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.

Thoroughly Calibrated Modular Agent-Based Model of the Human Cardiovascular and Renal Systems for Blood Pressure Regulation in Health and Disease

Here we present a modular agent-based mathematical model of the human cardiovascular and renal systems. It integrates the previous models primarily developed by A. C. Guyton, F. Karaaslan, K. M. Hallow, and Y. V. Solodyannikov. We performed the model calibration to find an equilibrium state within the normal vital sign ranges for a healthy adult. We verified the model's abilities to reproduce equilibrium states with abnormal physiological values related to different combinations of cardiovascular diseases (such as systemic hypertension, chronic heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, etc.). For the model creation and validation, we involved over 200 scientific studies covering known models of the human cardiovascular and renal functions, biosimulation platforms, and clinical measurements of physiological quantities in normal and pathological conditions. We compiled detailed documentation describing all equations, parameters and variables of the model with justification of all formulas and values. The model is implemented in BioUML and available in the web-version of the software.

Therapeutic Properties of Highly Selective β-blockers With or Without Additional Vasodilator Properties: Focus on Bisoprolol and Nebivolol in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease

Bisoprolol and nebivolol are highly selective β₁-adrenoceptor antagonists, with clinical indications in many countries within the management of heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and hypertension. Nebivolol has additional vasodilator actions, related to enhanced release of NO in the vascular wall. In principle, this additional mechanism compared with bisoprolol might lead to more potent vasodilatation, which in turn might influence the effectiveness of nebivolol in the management of HFrEF, IHD and hypertension. In this article, we review the therapeutic properties of bisoprolol and nebivolol, as representatives of “second generation” and “third generation” β-blockers, respectively. Although head-to-head trials are largely lacking, there is no clear indication from published studies of an additional effect of nebivolol on clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF or the magnitude of reductions of BP in patients with hypertension.

Temporal haemodynamic changes after bisoprolol treatment in patients with uncontrolled hypertension

Background

Anti-hypertensive drugs are widely used to control blood pressure, yet their effects on haemodynamics, especially in Chinese populations, and the potential for non-invasive methods to monitor these changes, are poorly understood. This study aimed to determine the early and late effects of bisoprolol treatment on blood pressure, cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), heart rate (HR), systematic vascular resistance (SVR), and inotropy measured in Chinese patients with hypertension.

Methods

Twelve Chinese subjects (median age: 55 years, interquartile range: 52-58 years; 33% male) with uncontrolled hypertension were recruited at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong and haemodynamic measurements were assessed using a non-invasive Ultrasonic Cardiac Output Monitor (USCOM). Seven hourly measurements were taken before and after bisoprolol 2.5 mg on day 1 (T0 to T6), and in nine patients this was repeated six weeks later (TF0 to TF6). Any BP change of 5 mmHg was considered clinically significant and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

On day 1 (N=12), there was a significant drop in median CO [4.9 (4.7-5.6) vs. 3.8 (3.3-4.7) L/m², P<0.0001] associated with a compensatory increase in SVR [1,698.1 (1,584.6-1,894.3) vs. 2,222.6 (1,777.4-2,712.5) d·s·cm^-5, P<0.0001] at T2. The median dBP {92 [87-95] vs. 86 [79-89] mmHg, P=0.0002} and MAP {110 [104-114] vs. 104 [101-109] mmHg, P=0.038} reduced significantly 6 hours after bisoprolol treatment. Except for HR, all other measured haemodynamics returned to baseline at T6. On week 6 (N=9), SVR was generally reduced, but major parallel swings in CO and SVR were still evident. All patients showed a trend to lower blood pressure, SVR, and inotropy (P<0.05), but HR, SV, and CO returned to baseline values after 6 weeks treatment (P>0.05).

Conclusions

The acute haemodynamic changes between 6 hours of the first dose and the dose after 6 weeks of bisoprolol treatment are similar. Long-term therapy can effectively reduce blood pressure by reducing SVR.

Diabetes, gender and deterioration in estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic heart failure: Ten-year prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate the relationship between temporal changes in renal function and long-term mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and identify correlates of deteriorating renal function.

METHODS

A total of 381 patients with HFrEF enrolled in a prospective cohort study between 2006-2014 had eGFR measured at initial visit and at 1 year. Baseline characteristics were used in a multivariate analysis to establish variables that predict deterioration in eGFR. Follow-up data were used to assess whether declining eGFR was related to outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients were grouped into tertiles based on percentage change in eGFR. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, male sex was associated with a 1.77-fold ([95% CI 1.01-2.89]; p = 0.045) and diabetes a 1.66-fold ([95% CI 1.02-2.70]; p = 0.041) greater risk of a decline in eGFR compared to those with stable/improving eGFR. Declining eGFR was associated with a 1.4-fold greater risk of death over 10 years ([95% CI 1.08-1.86]; p = 0.01) and a 3.12-fold ([1.44-6.75]; p = 0.004) greater risk of death at 1 year from second eGFR measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFrEF diabetes and male sex are independent predictors of a decline in eGFR at 1 year. A decline eGFR over 1 year is associated with higher long-term all-cause mortality.

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.

Renal function monitoring in heart failure - what is the optimal frequency? A narrative review

The second most common cause of hospitalization due to adverse drug reactions in the UK is renal dysfunction due to diuretics, particularly in patients with heart failure, where diuretic therapy is a mainstay of treatment regimens. Therefore, the optimal frequency for monitoring renal function in these patients is an important consideration for preventing renal failure and hospitalization. This review looks at the current evidence for optimal monitoring practices of renal function in patients with heart failure according to national and international guidelines on the management of heart failure (AHA/NICE/ESC/SIGN). Current guidance of renal function monitoring is in large part based on expert opinion, with a lack of clinical studies that have specifically evaluated the optimal frequency of renal function monitoring in patients with heart failure. Furthermore, there is variability between guidelines, and recommendations are typically nonspecific. Safer prescribing of diuretics in combination with other antiheart failure treatments requires better evidence for frequency of renal function monitoring. We suggest developing more personalized monitoring rather than from the current medication-based guidance. Such flexible clinical guidelines could be implemented using intelligent clinical decision support systems. Personalized renal function monitoring would be more effective in preventing renal decline, rather than reacting to it.

How Do Antihypertensive Drugs Work? Insights from Studies of the Renal Regulation of Arterial Blood Pressure

Though antihypertensive drugs have been in use for many decades, the mechanisms by which they act chronically to reduce blood pressure remain unclear. Over long periods, mean arterial blood pressure must match the perfusion pressure necessary for the kidney to achieve its role in eliminating the daily intake of salt and water. It follows that the kidney is the most likely target for the action of most effective antihypertensive agents used chronically in clinical practice today. Here we review the long-term renal actions of antihypertensive agents in human studies and find three different mechanisms of action for the drugs investigated. (i) Selective vasodilatation of the renal afferent arteriole (prazosin, indoramin, clonidine, moxonidine, α-methyldopa, some Ca(++)-channel blockers, angiotensin-receptor blockers, atenolol, metoprolol, bisoprolol, labetolol, hydrochlorothiazide, and furosemide). (ii) Inhibition of tubular solute reabsorption (propranolol, nadolol, oxprenolol, and indapamide). (iii) A combination of these first two mechanisms (amlodipine, nifedipine and ACE-inhibitors). These findings provide insights into the actions of antihypertensive drugs, and challenge misconceptions about the mechanisms underlying the therapeutic efficacy of many of the agents.

The Role of Beta-Blockers in the Treatment of Hypertension

IMPORTANCE

Two major guide-line committees (JNC-8 and NICE UK) have dropped beta-blockers as first-line therapy in the treatment of hypertension. Also, recent meta-analyses (that do not take age into account) have concluded that beta-blockers are inappropriate first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension. This review seeks to shed some light on the "rights and wrongs" of such actions and conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

Because the pathophysiology of primary/essential hypertension differs in elderly and younger subjects, the latter being closely linked to obesity and increased sympathetic nerve activity, the author sought to clarify the efficacy of beta-blockers in the younger/middle-aged group in reducing the risk of death, and cardiovascular end-points.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Four searches were undertaken, utilising PubMed up to 31st Dec 2015. One search was under the terms "hypertension AND obesity AND sympathetic nerve activity". A second was "hypertension AND plasma noradrenaline/norepinephrine AND survival". A third was "beta-blockers or adrenergic beta-antagonists AND hypertension AND age AND stroke or myocardial infarction or death". A fourth was "meta-analysis of beta-blockers AND hypertension AND age AND death, stroke, myocardial infarction" RESULTS: Diastolic (with or without systolic) hypertension, in contrast to isolated systolic hypertension, occurs primarily in younger subjects, and is linked to overweight/obesity and increased sympathetic nerve activity. In younger/middle-aged hypertensive subjects, high plasma norepinephrine levels are linked (independent of blood pressure) to an increased risk of future cardiovascular events and death. High resting heart rates (a surrogate for high sympathetic nerve activity) likewise predict premature all-cause death, coronary heart disease and cardiovascular events in younger hypertensive subjects. In this younger/middle-aged hypertensive group, antihypertensive agents that increase sympathetic nerve activity (diuretics, dihydropyridine calcium blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)) do not decrease (and may increase) the risk of myocardial infarction, and are therefore inappropriate first-line agents in this age-group. By contrast, in younger/middle-aged hypertensive subjects (less than 60 years old), meta-analysis has shown that beta-blockers are significantly superior to randomised placebo, and at least as effective as randomised comparator agents, in reducing death/stroke/myocardial infarction. In this younger/middle-aged hypertensive group beta-blockers have been shown (vs randomised placebo or diuretics) to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction by 35-50 %, and stroke by 50-55 % (vs placebo), in non-smoker men. Atenolol was at least as effective as ACE-inhibition (captopril) in reducing all 7 cardiovascular endpoints (including stroke which was reduced by 50 %), vs less tight control of blood pressure, in obese hypertensive subjects with type-2 diabetes (UKPDS study); and after 20 years follow-up, atenolol was significantly (23 %) superior to the ACE-inhibitor in reducing the risk of all-cause death (beta-blockers have anti-cancer properties, which maybe relevant).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Primary/essential hypertension in younger/middle-age is underpinned by high sympathetic nerve activity. In this age-group high resting heart rates and high plasma norepinephrine levels (independent of blood pressure) are linked to premature cardiovascular events and death. Thus, anti-hypertensive agents that increase sympathetic nerve activity ie diuretics, dihydropyridine calcium blockers, and ARBs, are inappropriate first-line choices in this younger age-group. Beta-blockers perform well vs randomised placebo and other antihypertensive agents regarding reduced risk of death/stroke/myocardial infarction in younger (<60 years) hypertensive subjects, and are a reasonable first-line choice of therapy (certainly in men). These facts should be reflected in the recommendations of guideline committees around the world.

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

BACKGROUND

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for diabetic patients on the basis of postulated advantages for the reduction of diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for hypertension in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, 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 patients with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to November 19, 2014 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to October 19, 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies with at least six months follow-up in people with primary 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. Patients with proven secondary hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies, involving 65,733 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large studies at a low risk of bias 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 hospitalization, total cardiovascular (CV) events (consisted of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalizations), and 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 quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90, ARR 1.2%), and moderate quality evidence that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, ARI 0.7%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence), total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence). The results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate quality 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%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11; moderate quality evidence), and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). Results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, we found low quality evidence 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 low quality evidence that they decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Our analyses do not exclude potentially important differences between first-line RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers on all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; low quality evidence), HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; low quality evidence), and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; low quality evidence).Blood pressure comparisons between RAS inhibitors and other classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.In the protocol, we identified non-fatal serious adverse events (SAE) as a primary outcome. However, when we extracted the data from included studies, none of them reported total SAE in a manner that could be used in the review. Therefore, there is no information about SAE in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found predominantly moderate quality evidence that all-cause mortality is similar when first-line RAS inhibitors are compared to other first-line antihypertensive agents. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. The quality of the evidence comparing first-line beta-blockers and first-line RAS inhibitors was low and the lower risk of total CV events and stroke seen with RAS inhibitors may change with the publication of additional trials. Compared with first-line CCBs, first-line RAS inhibitors reduced HF but increased stroke. The magnitude of the reduction in HF exceeded the increase in stroke. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the primary outcomes.