Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers as a first choice in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Comparison of Outcomes Between Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients With Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are usually treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare outcomes between ACEi and ARB in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Three major online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were thoroughly searched to find studies comparing ACEi and ARB in patients with MI from January 1, 2000, onwards, without language or publication restrictions. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and hospitalization due to heart failure. A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled estimates showed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.20), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.88-1.20), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89-1.12), stroke (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.80-1.32), and hospitalization due to heart failure (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90-1.09). These results suggest that ACEi and ARB have similar impacts on clinical outcomes across a broad spectrum of MI patients, reinforcing their roles in post-MI treatment.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of angiotensin receptor blockers with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are considered an alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but in the era of extensive use of preventive therapies and percutaneous coronary intervention, this has not been adequately evaluated in Asians.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. In total, 52,620 patients initially hospitalized due to AMI between 2002 and 2015 were assessed.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 14,993 patients each were assigned to ACEI and ARB groups. Patients who received ARBs had significantly lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.90) and hospitalization for heart failure (aHR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85-0.99) compared with those who received ACEIs at 18 month follow-up. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (aHR: 098; 95% CI: 0.90-1.07), cardiovascular death (aHR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-1.00), ischemia stroke (aHR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.77-1.11), and nonfatal myocardial infarction (aHR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93-1.17). ARBs showed benefits in many subgroups in terms of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data demonstrate that ARBs might be associated with lower all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure compared with ACEIs among patients with AMI.

2020 Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction Expert Consensus Document on Pharmacotherapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical practice guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association summarize the available evidence and provide recommendations for health professionals to enable appropriate clinical decisions and improve clinical outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, most current guidelines are based on studies in non-Asian populations in the pre-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era. The Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry is the first nationwide registry to document many aspects of AMI from baseline characteristics to treatment strategies. There are well-organized ongoing and published randomized control trials especially for antiplatelet therapy among Korean patients with AMI. Here, members of the Task Force of the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction review recent published studies during the current PCI era, and have summarized the expert consensus for the pharmacotherapy of AMI.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors Versus Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Preserved Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) showed comparable survival results in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, there is lack of evidence of the comparative effectiveness in preserved LVEF patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the selection between ACEi and ARB in preserved LVEF after an ACS confers a prognostic benefit, based on real life results. We analyzed a cohort of 3006 contemporary patients with LVEF ≥40% after an ACS. A propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis were performed to assess the association between treatment and events (death, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], HF, and combined event) for a mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.1 years. We found no significant differences between ACEi/ARB for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] for ARB: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.70-1.29), AMI (HR for ARB: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.95-1.89), HF (HR for ARB: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85-1.45), or combined end point (death, AMI and HF: HR for ARB: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.92-1.40). In conclusion, there are no prognostic differences between the use of ACEi and ARB in patients with LVEF ≥40% after ACS. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

Impact of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers on Clinical Outcomes after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Based on Data from the Korean National Health Insurance Database (2005-2014)

Background and Objectives

The effectiveness of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) compared with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has not been established. We investigated the effects of ARBs on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in AMI patients.

Methods

Patients receiving ACEIs or ARBs after AMI treated with PCI between January 2005 and December 2014 were selected from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. The primary endpoint was major cardiovascular adverse event (MACE; all-cause death, myocardial infarct [MI], or stroke).

Results

We included patients regularly taking ACEIs (n=22,331) or ARBs (n=28,533) (medication possession ratio ≥80%). Compared with the ACEI group, the ARB group contained more females (31% vs. 18%), were older (mean, 63 vs. 60 years), and had more comorbidities, including hypertension (62.8% vs. 44.8%), diabetes (33.9% vs. 26.4%), congestive heart failure (7.9% vs. 4.3%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25.5% vs. 18.9%), and end-stage renal disease (1.3% vs. 0.4%) (p<0.001 for all). After propensity score–matching, ARBs were associated with a 23% lower risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.774; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.715–0.838; p<0.001) than ACEIs. ARB use was also associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (HR, 0.741; 95% CI, 0.659–0.834; p<0.001), MI (HR, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.638–0.837; p<0.001), and revascularization (HR, 0.816; 95% CI, 0.773–0.861; p<0.001).

Conclusions

ARB use was associated with a lower risk of MACE, MI, and revascularization than ACEIs in our retrospective analysis of AMI patients who underwent PCI.

Targeted Delivery of Recombinant Heat Shock Protein 27 to Cardiomyocytes Promotes Recovery from Myocardial Infarction

Ischemic heart disease, especially myocardial infarction (MI), is the leading cause of death worldwide. Apoptotic mechanisms are thought to play a significant role in cardiomyocyte death after MI. Increased production of heat shock proteins (Hsps) in cardiomyocytes is a normal response to promote tolerance and to reduce cell damage. Hsp27 is considered to be a therapeutic option for the treatment of ischemic heart disease due to its protective effects on hypoxia-induced apoptosis. Despite its antiapoptotic effects, the lack of strategies to deliver Hsp27 to the heart tissue in vivo limits its clinical applicability. In this study, we utilized an antibody against the angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor, which is expressed immediately after ischemia/reperfusion in the heart of MI rats. To achieve cardiomyocyte-targeted Hsp27 delivery after ischemia/reperfusion, we employed the immunoglobulin-binding dimer ZZ, a modified domain of protein A, in conjunction with the AT1 receptor antibody. Using the AT1 receptor antibody, we achieved systemic delivery of ZZ-TAT-GFP fusion protein into the heart of MI rats. This approach enabled selective delivery of Hsp27 to cardiomyocytes, rescued cells from apoptosis, reduced the area of fibrosis, and improved cardiac function in the rat MI model, thus suggesting its applicability as a cardiomyocyte-targeted protein delivery system to inhibit apoptosis induced by ischemic injury.

Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blocker, Fimasartan, Reduces Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell Senescence by Inhibiting the CYR61 Signaling Pathway

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Angiotensin II (Ang II) has been suggested to accelerate vascular senescence, however the molecular mechanism(s) remain unknown.

METHODS

We cultured human coronary artery smooth muscle cells (hCSMCs) and treated Ang II and/or fimasartan. Or we transfected adenoviral vectors expressing CYR61 (Ad-CYR61) or antisense CYR61 (Ad-As-CYR61). Cellular senescence was evaluated senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SA-β-gal) assay. The molecular mechanisms were investigated real-time PCR and western blots.

RESULTS

SA-β-gal-positive cells significantly increased in Ang II-treated hCSMCs (5.77±1.43-fold compared with the control). The effect of Ang II was significantly attenuated by pretreatment with the Ang II type 1 receptor blocker, fimasartan (2.00±0.92-fold). The expression of both p53 and p16 senescence regulators was significantly increased by Ang II (p53: 1.39±0.17, p16: 1.19±0.10-fold vs. the control), and inhibited by fimasartan. Cysteine-rich angiogenic protein 61 (CYR61) was rapidly induced by Ang II. Compared with the control, Ad-CYR61-transfected hCSMCs showed significantly increased SA-β-gal-positive cells (3.47±0.65-fold). Upon transfecting Ad-AS-CYR61, Ang II-induced senescence (3.74±0.23-fold) was significantly decreased (1.77±0.60-fold). p53 expression by Ang II was significantly attenuated by Ad-AS-CYR61, whereas p16 expression was not regulated. Ang II activated ERK1/2 and p38 MAPK, which was significantly blocked by fimasartan. ERK and p38 inhibition both regulated Ang II-induced CYR61 expression. However, p53 expression was only regulated by ERK1/2, whereas p16 expression was only attenuated by p38 MAPK.

CONCLUSIONS

Ang II induced vascular senescence by the ERK/p38 MAPK-CYR61 pathway and ARB, fimasartan, protected against Ang II-induced vascular senescence.

Comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with prior myocardial infarction

Objective

Although ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly prescribed for patients with coronary artery disease, whether these medications are similarly effective is still a subject of intense debate. Our objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness of ACEIs and ARBs in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI).

Methods

All residents older than 65 years, alive on 1 April 2012, with a prior MI were included. Propensity weighting was used to balance potentially confounding baseline covariates between the treatment groups. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalisation for MI or unstable angina at 3 years.

Results

Our cohort included 59 353 patients with MI; their mean age was 77 years and 40% were women. In the propensity-weighted cohort, the primary outcome occurred in 6.5% in the ACEI group and 5.7% in the ARB group at 1 year (HR comparing ACEI with ARB 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.23, p<0.001). At 3 years, the primary outcome occurring in 16.0% with ACEIs and 15.1% with ARBs (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; p<0.001). A significant interaction with sex was observed, with women prescribed ACEIs having a higher hazards (HR 1.17; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.26) compared with ARBs, while no significant difference was seen among men (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06, interaction p<0.001).

Conclusions

Despite previous concerns regarding ARBs, we found that they had slightly lower rates of adverse clinical cardiovascular outcomes among older patients with MI compared with ACEIs. The observed difference in clinical outcomes may be related to a sex difference in effectiveness.

Comparative Effectiveness of Combination Therapy with Statins and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors versus Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study in Korea

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) frequently use the combination of a statin and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blocker, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), to control lipid levels and blood pressure, respectively, and the use of ARBs is increasing in Korean patients. Few studies are available, however, that have compared combination therapy with statin-ACEIs versus statin-ARBs. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether ARBs are associated with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) compared with ACEIs when used in combination with statins in patients with established CHD.

DESIGN

Population-based retrospective cohort study.

DATA SOURCE

Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort database.

PATIENTS

A total of 6577 adults who started statin-RAAS blocker combination therapy (1870 in the statin-ACEI cohort and 4707 in the statin-ARB cohort) after being diagnosed with CHD between January 2003 and December 2013 were included. Of these, 3676 propensity score-matched patients (1838 in the statin-ACEI cohort and 1838 in the statin-ARB cohort) were included in the final analyses.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was MACCE (major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events), a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and revascularization. Incidences and incidence rates of MACCE were calculated to estimate the differences between the two cohorts. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by using a Cox proportional hazard model. The incidence of MACCE was 19.9% and 14.7%, and incidence rates were 11.7 and 8.1 per 100 person-years in the statin-ACEI and statin-ARB cohorts, respectively. The risk of MACCE was significantly lower in the statin-ARB cohort (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81).

CONCLUSION

A MACCE was less likely to occur in patients who received a statin-ARB than in those who received a statin-ACEI. Similar trends were seen in cardiovascular mortality and the occurrence of recurrent MI but not stroke. The availability of statin-ARB fixed-dose combinations may have contributed to the improved outcomes in the statin-ARB cohort by reducing pill burden and improving medication adherence. Further research is warranted to validate our findings and to address whether a particular statin-ARB combination is more effective than other combinations.

24-Hour blood pressure response to lower dose (30 mg) fimasartan in Korean patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Fimasartan is an angiotensin type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) which has comparable efficacy and tolerability with other ARBs. The aim of this study was to evaluate 24-hour blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and the tolerability of the low dose fimasartan compared with valsartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

METHODS

This study was a phase II, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-grouped trial. A total of 75 hypertensive patients, whose mean ambulatory BP monitoring values were ≥ 135/85 mmHg, were randomized to either fimasartan 30 mg or valsartan 80 mg daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the mean 24-hour systolic BP (SBP) values from the baseline and at the week 8. Secondary endpoints included the change in the mean 24-hour diastolic BP values, the daytime and the nighttime mean BP values at week 8, the trough-to-peak (T/P) ratio and the smoothness index.

RESULTS

At week 8, the mean 24-hour SBP values significantly decreased in both groups; -10.5 ± 11.9 mmHg (p < 0.0001) in the fimasartan group and -5.5 ± 11.6 mmHg (p = 0.0307) in the valsartan group. The difference between two groups was 4.3 ± 2.9 mmHg but there was no statistical significance (p = 0.1392). The global T/P ratio in the fimasartan 30 mg groups were 0.48 and 0.40 in the valsartan 80 mg group, respectively (p = 0.3411). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were acute pharyngitis and there were no cases of severe AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, low dose (30 mg) fimasartan showed comparable 24-hour BP lowering efficacy compared with valsartan (80 mg). There was no difference in tolerability between two groups.