-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156655.].
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156655.].
PubMed: 38903988
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1426608 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Uncontrolled blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy offers a promising approach to addressing this... (Review)
Review
Uncontrolled blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy offers a promising approach to addressing this challenge by providing a convenient single-tablet solution that enhances the effectiveness of blood pressure control. In our systematic review, we assess the effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC in managing blood pressure. We conducted a comprehensive search across four primary electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Global Health Library (GHL), and Google Scholar, as of 8 February 2022. Additionally, we performed a manual search to find relevant articles. The quality of the selected articles was evaluated using the Study Quality Assessment Tools (SQAT) checklist from the National Institute of Health and the ROB2 tool from Cochrane. Our systematic review included 17 eligible articles. The findings show that the use of perindopril/amlodipine FDC significantly lowers blood pressure and enhances the quality of blood pressure control. Compared to the comparison group, the perindopril/amlodipine combination tablet resulted in a higher rate of blood pressure response and normalization. Importantly, perindopril/amlodipine FDC contributes to improved patient adherence with minimal side effects. However, studies conducted to date have not provided assessments of the cost-effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC. In summary, our analysis confirms the effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC in lowering blood pressure, with combination therapy outperforming monotherapy and placebo. Although mild adverse reactions were observed in a small subset of participants, cost-effectiveness assessments for this treatment remain lacking in the literature.
PubMed: 38410524
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156655 -
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2023This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Losartan; Hypertension; Telmisartan; Irbesartan; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Hydrochlorothiazide; Valine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Amlodipine; Valsartan; Tetrazoles; Blood Pressure; Essential Hypertension
PubMed: 37432701
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24082 -
Journal of Clinical Hypertension... Aug 2023Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05-2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32-6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient's comorbidity.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Cough; Hypertension; Calcium Channel Blockers
PubMed: 37417783
DOI: 10.1111/jch.14695 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018The dystrophinopathies include Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD), and X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy (XLDCM). In recent years,...
BACKGROUND
The dystrophinopathies include Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD), and X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy (XLDCM). In recent years, co-ordinated multidisciplinary management for these diseases has improved the quality of care, with early corticosteroid use prolonging independent ambulation, and the routine use of non-invasive ventilation signficantly increasing survival. The next target to improve outcomes is optimising treatments to delay the onset or slow the progression of cardiac involvement and so prolong survival further.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for preventing or treating cardiac involvement in DMD, BMD, and XLDCM, using measures of change in cardiac function over six months.
SEARCH METHODS
On 16 October 2017 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and on 12 December 2017, we searched two clinical trials registries. We also searched conference proceedings and bibliographies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and randomised cross-over trials for inclusion. In the Discussion, we reviewed open studies, longitudinal observational studies and individual case reports but only discussed studies that adequately described the diagnosis, intervention, pretreatment, and post-treatment states and in which follow-up lasted for at least six months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts identified from the search and performed data extraction. All three authors assessed risk of bias independently, compared results, and decided which trials met the inclusion criteria. They assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five studies (N = 205) in the review; four studies included participants with DMD only, and one study included participants with DMD or BMD. All studied different interventions, and meta-analysis was not possible. We found no studies for XLDCM. None of the trials reported cardiac function as improved or stable cardiac versus deteriorated.The randomised first part of a two-part study of perindopril (N = 28) versus placebo (N = 27) in boys with DMD with normal heart function at baseline showed no difference in the number of participants with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF%) of less than 45% after three years of therapy (n = 1 in each group; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 15.77). This result is uncertain because of study limitations, indirectness and imprecision. In a non-randomised follow-up study, after 10 years, more participants who had received placebo from the beginning had reduced LVEF% (less than 45%). Adverse event rates were similar between the placebo and treatment groups (low-certainty evidence).A study comparing treatment with lisinopril versus losartan in 23 boys newly diagnosed with Duchenne cardiomyopathy showed that after 12 months, both were equally effective in preserving or improving LVEF% (lisinopril 54.6% (standard deviation (SD) 5.19), losartan 55.2% (SD 7.19); mean difference (MD) -0.60% CI -6.67 to 5.47: N = 16). The certainty of evidence was very low because of very serious imprecision and study limitations (risk of bias). Two participants in the losartan group were withdrawn due to adverse events: one participant developed an allergic reaction, and a second exceeded the safety standard with a fall in ejection fraction greater than 10%. Authors reported no other adverse events related to the medication (N = 22; very low-certainty evidence).A study comparing idebenone versus placebo in 21 boys with DMD showed little or no difference in mean change in cardiac function between the two groups from baseline to 12 months; for fractional shortening the mean change was 1.4% (SD 4.1) in the idebenone group and 1.6% (SD 2.6) in the placebo group (MD -0.20%, 95% CI -3.07 to 2.67, N = 21), and for ejection fraction the mean change was -1.9% (SD 9.8) in the idebenone group and 0.4% (SD 5.5) in the placebo group (MD -2.30%, 95% CI -9.18 to 4.58, N = 21). The certainty of evidence was very low because of study limitations and very serious imprecision. Reported adverse events were similar between the treatment and placebo groups (low-certainty evidence).A multicentre controlled study added eplerenone or placebo to 42 patients with DMD with early cardiomyopathy but preserved left ventricular function already established on ACEI or ARB therapy. Results showed that eplerenone slowed the rate of decline of magnetic resonance (MR)-assessed left ventricular circumferential strain at 12 months (eplerenone group median 1.0%, interquartile range (IQR) 0.3 to -2.2; placebo group median 2.2%, IQR 1.3 to -3.1%; P = 0.020). The median decline in LVEF over the same period was also less in the eplerenone group (-1.8%, IQR -2.9 to 6.0) than in the placebo group (-3.7%, IQR -10.8 to 1.0; P = 0.032). We downgraded the certainty of evidence to very low for study limitations and serious imprecision. Serious adverse events were reported in two patients given placebo but none in the treatment group (very low-certainty evidence).A randomised placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous growth hormone in 16 participants with DMD or BMD showed an increase in left ventricular mass after three months' treatment but no significant improvement in cardiac function. The evidence was of very low certainty due to imprecision, indirectness, and study limitations. There were no clinically significant adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).Some studies were at risk of bias, and all were small. Therefore, although there is some evidence from non-randomised data to support the prophylactic use of perindopril for cardioprotection ahead of detectable cardiomyopathy, and for lisinopril or losartan plus eplerenone once cardiomyopathy is detectable, this must be considered of very low certainty. Findings from non-randomised studies, some of which have been long term, have led to the use of these drugs in daily clinical practice.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence from RCTs, early treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs may be comparably beneficial for people with a dystrophinopathy; however, the certainty of evidence is very low. Very low-certainty evidence indicates that adding eplerenone might give additional benefit when early cardiomyopathy is detected. No clinically meaningful effect was seen for growth hormone or idebenone, although the certainty of the evidence is also very low.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiomyopathies; Cardiomyopathy, Dilated; Cardiovascular Agents; Child; Disease Progression; Eplerenone; Human Growth Hormone; Humans; Lisinopril; Losartan; Male; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Perindopril; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume; Ubiquinone; Young Adult
PubMed: 30326162
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009068.pub3 -
Ochsner Journal 2014Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are highly effective at improving prognosis in a variety of disease states such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease,...
BACKGROUND
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are highly effective at improving prognosis in a variety of disease states such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, systolic heart failure, and acute coronary syndrome. Although these medications have been used in clinical practice for decades, not all ACE inhibitors are equal, as agents within this class vary in lipophilicity, tissue-ACE binding, antioxidant properties, antiinflammatory properties, bradykinin site selectivity, and duration of action. The objective of this systematic review and metaanalysis was to evaluate the effects of perindopril vs enalapril on left ventricular function in patients with systolic heart failure.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and metaanalysis of trials comparing perindopril and enalapril in systolic heart failure. Relevant studies were identified through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
RESULTS
Three trials comparing enalapril with perindopril in 116 patients with systolic heart failure were identified. Compared to enalapril, perindopril significantly improved cardiac sympathetic nerve activity: the pooled mean net change in heart to mediastinum ratio was 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08, 0.16) and the pooled mean net change in washout rate was -3.51% (95% CI: -4.17, -2.85). Other variables also showed improvement. The pooled mean net change in New York Heart Association functional class was -0.44 (95% CI: -0.86, -0.03) and the change in brain natriuretic peptide was -64.1 [95% CI: -80.8, -47.4]. The change in left ventricular ejection fraction was not significantly greater with perindopril than enalapril: 1.15% (95% CI: -2.74, 5.04). However, in the 2 trials that switched patients from enalapril to perindopril, left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 months was significantly greater in the perindopril group: 2.41% (95% CI: 1.26, 3.55; P<0.0001).
CONCLUSION
In patients with systolic heart failure, perindopril significantly improves cardiac sympathetic nerve activity, brain natriuretic peptide, and New York Heart Association functional class compared to enalapril. Additionally, when patients were switched from enalapril to perindopril, left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 months was significantly greater.
PubMed: 25249801
DOI: No ID Found