Of fads, fashion, surrogate endpoints and dual RAS blockade

Comparison of Renal Effects of Ezetimibe-Statin Combination versus Statin Monotherapy: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis

Neither lowering of blood lipid levels nor treatment with statins definitively improves renal outcomes. Ezetimibe, a non-statin antilipidemic agent, is known to not only decrease blood lipid levels but also reduce inflammatory response and activate autophagy. We evaluated the effect of adding ezetimibe to a statin on renal outcome compared with statin monotherapy by analyzing longitudinal data of 4537 patients treated with simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (S + E) or simvastatin 20 mg alone (S) for more than 180 days. A propensity-score-based process was used to match baseline characteristics, medical history, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between S + E and S groups. Changes in serum creatinine and incidence of renal events, defined as doubling of serum creatinine to ≥1.5 mg/dL or occurrence of end-stage renal disease after the first day of treatment initiation, were compared between the groups. Among 3104 well-matched patients with a median follow-up of 4.2 years, the S + E group showed a significantly lower risk of renal events than the S group (hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.95, P = 0.032). In addition, the S + E group tended to preserve renal function compared with the S group throughout follow-up, as assessed by serum creatinine changes (P-values for time-group interactions <0.001). These data support the beneficial effects on renal function when combining ezetimibe with a statin.

Efficacy and Safety of Dual Blockade of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System in Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). However, evidence suggests that the combined use of RAAS blockers may be associated with increased rates of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to examine the efficacy and safety of dual blockade of the RAAS in patients with DKD.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1990 and January 2018 sourced via the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. RCTs were included if they investigated the efficacy and safety of dual blockade therapy compared with monotherapy in patients with DKD. Random effects models were used in meta-analysis to account for heterogeneities in effect sizes across the reviewed studies. Analyses were stratified by blood pressure and albuminuria. We further conducted subgroup analyses by considering various combinations of RAAS inhibitors.

RESULTS

Based on 42 RCTs with 14,576 patients, dual RAAS blockade therapy was associated with significant decreases in blood pressure, albuminuria, and proteinuria. However, dual therapy was not superior to monotherapy in terms of reductions in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Significant increases in serum potassium and rates of hyperkalemia and hypotension were more common in patients treated with dual therapy. However, glomerular filtration rates (GFR) did not decrease significantly with dual therapy. In subgroup analysis, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) plus an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) or a direct renin inhibitor (DRI) plus an ACEI/ARB did not significantly increase the risk of hyperkalemia, hypotension, and adverse events, and the risk of hypotension increased significantly within the normotensive subgroup but not within the hypertensive subgroup. The risk of hyperkalemia increased significantly in patients with DKD with macroalbuminuria but not in those with microalbuminuria.

CONCLUSION

Dual inhibition therapy is superior to monotherapy for blood pressure control and urine protein reduction, though such superiority does not translate into improvements in longer-term outcomes, such as reduced progression to ESRD, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. An ACEI plus an ARB or a DRI plus an ACEI/ARB may be a safe and effective therapy for patients with DKD, and combination therapy may be suitable for patients with DKD and hypertension and microalbuminuria.

Left ventricular hypertrophy and cognitive function: a systematic review

Cognitive impairment is common in patients with hypertension. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is recognised as a marker of hypertension-related organ damage and is a strong predictor of coronary artery disease, heart failure and stroke. There is evidence that LVH is independently associated with cognitive impairment, even after adjustment for the presence of hypertension. We conducted a systematic review that examined cognitive impairment in adults with LVH. Independent searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid psycInfo and PubMed with the terms left ventricular hypertrophy and cognition. Seventy-three studies were identified when both searches were combined. After limiting the search to studies that were: (1) reported in English; (2) conducted in humans; (3) in adults aged 50 years and older; and (4) investigated the relationship between LVH and cognitive performance, nine papers were included in this systematic review. The majority of studies found an association between LVH and cognitive performance. Inspection of results indicated that individuals with LVH exhibited a lower performance in cognitive tests, when compared to individuals without LVH. Memory and executive functions were the cognitive domains that showed a specific vulnerability to the presence of LVH. A possible mechanism for the relationship between LVH and cognition is the presence of cerebral white matter damage. White matter lesions occur frequently in patients with LVH and may contribute to cognitive dysfunction. Together, the results of this review suggest that memory impairment and executive dysfunction are the cognitive domains that showed a particular association with the presence of LVH.

Anti-fibrotic Potential of AT2 Receptor Agonists

There are a number of therapeutic targets to treat organ fibrosis that are under investigation in preclinical models. There is increasing evidence that stimulation of the angiotensin II type 2 receptor (AT₂R) is a novel anti-fibrotic strategy and we have reviewed the published in vivo preclinical data relating to the effects of compound 21 (C21), which is the only nonpeptide AT₂R agonist that is currently available for use in chronic preclinical studies. In particular, the differential influence of AT₂R on extracellular matrix status in various preclinical fibrotic models is discussed. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that pharmacological AT₂R stimulation using C21 decreases organ fibrosis, which has been most studied in the setting of cardiovascular and renal disease. In addition, AT₂R-mediated anti-inflammatory effects may contribute to the beneficial AT₂R-mediated anti-fibrotic effects seen in preclinical models.

Dual Blockade of the Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone System in Type 2 Diabetic Kidney Disease

Objective:

To examine the efficacy and safety of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) among patients with type 2 diabetic kidney disease.

Data Sources:

We searched the major literature repositories, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE, for randomized clinical trials published between January 1990 and October 2015 that compared the efficacy and safety of the use of dual blockade of the RAAS versus the use of monotherapy, without applying any language restrictions. Keywords for the searches included “diabetic nephropathy,” “chronic kidney disease,” “chronic renal insufficiency,” “diabetes mellitus,” “dual therapy,” “combined therapy,” “dual blockade,” “renin-angiotensin system,” “angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” “angiotensin-receptor blocker,” “aldosterone blockade,” “selective aldosterone blockade,” “renin inhibitor,” “direct renin inhibitor,” “mineralocorticoid receptor blocker,” etc.

Study Selection:

The selected articles were carefully reviewed. We excluded randomized clinical trials in which the kidney damage of patients was related to diseases other than diabetes mellitus.

Results:

Combination treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor supplemented by an angiotensin II receptor blocking agent is expected to provide a more complete blockade of the RAAS and a better control of hypertension. However, existing literature has presented mixed results, in particular, related to patient safety. In view of this, we conducted a comprehensive literature review in order to explain the rationale for dual blockade of the RAAS, and to discuss the pros and cons.

Conclusions:

Despite the negative results of some recent large-scale studies, it may be immature to declare that the dual blockade is a failure because of the complex nature of the RAAS surrounding its diversified functions and utility. Further trials are warranted to study the combination therapy as an evidence-based practice.

Misconceptions and facts about treating hypertension

Hypertension is a powerful risk factor strongly linked to adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Because of its high prevalence, health care providers at many levels are involved in treating hypertension. Distinct progress has been made in improving the rates of hypertension awareness and treatment over years, but the overall control of hypertension remains inadequate. Several recent guidelines from different sources have been put forward in an attempt to bridge the gap between existing evidence and clinical practice. Despite this effort, several misconceptions about treating hypertensive cardiovascular disease continue to persist among clinicians. This review highlights some of the misconceptions regarding antihypertensive therapy.

Comparing kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes treated with different sulphonylureas in real-life clinical practice

AIM

Although several sulphonylureas are widely used in type 2 diabetes (T2D), their differential impacts on long-term major kidney outcomes remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effects of the two most commonly prescribed sulphonylureas, glimepiride and gliclazide, on kidney outcomes in patients with T2D.

METHODS

A total of 4486 patients treated with either glimepiride or gliclazide for more than 2 years were followed for up to 5.5 years (median: 4.7 years). A propensity score based on baseline characteristics was used to match 1427 patients treated with glimepiride with 1427 gliclazide-treated patients; incidences of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and sustained doubling of creatinine to>132.6 μmol/L (1.5mg/dL) were also compared.

RESULTS

In the matched cohort with 12,122 person-years of follow-up, there was no significant difference between groups in risk of ESRD [hazard ratio (HR): 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-1.12] or doubling of creatinine (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.44-1.26), although there was a trend towards higher risks in the glimepiride group. Subgroup analyses showed that, compared with glimepiride, gliclazide was associated with a lower risk of doubling of creatinine in patients with preserved renal function (glomerular filtration rate ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2), HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.04-0.99) and good glycaemic control (HbA1c < 7%, HR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14-0.86), and in older subjects (≥ 62 years, HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.27-0.99).

CONCLUSION

In a real-life setting, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes of kidney disease for patients treated with glimepiride vs gliclazide. However, gliclazide appeared to protect against renal complication progression in certain populations.

The use of surrogate endpoints in regulating medicines for cardio-renal disease: opinions of stakeholders

Aim

There is discussion whether medicines can be authorized on the market based on evidence from surrogate endpoints. We assessed opinions of different stakeholders on this topic.

Methods

We conducted an online questionnaire that targeted various stakeholder groups (regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical industry, academia, relevant public sector organisations) and medical specialties (cardiology or nephrology vs. other). Participants were enrolled through purposeful sampling. We inquired for conditions under which surrogate endpoints can be used, the validity of various cardio-renal biomarkers and new approaches for biomarker use.

Results

Participants agreed that surrogate endpoints can be used when the surrogate is scientifically valid (5-point Likert response format, mean score: 4.3, SD: 0.9) or when there is an unmet clinical need (mean score: 3.8, SD: 1.2). Industry participants agreed to a greater extent than regulators and academics. However, out of four proposed surrogates (blood pressure (BP), HbA1c, albuminuria, CRP) for cardiovascular outcomes or end-stage renal disease, only use of BP for cardiovascular outcomes was deemed moderately accurate (mean: 3.6, SD: 1.1). Specialists in cardiology or nephrology tended to be more positive about the use of surrogate endpoints.

Conclusion

Stakeholders in drug development do not oppose to the use of surrogate endpoints in drug marketing authorization, but most surrogates are not considered valid. To solve this impasse, increased efforts are required to validate surrogate endpoints and to explore alternative ways to use them.

Dual renin-angiotensin system inhibition for prevention of renal and cardiovascular events: do the latest trials challenge existing evidence?

Circulatory and tissue renin-angiotensin systems (RAS) play a central role in cardiovascular (CV) and renal pathophysiology, making RAS inhibition a logical therapeutic approach in the prevention of CV and renal disease in patients with hypertension. The cardio- and renoprotective effects observed with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) monotherapy, together with the availability of a direct renin inhibitor (DRI), led to the investigation of the potential benefits of dual RAS inhibition. In small studies, ARB and ACE inhibitor combinations were shown to be beneficial in patients with CV or renal disease, with improvement in surrogate markers. However, in larger outcome trials, involving combinations of ACE inhibitors, ARBs or DRIs, dual RAS inhibition did not show reduction in mortality in patients with diabetes, heart failure, coronary heart disease or after myocardial infarction, and was in fact, associated with increased harm. A recent meta-analysis of all major trials conducted over the past 22 years involving dual RAS inhibition has clearly shown that the risk-benefit ratio argues against the use of dual RAS inhibition. Hence, the recent evidence clearly advocates against the use of dual RAS inhibition, and single RAS inhibition appears to be the most suitable approach to controlling blood pressure and improving patient outcomes.

Is there benefit in dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade? No, yes and maybe: a guide for the perplexed

Since the initial discovery of Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) in the 1960s and the launch of Captopril as the first available for clinical use in the 1970s, there now exist three other classes of drugs that block the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS): the angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), aldosterone antagonists (AA) and direct renin inhibitors (DRI). With the proven efficacy of RAAS blockers as monotherapy in many arenas there has been considerable interest in the use of dual therapy combinations of these medications that target different points in the pathway. By potentially offering a more complete RAAS blockade with a commensurate enhanced clinical effect, the strong biological rationale for dual therapy has led to it being embraced by clinicians as a treatment option, for hypertension and nephroprotection in particular. However, the initial enthusiasm for this treatment has been tempered by the recent results from several large trials such as ONTARGET and ALTITUDE, which do not support a specific dual therapy approach. In contrast, there is supportive evidence for dual blockade of specific combinations in selected patient groups and data are lacking for others. In the wake of this complex contemporary evidence, the conundrum now faced by clinicians committed to individualised care is, for which patients dual therapy could still be of benefit. This review examines for the practising clinician the current 'state of play' for dual blockade of various combinations and a perspective on its use in cardio-renal disease and diabetic complications.

Efficacy and safety of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system: meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long term efficacy and adverse events of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with monotherapy.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, January 1990 to August 2012.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials comparing dual blockers of the renin-angiotensin system with monotherapy, reporting data on either long term efficacy (≥ 1 year) or safety events (≥ 4 weeks), and with a sample size of at least 50. Analysis was stratified by trials with patients with heart failure versus patients without heart failure.

RESULTS

33 randomised controlled trials with 68,405 patients (mean age 61 years, 71% men) and mean duration of 52 weeks were included. Dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system was not associated with any significant benefit for all cause mortality (relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.06) and cardiovascular mortality (0.96, 0.88 to 1.05) compared with monotherapy. Compared with monotherapy, dual therapy was associated with an 18% reduction in admissions to hospital for heart failure (0.82, 0.74 to 0.92). However, compared with monotherapy, dual therapy was associated with a 55% increase in the risk of hyperkalaemia (P<0.001), a 66% increase in the risk of hypotension (P<0.001), a 41% increase in the risk of renal failure (P=0.01), and a 27% increase in the risk of withdrawal owing to adverse events (P<0.001). Efficacy and safety results were consistent in cohorts with and without heart failure when dual therapy was compared with monotherapy except for all cause mortality, which was higher in the cohort without heart failure (P=0.04 v P=0.15), and renal failure was significantly higher in the cohort with heart failure (P<0.001 v P=0.79).

CONCLUSION

Although dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system may have seemingly beneficial effects on certain surrogate endpoints, it failed to reduce mortality and was associated with an excessive risk of adverse events such as hyperkalaemia, hypotension, and renal failure compared with monotherapy. The risk to benefit ratio argues against the use of dual therapy.

Intensive glucose control improves kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes

The effect of intensive glucose control on major kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes remains unclear. To study this, the ADVANCE trial randomly assigned 11,140 participants to an intensive glucose-lowering strategy (hemoglobin A1c target 6.5% or less) or standard glucose control. Treatment effects on end-stage renal disease ((ESRD), requirement for dialysis or renal transplantation), total kidney events, renal death, doubling of creatinine to above 200 μmol/l, new-onset macroalbuminuria or microalbuminuria, and progression or regression of albuminuria, were then assessed. After a median of 5 years, the mean hemoglobin A1c level was 6.5% in the intensive group, and 7.3% in the standard group. Intensive glucose control significantly reduced the risk of ESRD by 65% (20 compared to 7 events), microalbuminuria by 9% (1298 compared to 1410 patients), and macroalbuminuria by 30% (162 compared to 231 patients). The progression of albuminuria was significantly reduced by 10% and its regression significantly increased by 15%. The results were almost identical in analyses taking account of potential competing risks. The number of participants needed to treat over 5 years to prevent one ESRD event ranged from 410 in the overall study to 41 participants with macroalbuminuria at baseline. Thus, improved glucose control will improve major kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The effect of combination treatment with aliskiren and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system on hyperkalaemia and acute kidney injury: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety of using aliskiren combined with agents used to block the renin-angiotensin system.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and two trial registries, published up to 7 May 2011.

STUDY SELECTION

Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that compared combined treatment using aliskiren and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers with monotherapy using these agents for at least four weeks and that provided numerical data on the adverse event outcomes of hyperkalaemia and acute kidney injury. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for these outcomes.

RESULTS

10 randomised controlled studies (4814 participants) were included in the analysis. Combination therapy with aliskiren and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers significantly increased the risk of hyperkalaemia compared with monotherapy using angiotensin converting enzymes or angiotensin receptor blockers (relative risk 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 2.02) or aliskiren alone (1.67, 1.01 to 2.79). The risk of acute kidney injury did not differ significantly between the combined therapy and monotherapy groups (1.14, 0.68 to 1.89).

CONCLUSION

Use of aliskerin in combination with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers is associated with an increased risk for hyperkalaemia. The combined use of these agents warrants careful monitoring of serum potassium levels.

Stroke, high blood pressure and the Renin-Angiotensin-aldosterone system - new developments

This review considers whether a case can be made for a protective effect of inhibitors and blockers of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) on the cerebral circulation. It first looks at whether there exists a preferential effect on the cerebral circulation during a drug-induced lowering of high arterial blood pressure and cardiovascular morbi-mortality. It then goes on to consider background studies on the relationship between inhibition of the RAAS and stroke. This is followed by exploration of possible new directions in the inhibition of the RAAS and its effect on stroke.