Should Antihypertensive Treatment Recommendations Differ in Patients With and Without Coronary Heart Disease? (from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial [ALLHAT])

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.

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.

The Efficacy of Rosuvastatin, Amlodipine, and Aspirin in the Treatment of Hypertension with Coronary Heart Disease and Its Effect on Platelet Aggregation

Objective

This study was to study the efficacy of rosuvastatin, amlodipine, and aspirin in the treatment of hypertension with coronary heart disease and its effect on platelet aggregation.

Methods

The participants included 60 patients with hypertension and coronary heart disease who were treated at our hospital between January 2020 and May 2021 and were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin, amlodipine, and Ziyin Huoxue Recipe (observation group) or rosuvastatin, amlodipine, Ziyin Huoxue Recipe, and aspirin (experimental group), with 30 patients in each. Outcome measures included clinical effectiveness, blood pressure indicators, blood lipid indices, plasma viscosity, platelet aggregation, cardiac function, and adverse responses.

Results

The clinical efficacy in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the observation group (P < 0.05). The differences were found in blood pressure indices and blood lipid indices between the two groups before treatment (P > 0.05). However, after treatment, the blood pressure indices in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the observation group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the blood lipid indices, plasma viscosity, and platelet aggregation in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the observation group (P < 0.05). The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of patients in the experimental group after treatment was significantly higher than that of patients in the observation group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions among patients in the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The clinical efficacy of rosuvastatin, amlodipine, and aspirin markedly reduces the blood pressure indices, blood lipid indices, plasma viscosity, and platelet aggregation of patients with hypertension and coronary heart disease, improves LVEF, and has a good safety profile.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Competing risks modeling of cumulative effects of time-varying drug exposures

An accurate assessment of drug safety or effectiveness in pharmaco-epidemiology requires defining an etiologically correct time-varying exposure model, which specifies how previous drug use affects the hazard of the event of interest. An additional challenge is to account for the multitude of mutually exclusive events that may be associated with the use of a given drug. To simultaneously address both challenges, we develop, and validate in simulations, a new approach that combines flexible modeling of the cumulative effects of time-varying exposures with competing risks methodology to separate the effects of the same drug exposure on different outcomes. To account for the dosage, duration and timing of past exposures, we rely on a spline-based weighted cumulative exposure modeling. We also propose likelihood ratio tests to test if the cumulative effects of past exposure on the hazards of the competing events are the same or different. Simulation results indicate that the estimated event-specific weight functions are reasonably accurate, and that the proposed tests have acceptable type I error rate and power. In real-life application, the proposed method indicated that recent use of antihypertensive drugs may reduce the risk of stroke but has no effect on the hazard of coronary heart disease events.