Does Co-administration of Antihypertensive Drugs and Statins Alter Their Efficacy and Safety? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials:

Are there lost opportunities in chronic kidney disease? A region-wide cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Identify the windows of opportunity for the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the prevention of its adverse outcomes and quantify the potential population gains of such prevention.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Observational, population-wide study of residents in the Stockholm and Skåne regions of Sweden between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients who did not yet have a diagnosis of CKD in healthcare but had CKD according to laboratory measurements of CKD biomarkers available in electronic health records.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed the proportions of the patient population that received a subsequent diagnosis of CKD in healthcare, that used guideline-directed pharmacological therapy (statins, renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i)) and that experienced adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)). The potential to prevent adverse outcomes in CKD was assessed using simulations of guideline-directed pharmacological therapy in untreated subsets of the study population.

RESULTS

We identified 99 382 patients with undiagnosed CKD during the study period. Only 33% of those received a subsequent diagnosis of CKD in healthcare after 5 years. The proportion that used statins or RAASi was of similar size to the proportion that didn't, regardless of how advanced their CKD was. The use of SGLT2i was negligible. In simulations of optimal treatment, 22% of the 21 870 deaths, 27% of the 14 310 cardiovascular deaths and 39% of the 22 224 MACE could have been avoided if every patient who did not use an indicated medication for their laboratory-confirmed CKD was treated with guideline-directed pharmacological therapy for CKD.

CONCLUSIONS

While we noted underdiagnosis and undertreatment of CKD in this large contemporary population, we also identified a substantial realisable potential to improve CKD outcomes and reduce its burden by treating patients early with guideline-directed pharmacological therapy.

The Effects of a Perindopril-Based Regimen in Relation to Statin Use on the Outcomes of Patients with Vascular Disease: a Combined Analysis of the ADVANCE, EUROPA, and PROGRESS Trials

PURPOSE

To study the effects of a perindopril-based regimen on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with vascular disease in relation to background statin therapy.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of the randomized ADVANCE, EUROPA, and PROGRESS trials was performed to evaluate CV outcomes in 29,463 patients with vascular disease treated with perindopril-based regimens versus placebo. The primary endpoint was a composite of CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the effects of a perindopril-based regimen versus placebo in relation to statin use.

RESULTS

At randomization, 39.5% of the overall combined study population used statins. After a mean follow-up of 4.0 years (SD 1.0), the cumulative event-free survival was highest in the statin/perindopril group and lowest in the no statin/placebo group (91.2% vs. 85.6%, respectively, log-rank p < 0.001). In statin users (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.98) and non-statin users (aHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.87), a perindopril-based regimen was associated with a significantly lower risk of the primary endpoint when compared to placebo. The additional treatment effect appeared numerically greater in non-statin users, but the observed difference was statistically nonsignificant.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the treatment benefits of a perindopril-based regimen in patients with vascular disease are independent of statin use.

Antihypertensive effects of rosuvastatin in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia: A systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies

Some studies have suggested the antihypertensive effects of statins, a class of lipid-lowering agents, particularly in patients with hypertension. However, the evidence for the role of statins in blood pressure (BP) lowering is controversial, and no meta-analysis of rosuvastatin therapy has been conducted to assess its BP-lowering effects. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to investigate the effects of rosuvastatin on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with hypertension. We systematically searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to identify RCTs in which patients were assigned to groups of rosuvastatin plus antihypertensive agents vs. antihypertensive agents. The three authors independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. We included five RCTs in this meta-analysis with 288 patients treated with rosuvastatin and 219 patients without rosuvastatin. The mean DBP in the rosuvastatin group was significantly lower than that in the non-rosuvastatin group by -2.12 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.72 to -0.52; Pfixed-effects model = 0.009; I2 = 0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.97). Rosuvastatin treatment also lowered the mean SBP compared with the non-rosuvastatin treatment by -2.27 mmHg, but not significantly (95% CI - 4.75 to 0.25; Pfixed-effects model = 0.08; I2 = 0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.82). In this study, we reviewed the antihypertensive effects of rosuvastatin in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia. We demonstrated a modest significant reduction of DBP and a trend toward a lowered SBP in patients with hypertension with rosuvastatin therapy. Rosuvastatin could be beneficial to control hypertension and, consequently, contribute toward reducing the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia.

Combination blood pressure lowering in the presence or absence of background statin and aspirin therapy: a combined analysis of PROGRESS and ADVANCE Trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of combination BP lowering on cardiovascular events and mortality in the presence of aspirin and/or statin therapy in a combined analysis of the ADVANCE and PROGRESS trials.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of 14 682 participants allocated combination therapy with perindopril and indapamide or placebo followed up for a mean of 4.2 years. Participants were stratified into four groups defined by background use of medications at baseline: statin, aspirin, both or neither. Linear mixed effect models were used to assess differences in BP and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risks of major cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality and treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

At baseline, 14% of patients were on both aspirin and statin, 35% on aspirin, 9% on statins and 42% on neither aspirin/statins. Compared with placebo, combination BP therapy reduced mean SBP by 5.7 mmHg in ADVANCE and 12.1 mmHg in PROGRESS, with no difference (P > 0.447) between patients by baseline use of aspirin/statin. Combination BP therapy reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.71-0.86), with no significant difference (P = 0.600) between aspirin/statin subgroups. Rates of treatment discontinuation were similar with combination BP therapy compared with placebo (18.4 versus 18%), with no evidence of difference across the subgroups (P = 0.340).

CONCLUSION

BP lowering with perindopril and indapamide reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events independent of baseline use of aspirin and/or statins.