Blockade of brain angiotensin II AT1 receptors ameliorates stress, anxiety, brain inflammation and ischemia: Therapeutic implications

Poor adaptation to stress, alterations in cerebrovascular function and excessive brain inflammation play critical roles in the pathophysiology of many psychiatric and neurological disorders such as major depression, schizophrenia, post traumatic stress disorder, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases and traumatic brain injury. Treatment for these highly prevalent and devastating conditions is at present very limited and many times inefficient, and the search for novel therapeutic options is of major importance. Recently, attention has been focused on the role of a brain regulatory peptide, Angiotensin II, and in the translational value of the blockade of its physiological AT(1) receptors. In addition to its well-known cardiovascular effects, Angiotensin II, through AT(1) receptor stimulation, is a pleiotropic brain modulatory factor involved in the control of the reaction to stress, in the regulation of cerebrovascular flow and the response to inflammation. Excessive brain AT(1) receptor activity is associated with exaggerated sympathetic and hormonal response to stress, vulnerability to cerebrovascular ischemia and brain inflammation, processes leading to neuronal injury. In animal models, inhibition of brain AT(1) receptor activity with systemically administered Angiotensin II receptor blockers is neuroprotective; it reduces exaggerated stress responses and anxiety, prevents stress-induced gastric ulcerations, decreases vulnerability to ischemia and stroke, reverses chronic cerebrovascular inflammation, and reduces acute inflammatory responses produced by bacterial endotoxin. These effects protect neurons from injury and contribute to increase the lifespan. Angiotensin II receptor blockers are compounds with a good margin of safety widely used in the treatment of hypertension and their anti-inflammatory and vascular protective effects contribute to reduce renal and cardiovascular failure. Inhibition of brain AT(1) receptors in humans is also neuroprotective, reducing the incidence of stroke, improving cognition and decreasing the progression of Alzheimer's disease. Blockade of AT(1) receptors offers a novel and safe therapeutic approach for the treatment of illnesses of increasing prevalence and socioeconomic impact, such as mood disorders and neurodegenerative diseases of the brain.

Metabolic effect of telmisartan and losartan in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome

BACKGROUND

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of common cardiovascular risk factors that includes hypertension and insulin resistance. Hypertension and diabetes mellitus are frequent comorbidities and, like metabolic syndrome, increase the risk of cardiovascular events. Telmisartan, an antihypertensive agent with evidence of partial peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor activity-gamma (PPARgamma) activity, may improve insulin sensitivity and lipid profile in patients with metabolic syndrome.

METHODS

In a double-blind, parallel-group, randomized study, patients with World Health Organization criteria for metabolic syndrome received once-daily doses of telmisartan (80 mg, n = 20) or losartan (50 mg, n = 20) for 3 months. At baseline and end of treatment, fasting and postprandial plasma glucose, insulin sensitivity, glycosylated haemoglobin (HBA1c) and 24-hour mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were determined.

RESULTS

Telmisartan, but not losartan, significantly (p < 0.05) reduced free plasma glucose, free plasma insulin, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and HbAic. Following treatment, plasma glucose and insulin were reduced during the oral glucose tolerance test by telmisartan, but not by losartan. Telmisartan also significantly reduced 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (p < 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.05) compared with losartan.

CONCLUSION

As well as providing superior 24-hour blood pressure control, telmisartan, unlike losartan, displayed insulin-sensitizing activity, which may be explained by its partial PPARgamma activity.

Angiotensin system inhibitors and outcome of sunitinib treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective examination

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib is a standard treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Angiotensin system inhibitors, including angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, are widely used in hypertension, kidney disease and heart failure. Data suggests that they may inhibit tumourigenesis.

AIMS

To study the effect of angiotensin system inhibitors on sunitinib treatment outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of an unselected cohort of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who were treated with sunitinib. Patients were divided into angiotensin system inhibitors users (group 1) and non-users (group 2). The effect of angiotensin system inhibitors on objective response, time to disease progression and overall survival, was tested with adjustment for known confounding risk factors through logistic regression model and Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2010, 127 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were treated with sunitinib, 44 group 1 and 83 group 2. The groups were balanced regarding known clinicopathologic prognostic factors. Objective response was partial response/stable disease 86% versus 72% and progressive disease 14% versus 28% (p=0.07) in group 1 versus 2, respectively. Median progression free survival was 13 versus 6 months (HR 0.537, p=0.0055), and median overall survival 30 versus 23 months (HR 0.688, p=0.21), in favour of group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Angiotensin system inhibitors may improve the outcome of sunitinib treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This should be investigated prospectively, and if validated applied in clinical practise and clinical trials.

Regression of superficial glomerular podocyte injury in type 2 diabetic rats with overt albuminuria: effect of angiotensin II blockade

OBJECTIVE

Clinical studies indicate that the remission, regression or both of nephrotic-range albuminuria are exerted by angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in diabetes. The current study was performed to test the hypothesis that these effects of ARBs are associated with regression of glomerular podocyte injury.

METHODS

We examined the effects of an ARB, olmesartan, on glomerular podocyte injury in type 2 diabetic Otsuka-Long-Evans-Tokushima-Fatty rats with overt albuminuria.

RESULTS

At baseline (55-week-old), diabetic Otsuka-Long-Evans-Tokushima-Fatty rats showed severe albuminuria with desmin-positive areas (an index of podocyte injury) in both superficial and juxtamedullary glomeruli, and podocyte injury was much greater in juxtamedullary than in superficial glomeruli. At 75-week-old, Otsuka-Long-Evans-Tokushima-Fatty rats had developed more severe albuminuria and superficial glomerular podocyte injury, whereas juxtamedullary glomerular podocyte injury did not advance further. Olmesartan (10 mg/kg per day) decreased albuminuria and superficial glomerular desmin staining to levels that were lower than those at baseline, whereas advanced juxtamedullary glomerular podocyte injury was not changed.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrates for the first time that juxtamedullary glomerular podocyte injury reaches a severe condition at an earlier time than superficial glomerular podocyte injury during the progression of overt albuminuria in type 2 diabetic rats. Our data also support the hypothesis that the antialbuminuric effects of ARBs are associated with regression of superficial glomerular podocyte injury in type 2 diabetes with nephrotic-range albuminuria.

Targeting effective blood pressure control with angiotensin receptor blockers

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have become established as a major class of antihypertensive on the basis of their powerful effects on blood pressure (BP), excellent tolerability and pleiotropic end-organ-protective effects. However, individual ARBs vary in antihypertensive efficacy, which may be important to clinical outcome. Several strategies are available to ensure that BP reductions with ARBs are at least as great as that which can be achieved with other antihypertensive classes. Firstly, several newer ARBs, including irbesartan, candesartan, telmisartan and olmesartan, have been reported to provide equivalent antihypertensive efficacy to amlodipine and greater efficacy than either losartan, valsartan or both. Secondly, increases in dose may improve the antihypertensive efficacy of agents such as valsartan, although clinical studies are necessary to provide characterisation of new, higher-dose monotherapies. Thirdly, fixed dose combinations with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) increase the antihypertensive effect of all ARBs. It is likely that differences in efficacy between newer and older ARBs will in some cases be sustained in combination therapy, such that the most potent ARBs and HCTZ will provide another tier of control. The future use of ARBs is likely to involve a growing emphasis on compound-specific data, with regard to the antihypertensive efficacy and pleiotropic protective actions of agents.

The renin-angiotensin system blockers and survival in digestive system malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Accumulating pre-clinical and clinical studies suggested that the renin-angiotensin system blockers (RASBs) possess anti-carcinogenic properties, and their use is associated with favorable outcomes in many types of cancers.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of relevant databases through January 2019 was conducted to identify studies assessing the RASBs on prognostic outcomes in digestive system malignancies patients on the basis of predetermined selection criteria for pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis showed that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival (HR 0.79; 95%CI 0.70-0.89; P < .000), cancer-specific survival (HR 0.81; 95%CI 0.73-0.90; P < .000) and recurrence-free survival (HR 0.68; 95%CI 0.54-0.85; P = .001), but not progression-free survival (HR 0.88; 95%CI 0.73-1.07; P = .183) and disease-free survival (HR 0.50; 95%CI 0.11-2.39; P = .103). Subgroup analysis indicated that the use of RASBs has a significant improvement of overall survival (OS) in pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, and gastric cancer. Two studies evaluated the dose-response relationship between ACEIs/ARBs therapy and survival and showed higher doses and better survival [(1-364 defined daily doses: odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95%CI 0.78-1.01, P = .076), (≥365 defined daily doses: OR 0.54, 95%CI: 0.24-1.24, P = .148].

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of studies supports a beneficial association between use of RASBs and survival of digestive system malignancies.

Dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade for diabetic kidney disease

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) prevents the development and progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). It is controversial whether the simultaneous use of two RAAS inhibitors (ie, dual RAAS blockade) further improves renal outcomes. This review examines the scientific rationale and current clinical evidence addressing the use of dual RAAS blockade to prevent and treat DKD. It is concluded that dual RAAS blockade should not be routinely applied to patients with low or moderate risk of progressive kidney disease (normoalbuminuria or microalbuminuria with preserved glomerular filtration rate). For patients with high risk of progressive kidney disease (substantial albuminuria or impaired glomerular filtration rate), clinicians should carefully weigh the potential risks and benefits of dual RAAS blockade on an individual basis until ongoing clinical trials provide further insight.

Effects of combining azilsartan medoxomil with amlodipine in patients with stage 2 hypertension

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to measure the effects on blood pressure (BP) of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil, in 40 and 80 mg doses, combined with 5 mg of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine and to compare these effects with placebo plus amlodipine 5 mg.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind study of 6 weeks' duration in 566 patients with stage 2 hypertension. The primary endpoint was 24-h systolic BP by ambulatory monitoring.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 58 years; men and women were equally represented, and baseline 24-h BP (153-154/93 mmHg) and clinic BP (165-166/94-95 mmHg) were similar across the three treatment groups. After 6 weeks, 24-h BP decreased by 25/15 mmHg in both the azilsartan medoxomil/amlodipine 40/5 and 80/5 mg groups. These reductions were each greater than the 14/8 mmHg decrease with placebo plus amlodipine 5 mg (P≤0.001 for both comparisons). All treatments were well tolerated, and adverse events did not increase with the azilsartan medoxomil doses. Edema or fluid retention was less common in both combination groups (2.6 and 2.7%) than with placebo plus amlodipine (7.6%).

CONCLUSION

Coadministration of azilsartan medoxomil with amlodipine was well tolerated and led to meaningful additional BP reductions compared with placebo plus amlodipine.

A phase 3 double-blind randomized (CONSORT-compliant) study of azilsartan medoxomil compared to valsartan in Chinese patients with essential hypertension

BACKGROUND

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), an angiotensin II receptor blocker, has a well-characterized efficacy and safety profile in patients with hypertension. AZL-M is approved for use in over 40 countries globally; however, it is not yet approved in China. Therefore, a phase 3 registration study to assess the efficacy (antihypertensive effect), safety, and tolerability of AZL-M compared with valsartan in Chinese patients with essential hypertension was undertaken.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 8-week phase 3 study compared AZL-M with valsartan in Chinese patients aged ≥18 years with essential hypertension. Endpoints included change from baseline to week 8 in trough sitting clinic systolic blood pressure (scSBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring parameters.

RESULTS

Overall, 612 patients (mean age, 57.1 years; 57.5% male) were randomized to AZL-M 80 mg (n = 209), AZL-M 40 mg (n = 199), or valsartan 160 mg (n = 204). Baseline mean scSBP was similar in all groups (157.9-158.5 mm Hg). The mean reduction in trough scSBP from baseline to week 8 was significantly greater with AZL-M 80 mg than with valsartan (-24.2 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .010), and noninferior with AZL-M 40 mg versus valsartan (-22.5 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .184). Mean reduction in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (n = 257) was significantly greater with both AZL-M 80 mg (-17.0 mm Hg; P < .001) and AZL-M 40 mg (-14.7 mm Hg; P = .014) than with valsartan (-9.4 mm Hg). Treatment-emergent adverse events had similar incidence (52.8%-56.5%) across the treatment groups and were generally mild or moderate. Dizziness was the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (AZL-M 80 mg, 1.9%; AZL-M 40 mg, 1.5%; valsartan, 1.0%). The safety and tolerability of AZL-M were comparable with valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

AZL-M was noninferior to valsartan at the 40-mg dose and superior to valsartan at the 80-mg dose in reducing trough scSBP, and showed acceptable safety-consistent with the AZL-M safety profile in other populations-in Chinese adults with hypertension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02480764.

Fimasartan-induced liver injury in a patient with no adverse reactions on other types of angiotensin II receptor blockers: A case report

RATIONALE

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used for patients with hypertension, and fimasartan is a recently approved ARBs. Fimasartan can cause headache, dizziness, itching, and coughing. There have been several reports of hepatotoxicity in ARBs. However, there have not yet been published reports of the hepatotoxicity of fimasartan.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 73-year-old man with hypertension experienced liver injury after fimasartan administration. He had a previous history of taking 3 types of ARBs each for more than 2 years before taking fimasartan, and there were no side effects on ARBs except for fimasartan.

DIAGNOSES

Other factors that could cause liver injury were excluded in diagnostic tests, and fimasartan was suspected to be the causative agent.

INTERVENTION

Fimasartan was immediately discontinued and the patient was managed with supportive care via hepatotonics.

DIAGNOSES

Other factors that could cause liver injury were excluded in diagnostic tests, and fimasartan was suspected to be the causative agent.

OUTCOME

The liver injury due to fimasartan was confirmed by histology and accidental redosing.

LESSONS

We emphasize that liver function should be monitored during fimasartan administration because fimasartan may cause hepatotoxicity in patients who have no side effects with other types of ARBs. And fimasartan-induced liver injury may appear later than other ARBs.

The Association of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors With Outcomes Among a Predominantly Ethnic Minority Patient Population Hospitalized With COVID-19: The Bronx Experience

Background and objective Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) are commonly used for the treatment of patients with heart disease, hypertension (HTN), and diabetes mellitus (DM). In the aftermath of the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, initial data raised concerns that ACE/ARB use can increase the expression of ACE2 receptors, leading to the worsening of COVID-19. However, recent studies have suggested that their use might be safe in a select subgroup of patients. We conducted a single-center retrospective study to evaluate the association of in-patient use of ACE/ARB with outcomes among a predominantly ethnic minority patient population of the inner New York City (NYC). Methods This was a retrospective analysis of all hospital admissions with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, to March 31, 2020. Results Of the 469 patients included in the study, 91 patients (19.4%) used ACE/ARB therapy during their hospital stay and were labeled as ACE/ARB group. Patients in the ACE/ARB therapy group were older and had a higher incidence of HTN, coronary artery disease (CAD), congestive heart failure, DM, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Admission D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were similar between the two groups, but absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) was lower in the non-ACE/ARB group (0.971 k/ul vs. 1.135 k/ul, p=0.0144). The incidence of hyperkalemia and the rise in creatinine were similar between the two groups. Univariate analysis by treatment group using the log-rank test produced significant results (p=0.0062), indicating a higher survival rate for the ACE/ARB group. Conclusion The use of ACE/ARB appears to be safe in all patients in whom their use is medically indicated.

Carotid artery intima-media thickness and the renin-angiotensin system

Carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) is a biomarker for cardiovascular disease that also predicts the risk of cardiovascular mortality. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition is a unique therapeutic modality because it both treats hypertension and improves arterial health and cardiovascular disease outcomes. Controversy exists regarding the role of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in IMT regression. Our article provides an update on how ACE inhibitors and ARBs could play a role in decreasing IMT.

Use of angiotensin II receptor blocker during pregnancy: A case report

BACKGROUND

Drugs that affect the renin-angiotensin system, such as angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are not typically recommended for pregnant women because of their potential fetal toxicity.

CASE STUDY

A 32-year-old pregnant woman with nephrotic syndrome lasting more than 5 years became pregnant for the first time. She had been taking losartan tablets before and during pregnancy. Ultrasound at 24+2 weeks of pregnancy showed oligohydramnios, and the maximum vertical depth of amniotic fluid volume was 1.4 cm. Follow-up ultrasound examinations every 2 weeks showed persistent oligohydramnios [amniotic fluid volume: 1.1-3.4 cm, amniotic fluid index 1.9-6.9 cm]. B-ultrasound at 30+2 weeks showed slightly enhanced fetal renal cortex echo. The patient was treated at 32+2 weeks of pregnancy at our hospital.

DIAGNOSES

Nephrotic syndrome and oligohydramnios.

INTERVENTIONS

Losartan was discontinued and replaced by nifedipine controlled-release tablets to lower blood pressure. The amount of amniotic fluid gradually increased to normal levels within 8 days. The patient was discharged at 33+2 weeks of pregnancy for follow-up. At 34+4 weeks, blood pressure had increased to 177/113 mm Hg and the patient was re-hospitalized with nephrotic syndrome complicated by preeclampsia. Due to progression of severe preeclampsia, elective cesarean section was performed at 35+3 weeks. After delivery, losartan and nifedipine were prescribed to continue lowering blood pressure. The patient was discharged 4 days after surgery.

OUTCOMES

Losartan use was terminated at 32+2 weeks of pregnancy. Amniotic fluid returned to normal after 8 days and the baby was delivered after 22 days. At last follow-up, the infant was 24 months old and healthy.

CONCLUSION

Although ARBs are effective for treating hypertension, they should be replaced by other classes of anti-hypertensive drugs in pregnant women. Pregnant women who elect to continue using ARBs should be informed about risks, they should be carefully monitored during pregnancy, and their pregnancy should be allowed to proceed as long as clinically feasible in order to optimize maternal and infant outcomes.

Treatment of Hypertension Induced Albuminuria

Regardless of having a similar antihypertensive effect, different antihypertensive drug classes have a different effect on albuminuria. Patients with albuminuria will usually need more than one drug to achieve blood pressure control, particularly if the aim is also to reduce albuminuria. Albuminuria is independently associated with cardiovascular and renal risk regardless of diabetes status. The recent ESC/ESH guidelines listed microalbuminuria among the hypertension-mediated organ damages. Albumin-to-creatinine ratio was suggested to be included in routine workup for evaluation of every hypertensive patient and changes in albuminuria were considered to have moderate prognostic value. Because of its specific effects on renal hemodynamic and glomerular structure, the ACEIs and ARBs should be prescribed in maximum tolerated doses. The MRAs can be considered in uncontrolled hypertensive patients. The CCBs can be used in addition to the RAAS blockade. Data on antialbuminuric effect of the new CCBs generation (T-type and N-type calcium channel blockers) is promising and they might be preferential CCBs when available. In case of resistant hypertension, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic has to be added into the combination with RAAS blockers and other antihypertensive drugs. Low-salt intake has to be recommended for all hypertensive patients, particularly those with albuminuria. A multifactorial and early antialbuminuric approach should be started even when albuminuria values are below the cut-off value for microalbuminuria.

Efficacy of combined angiotensin II receptor blocker with tripterygium glycosides on diabetic nephropathy: A protocol for meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported good results for angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) combined with tripterygium glycosides (TGs) in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy (DN). However, because a small number of cases were included in each study, the statistical power was limited. Therefore, we performed a protocol for meta-analysis to further evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of combined ARB and TGs in treatment of DN.

METHODS

The protocol was written following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Science Direct up to April 2021. Outcome measures were 24-h urinary total protein, urinary albumin excretion rate, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, albumin, hemoglobin A1c, β2-microglobulin and serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase. The risk of bias assessment of the included studies was performed by two authors independently using the tool recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.1.0). We performed meta-analysis using STATA 11.0.

RESULTS

The review will add to the existing literature by showing compelling evidence and improved guidance in clinic settings.

CONCLUSION

The findings will provide helpful evidence for the application of combined ARB and TGs in the treatment of DN.

OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER

10.17605/OSF.IO/ARGE3.

Heart Failure Medications Detection and Prescription Status Classification in Clinical Narrative Documents

Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEI) and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARB) are two common medication classes used for heart failure treatment. The ADAHF (Automated Data Acquisition for Heart Failure) project aimed at automatically extracting heart failure treatment performance metrics from clinical narrative documents, and these medications are an important component of the performance metrics. We developed two different systems to detect these medications, rule-based and machine learning-based. The rule-based system used dictionary lookups with fuzzy string searching and showed successful performance even if our corpus contains various misspelled medications. The machine learning-based system uses lexical and morphological features and produced similar results. The best performance was achieved when combining the two methods, reaching 99.3% recall and 98.8% precision. To determine the prescription status of each medication (i.e., active, discontinued, or negative), we implemented a SVM classifier with lexical features and achieved good performance, reaching 95.49% accuracy, in a five-fold cross-validation evaluation.

Covid 19: Acing the Treatment

ACE 2 is the functional receptor that SARS-Cov-2 virus requires to enter cells and cause dysregulated inflammatory conditions that contribute towards acute lung injuries. The RAAS with its physiological surveillance and regulation system can be implicated in both harm and therapeutic benefit. The initial observational studies suggesting the discontinuation of ACE-I and ARBs have been firmly rebutted by international societies. On the contrary, these therapeutics may confer a survival benefit in Covid 19 infections. Understanding the biological plausibility of this pathway alongside the emerging therapeutic evidence may yield new modes of treatment. Such developments appear fundamentally important in the battle against the inevitable emergence of new variants and their potential to drive future waves of Covid 19 pandemics.

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.