Losartan in the Therapy of Heart Failure Patients

Mathematical modeling of antihypertensive therapy

Hypertension is a multifactorial disease arising from complex pathophysiological pathways. Individual characteristics of patients result in different responses to various classes of antihypertensive medications. Therefore, evaluating the efficacy of therapy based on in silico predictions is an important task. This study is a continuation of research on the modular agent-based model of the cardiovascular and renal systems (presented in the previously published article). In the current work, we included in the model equations simulating the response to antihypertensive therapies with different mechanisms of action. For this, we used the pharmacodynamic effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan, the calcium channel blocker amlodipine, the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide, and the β-blocker bisoprolol. We fitted therapy parameters based on known clinical trials for all considered medications, and then tested the model's ability to show reasonable dynamics (expected by clinical observations) after treatment with individual drugs and their dual combinations in a group of virtual patients with hypertension. The extended model paves the way for the next step in personalized medicine that is adapting the model parameters to a real patient and predicting his response to antihypertensive therapy. The model is implemented in the BioUML software and is available at https://gitlab.sirius-web.org/virtual-patient/antihypertensive-treatment-modeling.

Angiotensin receptor blockers for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure (HF) is a prevalent world-wide. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for chronic HF although their role is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harm of ARBs compared with ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or placebo on mortality, morbidity and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with symptomatic HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction or preserved systolic function.

SEARCH METHODS

Clinical trials were identified by searching CENTRAL, HTA, and DARE , (The Cochrane Library 2010 Issue 3), as well as MEDLINE (2002 to July 2010), and EMBASE (2002 to July 2010). Reference lists of retrieved articles and systematic reviews were checked for additional studies not identified by the electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double blind randomised controlled trials in men and women of all ages who have symptomatic (NYHA Class II to IV) HF and: 1) left ventricular systolic dysfunction, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; or 2) preserved ejection fraction, defined as LVEF >40%.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two studies evaluated the effects of ARBs in 17,900 patients with a LVEF ≤40% (mean 2.2 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.76, 1.00]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.88, 1.01]) compared with placebo.Total mortality (RR 1.05 [95% CI 0.91, 1.22]), total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.92, 1.08]), MI (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.62, 1.63]), and stroke (RR 1.63 [0.77, 3.44]) did not differ between ARBs and ACEIs but withdrawals due to adverse effects were lower with ARBs (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.52, 0.76]). Combinations of ARBs plus ACEIs increased the risk of withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 1.34 [95% CI 1.19, 1.51]) but did not reduce total mortality or total hospital admissions versus ACEI alone.Two placebo-controlled studies evaluated ARBs in 7151 patients with a LVEF >40% (mean 3.7 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.93, 1.12]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.97, 1.05]) compared with placebo. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were higher with ARBs versus placebo when all patients were pooled irrespective of LVEF (RR 1.06 [95% CI 1.01, 1.12]).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with symptomatic HF and systolic dysfunction or with preserved ejection fraction, ARBs compared to placebo or ACEIs do not reduce total mortality or morbidity. ARBs are better tolerated than ACEIs but do not appear to be as safe and well tolerated as placebo in terms of withdrawals due to adverse effects. Adding an ARB in combination with an ACEI does not reduce total mortality or total hospital admission but increases withdrawals due to adverse effects compared with ACEI alone.