LVEF (72% vs 61%, p=0.006).

Conclusions

In the SMILE-4 Study, the cardiovascular outcome of patients with post-AMI with preserved LVEF was more favourable in the zofenopril than in the ramipril treatment group.

Trial registration number

EudraCT Number: 2004-001150-88 (http://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu); Italian Ministry of Health Code: GUIDOTT_III_2004_001 (https://oss-sper-clin.agenziafarmaco.it).

A crossover randomized comparative study of zofenopril and ramipril on cough reflex and airway inflammation in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Persistent dry cough is a well known unwanted effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i). Animal studies have shown that the ACE-i zofenopril has a less tussigenic effect compared to the widely used ACE-i ramipril. The aim of this study was to compare cough sensitivity to inhaled tussigens, as well as spontaneous cough in response to the administration of zofenopril and ramipril in healthy volunteers; pharmacokinetic (PK) data of both zofenopril and ramipril, as well as their respective active forms, zofenoprilat and ramiprilat, was also collected.

METHODS

Forty healthy volunteers were enrolled in a randomized crossover study. Patients were administered zofenopril calcium salt (test drug) coated tablets, 30 mg daily dose or ramipril (reference drug) tablets, 10 mg daily dose, for 7 consecutive days in two periods separated by a 21-day wash-out period. Cough sensitivity to capsaicin and citric acid was assessed as the concentration of each tussigenic agent causing at least 2 (C2) or 5 coughs (C5); spontaneous cough was also monitored throughout the study. PK parameters of zofenopril, ramipril and their active forms, were collected for each of the two study periods. Airway inflammation, as assessed by fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and bradykinin (BK) levels, were measured prior to and following each treatment period.

RESULTS

Ramipril, but not zofenopril, increased (p < 0.01) cough sensitivity to both tussigenic agents as assessed by C2. With citric acid, C5 values calculated after both ramipril and zofenopril administration were significantly (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) lower than corresponding control values. With both ACE-i drugs, spontaneous cough was infrequently reported by subjects. Zofenopril/zofenoprilat PK analysis showed higher area under the curve of plasma concentration, τ values (ng/ml x h) than ramipril/ramiprilat (zofenopril vs. ramipril, 84.25 ± 34.47 vs. 47.40 ± 21.30; and zofenoprilat vs. ramiprilat, 653.67 ± 174.91 vs. 182.26 ± 61.28). Both ACE-i drugs did not affect BK plasma levels; in contrast, ramipril, but not zofenopril, significantly increased control FeNO values (from 24 ± 9.6 parts per billion [PPB] to 33 ± 16 PPB; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Zofenopril has a more favourable profile when compared to ramipril as shown by a reduced pro-inflammatory activity and less impact on the cough reflex.

Effects of treatment with zofenopril in men and women with acute myocardial infarction: gender analysis of the SMILE Program

Background

the SMILE studies proved the prognostic benefit of zofenopril vs. placebo or other ACE-inhibitors (ACEIs) in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In this retrospective pooled analysis of these studies we assessed whether the zofenopril effect is influenced by gender.

Methods

the four double-blind, randomized, parallel-group SMILE studies, compared the efficacy and safety of 6–48 week treatment with zofenopril 60 mg/day with that of placebo, lisinopril 10 mg/day or ramipril 10 mg/day in 3630 AMI patients. This pooled analysis compared treatment efficacy (1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for CV causes) in 2733 men and 897 women.

Results

women were older than men, had a higher prevalence of diabetes and of other major CV risk factors. The risk of a major CV event was significantly larger for women (23% vs. 17% men, p<0.001). Between-gender risk difference was more marked for people living in Southern (+54%) than in Northern Europe (+12%). In both genders zofenopril similarly reduced the 1-year risk of CV morbidity and mortality vs. placebo (−39% men, p = 0.0001; −40% women, p = 0.005). The risk reduction was more marked with zofenopril than with the other ACEIs, particularly in men (−27%, p = 0.012; women: −14%, p = 0.479). The drug safety profile was similar between genders in zofenopril-treated patients, while it was worse in women treated with other ACEIs.

Conclusions

post-AMI women are at higher risk of CV complications than men, particularly when living in Mediterranean countries. Their response to ACE-inhibition varies according to the type of drug and is usually better in men.

Zofenopril and ramipril and acetylsalicylic acid in postmyocardial infarction patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis in hypertensive patients of the SMILE-4 study

BACKGROUND

Antecedent hypertension represents a risk factor for adverse outcomes in survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prognosis of such patients might be greatly improved by drugs enhancing blood pressure control. In the present retrospective analysis of the randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, SMILE-4 study we compared the efficacy of zofenopril 60 mg and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg versus ramipril 10 mg and ASA in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, classified according to a history of hypertension.

METHODS

The primary study end-point was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Hypertension was defined according to medical history and current blood pressure values at entry and could be determined in 682 of 716 patients of the intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-seven patients (23%) were normotensives and 525 (77%) hypertensives. In the normotensive population the primary end-point occurred in 19 of 76 zofenopril-treated patients (25%) and in 23 of 81 ramipril-treated patients (28%) [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.84 (0.41-1.71), P = 0.631]. In the hypertensive population, major cardiovascular outcomes were reported in 84 of 273 zofenopril-treated patients (31%) and in 99 of 252 ramipril-treated patients (39%), with a 31% significantly (P = 0.041) lower risk with zofenopril [0.69 (0.48-0.99)]. The superiority of zofenopril versus ramipril was particularly evident in patients with isolated systolic hypertension [n = 131, 0.48 (0.23-0.99), P = 0.045].

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril and ASA in the prevention of long-term cardiovascular outcomes also in the subgroup of patients with hypertension.

Cost-effectiveness of zofenopril in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: a post hoc analysis of SMILE-4

BACKGROUND

In SMILE-4 (the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation 4 study), zofenopril + acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was superior to ramipril + ASA in reducing the occurrence of major cardiovascular events in patients with left ventricular dysfunction following acute myocardial infarction. The present post hoc analysis was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of zofenopril and ramipril.

METHODS

In total, 771 patients with left ventricular dysfunction and acute myocardial infarction were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive zofenopril 60 mg/day (n = 389) or ramipril 10 mg/day (n = 382) + ASA 100 mg/day and were followed up for one year. The primary study endpoint was the one-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. The economic analysis was based on evaluation of cost of medications and hospitalizations and was applied to the intention-to-treat population (n = 716). Cost data were drawn from the National Health Service databases of the European countries participating in the study. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to quantify the cost per event prevented with zofenopril versus ramipril.

RESULTS

Zofenopril significantly (P = 0.028) reduced the risk of the primary study endpoint by 30% as compared with ramipril (95% confidence interval, 4%-49%). The number needed to treat to prevent a major cardiovascular event with zofenopril was 13 less than with ramipril. The cost of drug therapies was higher with zofenopril (328.78 Euros per patient per year, n = 365) than with ramipril (165.12 Euros per patient per year, n = 351). The cost related to the occurrence of major cardiovascular events requiring hospitalization averaged 4983.64 Euros for zofenopril and 4850.01 Euros for ramipril. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for zofenopril versus ramipril was 2125.45 Euros per event prevented (worst and best case scenario in the sensitivity analysis was 3590.09 and 3243.96 Euros, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Zofenopril is a viable and cost-effective treatment for managing patients with left ventricular dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction.

Effect of zofenopril and ramipril on cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic heart failure

A head-to-head evaluation of the effect of ramipril and zofenopril on the cardiovascular mortality rate of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) in the setting of clinical practice is not yet available. We prospectively enrolled 224 patients with all-cause HF, who were untreated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. These patients were then assigned to zofenopril 15 to 30 mg/day or ramipril 5 to 10 mg/day on the basis of a prospective, randomized, open, blinded, end point trial. The primary outcome of the trial was patient survival during the follow-up period. The groups were similar in a large number of clinical parameters. The mean follow-up of this cohort was 6.1 ± 1.2 years. Overall, during the follow-up period, we observed 45 deaths in the zofenopril-treated group and 48 in the ramipril-treated group (p = 0.251). Zofenopril and ramipril appears to be equivalent regarding the effects on cardiovascular mortality in the entire sample. Zofenopril was a significant predictor of better survival in patients who were the median age or older (odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.91), in men (odds ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.98), and in patients with a lower ejection fraction (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.97). In conclusion, in the clinical practice setting, ramipril and zofenopril seem to have similar effects on cardiovascular mortality. However zofenopril might be more efficacious in elderly patients, male patients, and patients with a lower ejection fraction.

POTENTIAL OF THE MODERN ACE INHIBITOR ZOFENOPRIL IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: CARDIOPROTECTIVE, ANTI-ISCHEMIC, AND ANTIATHEROGENIC EFFECTS

The review discusses various aspects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The focus is on the modern ACE inhibitor zofenopril, its specific pharmacological characteristics, and additional cardioprotective, anti-ischemic, and antiatherogenic effects. The existing evidence of clinical effectiveness of zofenopril and its potential for a wider use in clinical practice are also addressed.