Sex differences in response to angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy in elderly, high-risk, hypertensive Japanese patients: a subanalysis of the OSCAR study

Candesartan upregulates angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in kidneys of male animals by decreased ubiquitination

Candesartan is a common angiotensin-II receptor-1 blocker used for patients with cardiovascular and renal diseases. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a negative regulator of blood pressure (BP), and also a major receptor for coronaviruses. To determine whether and how candesartan upregulates ACE2, we examined BP and ACE2 in multi-organs from male and female C57BL/6J mice treated with candesartan (1 mg/kg, i.p.) for 7 days. Relative to the vehicle, candesartan lowered BP more in males than females; ACE2 protein abundances were increased in kidneys, not lungs, hearts, aorta, liver, spleen, brain, or serum, only from males. Ace2-mRNA was similar in kidneys. Candesartan also decreased BP in normal, hypertensive, and nephrotic male rats. The renal ACE2 was increased by the drug in normal and nephrotic male rats but not spontaneously hypertensive ones. In male mouse kidneys, ACE2 was distributed at sodium-hydrogen-exchanger-3 positive proximal-convoluted-tubules; ACE2-ubiquitination was decreased by candesartan, accompanied with increased ubiquitin-specific-protease-48 (USP48). In candesartan-treated mouse renal proximal-convoluted-tubule cells, ACE2 abundances and activities were increased while ACE2-ubiquitination and colocalization with lysosomal and proteosomal markers were decreased. The silence of USP48 by siRNA caused a reduction of ACE2 in the cells. Thus, the sex-differential ACE2 upregulation by candesartan in kidney from males may be due to the decreased ACE2-ubiquitination, associated with USP48, and consequent degradation in lysosomes and proteosomes. This is a novel mechanism and may shed light on candesartan-like-drug choice in men and women prone to coronavirus infections.

Sex-Specific Effects of Blood Pressure Lowering Pharmacotherapy for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: An Individual Participant-Level Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether the relative effects of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes differ by sex, particularly when BP is not substantially elevated, has been uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted an individual participant-level data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological BP lowering. We pooled the data and categorized participants by sex, systolic BP categories in 10-mm Hg increments from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg, and age categories spanning from <55 to ≥85 years. We used fixed-effect one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analyses and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyze the data.

RESULTS

We included data from 51 randomized controlled trials involving 358 636 (42% women) participants. Over 4.2 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg reduction in systolic BP decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events both in women and men (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.92 [0.89-0.95] for women and 0.90 [0.88-0.93] for men; P for interaction, 1). There was no evidence for heterogeneity of relative treatment effects by sex for the major cardiovascular disease, its components, or across the different baseline BP categories (all P for interaction, ≥0.57). The effects in women and men were consistent across age categories and the types of antihypertensive medications (all P for interaction, ≥0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of BP reduction were similar in women and men across all BP and age categories at randomization and with no evidence to suggest that drug classes had differing effects by sex. This study does not substantiate sex-based differences in BP-lowering treatment.

Sex and gender differences in the treatment of arterial hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Arterial hypertension represents the leading modifiable risk factor for all-cause death and early development of cardiovascular disease in women. Current clinical guidelines for the treatment of hypertension noted that women respond to antihypertensive drugs similarly to men and, therefore, treatment recommendations remain the same for both sexes. However, clinical evidence suggests the existence of sex- and gender-related differences (SGRD) in the prevalence, pathophysiology, pharmacodynamics (efficacy and safety) and pharmacokinetics of antihypertensive drugs.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes SGRD in the prevalence of hypertension, hypertension-mediated organ damage and blood pressure control, prescription patterns, and pharmacokinetics/ pharmacodynamics and doses of antihypertensive drugs.

EXPERT OPINION

There is limited information on SGRD in antihypertensive drug efficacy because of the underrepresentation of women in randomized clinical trials and, more important, because few trials reported results stratified by sex or performed sex-specific analyses. However, there are SGRD in hypertension-mediated organ damage, drug pharmacokinetics and, particularly, in drug safety. Prospective trials specifically designed to better understand the basis for SGRD in the pathophysiology of hypertension and in the efficacy and safety of antihypertensive drugs are needed to achieve a more personalized treatment of hypertension and hypertension-mediated organ damage in women.

Sex differences in antihypertensive drug use and blood pressure control

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is the most important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. Epidemiological studies have shown the benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP), but BP control is a major challenge. Furthermore, there are significant sex differences in antihypertensive drug use and BP control. This study examined sex differences in antihypertensive drug use and BP control, with the aim of reducing the complications of hypertension and improving quality of life.

METHODS

The study was performed in our outpatient hypertension clinic, and included 1529 patients without secondary hypertension or comorbidities. The study, investigated BP control rates and patterns of antihypertensive drug use in male and female. All data were collected using structured questionnaires and patient measurements.

RESULTS

The study included 713 males and 816 females in this study. Fewer females had hypertension in the younger age group (16.2% vs 11.6%; p>0.05), but this difference disappeared in middle-aged (47.8% vs 49.9 %; p<0.05) and elderly age groups (36.0% vs 38.5%; p<0.05). BP control rates differed between males and females (35.6% in male, 31.9% in female, p<0.01). There was an overall difference in BP control rates between males and females (35.6% in males, 31.9% in females, p<0.01). In this aged 18-44 years, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) showed the best control rate in males, while calcium channel blockers (CCBs) were least effective (61.5% with ACEIs, 28.6% with CCBs; p<0.05). In this aged 45-64 years, diuretics (DUs) showed the best control rate in females, while CCBs were least effective (47.5% with DUs, 28.3% with CCBs; p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Sex plays an important role in BP control. In those aged 18-44 years, males using ACEIs showed best control rates. In those aged 45-64 years, females using DUs showed best control rates. Our study provides a basis with the selection of antihypertensive drugs according to sex and age.

Comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with prior myocardial infarction

Objective

Although ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly prescribed for patients with coronary artery disease, whether these medications are similarly effective is still a subject of intense debate. Our objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness of ACEIs and ARBs in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI).

Methods

All residents older than 65 years, alive on 1 April 2012, with a prior MI were included. Propensity weighting was used to balance potentially confounding baseline covariates between the treatment groups. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalisation for MI or unstable angina at 3 years.

Results

Our cohort included 59 353 patients with MI; their mean age was 77 years and 40% were women. In the propensity-weighted cohort, the primary outcome occurred in 6.5% in the ACEI group and 5.7% in the ARB group at 1 year (HR comparing ACEI with ARB 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.23, p<0.001). At 3 years, the primary outcome occurring in 16.0% with ACEIs and 15.1% with ARBs (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; p<0.001). A significant interaction with sex was observed, with women prescribed ACEIs having a higher hazards (HR 1.17; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.26) compared with ARBs, while no significant difference was seen among men (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06, interaction p<0.001).

Conclusions

Despite previous concerns regarding ARBs, we found that they had slightly lower rates of adverse clinical cardiovascular outcomes among older patients with MI compared with ACEIs. The observed difference in clinical outcomes may be related to a sex difference in effectiveness.

Gender-specific therapeutic approach in arterial hypertension - Challenges ahead

Hypertension was thought to be more important cardiovascular risk factor in men than in women. However, studies showed that overall incidence of hypertension-related cardiovascular diseases is higher in women comparing with men and this is particularly valid in menopause when prevalence of hypertension and its complications sharply and suddenly rises. It was also noticed that the effect of various antihypertensive groups was different in women and men. Some medications are prescribed more often in women, but it does not necessary mean that these drugs are more effective in this gender. There are several important reasons that could explain gender-induced differences in blood pressure levels, blood pressure control and antihypertensive treatment. They involve sex hormones, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and sympathetic nervous system, and arterial stiffness. However, taking into account many observational studies and trials, there are no consistent data regarding the impact of gender on effect of antihypertensive medications. Longitudinal study focused on gender and current antihypertensive groups would significantly help to understand the impact of gender. This might change therapeutic approach and improve cost-effectiveness in antihypertensive therapy in both genders. A full understanding of the pathophysiological characteristics of variations between genders demands additional research. This review article summarized the current knowledge regarding differences in the prevalence and awareness of arterial hypertension in women and men; alterations in pathophysiological mechanisms of hypertension between sexes; as well as the impact of sex on the effects of main antihypertensive groups of medications.

Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes of Renin-Angiotensin System Blockade in Adult Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analyses

BACKGROUND

Medications aimed at inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) have been used extensively for preventing cardiovascular and renal complications in patients with diabetes, but data that compare their clinical effectiveness are limited. We aimed to compare the effects of classes of RAS blockers on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in adults with diabetes.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Eligible trials were identified by electronic searches in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1 January 2004 to 17 July 2014). Interventions of interest were angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and direct renin (DR) inhibitors. The primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke-singly and as a composite endpoint, major cardiovascular outcome-and end-stage renal disease [ESRD], doubling of serum creatinine, and all-cause mortality-singly and as a composite endpoint, progression of renal disease. Secondary endpoints were angina pectoris and hospitalization for heart failure. In all, 71 trials (103,120 participants), with a total of 14 different regimens, were pooled using network meta-analyses. When compared with ACE inhibitor, no other RAS blocker used in monotherapy and/or combination was associated with a significant reduction in major cardiovascular outcomes: ARB (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.90-1.18), ACE inhibitor plus ARB (0.97; 95% CrI 0.79-1.19), DR inhibitor plus ACE inhibitor (1.32; 95% CrI 0.96-1.81), and DR inhibitor plus ARB (1.00; 95% CrI 0.73-1.38). For the risk of progression of renal disease, no significant differences were detected between ACE inhibitor and each of the remaining therapies: ARB (OR 1.10; 95% CrI 0.90-1.40), ACE inhibitor plus ARB (0.97; 95% CrI 0.72-1.29), DR inhibitor plus ACE inhibitor (0.99; 95% CrI 0.65-1.57), and DR inhibitor plus ARB (1.18; 95% CrI 0.78-1.84). No significant differences were showed between ACE inhibitors and ARBs with respect to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, hospitalization for heart failure, ESRD, or doubling serum creatinine. Findings were limited by the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies. Potential inconsistency was identified in network meta-analyses of stroke and angina pectoris, limiting the conclusiveness of findings for these single endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with diabetes, comparisons of different RAS blockers showed similar effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on major cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Compared with monotherapies, the combination of an ACE inhibitor and an ARB failed to provide significant benefits on major outcomes. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefits, costs, and potential harms with individual diabetes patients before starting treatment.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014014404.

The persisting gender gap in hypertension management and control in Germany: 1998 and 2008-2011

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity; therefore, its control is very important. International Guidelines recommend the same hypertension management in men and women; however, studies suggest that management of hypertension differs. This study explores gender-age disparities in the management and control of hypertension in Germany in 1998 and 2008-2011. Data from the German Health Examination Surveys (GNHIES98 1998, n=7124 and DEGS1 2008-2011, n=7988, age 18-79 years), including standardized blood pressure measurements and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical medication codes, were analyzed by gender and two age groups. For 1998 and 2008-2011 in Germany, the gender gap in hypertension management persisted without significant changes. Hypertensive men in 2008-2011 had lower awareness of their condition (78.3 vs. 86.8%), less treatment for hypertension (65.3 vs. 79.2%), less control of hypertension (45.4 vs. 57.5%) and less treatment among those aware of their condition (83.9 vs. 91.5%) than did women. These gender differences were greater in younger compared with older adults (18-54 years vs. 55-79 years). No gender differences were observed in control of hypertension among those treated in 1998; however, subsequent improvement was less in younger men compared with the other age-gender groups, leading to a new gender gap in 18-54-year olds (women 84.8%, men 63.9%). Younger women used more β-blockers and less angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) than younger men. Factors positively associated with control among those treated for hypertension in the younger group were being a woman, using β-blockers or using ACEI, or angiotensin-receptor blockers. In the older group, diabetes was negatively associated with control of hypertension, whereas having cardiovascular comorbidities was positively associated. Gender disparities in hypertension management and control still exist in Germany but may be masked because they are age-dependent.

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.