Efficacy and tolerability of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with heart failure already receiving an angiotensin-converting inhibitor plus aldosterone antagonist, with or without a beta blocker. Findings from the Candesartan in Heart fa

Multimodal efforts to slow the progression of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), slowing kidney disease progression is an important therapeutic goal. Many patients with T2DM and CKD also have cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASis), which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), are drugs with known antihypertensive effects as well as CV and kidney protective effects in patients with CKD. Studies have shown that adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to ACEI or ARB therapy has additive benefits in terms of kidney and CV protection in patients with CKD (with/without T2DM). For patients with CKD associated with T2DM who have persistent albuminuria despite taking the maximum tolerated dose of a RAASi, adding a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (finerenone) has demonstrated CV and kidney benefits in clinical trials. In this article, we review the use of ACEIs and ARBs for their kidney and CV protective effects when used alone or in combination with a drug with a different mechanism of action. From reviewing the available evidence, it seems clear that a multimodal drug effort is needed to achieve maximum kidney and CV protective effects for patients with CKD associated with T2DM.

Dual Blockade of the Renin-Angiotensin System: A Strategy that Should Be Reconsidered in Cardiorenal Diseases?

Studies on pharmacological mechanisms demonstrated that a strategy of dual renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade may have a synergistic effect in the treatment of cardiorenal diseases and may reduce adverse reactions. However, some previous clinical studies reported that dual RAS blockade did not significantly benefit many patients with cardiorenal diseases and increased the risk of hyperkalemia, hypotension and renal function damage. Therefore, the current clinical guidelines suggest that the combined use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) should be used with caution in the clinic. However, these studies enrolled older patients with cardiovascular risk factors, and the results of these trials may not be generalized to the overall population. Some clinical evidence suggests that the combination of low-dose ACEIs and ARBs leads to more effective RAS blockade with few adverse effects. The advent of new RAS inhibitors with superior pharmacological effects provides a more suitable drug choice for individualized therapy for dual RAS blockade. Therefore, the choice of appropriate ARBs/ACEIs for individualized therapy based on patient condition may be a better way to improve the efficiency and safety of the dual RAS blockade strategy.

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.

Effects of dual blockade in heart failure and renal dysfunction: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The effect of dual renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition in heart failure (HF) is still controversial. Systematic reviews have shown that dual RAS blockade may reduce mortality and hospitalizations, yet it has been associated with the increased risk of renal dysfunction (RD). Surprisingly, although RD in patients with HF is frequent, the effect of combining RAS inhibitors in HF patients with RD has never been studied in a meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving HF patients with RD who received dual blockade analyzing death, cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Out of 2258 screened articles, 12 studies were included (34,131 patients). Compared with monotherapy, dual RAS inhibition reduced hazard ratio of death to 0.94 (p=0.07) and significantly reduced CV death or HF hospitalization to 0.89 (p=0.0006) in all individuals, and to 0.86 (p=0.005) in patients with RD and to 0.91 (p=0.04) without RD. Nevertheless, dual RAS blockade significantly increased the risk of renal impairment (40%), hyperkalemia (44%), and hypotension (42%), although discontinuation of treatment occurs only in 3.68% versus 2.19% (p=0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Dual RAS inhibition therapy reduces the risk of CV death or HF hospitalization. However, cautions monitoring for specific adverse events may be warranted.

Impacts of Predischarge Diastolic Functional Recovery on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Hypertensive Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Diastolic function is an independent predictor of death in heart failure (HF), but the effect of a change in diastolic function during hospitalization on clinical outcomes in patients with hypertensive HF (HHF) has been poorly studied. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of predischarge diastolic functional recovery (DFR) on future clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with a first diagnosis of HHF.Methods and Results:A total of 175 hospitalized patients with HHF were divided into 2 groups according to the change in diastolic function on predischarge echocardiography in comparison with baseline echocardiography: DFR group (n=74, 54.2±17.1 years, 55 males) vs. no DFR group (n=101, 59.1±16.8 years, 72 males). During 66.5±37 months of clinical follow-up, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) occurred in 89 patients: 85 HF rehospitalizations, 4 deaths, no MI. The number of MACE were significantly higher in the no DFR group than in the DFR group (61.6% vs. 32.4%, P<0.001). Predischarge systolic functional recovery was not a predictor of MACE, but impaired DFR was an independent predictor of MACE (RR=2.952, P=0.010, confidence interval, 1.878-6.955).

CONCLUSIONS

Impaired predischarge DFR, regardless of the type of HF or predischarge systolic functional recovery, is an independent predictor of future MACE in HHF. Changes in diastolic function should be carefully monitored and would be useful in risk stratification of HHF.

Incidence of and risk factors for severe acute kidney injury in children with heart failure treated with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors

No large cohort study has yet determined the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in children with heart failure treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors. We thus retrospectively analyzed the incidence and risk factors for severe AKI (stages 2-3 according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines) at our institutions from 2008 to 2011. Among 312 children (162 boys; median age, 7.3 months), 59 cases of AKI occurred in 45 children. The incidence of AKI was 14.3 cases per 100 person-years overall (follow-up 413.6 person-years), or 27.3, 16.8, and 4.5 cases per 100 person-years in children aged <1, 1-3, and ≥4 years, respectively. Among them, 23 (39.0 %) children had metabolic acidosis and 14 (23.7 %) had hyperkalemia. Younger age, myocardial disease, cyanotic congenital heart disease, use of spironolactone, and cardiac surgery were independent risk factors for AKI. Furthermore, 37.3 % of children suffered dehydration during AKI.

CONCLUSION

AKI incidence is relatively high in children, particularly younger children, with heart failure treated using RAS inhibitors. Careful monitoring of renal function and serum electrolytes is essential. Proper management of fluid balance after infection and cardiac surgery may reduce the risk of AKI. Temporary discontinuation in RAS inhibitors should be considered during dehydration or surgery.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are the two main classes of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors used to treat hypertension, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. Acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia are potentially life-threatening complications associated with the use of ACEIs and ARBs. Some reports have suggested that dehydration and cardiac surgery are risk factors for AKI in children. However, no large-scale cohort studies have determined the incidence of AKI, its risk factors, and its outcomes in children with heart failure treated with ACEIs and/or ARBs. What is new: • In this retrospective cohort study, we determined the incidence, severity, and risk factors for severe AKI in children with heart failure treated with ACEIs and/or ARBs. The incidence of AKI in these children was relatively high (14.3 episodes per 100 person-years). In addition, younger age, myocardial disease, cyanotic congenital heart disease, concomitant use of spironolactone, and cardiac surgery were risk factors for AKI. Furthermore, 37.3 % of children had dehydration during AKI episodes. • Our results suggested that appropriate fluid balance after infection and cardiac surgery might reduce the risk of AKI and its complications. Temporary discontinuation or reductions in the levels of ACEIs and/or ARBs during dehydration or before surgery may also be warranted in these patients.

Recommendations to prescribe in complex older adults: results of the CRIteria to assess appropriate Medication use among Elderly complex patients (CRIME) project

The occurrence of several geriatric conditions may influence the efficacy and limit the use of drugs prescribed to treat chronic conditions. Functional and cognitive impairment, geriatric syndromes (i.e. falls or malnutrition) and limited life expectancy are common features of old age, which may limit the efficacy of pharmacological treatments and question the appropriateness of treatment. However, the assessment of these geriatric conditions is rarely incorporated into clinical trials and treatment guidelines. The CRIME (CRIteria to assess appropriate Medication use among Elderly complex patients) project is aimed at producing recommendations to guide pharmacologic prescription in older complex patients with a limited life expectancy, functional and cognitive impairment, and geriatric syndromes, and providing physicians with a tool to improve the quality of prescribing, independent of setting and nationality. To achieve these aims, we performed the following: (i) Existing disease-specific guidelines on pharmacological prescription for the treatment of diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation and coronary heart disease were reviewed to assess whether they include specific indications for complex patients; (ii) a literature search was performed to identify relevant articles assessing the pharmacological treatment of complex patients; (iii) A total of 19 new recommendations were developed based on the results of the literature search and expert consensus. In conclusion, the new recommendations evaluate the appropriateness of pharmacological prescription in older complex patients, translating the recommendations of clinical guidelines to patients with a limited life expectancy, functional and cognitive impairment, and geriatric syndromes. These recommendations cannot represent substitutes for careful clinical consideration and deliberation by physicians; the recommendations are not meant to replace existing clinical guidelines, but they may be used to help physicians in the prescribing process.

Treating hypertension in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: hitting the fairway and avoiding the rough

Hypertension is a major risk factor in the development of heart failure (HF), yet current guidelines do not specify a target blood pressure (BP) for patients with established systolic or diastolic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. While no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted to specify the optimal blood pressure in these patients, numerous trials have demonstrated the benefits of certain classes of medications and treatment strategies in patients with HF. Important factors to consider in treating hypertension in patients with HF include the type of HF (reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction), the etiology (ischemic vs. nonischemic), the severity of symptoms if any, the baseline blood pressure, as well as a wide variety of patient-specific factors. This paper reviews current evidence to address the question, "What should be the blood pressure goal in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction?" We suggest a target blood pressure of 120-140/70-90 mm Hg in most cases, with lower pressures generally preferable if tolerated.

Cardiorenal syndrome in critical care: the acute cardiorenal and renocardiac syndromes

Heart and kidney disease often coexist in the same patient, and observational studies have shown that cardiac disease can directly contribute to worsening kidney function and vice versa. Cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) is defined as a complex pathophysiological disorder of the heart and the kidneys in which acute or chronic dysfunction in one organ may induce acute or chronic dysfunction in the other organ. This has been recently classified into five subtypes on the basis of the primary organ dysfunction (heart or kidney) and on whether the organ dysfunction is acute or chronic. Of particular interest to the critical care specialist are CRS type 1 (acute cardiorenal syndrome) and type 3 (acute renocardiac syndrome). CRS type 1 is characterized by an acute deterioration in cardiac function that leads to acute kidney injury (AKI); in CRS type 3, AKI leads to acute cardiac injury and/or dysfunction, such as cardiac ischemic syndromes, congestive heart failure, or arrhythmia. Both subtypes are encountered in high-acuity medical units; in particular, CRS type 1 is commonly seen in the coronary care unit and cardiothoracic intensive care unit. This paper will provide a concise review of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, prevention strategies, and selected kidney management aspects for these two acute CRS subtypes.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: integrating evidence into clinical practice

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve survival and reduce morbidity in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), and mild-to-severe symptoms, and in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. These clinical benefits are observed in addition to those of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. The morbidity and mortality benefits of MRAs may be mediated by several proposed actions, including antifibrotic mechanisms that slow heart failure progression, prevent or reverse cardiac remodelling, or reduce arrhythmogenesis. Both eplerenone and spironolactone have demonstrated survival benefits in individual clinical trials. Pharmacologic differences exist between the drugs, which may be relevant for therapeutic decision making in individual patients. Although serious hyperkalaemia events were reported in the major MRA clinical trials, these risks can be mitigated through appropriate patient selection, dose selection, patient education, monitoring, and follow-up. When used appropriately, MRAs significantly improve outcomes across the spectrum of patients with HF-REF.

Angiotensin receptor blockers for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure (HF) is a prevalent world-wide. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for chronic HF although their role is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harm of ARBs compared with ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or placebo on mortality, morbidity and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with symptomatic HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction or preserved systolic function.

SEARCH METHODS

Clinical trials were identified by searching CENTRAL, HTA, and DARE , (The Cochrane Library 2010 Issue 3), as well as MEDLINE (2002 to July 2010), and EMBASE (2002 to July 2010). Reference lists of retrieved articles and systematic reviews were checked for additional studies not identified by the electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double blind randomised controlled trials in men and women of all ages who have symptomatic (NYHA Class II to IV) HF and: 1) left ventricular systolic dysfunction, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; or 2) preserved ejection fraction, defined as LVEF >40%.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two studies evaluated the effects of ARBs in 17,900 patients with a LVEF ≤40% (mean 2.2 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.76, 1.00]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.88, 1.01]) compared with placebo.Total mortality (RR 1.05 [95% CI 0.91, 1.22]), total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.92, 1.08]), MI (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.62, 1.63]), and stroke (RR 1.63 [0.77, 3.44]) did not differ between ARBs and ACEIs but withdrawals due to adverse effects were lower with ARBs (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.52, 0.76]). Combinations of ARBs plus ACEIs increased the risk of withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 1.34 [95% CI 1.19, 1.51]) but did not reduce total mortality or total hospital admissions versus ACEI alone.Two placebo-controlled studies evaluated ARBs in 7151 patients with a LVEF >40% (mean 3.7 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.93, 1.12]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.97, 1.05]) compared with placebo. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were higher with ARBs versus placebo when all patients were pooled irrespective of LVEF (RR 1.06 [95% CI 1.01, 1.12]).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with symptomatic HF and systolic dysfunction or with preserved ejection fraction, ARBs compared to placebo or ACEIs do not reduce total mortality or morbidity. ARBs are better tolerated than ACEIs but do not appear to be as safe and well tolerated as placebo in terms of withdrawals due to adverse effects. Adding an ARB in combination with an ACEI does not reduce total mortality or total hospital admission but increases withdrawals due to adverse effects compared with ACEI alone.

Comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness of candesartan and losartan in the management of hypertension and heart failure: a systematic review, meta- and cost-utility analysis

The UK National Health Service (NHS) currently spends in excess of £250 million per annum on angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure; with candesartan currently dominating the market. With the recent introduction of generic losartan, we set out to directly compare the branded market leader to its now cheaper alternative. The primary objectives were to compare the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and cardiovascular outcomes of candesartan and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension and chronic heart failure, respectively. The secondary objective was to model their comparative incremental cost-effectiveness in a UK NHS setting. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), which contains the Hypertension and Heart Group's specialist register, Medline (1950-February 2010), and Embase (1980-February 2010) were included in the search strategy. Selection criteria were randomised studies of candesartan versus losartan in adults (> 18 years). The main outcome measures were as follows: Hypertension: mean change from baseline in trough (24 h postdose) systolic and diastolic BP. Heart failure: composite of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for management of heart failure. Two reviewers applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Eight (three of which met inclusion criteria) and zero trials compared candesartan directly with losartan in the treatment of hypertension and heart failure, respectively. A between-treatment difference of -1.96 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.40 to -1.51] for trough diastolic BP and -3.00 mmHg (95% CI -3.79 to -2.22) for trough systolic BP in favour of candesartan was observed. Based on this differential, a 10-year Markov model estimates the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained to exceed £40,000 for using candesartan in place of generic losartan. Candesartan reduces BP to a slightly greater extent when compared with losartan, however, such difference is unlikely to be cost-effective based on current acquisition costs, perceived NHS affordability thresholds and use of combination regimens. We could find no robust evidence supporting the superiority of candesartan over losartan in the treatment of heart failure. We therefore recommend using generic losartan as the ARB of choice which could save the UK NHS approximately £200 million per annum in drug costs.

Rationale and design of the Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization And SurvIval Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF)

AIMS

In chronic heart failure (HF), aldosterone antagonists have been shown to improve survival in patients with low ejection fraction and moderate-to-severe symptoms [New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes III and IV]. Efficacy of these agents was also shown when they were administered to patients with left ventricular dysfunction and signs and symptoms of CHF early after acute myocardial infarction. It is not known whether the selective aldosterone antagonist eplerenone can improve outcomes in mildly symptomatic patients. The Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization And SurvIval Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF) was designed to evaluate the effect of eplerenone on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic systolic HF in NYHA class II. Methods Approximately 3100 patients with ejection fraction < or =30% and estimated glomerular filtration rate > or =30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) will be recruited. Patients are randomized 1:1 to double-blind eplerenone or placebo in addition to standard chronic HF therapy. Doses are adjusted from 25 mg every other day to 50 mg daily, depending on serum potassium. The primary endpoint is a composite of time to cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for worsening HF, whichever occurs first.

CONCLUSION

The study will be complete when approximately 813 subjects experience a primary endpoint. Clinical Trials.gov. NCT00232180.

Use of angiotensin receptor blockers and risk of dementia in a predominantly male population: prospective cohort analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether angiotensin receptor blockers protect against Alzheimer's disease and dementia or reduce the progression of both diseases.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort analysis.

SETTING

Administrative database of the US Veteran Affairs, 2002-6. Population 819 491 predominantly male participants (98%) aged 65 or more with cardiovascular disease.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to incident Alzheimer's disease or dementia in three cohorts (angiotensin receptor blockers, lisinopril, and other cardiovascular drugs, the "cardiovascular comparator") over a four year period (fiscal years 2003-6) using Cox proportional hazard models with adjustments for age, diabetes, stroke, and cardiovascular disease. Disease progression was the time to admission to a nursing home or death among participants with pre-existing Alzheimer's disease or dementia.

RESULTS

Hazard rates for incident dementia in the angiotensin receptor blocker group were 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.84) compared with the cardiovascular comparator and 0.81 (0.73 to 0.90) compared with the lisinopril group. Compared with the cardiovascular comparator, angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with pre-existing Alzheimer's disease were associated with a significantly lower risk of admission to a nursing home (0.51, 0.36 to 0.72) and death (0.83, 0.71 to 0.97). Angiotensin receptor blockers exhibited a dose-response as well as additive effects in combination with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. This combination compared with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors alone was associated with a reduced risk of incident dementia (0.54, 0.51 to 0.57) and admission to a nursing home (0.33, 0.22 to 0.49). Minor differences were shown in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the groups. Similar results were observed for Alzheimer's disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Angiotensin receptor blockers are associated with a significant reduction in the incidence and progression of Alzheimer's disease and dementia compared with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or other cardiovascular drugs in a predominantly male population.

Mineralocorticoid receptor blockers and chronic kidney disease

The increasing prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the public health initiatives for detection and slowing its progression have placed special emphasis on controlling proteinuria and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). In addition to the traditional blockers of angiotensin-converting enzyme and angiotensin receptors, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers (MRBs) have come into focus as anti-proteinuric agents with moderate anti-hypertensive effects. The beneficial effects of MRBs on mortality in patients with cardiac disease have been well described. We review the role of aldosterone in end-organ damage, the rationales for using MRBs as adjuncts to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in treating CKD, and the adverse effects that may occur when these agents are used in combination. Suggestions are included for avoiding serious adverse events in CKD patients treated with MRBs. There is a clearly defined need for prospective outcome studies focused on cardiovascular mortality as well as progression of CKD in patients treated with MRBS and other inhibitors of the RAAS.

Candesartan cilexetil in the treatment of chronic heart failure

The prevalence of heart failure is ever increasing around the world, particularly due to aging populations. Despite improvements in treatment over the last 20 years, the prognosis for heart failure remains poor. Among the treatments recommended for chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers are crucial, provided of course that they are not contraindicated. However, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) can also be a beneficial treatment option. Candesartan is a particular ARB, characterized by a strong binding affinity to the angiotensin II type 1 receptor and slow dissociation. The benefits of candesartan have been demonstrated by the CHARM programme, which showed that candesartan significantly reduces the incidence of cardiovascular death, hospital admissions for decompensated heart failure, and all-cause mortality in chronic heart failure patients with altered left ventricular systolic function, when added to standard therapies or as an alternative to ACE inhibitors when these are poorly tolerated. Furthermore, candesartan can protect against myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation and diabetes. Tolerance to candesartan is good, but blood pressure and serum potassium and creatinine levels must be monitored.