Long-term clinical experience with zofenopril

Extemporaneous combination therapy with nebivolol/zofenopril in hypertensive patients: usage in Italy

OBJECTIVE

Clinically describing hypertensive patients initiating nebivolol/zofenopril extemporaneous combination (NZ-EXC) and estimating the number of patients currently receiving NZ-EXC and of those potentially eligible for the fixed-dose combination of the two molecules (NZ-FDC) in Italy.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used data from IQVIA Italian Longitudinal Patient Database (LPD). Adult hypertensive patients firstly prescribed NZ-EXC between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2020 were identified and their demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted. Treatment adherence was evaluated as proportion of days covered (PDC) and classified as low (PDC <40%), intermediate (PDC ≥40% and <80%) or high (PDC ≥80%). Two additional cohorts were identified in 2019 to provide the national-level yearly estimates of patients prescribed NZ-EXC and of patients eligible for NZ-FDC.

RESULTS

In total 1745 patients were prescribed NZ-EXC: 60% were women; mean age was 65 years. The most frequent comorbidities were dyslipidemia (19.0%), diabetes (15.5%) and thyroid diseases (13.1%); the most common co-prescribed treatments were antithrombotics (29.1%), lipid-lowering agents (28.8%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (26.1%) and antihyperglycemic agents (13.5%). Mean PDC was 39%, and 57% of the patients had a PDC < 40%. The yearly estimate of patients prescribed NZ-EXC in 2019 was 59,000, while potential users of NZ-FDC were estimated to be 29,000.

CONCLUSIONS

NZ-EXC in hypertensive patients is a common practice in Italy and the development of a NZ-FDC can be a viable treatment option for hypertensive patients who are already receiving nebivolol and zofenopril through the concomitant assumption of two distinct pills. As supported by scientific literature, FDCs of antihypertensive drugs could simplify treatment, improve adherence and potentially reduce health-care costs as related to a better control of blood pressure.

Mechanisms for the development of heart failure and improvement of cardiac function by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, which prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, are well-known for the treatments of cardiovascular diseases, such as heart failure, hypertension and acute coronary syndrome. Several of these inhibitors including captopril, enalapril, ramipril, zofenopril and imidapril attenuate vasoconstriction, cardiac hypertrophy and adverse cardiac remodeling, improve clinical outcomes in patients with cardiac dysfunction and decrease mortality. Extensive experimental and clinical research over the past 35 years has revealed that the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors in heart failure are associated with full or partial prevention of adverse cardiac remodeling. Since cardiac function is mainly determined by coordinated activities of different subcellular organelles, including sarcolemma, sarcoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria and myofibrils, for regulating the intracellular concentration of Ca2+ and myocardial metabolism, there is ample evidence to suggest that adverse cardiac remodelling and cardiac dysfunction in the failing heart are the consequence of subcellular defects. In fact, the improvement of cardiac function by different ACE inhibitors has been demonstrated to be related to the attenuation of abnormalities in subcellular organelles for Ca2+-handling, metabolic alterations, signal transduction defects and gene expression changes in failing cardiomyocytes. Various ACE inhibitors have also been shown to delay the progression of heart failure by reducing the formation of angiotensin II, the development of oxidative stress, the level of inflammatory cytokines and the occurrence of subcellular defects. These observations support the view that ACE inhibitors improve cardiac function in the failing heart by multiple mechanisms including the reduction of oxidative stress, myocardial inflammation and Ca2+-handling abnormalities in cardiomyocytes.

Hydrogen sulfide-dependent microvascular vasodilation is improved following chronic sulfhydryl-donating antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in adults with hypertension

Hypertension is characterized by systemic microvascular endothelial dysfunction, in part due to a functional absence of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S)-mediated endothelium-dependent dilation. Treatment with a sulfhydryl-donating ACE inhibitor (SH-ACE inhibitor) improves endothelial function in preclinical models of hypertension. To date, no studies have directly assessed the effects of SH-ACE-inhibitor treatment on H₂S-dependent vasodilation in humans with hypertension. We hypothesized that SH-ACE-inhibitor treatment would improve H₂S-mediated endothelium-dependent vasodilation. Ten adults with hypertension [1 woman and 9 men; 56 ± 9 yr; systolic blood pressure (SBP): 141 ± 8.5 mmHg; diastolic blood pressure (DBP): 90.3 ± 6 mmHg] were treated (16 wk) with the SH-ACE-inhibitor captopril. Red blood cell flux (laser-Doppler flowmetry) was measured continuously during graded intradermal microdialysis perfusion of the endothelium-dependent agonist acetylcholine (ACh; 10^-10 to 10^-1 M) alone (control) and in combination with an inhibitor of enzymatic H₂S production [10^-3 M aminooxyacetate (AOAA)] preintervention and postintervention. Cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC; flux/mmHg) was calculated and normalized to the site-specific maximal CVC (0.028 M sodium nitroprusside and local heat to 43°C). Area under the curve was calculated using the trapezoid method. The 16-wk SH-ACE-inhibitor treatment resulted in a reduction of blood pressure (systolic BP: 129 ± 10 mmHg; diastolic BP: 81 ± 9 mmHg, both P < 0.05). Preintervention, inhibition of H₂S production had no effect on ACh-induced vasodilation (316 ± 40 control vs. 322 ± 35 AU AOAA; P = 0.82). Captopril treatment improved ACh-induced vasodilation (316 ± 40 pre vs. 399 ± 55 AU post; P = 0.04) and increased the H₂S-dependent component of ACh-induced vasodilation (pre: -6.6 ± 65.1 vs. post: 90.2 ± 148.3 AU, P = 0.04). These data suggest that SH-ACE-inhibitor antihypertensive treatment improves cutaneous microvascular endothelium-dependent vasodilation in adults with hypertension, in part via H₂S-dependent mechanisms.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first study to prospectively assess the effects of sulfhydryl antihypertensive treatment on microvascular endothelial function in adults with hypertension. Our data suggest that 16 wk of SH-ACE-inhibitor antihypertensive treatment improves cutaneous microvascular endothelium-dependent vasodilation in middle-aged adults with hypertension, in part via H₂S-dependent mechanisms.

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.

Hydrogen Sulfide-Releasing Therapeutics: Translation to the Clinic

SIGNIFICANCE

Shortly after the discovery of the role of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) in many physiological and pathological processes, attempts were made to develop novel pharmaceuticals that may be of benefit for treatment or prevention of a wide range of disorders. The promise of H₂S-based therapeutics is now being demonstrated in clinical trials. Recent Advances: H₂S-releasing drugs, such as SG1002 for cardiovascular disorders, and ATB-346 for arthritis, have progressed into clinical trials and have shown considerable promise. Some older drugs, such as zofenopril, have now been recognized to produce at least some of the beneficial effects through release of H₂S.

CRITICAL ISSUES

There remains a need to better understand the underlying mechanisms for some of the observed effects of H₂S-releasing drugs in a clinical setting, such as the marked increase in analgesic potency that has been observed with ATB-346.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The proof-of-concept clinical studies reviewed herein pave the way for examination, in a clinical setting, of several other potential applications of H₂S-based drugs in a wide range of disorders, including diabetes, hypertension, and cancer chemoprevention. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 28, 1533-1540.

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.

Cardioprotective role of zofenopril in hypertensive patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of the SMILE studies

PURPOSE

The four SMILE studies demonstrated that early administration of zofenopril following acute myocardial infarction is prognostically beneficial compared to placebo or other angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. In the present retrospective pooled analysis of individual SMILE studies, we evaluated the efficacy of zofenopril on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in 1880 hypertensive and 1662 normotensive patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four hundred and forty-nine hypertensives and 486 normotensives were treated with placebo, 980 and 786 with zofenopril 30-60 mg daily, 252 and 259 with lisinopril 5-10 mg daily, 199 and 131 with ramipril 10 mg daily, for 6 to 48 weeks.

RESULTS

The 1-year risk of death or hospitalization for CV causes was significantly reduced with zofenopril and lisinopril vs. placebo in both hypertensive (HR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.48-0.86; p = .003 and .60, .36-.99; p = .049, respectively) and normotensive patients (0.56, 0.42-0.75; p = .0001 and .51, .28-.90; p = .020), whereas this was not the case for ramipril (hypertensives: 1.02, 0.69-1.52; p = .918; normotensives: 0.91, 0.59-1.41; p = .670). Zofenopril significantly reduced the risk of CV outcomes vs. the other two ACE-inhibitors pooled together in hypertensive (0.76; 0.58-0.99; p = .045), but not in normotensive patients (0.77; 0.55-1.10; p = .150).

CONCLUSIONS

In cardiac patients of the SMILE studies with arterial hypertension treatment with the ACE-inhibitor zofenopril was beneficial in reducing the 1-year risk of CV events as compared to placebo and ramipril. An efficacy similar to that of zofenopril was observed with lisinopril.

Zofenopril Protects Against Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury by Increasing Nitric Oxide and Hydrogen Sulfide Bioavailability

Background

Zofenopril, a sulfhydrylated angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), reduces mortality and morbidity in infarcted patients to a greater extent than do other ACEIs. Zofenopril is a unique ACEI that has been shown to increase hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) bioavailability and nitric oxide (NO) levels via bradykinin‐dependent signaling. Both H₂S and NO exert cytoprotective and antioxidant effects. We examined zofenopril effects on H₂S and NO bioavailability and cardiac damage in murine and swine models of myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury.

Methods and Results

Zofenopril (10 mg/kg PO) was administered for 1, 8, and 24 hours to establish optimal dosing in mice. Myocardial and plasma H₂S and NO levels were measured along with the levels of H₂S and NO enzymes (cystathionine β‐synthase, cystathionine γ‐lyase, 3‐mercaptopyruvate sulfur transferase, and endothelial nitric oxide synthase). Mice received 8 hours of zofenopril or vehicle pretreatment followed by 45 minutes of ischemia and 24 hours of reperfusion. Pigs received placebo or zofenopril (30 mg/daily orally) 7 days before 75 minutes of ischemia and 48 hours of reperfusion. Zofenopril significantly augmented both plasma and myocardial H₂S and NO levels in mice and plasma H₂S (sulfane sulfur) in pigs. Cystathionine β‐synthase, cystathionine γ‐lyase, 3‐mercaptopyruvate sulfur transferase, and total endothelial nitric oxide synthase levels were unaltered, while phospho‐endothelial nitric oxide synthase¹¹⁷⁷ was significantly increased in mice. Pretreatment with zofenopril significantly reduced myocardial infarct size and cardiac troponin I levels after I/R injury in both mice and swine. Zofenopril also significantly preserved ischemic zone endocardial blood flow at reperfusion in pigs after I/R.

Conclusions

Zofenopril‐mediated cardioprotection during I/R is associated with an increase in H₂S and NO signaling.

Cardioprotective role of zofenopril in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of four randomised, double-blind, controlled, prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Early administration of zofenopril following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) proved to be prognostically beneficial in the four individual randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, prospective SMILE (Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation) studies. In the present analysis, we evaluated the cumulative efficacy of zofenopril by pooling individual data from the four SMILE studies.

METHODS

3630 patients with AMI were enrolled and treated for 6-48 weeks with zofenopril 30-60 mg/day (n=1808), placebo (n=951), lisinopril 5-10 mg/day (n=520) or ramipril 10 mg/day (n=351). The primary study end point of this pooled analysis was set to 1 year combined occurrence of death or hospitalisation for cardiovascular (CV) causes.

RESULTS

Occurrence of major CV outcomes was significantly reduced with zofenopril versus placebo (-40%; HR=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; p=0.0001) and versus the other ACE inhibitors (-23%; HR=0.77, 0.63 to 0.95; p=0.015). The risk reduction observed under treatment with the other ACE inhibitors was nearly statistically significant (-22%; HR=0.78, 0.60 to 1.02; p=0.072). The benefit of zofenopril versus placebo was already evident after the first 6 weeks of treatment (-28%; HR=0.72, 0.54 to 0.97; p=0.029), while this was not the case for the other ACE inhibitors (-19%; HR=0.81, 0.57 to 1.17; p=0.262). In this early phase of treatment, zofenopril showed a non-significant trend towards a larger reduction in CV events versus the other ACE inhibitors (-11%; HR=0.89, 0.69 to 1.15; p=0.372).

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled data analysis from the SMILE Programme confirms the favourable effects of zofenopril treatment in patients with post-AMI and its long-term benefit in terms of prevention of CV morbidity and mortality.

Blood Pressure Response to Zofenopril or Irbesartan Each Combined with Hydrochlorothiazide in High-Risk Hypertensives Uncontrolled by Monotherapy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled, Parallel Group, Noninferiority Trial

In this randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel group study (ZENITH), 434 essential hypertensives with additional cardiovascular risk factors, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy, were treated for 18 weeks with zofenopril 30 or 60 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 or 300 mg plus HCTZ. Rate of office blood pressure (BP) response (zofenopril: 68% versus irbesartan: 70%; p = 0.778) and 24-hour BP response (zofenopril: 85% versus irbesartan: 84%; p = 0.781) was similar between the two treatment groups. Cardiac and renal damage was equally reduced by both treatments, whereas the rate of carotid plaque regression was significantly larger with zofenopril. In conclusion, uncontrolled monotherapy treated hypertensives effectively respond to a combination of zofenopril or irbesartan plus a thiazide diuretic, in terms of either BP response or target organ damage progression.

A crossover randomized comparative study of zofenopril and ramipril on cough reflex and airway inflammation in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Persistent dry cough is a well known unwanted effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i). Animal studies have shown that the ACE-i zofenopril has a less tussigenic effect compared to the widely used ACE-i ramipril. The aim of this study was to compare cough sensitivity to inhaled tussigens, as well as spontaneous cough in response to the administration of zofenopril and ramipril in healthy volunteers; pharmacokinetic (PK) data of both zofenopril and ramipril, as well as their respective active forms, zofenoprilat and ramiprilat, was also collected.

METHODS

Forty healthy volunteers were enrolled in a randomized crossover study. Patients were administered zofenopril calcium salt (test drug) coated tablets, 30 mg daily dose or ramipril (reference drug) tablets, 10 mg daily dose, for 7 consecutive days in two periods separated by a 21-day wash-out period. Cough sensitivity to capsaicin and citric acid was assessed as the concentration of each tussigenic agent causing at least 2 (C2) or 5 coughs (C5); spontaneous cough was also monitored throughout the study. PK parameters of zofenopril, ramipril and their active forms, were collected for each of the two study periods. Airway inflammation, as assessed by fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and bradykinin (BK) levels, were measured prior to and following each treatment period.

RESULTS

Ramipril, but not zofenopril, increased (p < 0.01) cough sensitivity to both tussigenic agents as assessed by C2. With citric acid, C5 values calculated after both ramipril and zofenopril administration were significantly (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively) lower than corresponding control values. With both ACE-i drugs, spontaneous cough was infrequently reported by subjects. Zofenopril/zofenoprilat PK analysis showed higher area under the curve of plasma concentration, τ values (ng/ml x h) than ramipril/ramiprilat (zofenopril vs. ramipril, 84.25 ± 34.47 vs. 47.40 ± 21.30; and zofenoprilat vs. ramiprilat, 653.67 ± 174.91 vs. 182.26 ± 61.28). Both ACE-i drugs did not affect BK plasma levels; in contrast, ramipril, but not zofenopril, significantly increased control FeNO values (from 24 ± 9.6 parts per billion [PPB] to 33 ± 16 PPB; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Zofenopril has a more favourable profile when compared to ramipril as shown by a reduced pro-inflammatory activity and less impact on the cough reflex.

Effects of treatment with zofenopril in men and women with acute myocardial infarction: gender analysis of the SMILE Program

Background

the SMILE studies proved the prognostic benefit of zofenopril vs. placebo or other ACE-inhibitors (ACEIs) in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In this retrospective pooled analysis of these studies we assessed whether the zofenopril effect is influenced by gender.

Methods

the four double-blind, randomized, parallel-group SMILE studies, compared the efficacy and safety of 6–48 week treatment with zofenopril 60 mg/day with that of placebo, lisinopril 10 mg/day or ramipril 10 mg/day in 3630 AMI patients. This pooled analysis compared treatment efficacy (1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for CV causes) in 2733 men and 897 women.

Results

women were older than men, had a higher prevalence of diabetes and of other major CV risk factors. The risk of a major CV event was significantly larger for women (23% vs. 17% men, p<0.001). Between-gender risk difference was more marked for people living in Southern (+54%) than in Northern Europe (+12%). In both genders zofenopril similarly reduced the 1-year risk of CV morbidity and mortality vs. placebo (−39% men, p = 0.0001; −40% women, p = 0.005). The risk reduction was more marked with zofenopril than with the other ACEIs, particularly in men (−27%, p = 0.012; women: −14%, p = 0.479). The drug safety profile was similar between genders in zofenopril-treated patients, while it was worse in women treated with other ACEIs.

Conclusions

post-AMI women are at higher risk of CV complications than men, particularly when living in Mediterranean countries. Their response to ACE-inhibition varies according to the type of drug and is usually better in men.

Zofenopril and ramipril and acetylsalicylic acid in postmyocardial infarction patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis in hypertensive patients of the SMILE-4 study

BACKGROUND

Antecedent hypertension represents a risk factor for adverse outcomes in survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prognosis of such patients might be greatly improved by drugs enhancing blood pressure control. In the present retrospective analysis of the randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, SMILE-4 study we compared the efficacy of zofenopril 60 mg and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg versus ramipril 10 mg and ASA in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, classified according to a history of hypertension.

METHODS

The primary study end-point was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Hypertension was defined according to medical history and current blood pressure values at entry and could be determined in 682 of 716 patients of the intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-seven patients (23%) were normotensives and 525 (77%) hypertensives. In the normotensive population the primary end-point occurred in 19 of 76 zofenopril-treated patients (25%) and in 23 of 81 ramipril-treated patients (28%) [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.84 (0.41-1.71), P = 0.631]. In the hypertensive population, major cardiovascular outcomes were reported in 84 of 273 zofenopril-treated patients (31%) and in 99 of 252 ramipril-treated patients (39%), with a 31% significantly (P = 0.041) lower risk with zofenopril [0.69 (0.48-0.99)]. The superiority of zofenopril versus ramipril was particularly evident in patients with isolated systolic hypertension [n = 131, 0.48 (0.23-0.99), P = 0.045].

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril and ASA in the prevention of long-term cardiovascular outcomes also in the subgroup of patients with hypertension.

Zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide and irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in previously treated and uncontrolled diabetic and non-diabetic essential hypertensive patients

Introduction

In most treated patients with hypertension, a two or more drug combination is required to achieve adequate blood pressure (BP) control. In our study we assessed whether the combination of zofenopril + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was at least as effective as irbesartan + HCTZ in essential hypertensives with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy.

Methods

After a 2-week placebo washout, 361 treated hypertensive patients [office sitting diastolic BP (DBP), ≥90 mmHg], aged 18–75 years, were randomized double blind to 18-week treatment with zofenopril 30 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily, in an international, multicenter study. After the first 6 and 12 weeks, zofenopril and irbesartan doses could be doubled in non-normalized subjects. The primary study end point was the office sitting DBP reduction after 18 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included office systolic BP (SBP), ambulatory BP and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP).

Results

The between-treatment difference for office DBP averaged to +1.0 (95% CI −0.4, +0.8) mmHg (P = 0.150), the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval being inferior to the protocol-defined non-inferiority limit (3 mmHg). In the subset of patients with valid ambulatory BP, no difference in 24-h average DBP [n = 181; 6.7 (8.7, 4.6) zofenopril + HCTZ vs. 6.3 (8.8, 3.7) mmHg irbesartan + HCTZ, P = 0.810] and SBP reductions [11.7 (15.4, 8.0) vs. 12.6 (17.2, 8.0) mmHg, P = 0.758] were observed between the two treatment groups. hs-CRP was reduced by zofenopril + HCTZ [−0.52 (−1.05, 0.01) mg/L], while it was increased by irbesartan plus HCTZ [0.97 (0.29, 1.65) mg/L, P = 0.001 between treatments].

Conclusion

In previously monotherapy-treated, uncontrolled patients with hypertension, zofenopril 30–60 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg is as effective as irbesartan 150–300 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg, with the added value of a potential protective effect against vascular inflammation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-013-0090-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.