Dataset Information

High-dose versus low-dose angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To systematically review evidence comparing the effect of low-dose versus high-dose ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisation, functional capacity and side effects in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS up to January 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low-dose versus high-dose ACEIs in adults with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0, and quality of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We conducted random effects meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. RESULTS:We included eight RCTs (5829 patients with HF). In comparison with low-dose ACEIs, high-dose ACEIs showed a non-significant effect on all-cause mortality (8 RCTs, n=5828, relative risk (RR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; moderate quality of evidence), cardiovascular mortality (6 RCTs, n=4048, RR 0.93, 95%?CI 0.85 to 1.01; moderate quality of evidence), all-cause hospitalisation (5 RCTs, n=5394, RR 0.95, 95%?CI 0.82 to 1.10; moderate quality of evidence) and cardiovascular hospitalisation (4 RCTs, n=5242, RR 0.98, 95%?CI 0.83 to 1.17; low quality of evidence). High-dose ACEI increased functional capacity (4 studies, n=555, standardised mean difference 0.38, 95%?CI 0.20 to 0.55; low quality of evidence) and the risk of hypotension (4 RCTs, n=3783, RR 1.64, 95%?CI 1.30 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence). High-dose ACEI had no effect on dizziness (3 RCTs, n=4994, RR 1.37, 95%?CI 0.97 to 1.93; low quality of evidence), but decreased the risk of cough (4 RCTs, n=5146, RR 0.85, 95%?CI 0.73 to 0.98; moderate quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS:The magnitude of benefit of using high dose versus low to intermediate doses of ACEIs might be less than traditionally suggested in clinical guidelines. These findings might help clinicians address the complex task of HF management in a more rational and timely fashion, saving efforts to implement strategies with the greatest net clinical benefit.

SUBMITTER: Migliavaca CB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7443275 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-dose versus low-dose angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Migliavaca Celina Borges CB Stein Cinara C Colpani Verônica V Eibel Bruna B Bgeginski Roberta R Simões Marcus Vinicius MV Rohde Luiz Eduardo LE Falavigna Maicon M

Open heart 20200801 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically review evidence comparing the effect of low-dose versus high-dose ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisation, functional capacity and side effects in patients with heart failure (HF).<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS up to January 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low-dose versus high-dose ACEIs in adults with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection ...[more]

PMID: 32820054

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRenin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. However, a drug's efficacy in lowering blood pressure cannot be considered as a definitive indicator of its effectiveness in reducing mortality and morbidity. The effectiveness and safety of RIs compared to ACE inhibitors in treating hypertension is unknown.ObjectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors in people with primary hypertension.Search methodsThe Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to August 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least four weeks follow-up in people with primary hypertension, which compared renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors and reported morbidity, mortality, adverse events or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.Main resultsWe include 11 RCTs involving 13,627 participants, with a mean baseline age from 51.5 to 74.2 years. Follow-up duration ranged from four weeks to 36.6 months. There was no difference between RIs and ACE inhibitors for the outcomes: all-cause mortality: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.18; 5 RCTs, 5962 participants; low-certainty evidence; total myocardial infarction: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.39; 2 RCTs, 957 participants; very low-certainty evidence; adverse events: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; serious adverse events: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.64; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; low-certainty evidence; and withdrawal due to adverse effects: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.06; 10 RTCs, 6008 participants; low-certainty evidence. No data were available for total cardiovascular events, heart failure, stroke, end-stage renal disease or change in heart rate. Low-certainty evidence suggested that RIs reduced systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -1.72, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.97; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants; and diastolic blood pressure: MD -1.18, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.72; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants, to a greater extent than ACE inhibitors, but we judged this to be more likely due to bias than a true effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of hypertension, we have low certainty that renin inhibitors (RI) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors do not differ for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. We have low to moderate certainty that they do not differ for adverse events. Small reductions in blood pressure with renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors are of low certainty. More independent, large, long-term trials are needed to compare RIs with ACE inhibitors, particularly assessing morbidity and mortality outcomes, but also on blood pressure-lowering effect.

Project description:BackgroundExisting clinical trial data do not address whether all angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are similarly beneficial in improving survival and reducing the rate of readmission among patients with congestive heart failure. We sought to answer this question using administrative databases from Canada's 3 most populous provinces.MethodsUsing linked hospital discharge and prescription claims databases in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, we identified all patients 65 years or older who were admitted to hospital because of congestive heart failure between Jan. 1, 1998, and Mar. 31, 2002, and who had not been admitted for the same reason in the 3 years preceding the study period. We analyzed the association between the type of ACE inhibitor prescribed within 30 days after discharge and subsequent mortality using Cox proportional hazards models. We then adjusted for demographic, clinical, physician and hospital-related variables, with additional time-dependent variables representing current drug use and dosage. We chose ramipril as the reference category for comparison with the other ACE inhibitors because it has increasingly been prescribed to patients with congestive heart failure.ResultsA total of 43 316 patients with congestive heart failure filled prescriptions for ACE inhibitors within 30 days after discharge from hospital. Demographic, clinical and prescription-related characteristics were similar among users of each type of ACE inhibitor. In the time-dependent model, the mortality associated with 5 ACE inhibitors was similar to that with ramipril: adjusted hazard ratios (and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 0.95 (0.89-1.02) for lisinopril, 0.92 (0.85-1.00) for fosinopril, 0.99 (0.88-1.11) for quinapril, 0.90 (0.77-1.06) for perindopril and 1.00 (0.80-1.24) for cilazapril. However, use of enalapril or captopril was associated with higher mortality compared with ramipril: adjusted hazard ratios (and 95% CIs) were 1.10 (1.04-1.16) for enalapril and 1.13 (1.01-1.26) for captopril.InterpretationWhen prescribing ACE inhibitors to patients, physicians should consider a possible 10%-15% increase in mortality with captopril and enalapril compared with ramipril among patients with congestive heart failure.

Project description:BackgroundVariation in the carboxylesterase 1 gene (CES1) may contribute to the efficacy of ACEIs. Accordingly, we examined the impact of CES1 variants on plasma angiotensin II (ATII)/angiotensin I (ATI) ratio in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) that underwent ACEI dose titrations. Five of these variants have previously been associated with drug response or increased CES1 expression, i.e., CES1 copy number variation, the variant of the duplicated CES1 gene with high transcriptional activity, rs71647871, rs2244613, and rs3815583. Additionally, nine variants, representatives of CES1Var, and three other CES1 variants were examined.MethodsPatients with CHF, and clinical indication for ACEIs were categorized according to their CES1 genotype. Differences in mean plasma ATII/ATI ratios between genotype groups after ACEI dose titration, expressed as the least square mean (LSM) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were assessed by analysis of variance.ResultsA total of 200 patients were recruited and 127 patients (63.5%) completed the study. The mean duration of the CHF drug dose titration was 6.2 (SD 3.6) months. After ACEI dose titration, there was no difference in mean plasma ATII/ATI ratios between subjects with the investigated CES1 variants, and only one previously unexplored variation (rs2302722) qualified for further assessment. In the fully adjusted analysis of effects of rs2302722 on plasma ATII/ATI ratios, the difference in mean ATII/ATI ratio between the GG genotype and the minor allele carriers (GT and TT) was not significant, with a relative difference in LSMs of 0.67 (95% CI 0.43-1.07; P = 0.10). Results of analyses that only included enalapril-treated patients remained non-significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple parallel comparisons (difference in LSM 0.60 [95% CI 0.37-0.98], P = 0.045).ConclusionThese findings indicate that the included single variants of CES1 do not significantly influence plasma ATII/ATI ratios in CHF patients treated with ACEIs and are unlikely to be primary determinants of ACEI efficacy.

Dataset Information

High-dose versus low-dose angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

High-dose versus low-dose angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets