Comparison of home and office blood pressure in hypertensive patients treated with zofenopril or losartan

Mathematical modeling of antihypertensive therapy

Hypertension is a multifactorial disease arising from complex pathophysiological pathways. Individual characteristics of patients result in different responses to various classes of antihypertensive medications. Therefore, evaluating the efficacy of therapy based on in silico predictions is an important task. This study is a continuation of research on the modular agent-based model of the cardiovascular and renal systems (presented in the previously published article). In the current work, we included in the model equations simulating the response to antihypertensive therapies with different mechanisms of action. For this, we used the pharmacodynamic effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan, the calcium channel blocker amlodipine, the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide, and the β-blocker bisoprolol. We fitted therapy parameters based on known clinical trials for all considered medications, and then tested the model's ability to show reasonable dynamics (expected by clinical observations) after treatment with individual drugs and their dual combinations in a group of virtual patients with hypertension. The extended model paves the way for the next step in personalized medicine that is adapting the model parameters to a real patient and predicting his response to antihypertensive therapy. The model is implemented in the BioUML software and is available at https://gitlab.sirius-web.org/virtual-patient/antihypertensive-treatment-modeling.

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.

Blood Pressure Response to Zofenopril or Irbesartan Each Combined with Hydrochlorothiazide in High-Risk Hypertensives Uncontrolled by Monotherapy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled, Parallel Group, Noninferiority Trial

In this randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel group study (ZENITH), 434 essential hypertensives with additional cardiovascular risk factors, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy, were treated for 18 weeks with zofenopril 30 or 60 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 or 300 mg plus HCTZ. Rate of office blood pressure (BP) response (zofenopril: 68% versus irbesartan: 70%; p = 0.778) and 24-hour BP response (zofenopril: 85% versus irbesartan: 84%; p = 0.781) was similar between the two treatment groups. Cardiac and renal damage was equally reduced by both treatments, whereas the rate of carotid plaque regression was significantly larger with zofenopril. In conclusion, uncontrolled monotherapy treated hypertensives effectively respond to a combination of zofenopril or irbesartan plus a thiazide diuretic, in terms of either BP response or target organ damage progression.

Zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide and irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in previously treated and uncontrolled diabetic and non-diabetic essential hypertensive patients

INTRODUCTION

In most treated patients with hypertension, a two or more drug combination is required to achieve adequate blood pressure (BP) control. In our study we assessed whether the combination of zofenopril + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was at least as effective as irbesartan + HCTZ in essential hypertensives with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy.

METHODS

After a 2-week placebo washout, 361 treated hypertensive patients [office sitting diastolic BP (DBP), ≥90 mmHg], aged 18-75 years, were randomized double blind to 18-week treatment with zofenopril 30 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily, in an international, multicenter study. After the first 6 and 12 weeks, zofenopril and irbesartan doses could be doubled in non-normalized subjects. The primary study end point was the office sitting DBP reduction after 18 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included office systolic BP (SBP), ambulatory BP and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP).

RESULTS

The between-treatment difference for office DBP averaged to +1.0 (95% CI -0.4, +0.8) mmHg (P = 0.150), the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval being inferior to the protocol-defined non-inferiority limit (3 mmHg). In the subset of patients with valid ambulatory BP, no difference in 24-h average DBP [n = 181; 6.7 (8.7, 4.6) zofenopril + HCTZ vs. 6.3 (8.8, 3.7) mmHg irbesartan + HCTZ, P = 0.810] and SBP reductions [11.7 (15.4, 8.0) vs. 12.6 (17.2, 8.0) mmHg, P = 0.758] were observed between the two treatment groups. hs-CRP was reduced by zofenopril + HCTZ [-0.52 (-1.05, 0.01) mg/L], while it was increased by irbesartan plus HCTZ [0.97 (0.29, 1.65) mg/L, P = 0.001 between treatments].

CONCLUSION

In previously monotherapy-treated, uncontrolled patients with hypertension, zofenopril 30-60 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg is as effective as irbesartan 150-300 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg, with the added value of a potential protective effect against vascular inflammation.

Safety and efficacy of the sulfydryl ACE-inhibitor zofenopril in the management of cardiovascular disease

In the 1970s, pharmacological therapy interrupting the renin-angiotensin system was considered beneficial for patients with high-renin hypertension. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors proved to be effective not only in patients with high renin and elevated blood pressure, but also in many hypertensive patients with normal levels of plasma renin activity. ACE inhibitors are used in a wide range of chronic illnesses such as atherosclerosis, hypertension, myocardial infarction, heart failure, diabetic complications, and stroke. To date, more than ninety controlled clinical trials evaluating the beneficial effects of 14 different ACE inhibitors were conducted. Moreover, data from experimental studies showed that ACE inhibitors can attenuate the development of atherosclerosis, oxidative stress, and vascular inflammation in a wide range of species indicating that ACE inhibition also favourably affects the vasculature. More than fifteen years ago, the bi-sulfydryl ACE-inhibitor zofenopril has shown an excellent clinical safety and efficacy in patients with hypertension and in those with myocardial infarction. More recently, this compound exhibited a potent antioxidant and antiatherosclerotic effect indicating a clinical useful vasoprotective action.

Zofenopril and incidence of cough: a review of published and unpublished data

OBJECTIVE

Cough is a typical side effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, though its frequency quantitatively varies among the different compounds. Data on the incidence of cough with the lipophilic third-generation ACE inhibitor zofenopril are scanty and never systematically analyzed. The purpose of this paper is to give an overview on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of ACE inhibitor-induced cough and to assess the incidence of cough induced by zofenopril treatment.

METHODS

Published and unpublished data from randomized and postmarketing zofenopril trials were merged together and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 5794 hypertensive patients and three studies including 1455 postmyocardial infarction patients exposed for a median follow-up time of 3 months to zofenopril at doses of 7.5-60 mg once-daily were analyzed. The incidence of zofenopril-induced cough was 2.6% (range 0%-4.2%): 2.4% in the hypertension trials (2.4% in the double-blind randomized studies and 2.4% in the open-label postmarketing studies) and 3.6% in the doubleblind randomized postmyocardial infarction trials. Zofenopril-induced cough was generally of a mild to moderate intensity, occurred significantly (P < 0.001) more frequently in the first 3-6 months of treatment (3.0% vs 0.2% 9-12 months), and always resolved or improved upon therapy discontinuation. Zofenopril doses of 30 mg and 60 mg resulted in significantly (P = 0.042) greater rate of cough (2.1% and 2.6%, respectively) than doses of 7.5 mg and 15 mg (0.4% and 0.7%, respectively). In direct comparison trials (enalapril and lisinopril), incidence of cough was not significantly different between zofenopril and other ACE inhibitors (2.4% vs 2.7%).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from a limited number of studies indicates a relatively low incidence of zofenopril-induced cough. Large head-to-head comparison studies versus different ACE inhibitors are needed to highlight possible differences between zofenopril and other ACE inhibitors in the incidence of cough.

Considering the inclusion of metabolic and cardiovascular markers in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics

The inclusion of biomarkers in social surveys such as the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) has the potential to answer many elusive questions in social science and public health, including the much-studied relationship between socioeconomic status and health. This article reviews the potential inclusion of biomarkers of cardiovascular and metabolic risk in the PSID. We first discuss the considerable analytical benefits of adding these biomarkers to the PSID, including the exploration of life course hypotheses and the potential to test causal relationships between the social environment and biological systems. Next, we review evidence on the reliability of self-reports of cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors, concluding that the potential bias from relying on self-reports may be substantial. Based on evidence of biological importance as well as practical considerations of ease of in-home collection, our first tier of recommended biomarkers includes measured height, weight, waist and hip circumference, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, resting heart rate, total and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), C-reactive protein (CRP), and cystatin C. Additional markers of secondary priority are also discussed.

Antihypertensive efficacy of zofenopril compared with atenolol in patients with mild to moderate hypertension

Two first-line antihypertensive therapies for initiating treatment in hypertension were compared, the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) zofenopril and the beta-blocker atenolol. The study was multi-centre and double-blind, and included 304 middle-aged to elderly patients with mild to moderate hypertension who were randomized to receive either zofenopril 30-60 mg once daily (od) or atenolol 50-100 mg od for 4 weeks with the possibility to an up-titration in non-responding patients. The higher dose level was then administered until 12 weeks after randomization. Blood pressures (BPs) were substantially reduced by either treatment, but after 4 weeks, the systolic and diastolic BP reductions were significantly greater (p < 0.05) with zofenopril (-15.6/-13.5 mmHg) compared with atenolol (-13.1/-11.8 mmHg). After 12 weeks and the possibility of dose up-titration, BP differences between treatments were no longer significant. However, control rates (sitting diastolic BP < 90 mmHg) for zofenopril remained significantly higher compared with atenolol. The number of subjects with adverse drug reactions possibly or probably related to the study medication was 14 (9.1%) in the zofenopril group and 30 (20.8%) in the atenolol group (p = 0.008). It is concluded that zofenopril as well as atenolol induces substantial reductions of diastolic BP in middle-aged to elderly patients with hypertension. However, the control rate when initiating antihypertensive therapy with zofenopril is higher than that for atenolol.