Tissue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus without left ventricular systolic dysfunction or clinical evidence of heart failure: a pooled meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

Dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockade: promises and pitfalls

Single renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade has been shown to be effective and safe for the treatment of hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with proteinuria. Due to the action of RAAS blockers at various levels of the RAAS cascade, it was hypothesized that dual RAAS blockade would result in more complete inhibition of angiotensin II (Ang II) production and be more effective in blocking its detrimental cardiovascular remodeling effects. Unfortunately, several clinical trials in patients with hypertension, CHD, HF, and CKD with proteinuria have demonstrated no superiority of dual versus single RAAS blockade, but a higher incidence of adverse events. Based on these findings, dual RAAS blockade is no longer recommended for the routine treatment of various cardiovascular diseases, except diabetic nephropathy with proteinuria and HF with reduced ejection fraction. All the new information gathered from studies within the last 3 years will be presented in this review.

Safety during the monitoring of diabetic patients: trial teaching course on health professionals and diabetics - SEGUDIAB study

Background

Safety for diabetic patients means providing the most suitable treatment for each type of diabetic in order to improve monitoring and to prevent the adverse effects of drugs and complications arising from the disease. The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of imparting educational interventions to health professionals regarding the safety of patients with Diabetes Mellitus (DM).

Methods

Design: A cluster randomized trial with a control group.

Setting and sample: The study analyzed ten primary healthcare centres (PHC) covering approximately 150,000 inhabitants. Two groups of 5 PHC were selected on the basis of their geographic location (urban, semi-urban and rural), their socio-economic status and the size of their PHC, The interventions and control groups were assigned at random. The study uses computerized patient records to individually assess subjects aged 45 to 75 diagnosed with type 1 and type 2 DM, who met the inclusion conditions and who had the variables of particular interest to the study.

Trial: The educational interventions consisted of a standardized teaching course aimed at doctors and nurses. The course lasted 6 hours and was split into three 2-hour blocks with subsequent monthly refresher courses.

Measurement: For the health professionals, the study used the Diabetes Attitude Scale (DAS-3) to assess their attitudes and motivation when monitoring diabetes. For the patients, the study assessed factors related to their degree of control over the disease at onset, 6, 12 and 24 months.

Main variables: levels of HbA1c.

Analysis: The study analyzed the effect of the educational interventions both on the attitudes and motivations of health professionals and on the degree of control over the diabetes in both groups.

Discussion

Imparting educational interventions to health professionals would improve the monitoring of diabetic patients. The most effective model involves imparting the course to both doctors and nurses. However, these models have not been tested on our Spanish population within the framework of primary healthcare.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01087541