Lisinopril in elderly patients with hypertension. Long term effects on renal and metabolic function

Valsartan: long-term efficacy and tolerability compared to lisinopril in elderly patients with essential hypertension

A total of 501 elderly patients with essential hypertension were randomized to receive valsartan or lisinopril in this one year multi-center, double-blind, parallel group trial. Patients received valsartan 40 mg (n = 334) or lisinopril 2.5 mg (n = 167) daily for 2 weeks with subsequent titration (alone or in combination with hydroclorothiazide), depending on response to treatment. The primary efficacy variable was the percentage of patients with a response, defined as sitting diastolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg or drop of > or = 10 mmHg from baseline. A high percentage of patients responded to treatment in both valsartan and lisinopril groups: 80% for both groups at 12 weeks and 81% and 87%, respectively, at 52 weeks with no statistically significant difference between treatments (12 weeks, p = 0.925; 52 weeks, p = 0.148). More patients on lisinopril experienced drug-related cough (7.5% on valsartan, 17.4% on lisinopril). In 5.4% of lisinopril treated patients, cough led to discontinuation of therapy compared to 0.6% on valsartan. Valsartan 80 mg daily provides comparable short and long-term antihypertensive efficacy to lisinopril in elderly patients with a lower incidence of drug-related cough.

Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in elderly patients

Lisinopril, the lysine analogue of enalaprilat, is a long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor which is administered once daily by mouth. The efficacy of lisinopril in reducing blood pressure is well established in younger populations, and many trials now show it to be effective in lowering blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension. In comparative and non-comparative clinical trials, 68.2 to 89.1% of elderly patients responded (diastolic pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) to > or = 8 weeks' lisinopril treatment. Age-related differences in antihypertensive efficacy do not appear to be clinically significant, and dosages effective in elderly patients tend to range from 2.5 to 40 mg/day. Dosages usually need to be lower in patients with significant renal impairment. In congestive heart failure, lisinopril 2.5 to 20 mg/day increases exercise duration, improves left ventricular ejection fraction and has no significant effect on ventricular ectopic beats. It is similar in efficacy to enalapril and digoxin and similar or superior to captopril on most end-points. Data from the GISSI-3 post-myocardial infarction trial show that lisinopril reduced mortality and left ventricular dysfunction when given for 42 days starting within 24 hours of the onset of infarction symptoms. Results at 6 weeks and 6 months were similar in elderly and younger patients. Elderly patients, however, among other subgroups, exhibited a strong reduction in risk of low ejection fraction after treatment (-25.5%). Economic studies suggest that lisinopril is cost saving compared with other ACE inhibitors in some markets. When given according to the GISSI-3 protocol, lisinopril appears to be one of the less expensive of the successful ACE inhibitor regimens for acute myocardial infarction. In other trials, patients with diabetic nephropathy and hypertension improved or did not deteriorate during lisinopril treatment. Blood pressure was controlled and reductions or trends towards reductions in albuminuria were observed. These reductions were similar to those in diltiazem, nifedipine and verapamil recipients, and greater than those in patients receiving atenolol. Lisinopril appears to reduce mortality in diabetic patients after myocardial infarction and may also improve neuropathy associated with diabetes. Lisinopril is well tolerated and the profile of adverse events seen is typical of ACE inhibitors as a class. There is a tendency for more elderly than younger patients to discontinue treatment, but this trend is not clearly related to the incidence of adverse events in these age groups. Drug interactions occur with few other agents and are usually clinically significant only between lisinopril and either diuretics or lithium. Lisinopril is, thus, an effective treatment for elderly patients with hypertension, congestive heart failure and acute myocardial infarction and has shown promising benefits in patients with diabetic nephropathy.

ACE inhibitors. Differential use in elderly patients with hypertension

High blood pressure (BP) in the elderly must not be ignored as a normal consequence of aging. The criteria for the diagnosis of hypertension and the necessity to treat it are the same in elderly and younger patients. The aim of treatment of elderly hypertensive patients is to decrease BP safely and to reduce risk factors associated with cerebrovascular, cardiovascular and renal morbidity and mortality. The treatment of elderly hypertensive patients should be adjusted according to the needs of the individual, based upon age, race, severity of hypertension, co-existing medical problems, other cardiovascular risk factors, target-organ damage, risk-benefit considerations and costs. In addition to the elevated BP, other cardiovascular risk factors include smoking, glucose intolerance, hyperinsulinaemia, dyslipidaemia, hypercreatininaemia, peripheral vascular disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, and microalbuminuria (or albuminuria). Thus, the choice of initial antihypertensive therapy in elderly hypertensive patients should be based not only on the expected response, but also on the effects of therapy on lipid, potassium, glucose and uric acid levels, and left ventricular anatomy and function. Co-existing medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, renal failure, gout, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidaemia and peripheral vascular disease) are major determinants for the selection of antihypertensive medications. With previous therapies (diuretics, beta-blockers, etc.), good BP control in the elderly was associated with clear and statistically significant reductions in stroke-related morbidity and mortality, but the overall effects on cardiovascular and renal complications of hypertension was either more variable or less obvious. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are not only efficacious antihypertensive agents in the elderly, but also appear promising in counteracting some of the cardiovascular and renal consequences of hypertension. They are well tolerated and have a relatively low incidence of adverse effects. ACE inhibitors possess ancillary characteristics that are potentially beneficial for many elderly patients, including reduction of left ventricular mass, lack of metabolic and lipid disturbances, no adverse CNS effects, no risk of induction of heart failure, and a low risk of orthostatic hypotension. Since ACE inhibitors may improve perfusion to the heart, kidney and brain, they are well worth considering for the treatment of elderly patients with hypertensive target organ damage, especially in patients with heart failure, and diabetic patients with early nephropathy.

Decision analysis applied to the selection of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

Decision analysis is applied to the group of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, in order to select those which should be included in the hospital formulary and to establish a research method which allows the reproduction of the process with new, related drugs. Captopril, enalapril and lisinopril were the alternatives considered. Evaluation criteria were efficacy, clinical experience, safety, dosage interval, hepatic bioactivation, interactions, dosage forms and cost. A relative weight was assigned through a survey among the hospital's staff. Each alternative was evaluated in relation to all criteria. Sensitivity analysis was applied to validate the method. Enalapril obtained the highest score, followed by lisinopril and captopril. The sensitivity analysis confirms this result. Enalapril is selected for the hospital formulary due to its higher score, although the differences between the three are very small.