Zofenopril or irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension untreated or uncontrolled by previous treatment: a double-blind, randomized study

Effects of Zofenopril on Arterial Stiffness in Hypertension Patients

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) reduce arterial stiffness beyond their antihypertensive effect. Studies showed that sulfhydryl ACEIs have the antioxidative potential to improve endothelial function, which might have a clinical effect on arterial distensibility. However, there are no studies that directly compare the effects of sulfhydryl (zofenopril) and non-sulfhydryl ACEIs (enalapril) on arterial stiffness. Therefore, this prospective study aims to compare the effects of enalapril and zofenopril on arterial stiffness and oxidative stress in both short- and long-term treatment of arterial hypertension (AH). Baseline and post-treatment peripheral and central arterial pressure indices, augmentation index (Aix), aortic pulse wave velocity (ao-PWV), serum levels of oxidized low-density cholesterol lipoprotein, LDL and uric acid (UA) were measured. The results showed that acute treatment with zofenopril, in contrast to enalapril, significantly decreased peripheral and central Aix (p < 0.001). Chronic treatment with zofenopril showed a superior effect over enalapril on the reduction of the peripheral systolic arterial pressure with reduction of ao-PWV (p = 0.004), as well as a reduction in peripheral Aix (p = 0.021) and central Aix (p = 0.021). Therefore, this study indicates that zofenopril has beneficial effects on the reduction of arterial stiffness compared to enalapril. It has potent clinical efficacy in AH treatment and further studies should compare its safety and long-term efficacy to other AH drugs that would aid clinicians in treating AH and other various cardiovascular diseases that have arterial stiffness as a common denominator.

Isolated Diastolic Hypertension and Risk of Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies With 489,814 Participants

Background: The association between isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH) and cardiovascular events has been inconsistently reported. This meta-analysis of cohort studies was designed to investigate the effect of the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) definition of IDH on the risk of composite cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and all strokes including ischemic stroke (IS) and hemorrhagic stroke (HS). Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 6, 2021. Cohort studies that investigated the association between IDH and cardiovascular events risk, compared to normotension, were included. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects models and heterogeneity was evaluated using Q-test and I ² statistic. The robustness of the associations was identified using sensitivity analysis. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot, trim-and-fill method, Begg's test, and Egger's test. Results: A total of 15 cohort studies (13 articles) including 489,814 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The follow-up period ranged from 4.3 to 29 years. IDH was significantly associated with an increased risk of composite cardiovascular events (HR 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07-1.52, p = 0.006), cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.07-1.95, p = 0.015), all strokes (HR 1.44, 95% CI: 1.04-2.01, p = 0.03), and HS (HR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.18-2.29, p = 0.164), but not associated with all-cause mortality (HR 1.20, 95% CI: 0.97-1.47, p = 0.087) and IS (HR 1.56, 95% CI: 0.87-2.81, p = 0.137). Subgroup analysis further indicated that IDH in the younger patients (mean age ≤ 55 years) and from Asia were significantly associated with an increased risk of composite cardiovascular events, while the elderly patients (mean age ≥ 55 years), Americans, and Europeans were not significantly associated with an increased risk of composite cardiovascular events. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence that IDH defined using the 2018 ESC criterion is significantly associated with an increased risk of composite cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, all strokes and HS, but not significantly associated with all-cause death and IS. These findings also emphasize the importance for patients with IDH to have their blood pressure within normal, especially in the young adults and Asians. Trial Registration: PROSPERO, Identifier: CRD42021254108.

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.

Efficacy of Zofenopril Alone or in Combination with Hydrochlorothiazide in Patients with Kidney Dysfunction

Hypertension and kidney disease often coexist, further increasing the risk of future cardiovascular events. Treatment of hypertensive adults with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in case of concomitant kidney disease may slow disease progression. The third-generation liphophilic angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril, administered alone or combined with a thiazide diuretic, has proved to be effective in lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients and to reduce the risk of fatal and non-fatal events in post-acute myocardial infarction and heart failure. In almost three-hundred hypertensive patients with kidney impairment zofenopril administered for 12 weeks showed a similar blood pressure-lowering effect irrespective of the stage of the disease, with larger effects in combination with a thiazide diuretic, particularly in patients with slightly or moderately impaired kidney function. In animal models, zofenopril produced a significant and long-lasting inhibition of kidney angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and prevented kidney morphological and functional alterations following kidney ischemia-reperfusion injury. Treatment of hypertensive patients for 18 weeks with a combination of zofenopril 30 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg resulted in a reduction in albumin creatinine ratio of 8.4 mg/g (49.6% reduction from baseline values) and no changes in glomerular filtration rate, variations in line with those obtained in the control group treated with a combination of irbesartan 150 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Thus, some preliminary evidence exists to support that relatively long-term treatment with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril alone or combined with hydrochlorothiazide is effective in controlling blood pressure and may confer some kidney protection due to ACE inhibition properties.

Efficacy of zofenopril in combination with thiazide diuretics in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of four randomized, double-blind, controlled, prospective studies

Background

In the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation (SMILE) studies, early administration of zofenopril after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was prognostically beneficial as compared to placebo and other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), such as lisinopril and ramipril. Here, we investigated whether zofenopril efficacy could be affected by a concomitant use of thiazide diuretics (TDs).

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data from the SMILE studies. Patients treated with other diuretics than TDs were excluded. The primary study endpoint was the 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for CV causes, with or without TD.

Results

Among 2,995 patients, 263 (8.8%) were treated with a combination including a TD (TD+), whereas 2,732 (91.2%) were not treated with any diuretic (TD−). Proportions of subjects who were treated with TD were equally distributed (p=0.774) within the placebo, zofenopril, and other ACEIs groups. The 1-year risk of major cardiovascular events was similar in TD+ (18.3%) and TD− (16.8%) patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.74–1.45; p=0.838). After stratifying per concomitant treatment and TD, the 1-year risk of CV events was significantly lower with zofenopril than with placebo (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55–0.88; p=0.002) and other ACEIs (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.46–0.74; p=0.0001). Treatment with ACEIs and TD as concomitant therapy was associated with a larger blood pressure (BP) reduction (p=0.0001 for systolic BP and p=0.045 for diastolic BP).

Conclusion

In post AMI patients, zofenopril maintained its positive impact on prognosis compared to placebo or other ACEIs, regardless concomitant TD administration. In this setting, TD shows advantages in managing the most difficult hypertensive patients.

Fixed-dose combination of zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with established metabolic syndrome uncontrolled by previous monotherapy. The ZAMES study (Zofenopril in Advanced MEtabolic Syndrome)

OBJECTIVE

Whether all antihypertensive drugs are equally effective in patients with metabolic syndrome is still unclear. The goal of the Zofenopril in Advanced MEtabolic Syndrome (ZAMES) study was to investigate whether treatment with the fixed-dose combination of sulphydril-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide is at least as effective as that with the angiotensin receptor blocker irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients with metabolic syndrome and essential hypertension, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy.

METHODS

We enrolled 721 patients in a multicenter, international (Italy and Romania), randomized, double-blind, parallel group, phase III study. Following a 1-week screening withdrawal period, 482 patients (mean age 59 ± 10 years, 53% men) bearing a SBP at least 140 mmHg and/or DBP at least 90 mmHg plus metabolic syndrome (ATP-III criteria) were randomly allocated to a fixed-dose combination of zofenopril 30 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily for a cumulative period of 24 weeks. After 8 and 16 weeks, zofenopril and irbesartan doses were doubled in nonnormalized study participants. The study endpoint was the office DBP reduction at study end. In 20% of patients, an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of diabetes at baseline was significantly (P < 0.05) greater in the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (82%) than in the irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide (73%) group. Baseline-adjusted DBP reductions were superimposable (P = 0.370) with zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide [n = 231; 9.8 (95% confidence interval: 11.1, 8.4) mmHg] and irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide [n = 235; 10.4 (11.8, 9.0) mmHg]. The same was for SBP [17.0 (19.2, 14.8) mmHg zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. 18.8 (21.0, 16.6) mmHg irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, P = 0.113]. Rate of normalized and responder patients (SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg or SBP reduction more than 20 mmHg or DBP reduction more than 10 mmHg) did not differ at study end (65.8% and 77.5% zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. 67.7% and 81.5% irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide; P = 0.695, P = 0.301). These results were confirmed in the 69 study participants undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (35 zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide; 34 irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide), with a comparable 24-h average BP reduction [BP difference between-treatment: SBP: 0.1 (-5.7, 5.9) mmHg, P = 0.975; DBP: -0.9 (-3.8, 2.0) mmHg, P = 0.541]. Both drugs attained similar BP reductions also in the last 6 h of the dosing interval [between-treatment difference SBP: 0.1 (-7.4, 7.5) mmHg P = 0.990; DBP: -0.9 (-4.4, 2.6) mmHg, P = 0.602]. Metabolic and renal indexes were not altered. Few patients were withdrawn for moderate adverse events (5% zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide; 5% irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study supporting the comparable antihypertensive and metabolic response to fixed-dose combinations of sulphydril-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (zofenopril) or angiotensin receptor blockers (Irbesartan) with a diuretic in patients with advanced metabolic syndrome and nonresponders to monotherapy. The results of this study can further improve the clinical management of high cardiovascular risk patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome, because these two drug combinations increase the number of available combinations, which may significantly improve patients' adherence in this special clinical condition that is frequently found in everyday practice.

Efficacy of Zofenopril vs. Irbesartan in Combination with a Thiazide Diuretic in Hypertensive Patients with Multiple Risk Factors not Controlled by a Previous Monotherapy: A Review of the Double-Blind, Randomized "Z" Studies

Combinations between an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) are among the recommended treatments for hypertensive patients uncontrolled by monotherapy. Four randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies with a similar design, including 1469 hypertensive patients uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy and with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, compared the efficacy of a combination of a sulfhydryl ACE inhibitor (zofenopril at 30 or 60 mg) or an ARB (irbesartan at 150 or 300 mg) plus HCTZ 12.5 mg. The extent of blood pressure (BP)-lowering was assessed in the office and over 24 h. Pleiotropic features of the treatments were evaluated by studying their effect on systemic inflammation, organ damage, arterial stiffness, and metabolic biochemical parameters. Both treatments similarly reduced office and ambulatory BPs after 18-24 weeks. In the ZODIAC study a larger reduction in high sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) was observed under zofenopril (-0.52 vs. +0.97 mg/dL under irbesartan, p = 0.001), suggesting a potential protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis. In the ZENITH study the rate of carotid plaque regression was significantly larger under zofenopril (32% vs. 16%; p = 0.047). In the diabetic patients of the ZAMES study, no adverse effects of treatments on blood glucose and lipids as well as an improvement of renal function were observed. In patients with isolated systolic hypertension of the ZEUS study, a slight and similar improvement in renal function and small reductions in pulse wave velocity (PWV), augmentation index (AI), and central systolic BP were documented with both treatments. Thus, the fixed combination of zofenopril and HCTZ may have a relevant place in the treatment of high-risk or monotherapy-treated uncontrolled hypertensive patients requiring a more prompt, intensive, and sustained BP reduction, in line with the recommendations of current guidelines.