Updated report on comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and direct renin inhibitors for patients with essential hypertension: much more data, little new information

A Comparative Study of the Safety and Efficacy Between Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers on the Management of Hypertension: A Systematic Review

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), are commonly used in the management of hypertension. High blood pressure is a vital risk factor for cardiovascular disease. This study aims to establish any significant difference in using ACEIs and ARBs in managing hypertension. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct this systematic review. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect for articles published in the last 20 years (2003 to 2023). Our search was last done on the 27th of June, 2023. Following the initial search, 8,313 articles were found on PubMed. After screening the articles selected from the databases, 10 articles examining 1,621,445 patients were selected for the final study. Three articles were identified that compared ACEI and ARB in their capacity to lower blood pressure. Six articles compared both medications' capacity to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality. Five articles were identified that compared both classes of drugs for adverse effects. This study was made to determine whether or not there is a difference between the use of ACEIs and ARBs in the treatment of hypertension. The study showed that both ACEIs and ARBs are similar in their efficacy in lowering blood pressure. However, ACEI was revealed to be superior to ARB in reducing cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. ARB was shown to be better tolerated by patients than ACEI.

Differential Sex-Specific Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Therapy on Arterial Function in Hypertension: CALIBREX Trial

BACKGROUND

Increased arterial stiffness is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We studied the sex-specific impact of angiotensin antagonists on vascular function in hypertension with the hypothesis that their effects on arterial stiffness may be variable in men and women.

METHODS

In 141 hypertensive participants with mild cognitive impairment (age 65.9±7.7, 57% female), candesartan (up to 32 mg, n=77) or lisinopril (up to 40 mg, n=64) were administered to achieve blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg. Pulse wave velocity, central pulse pressure, and central augmentation index were measured using applanation tonometry (SphygmoCor, Australia). Multivariate linear regression and mixed model analyses were performed using intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses for those completing the study.

RESULTS

Blood pressure reduction was similar among candesartan and lisinopril groups. Compared with candesartan, lisinopril therapy resulted in lower pulse wave velocity (0.5±0.8 versus -0.7±0.4 m/s, respectively; P=0.003) and central pulse pressure (-1±3 versus -7±4 mm Hg; P=0.03) after 1 year. There was a significant interaction by sex whereby the improvements in pulse wave velocity and central pulse pressure with lisinopril compared with candesartan were only observed in women. In contrast, there was greater improvement in augmentation index with candesartan compared with lisinopril (-4±7% versus -1.5±8%; P=0.05), with no sex differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite equipotent antihypertensive effects, lisinopril was more effective than candesartan at lowering arterial stiffness in women. In contrast, candesartan was more effective than lisinopril in improving pulse wave reflections in both sexes. These findings demonstrate differential sex-specific effects of renin-angiotensin system antagonists on arterial function in hypertension that may contribute to long-term cardiovascular and neurocognitive outcomes in this population.

The Influence of ACE Inhibition on C1-Inhibitor: A Biomarker for ACE Inhibitor-Induced Angioedema?

Aims

Angioedema is a rare side effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. It remains unclear why it is only induced in a few patients taking ACE inhibitors, often after a long period of uneventful treatment. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of ACE inhibitor treatment on C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) levels.

Methods

Captopril (5 mg/25 mg) was added to blood samples of 5 healthy subjects. C1-INH levels were measured before and after incubation for 180 min. The second section of the study was done with 17 patients who received therapy with an ACE inhibitor for the first time. C1-INH levels were measured before ACE inhibitor treatment, 24 h after first drug administration, and 4 weeks later.

Results

After incubation of blood samples with 5 mg captopril, there was no detectable change in C1-INH levels. After incubation with 25 mg, C1-INH activity was decreased by an average of 29% and the C1-INH concentration was decreased by an average of 0.06 g/L. In the second study section, inconsistent effects on C1-INH levels were detected. In the majority of patients, 24 h after the first ACE inhibitor administration C1-INH activity was tending to be increased.

Conclusions

A dose-dependent effect on C1-INH levels in captopril-incubated blood samples of healthy test persons was shown. In patients with new ACE inhibitor treatment, heterogeneous reactions of C1-INH values were detected. Larger studies are needed over a longer period of time to find correlations between the effect of ACE inhibitor therapy on C1-INH levels and the clinical course/development of side effects.

Adherence to cardiovascular medication: a review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Use of cardiovascular medication has increased over time, especially for primary and secondary prevention, with polypharmacy common.

METHODS

Review of published systematic reviews of the factors and outcomes associated with adherence to cardiovascular medication using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.

RESULTS

Of 789 systematic reviews identified, 45 met the inclusion criteria and passed the quality assessment; 34 focused on factors associated with adherence, and 11 on outcomes. High heterogeneity, both between and within reviews, precluded meta-analysis and so a pooled estimate of adherence levels could not be derived. Adherence was associated with disease factors, therapy factors, healthcare factors, patient factors and social factors, though with some inconsistencies. In total, 91% of reviews addressing outcomes reported that low adherence was associated with poorer clinical and economic endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors from across five key domains relate to non-adherence to cardiovascular medications, and may contribute to poorer clinical outcomes. Interventions to improve adherence should be developed to address modifiable factors and targeted at those at highest risk of non-adherence. Adherence research is highly heterogeneous to-date and efforts to standardize this should be implemented to improve comparability.

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Versus Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors for the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension and the Role of Olmesartan

Blood pressure lowering by all classes of antihypertensive drugs is accompanied by significant reductions of stroke and major cardiovascular (CV) events. Drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), showed similar benefit on major CV events to other antihypertensive medications. In real-world practice, ARBs reduced by 10% the incidence of CV mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and provided superior protection against CV events than ACEIs in high-risk patients. Despite similar antihypertensive properties and a favourable safety profile for both ACEIs and ARBs, evidence indicates that patients treated with ARBs have lower rates of withdrawal for adverse events and greater persistence to therapy than those treated with ACEIs. Among ARBs, olmesartan is one of the latest generation compounds introduced in clinical practice for treating hypertension: head-to-head comparative trials suggest that the efficacy of olmesartan is superior to that of commonly prescribed ACEIs (ramipril and perindopril). The drug, administered as a monotherapy or in combination with a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker or a thiazide diuretic, has proved to be effective in maintaining blood pressure stability over 24 h, with a favourable safety profile and low discontinuation rates. These properties are pivotal for considering olmesartan as a useful antihypertensive agent especially for high-risk patients (e.g. elderly, diabetics, patients with metabolic syndrome).Funding: Article preparation and open access fee were funded by Menarini International Operations Luxembourg S.A. (M.I.O.L.).

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertension

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are drugs commonly used for the treatment of hypertension. However, studies on their comparative efficacy have not been extensively investigated. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis studied the comparative efficacy of the two antihypertensive treatment categories in reducing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension patients. A literature search was carried out in Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trials, which had reported blood pressure effects, mortality, and/or morbidity. Blood pressure results were found in 30 studies with 7370 participants and 8 studies with 25,158 participants with mortality/morbidity results included in the analysis. The two drug classes had similar effectiveness in lowering systolic (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.59, 95% CI: -0.21 to 1.38) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD: 0.62, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.30), all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)): 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14), fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37) and stroke (RR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.46). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more helpful in the prevention and/or the hospitalization for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers (RR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were similarly effective in decreasing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more protective in the advancement and/or hospitalization of the hypertensive patient for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers.

Patterns and predictors of physician adoption of new cardiovascular drugs

BACKGROUND

Little is known about physicians' approaches to adopting new cardiovascular drugs and how adoption varies between drugs of differing novelty.

METHODS

Using data on dispensed prescriptions from IMS Health's Xponent™ database, we created a cohort of all primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists in Pennsylvania who regularly prescribed anticoagulants, antihypertensives and statins from 2007 to 2011. We examined prescribing of three new cardiovascular drugs of differing novelty: dabigatran, aliskiren and pitavastatin. Outcomes were rapid adoption of each new drug, defined by early and sustained monthly prescribing detected by group-based trajectory models, by physicians within the first 15 months of marketplace introduction.

RESULTS

5953 physicians regularly prescribed each drug class. The majority of physicians (63.8%) adopted zero new drugs in the first 15 months, 35.0% rapidly adopted one or two, and 1.2% rapidly adopted all three. Physicians were more likely to rapidly adopt the most novel drug, dabigatran (27.3%), than aliskiren (10.5%) or pitavastatin (8.0%). Physician specialty and sex were the most consistent predictors of adoption. Compared to PCPs, cardiologists were more likely to rapidly adopt dabigatran (Adjusted Odds Ratio 8.90, 95% confidence interval 7.42-10.67; P<0.001) aliskerin (2.05, CI 1.56-2.69; P<0.001) and pitavastatin (3.44, CI 2.60-4.57; P<0.001). Female physicians were less likely to adopt dabigatran (0.71, CI 0.59-0.85; P <0.001) and aliskiren (0.64, CI 0.49-0.83; P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians vary in their prescribing of recently-introduced cardiovascular drugs. Though most physicians did not rapidly adopt any new cardiovascular drugs, drug novelty and cardiology training were associated with greater adoption.

Early health technology assessments in pharmacogenomics: a case example in cardiovascular drugs

Aim: To assess the required characteristics (cost, sensitivity and specificity) of a pharmacogenomic test for being a cost-effective prevention of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors induced angioedema. Furthermore, we assessed the influence of only testing high-risk populations. Materials & methods: A decision tree was used. Results: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 and €80,000 per quality adjusted life year, a 100% sensitive and specific test may have a maximum cost of €1.30 and €1.95, respectively. When only genotyping high-risk populations, the maximum test price would be €5.03 and €7.55, respectively. Conclusion: This theoretical pharmacogenomic test is only cost-effective at high specificity, high sensitivity and a low price. Only testing high-risk populations yields more realistic maximum test prices for cost–effectiveness of the intervention.

Genetic variants associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced cough: a genome-wide association study in a Swedish population

Aim: We conducted a genome-wide association study on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced cough and used our dataset to replicate candidate genes identified in previous studies. Patients & methods: A total of 124 patients and 1345 treated controls were genotyped using Illumina arrays. The genome-wide significance level was set to p < 5 × 10-8. Results: We identified nearly genome-wide significant associations in CLASP1, PDE11A, KCNMB2, TGFA, SLC38A6 and MMP16. The strongest association was with rs62151109 in CLASP1 (odds ratio: 3.97; p = 9.44 × 10-8). All top hits except two were located in intronic or noncoding DNA regions. None of the candidate genes were significantly associated in our study. Conclusion: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced cough is potentially associated with genes that are independent of bradykinin pathways.

Phase 4 Studies in Heart Failure - What is Done and What is Needed?

Congestive heart failure (CHF) therapeutics is generated through a well-described evidence generating process. Phases 1 - 3 of this process are required prior to approval and widespread clinical use. Phase 3 in almost all cases is a methodologically sound randomized controlled trial (RCT). After this phase it is generally accepted that the treatment has a significant, independent and prognostically beneficial effect on the pathophysiological process. A major criticism of RCTs is the population to whom the result is applicable. When this population is significantly different from the trial cohort the external validity comes into question. Should the continuation of the evidence generating process continue these problems might be identified. Post marketing surveillance through phase 4 and comparative effectiveness studies through phase 5 trials are often underperformed in comparison to the RCT. These processes can help identify remote adverse events and define new hypotheses for community level benefits. This review is aimed at exploring the post-marketing scene for CHF therapeutics from an Australian health system perspective. We explore the phases of clinical trials, the level of evidence currently available and options for ensuring greater accountability for community level CHF clinical outcomes.

Comparative Effectiveness of Renin-Angiotensin System Antagonists in Maintenance Dialysis Patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Whether angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are differentially associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and mortality in patients receiving maintenance dialysis is uncertain. We compared outcomes between ACE and ARB users among hypertensive, maintenance dialysis patients.

METHODS

National retrospective cohort study of hypertensive, Medicare-Medicaid eligible patients initiating chronic dialysis between 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2005. The exposure of interest was new use of either an ACEI or ARB. Outcomes were all-cause mortality (ACM) and combined cardiovascular hospitalization or death (CV-endpoint). Cox proportion hazards models were used to compare the effect of ACEI vs ARB use on ACM and, separately, CV-endpoint.

RESULTS

ACM models were based on 3,555 ACEI and 1,442 ARB new users, while CV-endpoint models included 3,289 ACEI and 1,346 ARB new users. After statistical adjustments, ACEI users had higher hazard ratios for ACM (AHR = 1.22, 99% CI 1.05-1.42) and CV-endpoint (AHR = 1.12, 99% CI 0.99-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients initiating maintenance dialysis who received an ACEI faced an increased risk for mortality and a trend towards an increased risk for CV-endpoints when compared to patients who received an ARB. Validation of these results in a rigorous clinical trial is warranted.

Olmesartan vs ramipril in the treatment of hypertension and associated clinical conditions in the elderly: a reanalysis of two large double-blind, randomized studies at the light of the most recent blood pressure targets recommended by guidelines

In this paper, we present the results of a reanalysis of the data of two large randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies with a similar design, comparing the efficacy of an angiotensin-receptor blocker (olmesartan medoxomil) with that of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril), by applying two different blood pressure targets recently recommended by hypertension guidelines for all patients, irrespective of the presence of diabetes (<140/90 mmHg), and for elderly hypertensive patients (<150/90 mmHg). The efficacy of olmesartan was not negatively affected by age, sex, hypertension type, diabetes status or other concomitant clinical conditions, or cardiovascular risk factors. In most cases, olmesartan provided better blood pressure control than ramipril. Olmesartan was significantly more effective than ramipril in male patients, in younger patients (aged 65-69 years), in those with metabolic syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, preserved renal function, diastolic ± systolic hypertension, and, in general, in patients with a high or very high cardiovascular risk. Interestingly, patients previously untreated or treated with two or more antihypertensive drugs showed a significantly larger response with olmesartan than with ramipril. Thus, our results confirm the good efficacy of olmesartan in elderly hypertensives even when new blood pressure targets for antihypertensive treatment are considered. Such results may be relevant for the clinical practice, providing some hint on the possible different response of elderly hypertensive patients to two different drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system, when patients are targeted according to the blood pressure levels recommended by recent hypertension guidelines.

Cathepsin B is a New Drug Target for Traumatic Brain Injury Therapeutics: Evidence for E64d as a Promising Lead Drug Candidate

There is currently no therapeutic drug treatment for traumatic brain injury (TBI) despite decades of experimental clinical trials. This may be because the mechanistic pathways for improving TBI outcomes have yet to be identified and exploited. As such, there remains a need to seek out new molecular targets and their drug candidates to find new treatments for TBI. This review presents supporting evidence for cathepsin B, a cysteine protease, as a potentially important drug target for TBI. Cathepsin B expression is greatly up-regulated in TBI animal models, as well as in trauma patients. Importantly, knockout of the cathepsin B gene in TBI mice results in substantial improvements of TBI-caused deficits in behavior, pathology, and biomarkers, as well as improvements in related injury models. During the process of TBI-induced injury, cathepsin B likely escapes the lysosome, its normal subcellular location, into the cytoplasm or extracellular matrix (ECM) where the unleashed proteolytic power causes destruction via necrotic, apoptotic, autophagic, and activated glia-induced cell death, together with ECM breakdown and inflammation. Significantly, chemical inhibitors of cathepsin B are effective for improving deficits in TBI and related injuries including ischemia, cerebral bleeding, cerebral aneurysm, edema, pain, infection, rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy, Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease. The inhibitor E64d is unique among cathepsin B inhibitors in being the only compound to have demonstrated oral efficacy in a TBI model and prior safe use in man and as such it is an excellent tool compound for preclinical testing and clinical compound development. These data support the conclusion that drug development of cathepsin B inhibitors for TBI treatment should be accelerated.

Phenotype standardization of angioedema in the head and neck region caused by agents acting on the angiotensin system

Angioedema is a potentially life-threatening adverse reaction to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. To study the genetic etiology of this rare adverse event, international consortia and multicenter recruitment of patients are needed. To reduce patient heterogeneity, we have standardized the phenotype. In brief, it comprises swelling in the head and neck region that first occurs during treatment. It should not coincide with urticaria or have another likely cause such as hereditary angioedema.

Optimizing combination therapy in the management of hypertension: the role of the aliskiren, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide fixed combination

High blood pressure is the leading risk factor for death and disability worldwide, and the prevalence is increasing. Effective treatment decreases the risk of adverse events in proportion to blood pressure reduction. Combination antihypertensive therapy reduces blood pressure promptly and effectively. Single-pill combinations reduce the pill burden and improve adherence, efficacy, and tolerability of treatment compared with single drug pills. A significant portion of the hypertensive population will require three drugs for adequate control. The single-pill combination of aliskiren, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide is based on complementary mechanisms of action. Clinical trials have shown it to be a safe and effective treatment for hypertension. This combination is a reasonable choice in clinical practice for patients with hypertension that requires three drugs for effective treatment.

RAS-Mediated Adaptive Mechanisms in Cardiovascular Tissues: Confounding Factors of RAS Blockade Therapy and Alternative Approaches

Since the classic experiments by Tigerstedt and Bergman that established the role of renin in hypertension a century ago, aggressive efforts have been launched to effectively block the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). Blockade of RAS is advocated at multiple levels by direct renin inhibitor, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, or aldosterone inhibitor (spironolactone), and has now become part of the standard of care to control hypertension and related metabolic diseases including diabetes. However, recent lessons learned from randomized clinical trials question the wisdom of blocking RAS at multiple levels. In this context, it is highly pertinent that components of RAS are evolutionarily conserved, and novel physiological/adaptive/protective roles for renin and angiotensin-converting enzyme are currently emerging. Angiotensin II, the classical RAS effector peptide responsible for hypertension, hypertrophy, fluid retention and fibrosis, manifests its cardiovascular protective effect when it activates the angiotensin II type 2 receptor. Additionally, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and the angiotensin II metabolite Ang-(1-7) that acts through the Mas proto-oncogene constitute the cardiovascular and renal protective branch of RAS. It is conceivable that modulating this vasodilative/anti-inflammatory branch of RAS by activation of the RAS components that constitute this branch may offer a safer long-term treatment strategy to balance RAS activity and achieve homeostasis compared to chronic multilevel RAS inhibition.