Effects of valsartan on left ventricular diastolic function in patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension: comparison with enalapril

The benefit of angiotensin AT1 receptor blockers for early treatment of hypertensive patients

ESC guidelines for management of arterial hypertension allow one to choose among five classes of antihypertensive drugs indiscriminately. They are based on the principle that in the management of hypertensive patients, it is fundamental to reduce blood pressure (BP), independently of the utilized drug. However, it has been demonstrated that the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays a relevant role in the hypertensive-derived development and progression of organ damage. Thus, antihypertensive drugs interfering with the RAS should be preferred in preventing and reducing target organ damage. The availability of two classes of drugs, ACE-inhibitors and angiotensin AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs), both interfering with the RAS, makes the choice between them difficult. Both pharmacological strategies offer an effective BP control, and a substantial improvement of prognosis in different associated pathologies. Regarding cardiovascular prevention, ACE-inhibitors have an extensive scientific literature regarding utility in high-risk patients. Nevertheless, there is evidence to support the concept that in the early phases of organ tissue damage, the RAS is activated, but the ACE pathway producing angiotensin II is not always employed. Accordingly, ACE-inhibitors appear to be less effective, whereas ARBs have a greater beneficial action in the initial stages of atherosclerotic disease. Moreover, patients undergoing ARBs therapy show a substantially lower risk of therapy discontinuation when compared to those treated with ACE-inhibitors, because of a better tolerability. In conclusion, ACE-inhibitors should be used in patients who have already developed organ damage, but tolerate this drug well, while ARBs should be the first choice in naïve hypertensive patients without organ damage or at the initial stages of disease.

Pleiotropic effects of the acute and chronic inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system in hypertensives

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition may exert beneficiary pleiotropic effects on heart hemodynamics in hypertensive patients. We aimed to assess these effects on coronary flow reserve (CFR) and left ventricular (LV) filling pressure after acute and long-term treatment. Thirty-nine patients (48.4±6.8 years) with newly diagnosed, never-treated essential arterial hypertension were consecutively recruited from an outpatient hypertension clinic. CFR in the left anterior descending artery and the ratio of mitral inflow E wave to the averaged mitral annulus tissue velocity of the E waves (E/e' ratio), as an estimate of LV filling pressure, were assessed by Doppler echocardiography. In the acute phase of the study, consecutive eligible patients were assigned to receive po Quinapril (Q) 20 mg (n=15) or Losartan (L) 100 mg (n=14) or no treatment (n=10) and were reexamined 2 h post treatment. In the chronic phase of the study, the patients were reevaluated after 1 month on the assigned treatment. During the acute phase, CFR (P=0.005) was significantly improved in the RAS inhibition as compared with the control group, independently of blood pressure (BP) changes. The E/e' ratio was also marginally improved (P=0.053), but this effect was more pronounced in patients with E/e' ratio>8 (P=0.005). CFR and E/e' ratio were also improved after 1 month of treatment, particularly in responders after the acute phase. In hypertensive patients, RAS inhibition acutely improved CFR and E/e' ratio independently of BP changes. An acute positive response in these parameters was closely related to sustained improvement after 1 month of single-drug treatment.

Contributions of ACE and mast cell chymase to endogenous angiotensin II generation and leucocyte recruitment in vivo

AIMS

In vitro studies suggest that mast cell chymase (MCP) is more important than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) for generating angiotensin II (Ang II) within the cardiovascular system. We investigated in vivo the relative contributions of ACE and MCP to leucocyte recruitment induced by endogenously generated Ang II.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Exposure of the murine cremasteric microcirculation of C57BL/6 mice to Ang I (100 nM for 4 h) induced leucocyte-endothelium interactions. Either losartan (an Ang II receptor-1 antagonist, AT(1)) or enalapril (an ACE inhibitor), but not chymostatin (a chymase inhibitor), inhibited Ang I-induced responses. Mast cell degranulation with compound 48/80 (CMP48/80, 1 μg/mL) also induced leucocyte adhesion but this was only weakly affected by the inhibitors. When Ang I and CMP48/80 were co-administered, AT(1B) receptor expression was increased, MCP-4 was found surrounding the vessel wall, and ACE was detected in the endothelium. Ang I + CMP48/80 induced enhanced leucocyte adhesion that was attenuated by losartan, enalapril, enalapril + chymostatin, and cromolyn (a mast cell stabilizer). The use of male mast cell-deficient WBB6F1/J-Kit(w)/Kit(w-v) mice (C57BL/6 background) confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

In vivo, Ang II is primarily generated by ACE under basal conditions, but in inflammatory conditions, the release of MCP amplifies local Ang II concentrations and the associated inflammatory process. Thus, AT(1) receptor antagonists may be more effective than ACE inhibitors for treating ongoing Ang II-mediated vascular inflammation.

Comparing angiotensin II receptor blockers on benefits beyond blood pressure

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is one of the main regulators of blood pressure, renal hemodynamics, and volume homeostasis in normal physiology, and contributes to the development of renal and cardiovascular (CV) diseases. Therefore, pharmacologic blockade of RAAS constitutes an attractive strategy in preventing the progression of renal and CV diseases. This concept has been supported by clinical trials involving patients with hypertension, diabetic nephropathy, and heart failure, and those after myocardial infarction. The use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in clinical practice has increased over the last decade. Since their introduction in 1995, seven ARBs have been made available, with approved indications for hypertension and some with additional indications beyond blood pressure reduction. Considering that ARBs share a similar mechanism of action and exhibit similar tolerability profiles, it is assumed that a class effect exists and that they can be used interchangeably. However, pharmacologic and dosing differences exist among the various ARBs, and these differences can potentially influence their individual effectiveness. Understanding these differences has important implications when choosing an ARB for any particular condition in an individual patient, such as heart failure, stroke, and CV risk reduction (prevention of myocardial infarction). A review of the literature for existing randomized controlled trials across various ARBs clearly indicates differences within this class of agents. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the role of ARBs in the prevention and reduction of CV rates of morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients.

Endothelial Function as a Possible Significant Determinant of Cardiac Function during Exercise in Patients with Structural Heart Disease

This study was investigated the role that endothelial function and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) play in determining cardiac function reserve during exercise by a new ambulatory radionuclide monitoring system (VEST) in patients with heart disease. The study population consisted of 32 patients. The patients had cardiopulmonary stress testing using the treadmill Ramp protocol and the VEST. The anaerobic threshold (AT) was autodetermined using the V-slope method. The SVR was calculated by determining the mean blood pressure/cardiac output. Flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) was measured in the brachial artery to evaluate endotheilial function. FMD and the percent change f'rom rest to AT in SVR correlated with those from rest to AT in ejection fraction and peak ejection ratio by VEST, respectively. Our findings suggest that FMD in the brachial artery and the SVR determined by VEST in patients with heart disease can possibly reflect cardiac function reserve during aerobic exercise.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine the effects of valsartan on exercise time in patients with symptomatic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Aims

To determine whether valsartan improves treadmill exercise time, in patients with symptomatic heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF), compared with placebo.

Methods and results

In this multicentred, double-blind, 14-week study, patients were randomized to receive valsartan (V) 80 mg or placebo (P) once daily on top of background medications. The dose of valsartan was force-titrated up to 320 mg. A total of 152 patients were randomized (V = 70, P = 82). Most patients had well-controlled hypertension (V = 91.2%, P = 89.0%) (mean baseline systolic BP ∼130 mmHg) and >50% were receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and/or beta-blocker (V = 57.4%, P = 54.9%). The mean ejection fraction at baseline was 70.48% in the placebo group (n = 64) and 71.52% in the valsartan group (n = 79). Valsartan had no significant effect on exercise time (primary variable), gas exchange variables, 6 min walk test distance, exertion-related symptoms, brain natriuretic peptide levels, echocardiographic parameters, or quality-of-life scores. Valsartan significantly lowered peak exercise systolic BP (−13.1 mmHg vs. placebo; P < 0.001) and improved ratings of perceived exertion (Borg score) (−0.69 vs. placebo; P = 0.008).

Conclusion

In this population, which predominantly included patients with well-controlled hypertension and symptomatic HFPEF, addition of valsartan did not increase exercise time within 14 weeks. However, valsartan 320 mg reduced blood pressure and improved symptoms of perceived exertion (Borg score) during exercise and was generally well-tolerated.

Position of fixed‐dose combinations containing an AT1‐receptor blocker and a thiazide diuretic

Treatment of hypertension remains a difficult task despite the availability of different types of medications lowering blood pressure by different mechanisms. In order to reach the target blood pressures recommended today combination therapy is required in most patients. The co-administration of two drugs with different impacts on the cardiovascular system markedly increases the antihypertensive effectiveness without altering adversely tolerability. Fixed low-dose combinations are becoming a valuable option not only as second-line, but also as first-line therapy. In this respect the co-administration of thiazide diuretic with an AT(1)-receptor blocker is particularly appealing. The diuretic-induced decrease in total body sodium activates the renin-angiotensin system, thus rendering blood pressure maintenance angiotensin II-dependent. During blockade of the renin-angiotensin system low doses of thiazides generally suffice, allowing the prevention of undesirable metabolic effects. Also, blockade of the AT(1)-receptor, particularly when angiotensin II production is enhanced in response to diuretic therapy, is expected to be beneficial, since angiotensin II seems to contribute importantly to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular and renal complications of hypertension.

Systemic peripheral vascular resistance as a determinant of functional cardiac reserve in response to exercise in patients with heart disease

Resting cardiac function is a poor indicator of functional cardiac reserve that is invoked during exercise. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between functional cardiac reserve and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) using an ambulatory radionuclide monitoring system (the Vest system) in patients with heart disease. The study population consisted of 29 patients (all male [mean +/- SD age, 63 +/- 10 years]), 23 with coronary artery disease, 3 with dilated cardiomyopathy, and 3 with hypertensive heart disease. All patients underwent cardiopulmonary stress testing using a ramped treadmill protocol and the Vest system. The anaerobic threshold (AT) was autodetermined using the V-slope method. Systemic vascular resistance was calculated using the mean blood pressure and cardiac output as determined using the Vest system parameters. All patients exercised beyond the AT until exhaustion. Resting left ventricular ejection fraction, peak ejection ratio, and peak filling ratio increased with the AT (P < .01 for all). Resting SVR decreased with the AT (P < .01). The percentage changes from rest to the AT in SVR correlated with those from rest to the AT in ejection fraction, peak ejection ratio, and peak filling ratio (r = -0.735, r = -0.510, and r = -0.697, respectively; P < .01). These findings indicate that SVR as recorded using the Vest system is a good determinant of functional cardiac reserve in patients with heart disease. Therefore, cardiopulmonary function testing combined with the Vest system is a good modality for the evaluation of functional cardiac reserve.

Role of Angiotensin II in the Evolution of Diastolic Heart Failure

More than half of all persons with heart failure (HF) have diastolic HF. The prevalence of diastolic HF increases from 46% in persons younger than 45 years to 59% in those 85 years and older. The annual mortality rate associated with diastolic HF is >10%. Diagnosis is based on signs and symptoms of HF, elevated plasma B-type natriuretic peptide, preserved left ventricular systolic function, and evidence of diastolic dysfunction by Doppler examination on two-dimensional echocardiography. Approximately 80% of patients with diastolic HF have increased left ventricular mass and a history of hypertension. Neurohormonal activation is a key aspect of this condition. Studies suggest that activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, specifically direct cardiac effects of angiotensin II and aldosterone, contributes to the pathogenesis and progression of diastolic dysfunction. Hence, there is a rationale for use of agents that antagonize the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone antagonists, in patients with heart failure.

Angiotensin receptor blockers: therapeutic targets and cardiovascular protection

In the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, pharmacological treatment strategies should have several aims: (i) in individuals without overt cardiovascular disease, but with risk factors such as hypertension and/or diabetes, pharmacotherapy should prevent or delay disease development; (ii) in patients who have already progressed to cardiovascular disease, pharmacotherapy should help either to prevent or regress target organ damage (TOD); and (iii) in patients with TOD, pharmacotherapy should prevent events. Any medication intended for long-term therapy also should be well tolerated. Inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system has proven a successful therapeutic strategy in cardiovascular and renal medicine. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have demonstrated important advantages over conventional agents such as beta-blockers and thiazide diuretics, and have become a relevant part of treatment for heart failure post-myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction and renal disease. Tolerability concerns may prevent their use in some patients, however. Angiotensin AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs) provide a different form of blockade of the renin-angiotensin system and a growing body of evidence suggests that this alternative approach may confer additional cardiovascular protection for some patient subgroups. In addition, ARBs generally are better tolerated than ACE inhibitors, enhancing patient compliance and persistence with long-term therapy. Furthermore, evidence in favour of combining an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in certain circumstances is continuously growing.

Early Target Organ Damage and Its Reversibility: The Heart

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) represents not only an adaptation to increased load, but also a risk factor and a marker of risk of cardiovascular diseases. It may be detected early in the development of the disease by electrocardiography or echocardiography. LVH is often associated to abnormalities of systolic and diastolic function, and its presence clearly predisposes not only to cardiac ischemia and to congestive heart failure, but also to a higher incidence of stroke. A large number of clinical and experimental studies have shown that long-term antihypertensive treatment may be associated with regression of LVH. Long-term antihypertensive treatment is associated with a progressive decrease of LV mass. Differences on reduction of LV mass using different classes of antihypertensive drugs for the same decrease of blood pressure are usually mild, although the effect on cardiac structure and tissue composition are probably not the same. In fact, not only the quantity of left ventricular mass, but also its quality (i.e., collagen content, contractile machinery) should be evaluated and improved by treatment. The incidence of cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients is clearly related to the value of LV mass achieved during treatment; in fact, a reduction in LVH by antihypertensive treatment is associated with improvement in outcome and with decrease of the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, even independently from changes of other risk factors, including blood pressure. In patients with LVH at baseline, the decrease of LV mass is associated with a number of pathophysiological changes such as 1) improved systolic performance at the midwall, 2) possible improvement of diastolic filling, 3) autonomic nervous system changes toward normalization, 4) possible reduction or ventricular arrhythmias and 5) coronary reserve improvement. All these changes might explain an improvement of clinical prognosis in hypertensive patients. Ongoing studies will more precisely assess the quantitative relation between development or regression of LV mass, improvement of systolic and diastolic function and incidence of cardiovascular events. At present time detection, prevention and reversal of LVH represent a major goal in the management of hypertensive patients.

Effects of valsartan compared with enalapril on blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly patients with essential hypertension

OBJECTIVE

This prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint study was to compare the effects of the angiotensin II (Ang II) AT1 receptor antagonist valsartan with those of the ACE inhibitor enalapril on blood pressure (BP) and cognitive functions in elderly hypertensive patients.

METHODS

One hundred and forty-four patients aged 61-80 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension (DBP > or =95 mmHg and < or =110 mmHg at the end of a 2-week placebo run-in period) were randomly assigned to once daily (o.d.) treatment with valsartan 160 mg ( n=73) or enalapril 20 mg ( n=71) for 16 weeks. The patients were examined every 4 weeks during the study, with pre-dose BP (standard mercury sphygmomanometer, Korotkoff I and V) and heart rate (pulse palpation) being recorded at each visit. Cognitive function was evaluated at the end of the wash-out period and after 16 weeks of active treatment by means of five tests (verbal fluency, the Boston naming test, word list memory, word list recall and word list recognition).

RESULTS

Both valsartan and enalapril had a clear antihypertensive effect, but the former led to a slightly greater reduction in SBP/DBP at 16 weeks (18.6+/-4.6/13.7+/-4.0 mmHg vs 15.6+/-5.1/10.9+/-3.9 mmHg; P<0.01). Enalapril did not induce any significant changes in any of the cognitive function test scores; valsartan significantly increased the word list memory score (+11.8%; P<0.05 vs baseline and P<0.01 vs enalapril) and the word list recall score (+18.7%; P<0.05 vs baseline and P<0.01 vs enalapril), but not those of the other tests.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that, in elderly hypertensive patients, 16 weeks of treatment with valsartan 160 mg o.d. is more effective than enalapril 20 mg o.d. in reducing BP, and (unlike enalapril) improves some of the components of cognitive function, particularly episodic memory.

Angiotensin AT-1 receptor antagonism: complementary or alternative to ACE inhibition in cardiovascular and renal disease?

Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and AT-1 receptor antagonists reduce the effects of angiotensin II, however they may have different clinical effects. This is because the ACE inhibitors, but not the AT-1 receptor antagonists, increase the levels of substance P, bradykinin and tissue plasminogen activator. The AT-1 receptor antagonists, but not the ACE inhibitors, are capable of inhibiting the effects of angiotensin II produced by enzymes other than ACE. On the basis of the present clinical trial evidence, AT-1 receptor antagonists, rather than the ACE inhibitors, should be used to treat hypertension associated with left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Both groups of drugs are useful when hypertension is not complicated by LV hypertrophy, and in diabetes. In the treatment of diabetes with or without hypertension, there is good clinical support for the use of either an ACE inhibitor or an AT-1 receptor antagonist. ACE inhibitors are recommended in the treatment of renal disease that is not associated with diabetes, after myocardial infarction when left ventricular dysfunction is present, and in heart failure. As the incidence of cough is much lower with the AT-1 receptor antagonists, these can be substituted for ACE inhibitors in patients with hypertension or heart failure who have persistent cough. Preliminary studies suggest that combining an AT-1 receptor antagonist with an ACE inhibitor may be more effective than an ACE inhibitor alone in the treatment of hypertension, diabetes with hypertension, renal disease without diabetes and heart failure. However, further trials are required before combination therapy can be recommended in these conditions.

Angiotensin II Type 1 receptor antagonists in chronic heart failure

Angiotensin II Type 1 receptor antagonists share most but not all of their pharmacological actions with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The latter belong to standard heart failure therapy, with proven benefit in terms of morbidity and mortality. Promising data have been provided for angiotensin II Type 1 receptor antagonists in experimental models of heart failure. In patients with hypertension and those with diabetic nephropathy, favourable results have been observed with regards to blood pressure control, reversibility of structural changes or prevention of progression of disease. The currently available clinical trials in heart failure patients with angiotensin II Type 1 receptor antagonists suggest that they may be equivalent to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, but superiority has not been proven. There is no doubt about their effectiveness with regards to symptoms; however, their effect on hospitalisation and mortality is not unequivocally demonstrated. Further trials are warranted, particularly to define their role in comparison with and in addition to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and to further characterise heart failure patient populations who derive benefit from angiotensin II Type 1 receptor blockers above and beyond angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and spironolactone.

The cardiovascular risk of adult GH deficiency (GHD) improved after GH replacement and worsened in untreated GHD: a 12-month prospective study

Increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality were reported in GH deficiency (GHD), and GH replacement can ameliorate cardiac abnormalities of adult GHD patients. To test the potential progression of untreated GHD on the cardiovascular risk and cardiac function, cardiovascular risk factors, cardiac size, and performance were prospectively evaluated in 15 GHD patients (age, 18-56 yr) who were treated with recombinant GH at the dose of 0.15-1.0 mg/d, 15 GHD patients (age, 18-56 yr) who refused GH replacement, and 30 healthy subjects (age, 18-53 yr). Electrocardiogram, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate measurement, serum IGF-I, total cholesterol, low- and high-density lipoprotein (LDL, HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, and fibrinogen level assay, echocardiography, and equilibrium radionuclide angiography were performed basally and after 12 months. At study entry, low IGF-I levels, unfavorable lipid profile, and inadequate cardiac and physical performance were found in GHD patients compared with controls. After 12 months of GH treatment, IGF-I levels normalized; HDL-cholesterol levels, left ventricular (LV) mass index (LVMi), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at peak exercise, peak filling rate, exercise duration and capacity significantly increased; total- and LDL-cholesterol levels significantly decreased. After 12 months in GH-untreated GHD patients, IGF-I levels remained stable, and HDL-cholesterol levels, LVEF both at rest and at peak exercise, and exercise capacity were further reduced; total- and LDL-cholesterol levels increased slightly. LVEF at rest and its response at peak exercise normalized in 60 and 53.3%, respectively, of GH-treated patients and in none of the GH-untreated patients. In conclusion, 12 months of GH replacement normalized IGF-I and improved lipid profile and cardiac performance in adult GHD patients. A similar period of GH deprivation induced a further impairment of lipid profile and cardiac performance. This finding strongly supports the need of GH replacement in adult GHD patients.