Interaction between aspirin and ACE Inhibitors: resolving discrepancies using a meta-analysis

Predicting Drug-Drug Interactions Based on Integrated Similarity and Semi-Supervised Learning

A drug-drug interaction (DDI) is defined as an association between two drugs where the pharmacological effects of a drug are influenced by another drug. Positive DDIs can usually improve the therapeutic effects of patients, but negative DDIs cause the major cause of adverse drug reactions and even result in the drug withdrawal from the market and the patient death. Therefore, identifying DDIs has become a key component of the drug development and disease treatment. In this study, we propose a novel method to predict DDIs based on the integrated similarity and semi-supervised learning (DDI-IS-SL). DDI-IS-SL integrates the drug chemical, biological and phenotype data to calculate the feature similarity of drugs with the cosine similarity method. The Gaussian Interaction Profile kernel similarity of drugs is also calculated based on known DDIs. A semi-supervised learning method (the Regularized Least Squares classifier) is used to calculate the interaction possibility scores of drug-drug pairs. In terms of the 5-fold cross validation, 10-fold cross validation and de novo drug validation, DDI-IS-SL can achieve the better prediction performance than other comparative methods. In addition, the average computation time of DDI-IS-SL is shorter than that of other comparative methods. Finally, case studies further demonstrate the performance of DDI-IS-SL in practical applications.

Drug-Drug Interactions in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Systematic Review

Drug-drug interaction (DDI) is defined as a clinically significant change in the exposure and/or response to a drug caused by co-administration of another drug which may result in a precipitation of an adverse event or alteration of its therapeutic effects. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of DDIs that were actually observed or evaluated in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with particular focus on DDIs with clinical relevance. Electronic searches of the literature were conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EBSCO, Scopus, Google Scholar and SCIndeks. A total of 117 articles were included in the review. This review showed that ACS patients can be exposed to a variety of DDIs with diverse outcomes which include decreased efficacy of antiplatelet drugs, thrombolytics or anticoagulants, increased risk of bleeding, rhabdomyolysis, hepatotoxicity, adverse effects on cardiovascular system (e.g. QT interval prolongation, arrhythmias, excessive bradycardia, severe hypotension), serotonin syndrome and drug-induced fever. Majority of the DDIs involved antiplatelet drugs (e.g. aspirin, clopidogrel and ticagrelor). Evidence of some of the reported DDIs is inconclusive as some of the studies have shown conflicting results. There is a need for additional post-marketing and population-based studies to evaluate the true effects of disease states and other factors on the clinical outcomes of DDIs. Clinicians should be attentive to the potential for DDIs and their associated harm in order to minimize or, if possible, avoid medication-related adverse events in ACS patients.

Aspirin use is associated with a reduced risk of cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Aspirin has been revealed to probably decrease the risk of cholangiocarcinoma (CCC), which, nevertheless, is of controversy. To this end, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the above-described association.

Methods

We thoroughly searched PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science for relevant studies published prior to October 2017, followed by random-effects model for calculation of pooled ORs and corresponding 95% CIs. Additionally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were carried out to confirm whether the outcomes were stable.

Results

Nine articles, consisting of 12,535 CCC patients and 92,97,450 healthy controls, were enrolled in this study. We demonstrated a significantly decreased risk of CCC in those using aspirin, with studies being heterogeneous (OR=0.69; CI=0.43–0.94; I2=97.4%). Moreover, this relationship was detected only in case-control studies (OR=0.65; 95% CI=0.38–0.93), rather than cohort studies (OR=0.94; 95% CI=0.70–1.27). Besides, in separated analysis of intrahepatic CCC and extrahepatic CCC, aspirin was more strongly correlated with a declined risk of intrahepatic CCC (OR=0.33, 95% CI=0.26–0.39; I2=93.6%) than the risk of extrahepatic CCC (OR=0.56, 95% CI=0.41–0.73; I2=0%).

Conclusion

Collectively, the aspirin administration was correlated with a significant 31% decreased risk of CCC, particularly in the intrahepatic CCC.

Association of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin use and the risk of head and neck cancers: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Purpose

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin, have emerged as the potential chemopreventive agents for a number of cancer types, however, previous studies of head and neck cancers (HNC) have yielded inconclusive results. We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies to quantitatively assess the association between NSAIDs use and the risk for HNC.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Google scholar, and Cochrane library for relevant studies that were published in any language, from January 1980 to April 2016. We pooled the odds ratio (OR) from individual studies and performed subgroup, heterogeneity, and publication bias analyses.

Results

A total of eleven studies (eight case-control studies and three cohort studies), involving 370,000 participants and 10,673 HNC cases contributed to this meta-analysis. The results of these studies suggested that neither use of overall NSAIDs (OR=0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11), aspirin (OR=0.93; 95% CI, 0.79-1.10), nor nonsteroidal NSAIDs (OR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.10) were associated with HNC risk. Similar nonsteroidal results were observed when stratified by HNC sites, study design, sample size, and varied adjustment factors. However, we found significant protective effect of ibuprofen (OR=0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) and long-term aspirin use (≧5years) (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85) on HNC risk, with low heterogeneity and publication bias.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis results do not support the hypothesis that overall use of NSAIDs significant reduces the risk of HNC. Whereas, we cannot rule out a modest reduction in HNC risk associated with ibuprofen and long-term aspirin use.

Zofenopril and Ramipril in Combination with Acetyl Salicylic Acid in Postmyocardial Infarction Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: A Retrospective Analysis of the SMILE-4 Randomized, Double-Blind Study in Diabetic Patients

OBJECTIVE

In the SMILE-4 study, zofenopril + acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) was more effective than ramipril + ASA on 1-year prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated drug efficacy in subgroups of patients, according to a history of diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

The primary study endpoint was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Diabetes was defined according to medical history (previous known diagnosis).

RESULTS

A total of 562 of 693 (81.0%) patients were classified as nondiabetics and 131 (18.9%) as diabetics. The adjusted rate of MACE was lower under zofenopril than under ramipril in both nondiabetics [27.9% vs. 34.9% ramipril; odds ratio, OR and 95% confidence interval: 0.55 (0.35, 0.86)] and diabetics [30.9% vs. 41.3%; 0.56 (0.18, 1.73)], although the difference was statistically significant only for the nondiabetic group (P = 0.013). Zofenopril was superior to ramipril as regards to the primary study endpoint in the subgroup of 157 patients with uncontrolled blood glucose (≥ 126 mg/dL), regardless of a previous diagnosis of diabetes [0.31 (0.10, 0.90), P = 0.030]. Zofenopril significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in both nondiabetics [0.64 (0.43, 0.96), P = 0.030] and diabetics [0.38 (0.15, 0.95), P = 0.038], whereas it was not better than ramipril in terms of prevention of cardiovascular deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril plus ASA in the prevention of long-term MACE also in the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus.

Interaction between cyclooxygenase and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: rationale and clinical relevance

Increased understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases has shown that the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is activated in this setting and suggests a central role for the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE). ACE transforms angiotensin I (Ang I) to angiotensin II (Ang II), and also promotes the degradation of bradykinin into inactive metabolites. These bradykinins stimulate nitric oxide synthesis and vasodilatator prostaglandin synthesis via a cyclooxygenase (COX) pathway.

COX inhibitors may therefore be deleterious in cardiovascular disease and/or counteract part of ACE inhibitor (ACE-I) efficacy. This has been clearly demonstrated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including high-dose aspirin, in avoiding their use in such patients. hypertension, coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure (CHF); most guidelines recommend avoiding their use in such patients.

Theoretically, this effect is dose-mediated and the existence of an identical deleterious effect with low-dose aspirin has been an area of intense debate. In this article, we review studies, most of them conducted in CHF, that pointed out such a possible deleterious effect and a counteraction of ACE-Is with low-dose aspirin , using various criteria of assessment.

However, there are no prospective long-term studies that have validated such an effect, and the role of other anti-aggregating agents has not been evaluated. Until such studies are published, the use of low-dose aspirin (100 mg/day) in such patients can be recommended.

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.

Comparison between zofenopril and ramipril in combination with acetylsalicylic acid in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: results of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, European study (SMILE-4)

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are largely employed for treating patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD), but their efficacy may be negatively affected by concomitant administration of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), with some difference among the different compounds.

HYPOTHESIS

The interaction between ASA and the two ACEIs zofenopril and ramipril may result in a different impact on survival of cardiac patients, due to differences in the pharmacological properties of the two ACEIs.

METHODS

This phase IIIb, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, European study compared the safety and efficacy of zofenopril (60 mg/day) and ramipril (10 mg/day) plus ASA (100 mg/day), in 771 patients with LVD (clinical signs of heart failure or a left ventricular ejection fraction <45%) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The primary study end point was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat population, the primary outcome was significantly reduced by zofenopril (n = 365) vs ramipril (n = 351) (odds ratio [OR]: 0.70, and 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.96; P = 0.028) as a result of a decrease in cardiovascular hospitalization (OR: 0.64,95% CI: 0.46-0.88; P = 0.006). Mortality rate was not significantly different between the 2 treatments (OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 0.70-3.27; P = 0.293). Blood pressure values did not significantly change during the 1-year follow-up. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels were progressively reduced during the study, with no statistically significant between-treatment differences. Proportion of patients with deterioration of renal function during the study was similar between the 2 groups. Drug safety profile was comparable between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LVD following AMI, the efficacy of zofenopril associated with ASA was superior to that of ramipril plus ASA, indicating some important clinical implications for the future use of ACEIs in patients with LVD or overt heart failure.

Interactions of commonly used dietary supplements with cardiovascular drugs: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The objective of this systematic review was to examine the benefits, harms and pharmacokinetic interactions arising from the co-administration of commonly used dietary supplements with cardiovascular drugs. Many patients on cardiovascular drugs take dietary supplements for presumed benefits and may be at risk for adverse supplement-drug interactions.

METHODS

The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, International Bibliographic Information on Dietary Supplements and MEDLINE were searched from the inception of the review to October 2011. Grey literature was also reviewed.Two reviewers independently screened records to identify studies comparing a supplement plus cardiovascular drug(s) with the drug(s) alone. Reviewers extracted data using standardized forms, assessed the study risk of bias, graded the strength of evidence and reported applicability.

RESULTS

Evidence was obtained from 65 randomized clinical trials, 2 controlled clinical trials and 1 observational study. With only a few small studies available per supplement, evidence was insufficient for all predefined gradable clinical efficacy and harms outcomes, such as mortality and serious adverse events. One long-term pragmatic trial showed no benefit from co-administering vitamin E with aspirin on a composite cardiovascular outcome. Evidence for most intermediate outcomes was insufficient or of low strength, suggesting no effect. Incremental benefits were noted for triglyceridemia with omega-3 fatty acid added to statins; and there was an improvement in levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol with garlic supplementation when people also consumed nitrates

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of low-strength indicates benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (plus statin, or calcium channel blockers and antiplatelets) and garlic (plus nitrates or warfarin) on triglycerides and HDL-C, respectively. Safety concerns, however, persist.

Does aspirin use adversely influence intermediate-term postdischarge outcomes for hospitalized patients who are treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers? Findings from Organized Program to Facilitate Life-Saving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF)

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data exist regarding a potential deleterious association between aspirin (ASA) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) when used concurrently in patients with heart failure (HF). How such an interaction may be influenced by underlying etiology of HF and whether it extends to patients treated with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), however, are not known.

METHODS

Eligible patients from the OPTIMIZE-HF registry were dichotomized into those with ischemic or nonischemic HF. Potential associations between ASA and ACEI or ARB use and 60- to 90-day postdischarge outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional and logistic regression modeling. Models were adjusted for factors known to influence the outcome of interest and by propensity score for ACEI or ARB prescription after an index HF admission.

RESULTS

Mortality was not increased (hazard ratio [95% CI]) when ASA was used in conjunction with ACEI (0.51 [0.29-0.87]) or ARB (0.29 [0.09-0.96]) in patients with ischemic or nonischemic (ACEI 0.71 [0.42-1.21], ARB 1.42 [0.74-2.74]) HF. Regression model parameter estimates trended toward harm reduction, but interaction terms for mortality and a composite of mortality or rehospitalization were nonsignificant (P for all >.05).

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with ACEI or ARB, ASA had no demonstrable adverse effect on intermediate-term postdischarge outcomes for patients with ischemic or nonischemic HF.

Resource use and costs of treatment with anticoagulation and antiplatelet agents: results of the WATCH trial economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure (WATCH) trial revealed no significant differences among 1587 symptomatic heart failure patients randomized to warfarin, clopidogrel, or aspirin in time to all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. We compared within-trial medical resource use and costs between treatments.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assigned country-specific costs to medical resources incurred during follow-up. Annualized rates of hospitalizations, inpatient and outpatient procedures, and emergency department visits did not differ significantly between groups. Annualized total costs averaged $5901 (95% confidence interval [CI], $4776-$7520) for the aspirin group, $5646 (95% CI, $4903-$6584) for the clopidogrel group, and $5830 (95% CI, $4838-$7400) for the warfarin group.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with clinical findings, our analyses did not identify significant cost differences between treatments.

Breast cancer and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality among women. The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be associated with reduced risk for breast cancer, but results from these studies of the association have been inconsistent.

METHODS

Studies that examined the association between risk of breast cancer and use of NSAIDs, including aspirin and ibuprofen, that were published between January 1, 1966, and July 1, 2008, were identified using Medline, EMBASE, and other databases. We performed meta-analysis by pooling studies according to the inverse of their variances and performed separate analyses of studies pooled according to aspirin use and ibuprofen use. We evaluated publication bias and study quality.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies (16 case-control studies, 18 cohort studies, 3 case-control studies nested in well-defined cohorts, and 1 clinical trial) that included 2 788 715 subjects were identified. The results of these studies suggest that overall, NSAID use was associated with reduced risk for breast cancer (relative risk [RR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.84 to 0.93). Specific analyses for aspirin (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.92) and ibuprofen (RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.64 to 0.97) yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides evidence that NSAID use is associated with reduced risk for breast cancer. Future research should include careful evaluation of the biologic mechanisms involved in the relationship between NSAIDs and breast cancer.

Aspirin Use and Outcomes in a Community-Based Cohort of 7352 Patients Discharged After First Hospitalization for Heart Failure

Background— The safety of aspirin in heart failure (HF) has been called into question, particularly in those patients (1) without coronary disease, (2) with renal dysfunction, or (3) treated with low-dose angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and high-dose aspirin.

Methods and Results— We examined prescription patterns and outcomes (all-cause mortality and/or HF readmission) in patients discharged from 103 Canadian hospitals between April 1999 and March 2001 after a first hospitalization for HF. Of 7352 patients with HF (mean age, 75 years; 44% without coronary disease and 29% with renal dysfunction), 2785 (38%) died or required HF readmission within the first year. Compared with nonusers, aspirin users were no more likely to die or require HF readmission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [0.91 to 1.16]), even in patients without coronary disease (HR, 0.98 [0.78 to 1.22]) or patients with renal dysfunction (HR, 1.13 [0.94 to 1.36]). On the other hand, users of ACE inhibitors were less likely to die or require HF readmission (HR, 0.87 [0.79 to 0.96]), even if they were using aspirin (HR, 0.86 [0.77 to 0.95]). There were no dose-dependent interactions between aspirin and ACE inhibitors.

Conclusions— In this observational study, aspirin use was not associated with an increase in mortality rates or HF readmission rates, and aspirin did not attenuate the benefits of ACE inhibitors, even in patients without coronary disease, patients with renal dysfunction, or patients treated with high-dose aspirin and low-dose ACE inhibitors.

Aspirin Inhibits the Acute Arterial and Venous Vasodilator Response to Captopril in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

PURPOSE

The potentially beneficial hemodynamic effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in heart failure may relate, in part, to their ability to increase the production of vasodilator prostanoids. Low dose aspirin is commonly prescribed in CHF and may attenuate the vasodilator effects of ACE inhibitors. We sought to determine the effects of low dose aspirin on the peripheral hemodynamic effects of captopril in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).

METHODS

Nine patients with chronic heart failure were randomized in a placebo controlled, cross over study, to 75 mg of aspirin daily or placebo. After 7 days treatment the response to 25 mg of captopril was evaluated over 180 min using venous occlusion plethysmography. Forearm blood flow (FBF) and forearm venous capacitance (FVC) were measured.

RESULTS

Mean arterial pressure and heart rate did not change. After placebo, FBF increased in response to captopril (+18%, 95%CI 24.2, 11.8), a response inhibited by aspirin (-1.4%, 2.9, -5.7), p < 0.005. After placebo, FVC increased in response to captopril (+7.6%, 9.8, 5.4), which was also inhibited by aspirin (+2.0%, 4.6, -0.6), aspirin vs. placebo, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In patients with chronic heart failure even low dose aspirin inhibits both the acute arterial and venous dilator responses to captopril. This action of aspirin may reduce the long-term clinical benefits of ACE inhibitors.

Does Aspirin Attenuate the Beneficial Effect of ACE Inhibitors in Elderly People with Heart Failure?

BACKGROUND

Several studies have raised concerns over a possible reduction in the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors on mortality in people also taking aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid).

OBJECTIVE

We performed this study to determine whether there is a reduction in the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors on mortality in elderly people with heart failure also taking aspirin.

PARTICIPANTS

822 patients discharged from hospital wards with a diagnosis of heart failure participated in the GIFA (Italian Group of Pharmacoepidemiology in the Elderly) study.

MEASUREMENTS

We analysed the characteristics of the participants according to the type of therapy prescribed (no ACE inhibitor/no aspirin, ACE inhibitor/no aspirin, no ACE inhibitor/aspirin and ACE inhibitor/aspirin). We calculated the hazard ratios (HRs) for dying associated with each of these treatments, and calculated the synergy index to identify any negative interaction between ACE inhibitor and aspirin.

RESULTS

The mean age of study participants was 79 +/- 7.3 (SD) years. Of the 629 (76.5%) patients discharged on ACE inhibitor and/or aspirin therapy, 31.0% were taking both drugs. Compared with no therapy with ACE inhibitor or aspirin, the HR for death was 0.65 (95% CI 0.31, 1.36) for aspirin users, 0.45 (95% CI 0.27, 0.74) for ACE inhibitor users and 0.37 (95% CI 0.19, 0.70) for ACE inhibitor/aspirin users. The synergy index was 0.98 (95% CI 0.34, 2.80), suggesting no interaction between the drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data do not support the existence of a negative interaction between ACE inhibitors and aspirin in elderly patients with heart failure.