ACE Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Outcomes: Recommendations from the 2024 Egyptian Cardiology Expert Consensus in Collaboration with the CVREP Foundation.
The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a pivotal role in regulating blood pressure (BP), with dysregulation of RAAS resulting in hypertension and potentially heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), cardio-renal syndrome, and stroke. RAAS inhibitors, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), have advantages beyond BP control. However, differences between these two drug classes need to be considered when choosing a therapy for preventing cardiovascular events.
A panel of 36 Egyptian cardiologists developed consensus statements on RAAS inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes and stroke, using a modified three-step Delphi process.
The consensus statements highlight the importance of effective BP control and the role of RAAS blockade for prevention and management of various cardiovascular diseases. ACEis and ARBs differ in their mode of action and, thus, clinical effects. On the basis of available evidence, the consensus group recommended the following: ACEis should be considered as first choice (in preference to ARBs) to reduce the risk of MI, for primary prevention of HF, and for secondary prevention of stroke. ACEis and ARBs show equivalent efficacy for the primary prevention of stroke. Evidence also favors the preferential use of ACEis in patients with type 2 diabetes, for BP control, for the primary prevention of diabetic kidney disease, and to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Treatment with an ACEi should be started within 24 h of ST segment elevation MI (and continued long term) in patients with HF, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and/or diabetes. Angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) are the first choice for patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with ACEis being the second choice in this group. ARBs are indicated as alternatives in patients who cannot tolerate ACEis. ACEis may be associated with cough development, but the incidence tends to be overestimated, and the risk can be reduced by use of a lipophilic ACEi or combining the ACEi with a calcium channel blocker.
RAAS blockade is an essential component of hypertension therapy; however, the protective effects provided by ACEis are superior to those of ARBs. Therefore, an ACEi is indicated in almost all cases, unless not tolerated.
Sobhy M
，Eletriby A
，Ragy H
，Kandil H
，Saleh MA
，Farag N
，Guindy R
，Bendary A
，Nayel AME
，Shawky A
，Khairy A
，Mortada A
，Zarif B
，Badran H
，Khorshid H
，Mahmoud K
，Said K
，Leon K
，Abdelsabour M
，Tawfik M
，Abdelmegid MAF
，Koriem M
，Loutfi M
，Wadie M
，Elnoamany M
，Sadaka M
，Seleem M
，Zahran M
，Amin OA
，Elkaffas S
，Ayad S
，Kilany WE
，Ammar W
，Elawady W
，Elhammady W
，Abdelhady Y
... -
《-》
Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Low-Dose Triple Single-Pill Combination Compared With Placebo for Initial Treatment of Hypertension.
Single-pill combinations of 3 or more low-dose blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs hold promise for initial or early treatment of hypertension.
We conducted a placebo-controlled trial of a new single-pill combination containing low doses of telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide in 2 dose options to assess efficacy and safety.
This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial enrolled adults with hypertension receiving 0 to 1 BP-lowering drugs. After a 2-week placebo run-in during which any BP-lowering medication was stopped, participants were eligible if home systolic BP (SBP) was 130 to 154 mm Hg. Participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to GMRx2 ¼ dose (telmisartan 10 mg/amlodipine 1.25 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg), GMRx2 ½ dose (telmisartan 20 mg/amlodipine 2.5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg), or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was difference in change in home SBP from randomization to week 4, and primary safety outcome was treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event.
From June 14, 2021 to October 18, 2023, a total of 295 participants (mean age: 51 years; 56% female) were randomized and 96% completed the trial. Baseline mean home BP was 139/86 mm Hg and clinic BP was 138/86 mm Hg after placebo run-in. The placebo-corrected least square mean differences in home SBP at Week 4 were -7.3 mm Hg (95% CI: -4.5 to -10.2) for GMRx2 ¼ dose and -8.2 mm Hg (95% CI: -5.2 to -11.3) for GMRx2 ½ dose; reductions for clinic BP were 8.0/4.0 and 9.5/4.9 mm Hg. At Week 4, clinic BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) was 37%, 65%, and 70% for placebo, GMRx2 ¼ dose, and GMRx2 ½ dose, respectively (both doses P < 0.001 vs placebo). Placebo, GMRx2-triple ¼, and GMRx2 ½ treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event occurred in 1 (1.6%), 0, and 6 (5.1%), respectively; out of normal range serum sodium or potassium was observed in 4 (6.3%), 12 (10.6%), and 12 (10.1%), respectively, but no participant had a serum sodium <130/>150 mmol/L or potassium <3.0/>6.0 mmol/L. Serious adverse events were reported by 2 participants in the placebo and GMRx2 ½ groups and none in the GMRx2 ¼ group.
In a population with mild-to-moderate BP elevation, both dose versions of the novel low-dose triple single-pill combination showed good tolerability and clinically relevant BP reductions compared with placebo. (Efficacy and Safety of GRMx2 Compared to Placebo for the Treatment of Hypertension: NCT04518306).
Rodgers A
，Salam A
，Schutte AE
，Cushman WC
，de Silva HA
，Di Tanna GL
，Grobbee D
，Narkiewicz K
，Ojji DB
，Poulter NR
，Schlaich MP
，Oparil S
，Spiering W
，Williams B
，Wright JT Jr
，Gutierez A
，Sanni A
，Lakshman P
，McMullen D
，Ranasinghe G
，Gianacas C
，Shanthakumar M
，Liu X
，Wang N
，Whelton P
... -
《-》
Effectiveness and Safety of the Telmisartan and Amlodipine Fixed-dose Combination in Managing Hypertension among Indian Patients (TACT India Study): Rationale and Study Design.
Background: The prevalence of hypertension is on the rise, with approximately 200 million individuals affected by this condition in India. Epidemiological studies suggest that one in every three adults in India has hypertension. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) present a potential strategy to address the challenge of effective blood pressure control. They are now recommended for the initiation in most hypertensive patients by the guidelines. However, studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of FDCs in large Indian populations with hypertension are few. Aim: The aim of this real-world study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the fixed-dose combination of telmisartan and amlodipine in managing hypertension in Indian patients. Materials and methods: This prospective, multicenter, observational, real-world evidence study is designed to enroll 10,000 eligible participants from 1,000 study sites across India. Adult patients with newly diagnosed or uncontrolled hypertension on monotherapy would be eligible for enrollment in the study. The study participants would be administered the study treatment per the treating physician's routine clinical practice and followed up after 8 weeks. The primary endpoint is to measure the change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline to week 8, while secondary endpoints include determining the percentage of patients who reach their blood pressure targets., description of demographic characteristics of the Indian hypertensive population, and reporting of safety outcomes. Conclusion: The TACT India study will provide longitudinal, real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of telmisartan and amlodipine FDC among a large cohort of the Indian population with hypertension.
Das AK
，Tiwaskar M
，Abdullakutty J
，Pande A
，Kumar V
，Zalte N
，Sugumaran A
，Mohanasundaram S
，Gogtay J
... -
《-》
Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.
Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided.
(1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS?
Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.
Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS.
Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments.
Level III, diagnostic study.
Lee CC
，Chen CW
，Yen HK
，Lin YP
，Lai CY
，Wang JL
，Groot OQ
，Janssen SJ
，Schwab JH
，Hsu FM
，Lin WH
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
