Clinical update: the role of angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (Part II of II)

Almost 5 million individuals in the United States have chronic heart failure (HF), which is increasing in prevalence. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are standard therapies for HF, although more than 10% of patients with HF are unable to tolerate these agents. Furthermore, ACE inhibitors may not provide complete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in the long term. Because angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may block the RAS more completely than ACE inhibitors and are better tolerated, several large-scale ARB trials have been performed exploring their potential role in treating patients with symptomatic HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study (ELITE II) demonstrated no significant differences in morbidity and mortality between the ARB losartan and the ACE inhibitor captopril among elderly patients with HF. The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) demonstrated reductions in hospitalizations for HF with the ARB valsartan when added to standard HF therapy, with no effect on mortality. Both trials suggested a potential negative interaction between ARB and beta-blocker therapy. The Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program demonstrated significant reductions in morbidity and mortality with the ARB candesartan in patients with HF due to systolic dysfunction, with or without ACE inhibitors and with or without beta blockers. Thus, the addition of ARBs to the treatment regimen of patients with symptomatic HF should be strongly considered.     

Rationale for the use of combination angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy in heart failure

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays a major role in its pathophysiology, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are the cornerstone of therapy. However, HF continues to progress despite this therapy, perhaps because of production of angiotensin II by alternative pathways, which lead to direct stimulation of the angiotensin II receptor. Angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) therapy alone or in combination with the ACE inhibitor is a promising approach to block the RAS and slow HF progression more completely. METHODS: The current medical literature on the pathophysiology of HF and the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was extensively reviewed. RESULTS: Evidence from basic science, experimental animals, and clinical trials provides data on the safety and efficacy of RAS inhibition with ACE inhibitors and ARBs as monotherapy and in combination. Data from the Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE) II trial indicate that ARBs alone do not appear to be more effective than ACE inhibitors in HF, but studies evaluating their use in combination are currently ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of an ARB offers more complete angiotensin II receptor blockade of the RAS than can be obtained by ACE inhibitors alone. Combination therapy preserves the benefits of bradykinin potentiation offered by ACE inhibitors while providing potential antitrophic influences of AT(2) receptor stimulation and may play an increased role in the treatment of chronic HF in the future.     

ACE-Inhibition and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Chronic Heart Failure: Pathophysiological Consideration of the Unresolved Battle

Reducing the effects of angiotensin II by blockade of AT1-receptors may be superior to inhibition of angiotensin II formation by angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. However, the results of several trials did not fulfil this expectation. In both ELITE II with symptomatic CHF patients and in OPTIMAAL involving high risk patients after acute myocardial infarction, angiotensin II type I (AT1) receptor blocker (ARB) losartan did not prove to be superior to captopril. There are several potential reasons, why ARBs did not fare better than ACE inhibitors. Although AT1-receptor blockade may block the effects of non-ACE pathways of tissue angiotensin II formation, no clinical evidence is available that a more powerful inhibition of the tissue renin-angiotensin system brings improved survival. The choice of patients for clinical trials of HF therapy is not based on the level of neurohumoral activation. Thus, the more effective attenuation of angiotensin II action with ARBs may not bring additional benefits. The potential antiremodeling effect of ARBs through the stimulation of AT2 receptors by angiotensin II could be counterbalanced by a failure of AT1-receptor blockers to enhance bradykinin, nitric oxide and prostacyclin formation with antigrowth properties. Although ACE-inhibitors seem to have slightly better results at present than AT1 blockers in the battle on heart failure patient, future trials will decide which is the definitive winner.     

Inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system in myocardial infarction and heart failure: lessons from SAVE, VALIANT and CHARM, and other clinical trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system has become a cornerstone of modern heart failure and myocardial infarction therapy. This article will review the background and major clinical trials that have shaped this field over the past 15 years. RECENT FINDINGS: Major clinical trials have firmly established angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors as the standard of care in patients with heart failure and following myocardial infarction. Over the past several years, a number of trials have tested the hypothesis that an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) could be as effective as, or more effective than, ACE inhibitors in these clinical settings. The results of these trials, while establishing a clear role for ARBs, have been subtly different in distinct patient populations. SUMMARY: The most recent trials of ARBs in heart failure and myocardial infarction patients suggest a role for angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with heart failure who are intolerant to ACE inhibitors and who are on optimal ACE inhibitor therapy. In patients with acute high-risk myocardial infarction, the VALIANT trial has established that the ARB was as effective as an ACE inhibitor following myocardial infarction. These studies have thus provided clinicians with alternatives to ACE inhibitors in these important clinical syndromes.     

A hard look at angiotensin receptor blockers in heart failure

Multiple trials over the past several years have examined indications for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of left ventricular dysfunction, both acutely after myocardial infarction and in chronic heart failure. Yet despite these data, there is still confusion regarding the efficacy of ARBs as monotherapy in these patient populations, as well as the specific indications for combination ARB/angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy. We examine the key differences among the trials-including the ACE inhibitor dose, the ARB and its dose, blood pressure reduction, and patient populations-to present our perspective on ARB use, alone or in combination with ACE inhibitors, in patients with chronic heart failure and post-myocardial infarction left ventricular dysfunction. We conclude that ACE inhibitors remain the first-line therapy for left ventricular dysfunction. Angiotensin receptor blockers should be reserved for monotherapy in ACE intolerant patients and for combination therapy in symptomatic class II/III patients with chronic heart failure.     

Therapeutic trials comparing angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and Angiotensin II receptor blockers

Two independent pharmacologic methods of specifically interfering with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system have been brought to the marketplace: angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). These agents have the potential not only to be very widely used for a broad variety of clinical indications but also to compete against each other as treatments for hypertension, heart failure, renal impairment, and other conditions. Many short-term comparative studies of these two classes of drugs have now been completed. Most have focused on surrogate endpoints, such as blood pressure, renal function, or cough. These studies have generally concluded that ARBs are better tolerated but that the two drug classes otherwise have similar efficacy. The largest clinical trial comparing ARBs and ACE inhibitors thus far completed, Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE 2), failed to confirm the results of a smaller study; it did not demonstrate a significant improvement in outcomes (death or hospitalization for heart failure) with an ARB used alone, despite better tolerability. Many longer-term outcome studies with survival endpoints are under way, but most will compare the combination against an ACE inhibitor alone. These studies will define the optimal use of these agents in medicine for decades to come.     

Reducing cardiorenal risk through combination therapy with a direct renin inhibitor

Interruption of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) cascade with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), or more recently direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) is a safe and effective antihypertensive strategy that is in routine clinical use. The clinical utility of these agents in cardiorenal end-organ protection is increasingly being recognized. Although both ACE inhibitors and ARBs demonstrate substantial benefit in patients with cardiovascular and/or renal disease, considerable evidence indicates that they only partially suppress the RAAS pathway due to feedback upregulation of plasma renin activity. With the goal of providing more comprehensive RAAS blockade, combination ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy has been evaluated. However, this approach has not shown the anticipated improvements in composite cardiovascular and renal outcomes and appears to be associated with significant toxicity. Due to a unique mechanism of action, the combination of a DRI with an ACE inhibitor or ARB may represent an effective end-organ-protective therapeutic strategy.     

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in atherosclerosis

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) effectively interfere with the renin-angiotensin system and exert various beneficial actions on cardiac and vascular structure and function, beyond their blood pressure-lowering effects. Randomized, controlled clinical trials have shown that ACE inhibitors improve endothelial function, cardiac and vascular remodeling, retard the anatomic progression of atherosclerosis, and reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Therefore, these agents are recommended in the treatment of a wide range of patients at risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including those with coronary disease, prior stroke, peripheral arterial disease, high-risk diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure. ARBs are effective blood pressure-lowering and renoprotective agents and can be used in heart failure in patients who do not tolerate ACE inhibitors. The role of ARBs in the prevention of atherosclerosis and its sequelae is currently under investigation. The use of combined ACE inhibitor plus ARB therapy offers theoretical advantages over the use of each of these agents alone and is also under investigation in large, randomized clinical trials.     

Type 2 diabetes: RENAAL and IDNT--the emergence of new treatment options

The Reduction in End Points in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study and the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) are two recently reported trials with hard end points, conducted in patients in advanced stages of diabetic nephropathy. Two other studies—the Irbesartan Microalbuminuria Study (IRMA)‐2 and the Microalbuminuria Reduction with Valsartan study (MARVAL)—were trials conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes with microalbuminuria, a cardiovascular risk factor associated with early‐stage diabetic nephropathy. These trials all had a common theme—that is, does an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) interfere with the natural history of diabetic nephropathy in a blood pressure‐independent fashion? Without question, the results of these trials legitimatize the use of the ARB class in forestalling the deterioration in renal function, which is almost inevitable in the patient with untreated diabetic nephropathy. These data can now be added to the vast array of evidence supporting angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor use in patients with nephropathy associated with type 1 diabetes. It now appears a safe conclusion that the patient with diabetic nephropathy should receive therapy with an agent that interrupts the renin‐angiotensin system. These studies have not resolved the question as to whether an ACE inhibitor or an ARB is the preferred agent in people with nephropathy from type 1 diabetes, though the optimal doses of these drugs remain to be determined. Head‐to‐head studies comparing ACE inhibitors to ARBs in diabetic nephropathy are not likely to occur, so it is unlikely that comparable information will be forthcoming with ACE inhibitors. An evidence‐based therapeutic approach derived from these trials would argue for ARBs to be the foundation of therapy in the patient with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.     

Are angiotensin II receptor antagonists indicated in chronic heart failure?

Angiotensin II type I receptor antagonists (ARAs) have been tested in two large randomized trials, Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly II (ELITE II) and the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT), and several other large trials are ongoing in the indication of chronic heart failure (CHF). Based on the available evidence, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors remain the cornerstone in the treatment of CHF. However, much more information should be available in the next few years, which will provide more evidence on how to use ARAs and in which patients.     

Angiotensin receptor blockers: evidence for preserving target organs

Hypertension is a major problem throughout the developed world. Although current antihypertensive treatment regimens reduce morbidity and mortality, patients are often noncompliant, and medications may not completely normalize blood pressure. As a result, current therapy frequently does not prevent or reverse the cardiovascular remodeling that often occurs when blood pressure is chronically elevated. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is effective in controlling hypertension and treating congestive heart failure. Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) inhibit the activity of the RAS, but these two classes of antihypertensive medications have different mechanisms of action and different pharmacologic profiles. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors block a single pathway in the production of angiotensin II (Ang II). In addition, angiotensin I is not the only substrate for ACE. The ACE inhibitors also block the degradation of bradykinin that may have potential benefits in cardiovascular disease. Bradykinin is, however, the presumed cause of cough associated with ACE inhibitor therapy. Data from clinical trials on ACE inhibitors serve to support the involvement of the RAS in the development of cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin receptor blockers act distally in the RAS to block the Ang II type 1 (AT1) receptor selectively. Thus, ARBs are more specific agents and avoid many side effects. Experimental and clinical trials have documented the efficacy of ARBs in preserving target-organ function and reversing cardiovascular remodeling. In some instances, maximal benefit may be obtained with Ang II blockade using both ARBs and ACE inhibitors. This review describes clinical trials that document the efficacy of ARBs in protecting the myocardium, blood vessels, and renal vasculature.     

Suppression of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in chronic heart failure: choice of agents and clinical impact

Chronic heart failure (CHF) has taken on epidemic proportions in the United States, with approximately 550,000 new cases annually. With the evolution of pharmacotherapy targeting neurohormonal pathways over the past 2 decades, the annual mortality in subjects with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV has dramatically improved from 52% in the seminal CONSENSUS trial to less than 20% in more recent trials in CHF. Suppression of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) with various angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors has been proven to save lives in several large-scale trials of CHF, and all of them can be used at doses tested in clinical trials without clear preference of one over another. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) can be used in place of ACE inhibitors in the case of ACE inhibitor intolerance with comparable results. However, some inconsistencies exist between trials with ARBs, and it is uncertain if the ARBs tested in clinical trials provide comparable clinical benefit whether used in place of or in combination with ACE inhibitors. Once ACE inhibition has been started, beta blockade should follow for all subjects with symptomatic CHF. Triple neurohormonal blockade can then be accomplished with the addition of an aldosterone receptor or ARB. Regardless of the exact agent used or sequence of initiation, the critical importance of careful monitoring of neurohormonal blockade cannot be overstated. Renal failure and hyperkalemia are the most important complications of suppression of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), and an increase in hospital admissions and death from hyperkalemia after publication of the RALES trial illustrates the danger of "casual" use of neurohormonal blockers. In light of the tremendous benefits of neurohormonal blockade, the only conclusion from these data is to initiate RAAS-blocking agents following the safety precautions tested in the respective clinical trials.     

From evidence to rationale: cardiovascular protection by angiotensin II receptor blockers compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

Clinical trials have shown the efficacy of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension and have suggested that ARBs are noninferior to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with ischemic heart disease and heart failure. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE), a landmark study in high cardiovascular risk management, demonstrated the cardioprotection of the ACE inhibitor ramipril. Thus, in the recent Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET?) ramipril was selected as a comparator when exploring the cardioprotective potential of telmisartan in the first head-to-head comparison of an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in a broad cross-sectional cohort of cardiovascular high-risk patients. ONTARGET showed that telmisartan is as effective as ramipril in the management of these patients but is better tolerated. The combination of ramipril and telmisartan did not confer a further benefit but did bring about an increased rate of adverse events such as renal dysfunction. In previous ARB outcome trials, cardiovascular risk profile, nature and severity of the underlying cardiovascular disease, dosing regimens and concomitant therapies, follow-up, and endpoints have varied greatly so that caution is warranted in extrapolating evidence gained from high-risk patients to other conditions such as acute myocardial infarction or chronic heart failure.     

Comment--Val-HeFT and angiotensin-receptor blockers in perspective: A tale of the blind man and the elephant

BACKGROUND: The role of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in the therapy of chronic heart failure (CHF) has not been clarified. There are no large placebo-controlled trials with these agents. The second Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly trial (ELITE-II) compared the ARB losartan with captopril in 3,152 patients >/=60 years old with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV and left ventricular ejection fraction 相似文献   

Meta-analysis of randomized trials of angioedema as an adverse event of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors

Angioedema is a rare, potentially life-threatening adverse event of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors. The objective of the present study was to determine the risk of angioedema from randomized clinical trials. A PubMed/CENTRAL/EMBASE search was made for randomized clinical trials from 1980 to October 2011 in patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), or direct renin inhibitor (DRI). Trials with a total number of patients ≥100 and a duration of ≥8 weeks were included for analysis. Incidence of angioedema was pooled by weighing the incident rate of each trial by the inverse of the variance. Twenty-six trials with 74,857 patients in the ACE inhibitor arm with 232,523 person-years of follow-up, 19 trials with 35,479 patients on ARB with 122,293 person-years of follow-up, and 2 trials with 5,141 patients on DRI with 1,735 person-years of follow-up met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. In head-to-head comparison in 7 trials, risk of angioedema with ACE inhibitors was 2.2 times higher than with ARBs (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5 to 3.3). With ACE inhibitors and ARBs, incidence of angioedema was higher in heart failure trials compared to hypertension or coronary artery disease trials without heart failure (p <0.0001). Weighted incidence of angioedema with ACE inhibitors was 0.30% (95% CI 0.28 to 0.32) compared to 0.11% (95% CI 0.09 to 0.13) with ARBs, 0.13% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.19) with DRIs, and 0.07% with placebo (95% CI 0.05 to 0.09). In conclusion, incidence of angioedema with ARBs and DRI was <1/2 than that with ACE inhibitors and not significantly different from placebo. Incidence of angioedema was higher in patients with heart failure compared to those without heart failure with ACE inhibitors and ARBs.     

The role of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in the treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular disease

Pharmacologic attenuation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) either through angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition or angiotensin II receptor blockade now occupies a central role in the management of hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and cardiovascular and renal disease. Although our understanding and use of these agents has expanded significantly over the past decade, the relative and differential benefits of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are still not entirely clear. The data continue to support the first-line use of ACE inhibitors for all indications. Results for combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy in clinical outcome trials have been disappointing and do not support its use. New strategies for RAAS modulation bring hope for further progress in the treatment of hypertensive and cardiovascular disease.     

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in nephropathy from type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease in the United States, and type 2 diabetes has been shown to be a myocardial infarction equivalent in regard to risk of death from a cardiovascular event. Proteinuria is a surrogate marker for renal disease progression, and although data favor both the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing proteinuria, data for renal outcomes, such as time to dialysis, only exist for the ARBs, which clearly increase the duration to dialysis. Conversely, ACE inhibitors have overwhelming data that show substantial risk reduction from cardiovascular events and death in people with type 2 diabetes. Similar data on cardiovascular risk reduction are not yet available with ARBs, although two trials of renal disease progression did have cardiovascular endpoints as secondary outcomes. There were no significant differences between the ARB and control group except for first hospitalization with heart failure, where losartan reduced the risk by 32%, but there was a trend, albeit not significant, toward reduction of myocardial infarction. The first information regarding ARB effects on cardiovascular events as primary outcomes will come from the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint (LIFE) Reduction in Hypertension study. Therefore, as of this writing, all patients with type 2 diabetes and no evidence of nephropathy, ie, proteinuria and an elevated creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL, should be placed on an ACE inhibitor for cardiovascular risk reduction. If nephropathy is present, the evidence would support an ARB for therapy in concert with a a-blocker for cardiovascular risk reduction and renoprotection.     

Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy to reduce cardiovascular events in high-risk patients: Part 1

Cardiovascular disease is understood as a continuum; risk factors induce a pathophysiologic cascade that culminates in end-organ failure. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) influences multiple aspects of the pathophysiology via hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic effects. Many long-term clinical trials provide overwhelming evidence of benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) across the cardiovascular continuum, including benefits regarding hypertension, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal disease, and heart failure. Trials also indicate additive or synergistic effects of combination therapy in renal disease and heart failure, a possibility supported by the basic biochemistry of the agents. Discussion of these trials is included in part 1 of this 2-part review. Part 2 of the review will discuss the extensive interaction of the RAS with the cellular and molecular pathophysiology of cardiovascular disease and the cross-continuum effects of ARBs and ACE inhibitors, which raise the possibility that RAS inhibition can offer protection in high-risk patients who do not have symptoms. The benefits of combined ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy in high-risk patients await confirmation; ongoing clinical research in this area will be discussed.     

Pleiotropic Effects of Inhibitors of the RAAS in the Diabetic Population: Above and Beyond Blood Pressure Lowering

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are indispensable therapeutic agents for treating hypertension and proteinuria in patients with diabetes mellitus. Studies have shown that the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) has effects on various organ systems, including the central nervous system, heart, and kidneys. Angiotensin II has major deleterious effects on vascular compliance, vascular relaxation, and plasma markers of inflammation, which are surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease. Evidence is established from major trials that ACE inhibitors and ARB therapy improve these surrogate markers and reduce cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and stroke. Accumulating evidence also supports the newer class of medication, the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, as beneficial in hypertensive persons with diabetes mellitus. In this article, we review the mechanisms through which inhibitors of the RAAS benefit persons with hypertension and decrease the development of cardiovascular and renal disease above and beyond blood pressure lowering.