Search

Initiation of blockade of the renin-angiotensin system may cause an acute decrease in glomerular filtration rate (GFR): the prognostic significance of this is unknown. We did a post hoc analysis of patients with, or at risk for, vascular disease, in two randomized controlled trials: Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) and the Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant participants with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND), whose median follow-up was 56 months. In 9340 patients new to renin-angiotensin system blockade, who were then randomized to renin-angiotensin system blockade, a fall in GFR of 15% or more at 2 weeks after starting renin-angiotensin system blockade was seen in 1480 participants (16%), with persistence at 8 weeks in 700 (7%). Both acute increases and decreases in GFR after initiation of renin-angiotensin system blockade were associated with tendencies, mostly not statistically significant, to increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes, which occurred in 1280 participants, and of microalbuminuria, which occurred in 864. Analyses of creatinine-based outcomes were suggestive of regression to the mean. In more than 3000 patients randomized in TRANSCEND to telmisartan or placebo, there was no interaction between acute change in GFR and renal or cardiovascular benefit from telmisartan. Thus, both increases and decreases in GFR on initiation of renin-angiotensin system blockade are common, and may be weakly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Changes do not predict increased benefit from therapy., (Copyright © 2016 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The incidence of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-associated angioedema is increased in patients with seasonal allergies., Objective: We tested the hypothesis that patients with ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema present during months when pollen counts are increased., Methods: Cohort analysis examined the month of presentation of ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema and pollen counts in the ambulatory and hospital setting. Patients with ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema were ascertained through (1) an observational study of patients presenting to Vanderbilt University Medical Center, (2) patients presenting to the Marshfield Clinic and participating in the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project, and (3) patients enrolled in The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET). Measurements include date of presentation of ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema, population exposure to ACE inhibitor by date, and local pollen counts by date., Results: At Vanderbilt, the rate of angioedema was significantly associated with tree pollen months (P = .01 from χ(2) test). When separate analyses were conducted in patients with a history of seasonal allergies and patients without, the rate of ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema was increased during tree pollen months only in patients with a history of seasonal allergies (P = .002). In Marshfield, the rate of angioedema was significantly associated with ragweed pollen months (P = .025). In ONTARGET, a positive trend was observed between the ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema rate and grass season, although it was not statistically significant (P = .057)., Conclusions: Patients with ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema are more likely to present with this adverse drug event during months when pollen counts are increased., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify genetic variants associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-associated angioedema., Participants and Methods: We carried out a genome-wide association study in 175 individuals with ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema and 489 ACE inhibitor-exposed controls from Nashville (Tennessee) and Marshfield (Wisconsin). We tested for replication in 19 cases and 57 controls who participated in Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET)., Results: There were no genome-wide significant associations of any single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) with angioedema. Sixteen SNPs in African Americans and 41 SNPs in European Americans were associated moderately with angioedema (P<10) and evaluated for association in ONTARGET. The T allele of rs500766 in PRKCQ was associated with a reduced risk, whereas the G allele of rs2724635 in ETV6 was associated with an increased risk of ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema in the Nashville/Marshfield sample and ONTARGET. In a candidate gene analysis, rs989692 in the gene encoding neprilysin (MME), an enzyme that degrades bradykinin and substance P, was significantly associated with angioedema in ONTARGET and Nashville/Marshfield African Americans., Conclusion: Unlike other serious adverse drug effects, ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema is not associated with a variant with a large effect size. Variants in MME and genes involved in immune regulation may be associated with ACE inhibitor-associated angioedema.

Background: A recent study suggested that addition of a direct renin inhibitor to either an angiotension-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ACEi) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) may increase stroke risk in people with diabetes and renal disease., Methods: We examined the effects of addition of an ACE inhibitor (ramipril) to an ARB (telmisartan) for a mean follow-up of 56 months in people with diabetes [n = 9628, mean age 66 years, baseline blood pressure 144/82 mmHg, BMI 29 kg/m², estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 73 ml/min, and urine albumin 11 mg/mmol] who participated in the ONTARGET trial, divided by those with (n = 3163) and without (n = 6465) nephropathy. We compared participants on monotherapy with either ramipril or telmisartan with those on dual therapy., Results: SBP decreased more with dual over monotherapy (-7.1 vs. -5.3 mmHg, P < 0.0001) and the same number of strokes occurred (1.19 vs. 1.22 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.20). Stroke rate was higher in participants with than those without diabetic nephropathy (1.5 vs. 1.0 per 100 patient-years), but effects of dual-therapy vs. monotherapy were not different in either subgroup (1.59 vs. 1.55 and 1.01 vs. 1.08 per 100 patient-years; P value for interaction = 0.60). Other cardiovascular and kidney outcomes (dialysis or doubling of serum creatinine) did not differ between dual-therapy and monotherapy in subgroups, but adverse events, namely acute dialysis, hyperkalemia and hypotension, tended to be more frequent with dual therapy,, Conclusion: A combination of ACEi and ARB does not increase strokes or alter other major cardiovascular or renal events in patients with diabetes, irrespective of the presence of nephropathy.

Background: The results from the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) indicated that the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan was not inferior to the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor ramipril in reducing the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or hospitalization for congestive heart failure in high-risk patients, and telmisartan was associated with slightly superior tolerability. The combination of the two drugs was associated with more adverse events without an increase in benefit. This study aimed to analyze the data from ONTARGET obtained from a subgroup of patients enrolled in China and to evaluate the demographic and baseline characteristics, the compliance, efficacy, and safety of the different treatment strategies in randomized patients in China., Methods: A total of 1159 high-risk patients were randomized into three treatment groups: with 390 assigned to receive 80 mg of telmisartan, 385 assigned to receive 10 mg of ramipril and 384 assigned to receive both study medications. The median follow-up period was 4.3 years., Results: The mean age of Chinese patients was 65.6 years, 73.6% of patients were male. The proportion of patients with stroke/transient ischemic attacks at baseline in China was two times more than the entire study population (47.7% vs. 20.9%). In Chinese patients the proportion of permanent discontinuation of study medication due to cough was 0.5% in the telmisartan group, which was much less than that in the combination or the ramipril group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of primary outcome among three treatment groups of Chinese patients. More strokes occurred in Chinese patients than in the entire study population (8.5% vs. 4.5%). Greater systolic blood pressure reduction (-9.8 mmHg), and more renal function failure were noted in the combination treatment group than in the ramipril or telmisartan group (2.6% vs. 1.6% and 1.0%)., Conclusions: There was no evidence that the results of ONTARGET differed between Chinese patients and the entire study population with respect to the incidence of primary outcome, particularly safety. Compliance with study medications was good. The evidence from ONTARGET indicated that the treatment strategies in ONTARGET were applicable to patients in China.

Background: In the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination With Ramipril Global End Point Trial (ONTARGET), dual therapy did not reduce cardiovascular or renal outcomes compared with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers alone. Previous controlled trials with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers have demonstrated greater cardiovascular and renal benefit in people with renal risk. We hypothesized that dual therapy would be more effective than monotherapy in patients with low glomerular filtration rate and elevated albuminuria., Methods and Results: Post hoc analysis was performed of renal subgroups of dual therapy versus monotherapy for the ONTARGET study and angiotensin receptor blocker versus placebo for the Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects With Cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND). The studies featured hazard ratios by subgroups and Cox regression models with factors for treatment, subgroup, and interactions. The main cardiovascular outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, and the main renal outcome was the composite of chronic dialysis or doubling of creatinine. In ONTARGET, there was no cardiovascular or renal benefit from dual over monotherapy in any subgroup, even with low glomerular filtration rate and/or elevated albuminuria. In TRANSCEND, in the comparison of angiotensin receptor blocker with placebo, there was a significant interaction for the main renal outcome (P = 0.01) in the direction of harm for patients with normoalbuminuria (0.37 versus 0.16 events per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 2.35; confidence interval, 1.33 to 4.15) but a trend to benefit with microalbuminuria (0.52 versus 0.89 events per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.60; confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.46) and macroalbuminuria (1.57 versus 2.60 events per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.71; confidence interval, 0.21 to 2.44)., Conclusions: This post hoc analysis does not support dual therapy over monotherapy in high-vascular risk patients with low glomerular filtration rate or albuminuria. This observation is a post hoc comparison and should be interpreted appropriately., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00153101.

Most clinicians monitor blood pressure to estimate a patient's response to blood pressure-lowering therapy. However, the apparent change may not actually reflect the effect of the treatment, because a person's blood pressure varies considerably even without the administration of drug therapy. We estimated random background within-person variation, apparent between-person variation, and true between-person variation in blood pressure response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors after 3 months. We used meta-analytic mixed models to analyze individual patient data from 28 281 participants in 7 randomized, controlled trials from the Blood Pressure Lowering Trialists Collaboration. The apparent between-person variation in response was large, with SDs for change in systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure of 15.2/8.5 mm Hg. Within-person variation was also large, with SDs for change in systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure of 14.9/8.45 mm Hg. The true between-person variation in response was small, with SDs for change in systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure of 2.6/1.0 mm Hg. The proportion of the apparent between-person variation in response that was attributed to true between-person variation was only 3% for systolic blood pressure and 1% for diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, most of the apparent variation in response is not because of true variation but is a consequence of background within-person fluctuation in day-to-day blood pressure levels. Instead of monitoring an individual's blood pressure response, a better approach may be to simply assume the mean treatment effect.

We explored the safety and quality-of-life consequences of treating patients with stable coronary disease and high-risk features initially with optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone compared to OMT plus percutaneous coronary intervention. This was a post hoc analysis of Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive DruG Evaluation (COURAGE) trial patients. We defined high risk as the onset of Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III angina within 2 months or stabilized acute coronary syndrome within 2 weeks of enrollment. The primary end point was death or myocardial infarction after 4.6 years. Of the 2,287 patients enrolled in the COURAGE trial, 264 (12%) were high risk and had a relative risk of 1.56 for death or myocardial infarction (p = 0.0008) compared to those with non-high-risk features. A total of 35 primary events occurred in the OMT group and 32 in the percutaneous coronary intervention plus OMT group (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.79; p = 0.68). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of angina between the 2 groups at 1 year. During the first year of follow-up, 30% of the OMT patients crossed over to the revascularization group. In conclusion, an initial strategy of OMT alone for high-risk patients in the COURAGE trial did not result in increased death or myocardial infarction at 4.6 years or worse angina at 1 year, but it was associated with a high rate of crossover to revascularization.

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays an important role in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. One of the effects of the activated RAS is target-organ damage, in part due to their effects on causing hypertension. Blocking angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) with inhibitors has been shown to attenuate the pathological effects of the RAS. Clinical trials have shown that ACE inhibition improves outcomes in the prevention of acute myocardial infarction, lowering the morbidity and mortality in congestive heart failure, and attenuates renal dysfunction. There is recent evidence to show that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have similar efficacy to ACE inhibitors in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. The wealth of information obtained regarding the beneficial effects of RAS inhibition on clinical outcome has been focused on monotherapy with either ARB or ACE inhibition. Evidence from some trials suggests that better overall inhibition of RAS by dual therapy may improve clinical outcomes. Combination therapy has been shown to be beneficial in patients with congestive heart failure or renal disease. The Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT) trial showed equal benefit of either ARB or ACE inhibition with reduction in primary end points in postmyocardial infarction patients, but there was no further benefit from dual therapy in reducing outcomes. In the recent ONTARGET study, there was further evidence that ARBs are equal to ACE inhibitors in reducing cardiovascular events. In Ongoing Telmisartan, Ramipril, or Both in Patients at High Risk for Vascular Events (ONTARGET), combined RAS blockade did not have any added benefit but resulted in increased risk of adverse outcomes. In the Candesartan in Heart Failure (CHARM) and the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) trials of patients with severe heart failure, the addition of an ARB to an ACE inhibitor reduced cardiac mortality and lowered hospital admissions. Whether or not dual therapy is beneficial in patients with diabetic renal failure should be clarified by future studies. Overall, patients receiving dual therapy, if clinically justified, should be monitored closely for potential adverse effects.

Background: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are known to reduce proteinuria. Their combination might be more effective than either treatment alone, but long-term data for comparative changes in renal function are not available. We investigated the renal effects of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor), telmisartan (an ARB), and their combination in patients aged 55 years or older with established atherosclerotic vascular disease or with diabetes with end-organ damage., Methods: The trial ran from 2001 to 2007. After a 3-week run-in period, 25 620 participants were randomly assigned to ramipril 10 mg a day (n=8576), telmisartan 80 mg a day (n=8542), or to a combination of both drugs (n=8502; median follow-up was 56 months), and renal function and proteinuria were measured. The primary renal outcome was a composite of dialysis, doubling of serum creatinine, and death. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101., Findings: 784 patients permanently discontinued randomised therapy during the trial because of hypotensive symptoms (406 on combination therapy, 149 on ramipril, and 229 on telmisartan). The number of events for the composite primary outcome was similar for telmisartan (n=1147 [13.4%]) and ramipril (1150 [13.5%]; hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.09), but was increased with combination therapy (1233 [14.5%]; HR 1.09, 1.01-1.18, p=0.037). The secondary renal outcome, dialysis or doubling of serum creatinine, was similar with telmisartan (189 [2.21%]) and ramipril (174 [2.03%]; HR 1.09, 0.89-1.34) and more frequent with combination therapy (212 [2.49%]: HR 1.24, 1.01-1.51, p=0.038). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined least with ramipril compared with telmisartan (-2.82 [SD 17.2] mL/min/1.73 m(2)vs -4.12 [17.4], p<0.0001) or combination therapy (-6.11 [17.9], p<0.0001). The increase in urinary albumin excretion was less with telmisartan (p=0.004) or with combination therapy (p=0.001) than with ramipril., Interpretation: In people at high vascular risk, telmisartan's effects on major renal outcomes are similar to ramipril. Although combination therapy reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than monotherapy, overall it worsens major renal outcomes.

Cardiovascular disease represents a continuum that starts with risk factors such as hypertension and progresses to atherosclerosis, target organ damage, and ultimately to myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke or death. Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin AT(1)-receptor blockers (ARBs) has turned out to be beneficial at all stages of this continuum. Both classes of agent can prevent or reverse endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis, thereby reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. Such a reduction has been shown mainly for ACE inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease, but recent studies revealed that ARBs are not inferior in this respect. However, no such data are currently available on the combination of these drugs. Both ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been shown to reduce target organ damage in organs such as the kidney, brain and heart, and to decrease cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with congestive heart failure. Experimental data point to an influence of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on the number and function of endothelial progenitor cells revealing additional mechanisms of action of these drugs. The VALIANT trial has shown equivalent effects of ARB valsartan and the ACE-inhibitor captopril in patients post myocardial infarction, but the dual RAS-blockade, compared to monotherapy, did not further reduce events. In secondary prevention, the most-recently published ONTARGET study provides evidence that on top of a better tolerability AT(1)-receptors antagonists are equal to ACE inhibitors in the prevention of clinical endpoints like cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, myocardial infarction and stroke. The combined RAS blockade, however, achieved no further benefits in vascular high-risk patients and was associated with more adverse events. In chronic heart failure, ValHeFT and CHARM-ADDED have shown that combined RAS inhibition with ACE inhibitor and valsartan or candesartan reduced morbidity and mortality in certain patient subgroups. Accumulating evidence also points to benefits of the combination therapy in individuals with proteinuric nephropathies. In conclusion, while combined RAS-inhibition is not generally indicated in patients along the cardio-reno-vascular continuum, it has already proven to be effective in heart failure patients with incomplete neuroendocrine blockade. In secondary prevention, monotherapy with either RAS inhibitor is equally efficacious. Furthermore, novel pharmacologic agents such as renin inhibitors may prove useful in preventing common side effects of RAS blockade such as angiotensin escape and AT(1)-receptor upregulation, giving clinicians additional therapeutic tools to optimally treat the individual patient.

Background: In patients who have vascular disease or high-risk diabetes without heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular causes, but the role of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the ARB telmisartan, and the combination of the two drugs in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes., Methods: After a 3-week, single-blind run-in period, patients underwent double-blind randomization, with 8576 assigned to receive 10 mg of ramipril per day, 8542 assigned to receive 80 mg of telmisartan per day, and 8502 assigned to receive both drugs (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure., Results: Mean blood pressure was lower in both the telmisartan group (a 0.9/0.6 mm Hg greater reduction) and the combination-therapy group (a 2.4/1.4 mm Hg greater reduction) than in the ramipril group. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 1412 patients in the ramipril group (16.5%), as compared with 1423 patients in the telmisartan group (16.7%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.09). As compared with the ramipril group, the telmisartan group had lower rates of cough (1.1% vs. 4.2%, P<0.001) and angioedema (0.1% vs. 0.3%, P=0.01) and a higher rate of hypotensive symptoms (2.6% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001); the rate of syncope was the same in the two groups (0.2%). In the combination-therapy group, the primary outcome occurred in 1386 patients (16.3%; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07); as compared with the ramipril group, there was an increased risk of hypotensive symptoms (4.8% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001), syncope (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.03), and renal dysfunction (13.5% vs. 10.2%, P<0.001)., Conclusions: Telmisartan was equivalent to ramipril in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes and was associated with less angioedema. The combination of the two drugs was associated with more adverse events without an increase in benefit. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153101 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)., (Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Onset of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) follows a diurnal periodicity, with a peak incidence between 6:00 a.m. and noon. Beta blockers and aspirin decrease the rate of AMI and blunt the peak incidence, but such an effect has not been evaluated for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The effect of ramipril on onset of symptomatic AMI was evaluated in 4-hour periods over a 24-hour cycle in men and women who were > or =55 years of age, had cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus with > or =1 other risk factor, and participated in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial. During the 4.5-year follow-up, AMI was documented in 383 of 4,596 participants allocated to ramipril and in 491 of 4,598 participants allocated to placebo (8.3% vs 10.7%, p <0.001). Ramipril decreased rates of AMI at each period and attenuated, but did not blunt, the peak incidence. In conclusion, inhibiting angiotensin-converting enzyme decreased AMI over a 24-hour period, but this enzyme does not seem to play a major role in the circadian periodicity of this acute event.

Results from the HOPE and EUROPA trials showed that ACE inhibitors lower cardiovascular mortality of patients with atherosclerosis and preserved left ventricular function. However, despite apparently adequate study design, the recently conducted PEACE trial detected no benefit of an additional ACE inhibitor treatment in patients with coronary artery disease and no heart failure with respect to cardiovascular risk reduction. One of the main reasons for this discrepancy might be the lower cardiovascular baseline risk of the PEACE study population, which was more intensively treated with lipid lowering drugs and myocardial revascularization prior to enrollment than patients in HOPE or EUROPA. Another reason for the negative results of PEACE might be substance-specific differences between individual ACE inhibitors (trandolapril in PEACE, ramipril in HOPE, and perindopril in EUROPA) in their clinical efficacy to reduce cardiovascular end-points. The PEACE trial did not achieve the originally projected sample size and the addition of a soft end-point of revascularization has not been helpful. While the results from the PEACE trial suggest that low-risk patients with coronary artery disease and with preserved left ventricular function who receive intensive standard therapy including lipid lowering and coronary revascularization may not benefit from additional ACE inhibition therapy, this conclusion should be made with caution. A number of reasons, other than drug treatment efficacy, may explain the neutral results in the PEACE trial. Further studies are needed to try to resolve this issue. In the meantime, the overwhelming data still support the use of ACE inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease with preserved left ventricular function.

Ramipril is an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor that has been extensively studied in randomised, controlled clinical trials in patients with cardiovascular diseases. Therapy with ramipril in patients with various cardiovascular disorders has demonstrated significant and clinically important reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, progressive renal impairment and onset of diabetes. Ramipril is usually dosed at 2.5-10 mg/day. Beneficial effects of ramipril are observed in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure, prevention of cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, prevention of congestive heart failure, diabetes and other vascular events.

ACE inhibitors have significantly decreased cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) in patients with asymptomatic or symptomatic left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. Furthermore, the extended 12-year study of the SOLVD (Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction) Prevention and Treatment trials (X-SOLVD) demonstrated a significant benefit with a reduction of cumulative all-cause death compared with placebo (50.9% vs 56.4%) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.86; 95% CI 0.79, 0.93; p < 0.001]. The survival benefits and significant reductions in cardiovascular morbidity related to treatment with ACE inhibitors are likely achieved by titrating the dose of ACE inhibitors to the target dose achieved in clinical trials. Although the ATLAS (Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril And Survival) study, which randomly allocated HF patients to low- or high-dose lisinopril, showed no significant difference between groups for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.82, 1.03), the predetermined secondary combined outcome of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization was reduced by 15% for the patients receiving high-dose lisinopril compared with low-dose (p < 0.001) with a 24% reduction in HF hospitalization (p = 0.002). Despite the use of ACE inhibitors, blockade of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) remains incomplete, with evidence of continued production of angiotensin II by non-ACE-dependent pathways. The safety and potential benefits of angiotensin receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) in patients with impaired systolic function have been assessed in moderate to large clinical trials. In patients with impaired LV systolic function and HF, combination therapy with ARBs with recommended HF therapy including ACE inhibitors in patients who remain symptomatic may be considered for its morbidity benefit. Based on the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity)-Added data, candesartan cilexetil in addition to standard HF therapy results in a further reduction of cardiovascular mortality. Close monitoring of renal function and serum potassium levels is needed in this setting. The VALIANT (VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarction Trial) results suggest that valsartan is as effective as captopril in patients following an acute MI with HF and/or LV systolic dysfunction and may be used as an alternative treatment in ACE inhibitor-intolerant patients. There was no survival benefit with valsartan-captopril combination compared with captopril alone in this trial. Despite these results, ACE inhibitors remain the first-choice therapeutic agent in post-MI patients, and ARBs can be used in patients with clear intolerance. Although the use of ACE inhibitors may be appealing in patients with HF and preserved LV systolic function, there is currently no evidence from large clinical trials to support this.

Background: ACE inhibitor therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and need for revascularization in high-risk patients with clinical heart failure, overt left ventricular systolic dysfunction, or vascular disease. In patients with clinical heart failure or overt left ventricular systolic dysfunction, ACE inhibitor therapy also reduces the risk of sudden or arrhythmia-related cardiac death. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of the ACE inhibitor ramipril on sudden unexpected death or resuscitated cardiac arrest among the 9297 individuals without clinical heart failure or overt left ventricular dysfunction enrolled in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial., Methods and Results: During the median follow-up of 4.5 years, the composite outcome of unexpected death, documented arrhythmic death, or resuscitated cardiac arrest was reduced by 21% in patients randomized to ramipril therapy compared with those randomized to placebo. There were 155 (3.3%) composite outcome events in patients randomized to ramipril therapy compared with 195 (4.2%) such events in patients randomized to placebo (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.98, P=0.028). There were trends toward reductions in fatal primary outcome events (unexpected death or documented arrhythmic death; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.02, P=0.072) and in nonfatal primary outcome events (resuscitated cardiac arrest; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.13, P=0.127) in the ramipril treatment group., Conclusions: Ramipril reduces the risk of fatal and nonfatal serious arrhythmic events in high-risk patients without clinical heart failure or overt left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Background: Results from a retrospective analysis of the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) study suggest that angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may be less effective in patients receiving aspirin. We aimed to confirm or refute this theory., Methods: We used the Peto-Yusuf method to undertake a systematic overview of data for 22060 patients from six long-term randomised trials of ACE inhibitors to assess whether aspirin altered the effects of ACE inhibitor therapy on major clinical outcomes (composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospital admission for congestive heart failure, or revascularisation)., Findings: Baseline characteristics, and prognosis in patients allocated placebo, differed strikingly between those who were and were not taking aspirin at baseline. Results from analyses of all trials, except SOLVD, did not suggest any significant differences between the proportional reductions in risk with ACE inhibitor therapy in the presence or absence of aspirin for the major clinical outcomes (p=0.15), or in any of its individual components, except myocardial infarction (interaction p=0.01). Overall, ACE inhibitor therapy significantly reduced the risk of the major clinical outcomes by 22% (p<0.0001), with clear reductions in risk both among those receiving aspirin at baseline (odds ratio 0.80, [99% CI 0.73-0.88]) and those who were not (0.71 [99% CI 0.62-0.81], interaction p=0.07)., Interpretation: Considering the totality of evidence on all major vascular outcomes in these trials, there is only weak evidence of any reduction in the benefit of ACE-inhibitor therapy when added to aspirin. However, there is definite evidence of clinically important benefits with respect to these major clinical outcomes with ACE-inhibitor therapy, irrespective of whether concomitant aspirin is used.