The Combination of Beta-Blockers and ACE Inhibitors Across the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Diseases.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, affecting a wide range of patients at different stages across the cardiovascular continuum. Hypertension is one of the earliest risk factors in this continuum and can be controlled in most patients with currently available antihypertensive agents. However, goals are often not met because treatments are not optimized in terms of tailoring therapy to individual patients based on their hypertension subclass and cardiovascular risk profile and initiating early use of adapted-dose, single-pill combinations. In this context, beta-blockers in combination with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are of special interest as a result of their complementary actions on the sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, two interlinked pathways that influence cardiovascular risk and disease outcomes. In addition to their antihypertensive actions, beta-blockers are used to manage arrhythmias and treat angina pectoris and heart failure, while ACE inhibitors provide cardioprotection in patients with acute coronary syndromes and treat congestive heart failure. A broad range of patients may therefore receive the combination in routine clinical practice. This paper examines the supporting evidence for beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors in each of the above indications and considers the rationale for combining these agents into a single pill, using data from bisoprolol and perindopril randomized controlled trials as supporting evidence. Combining these established antihypertensive agents into a single pill continues to provide effective blood pressure lowering and improved cardiovascular outcomes while allowing a greater proportion of patients to rapidly achieve treatment targets.

Comparison between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker after percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: The inhibitors for renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) have different mechanisms of action in coronary artery disease (CAD). This study sought to compare the clinical outcomes between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) therapy in patients with CAD undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Based on the National Health Insurance claims data in South Korea, patients aged 18 years or older who had undergone PCI between July 2011 and June 2015 were enrolled. The study participants were classified either as patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI, n = 21,747) or angina (n = 28,708). And according to the post PCI discharge medications, patients were categorized into ACEI and ARB therapy groups. The primary endpoint was all-cause death, and the two groups were compared using a propensity-score matching analysis. RESULTS: The study population had a median follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 1.2-3.2). In the propensity-score matched AMI group (8341 pairs), the occurrence of all-cause death was significantly lower in the ACEI group than in the ARB group (hazard ratio [HR] of ACEI, 0.823; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.715-0.947; p = 0.006). In the propensity-score matched angina group (10,878 pairs), there was no difference in the incidence of the primary endpoint between the ACEI and ARB groups (HR of ACEI, 1.113; 95% CI: 0.986-1.257; p = 0.084). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide Korean cohort study, ACEI therapy in patients with AMI and concomitant PCI showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality rates when compared to that with ARB therapy.

The Divergent Cardiovascular Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers in Adult Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

The renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a central role in the pathophysiology of hypertension and vascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi's) suppress angiotensin II (ANG II) concentrations, whereas angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor blockers (ARBs) block the binding of ANG II to AT1 receptors. ACEi's and ARBs are both effective antihypertensive agents and produce similar risk reductions for stroke, a blood pressure-dependent phenomenon. ACEi's also reduce the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause mortality in high-risk hypertensive patients as well as in people with diabetes, vascular disease and congestive heart failure. ARBs, in contrast, do not reduce the risk for MI or death in randomized clinical trials when assessed vs. placebo. Systematic reviews of ARBs that include meta-analyses or metaregression analyses confirm that ARBs lack the cardiovascular-protective effects of ACEi's. Practice guidelines, especially those for high-risk patients, such as those with diabetes mellitus, should reflect the evidence that ACEi's and ARBs have divergent cardiovascular effects: ACEi's reduce mortality, whereas ARBs do not. ACEi's should remain the preferred RAAS inhibitor for patients at high risk.

Blood pressure reduction and clinical outcomes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers: protocol for a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) efficaciously reduce systolic blood pressure (BP), a well-established risk factor for myocardial infarction (MI). Both inhibit the renin-angiotensin system, albeit through different mechanisms, and produce similar reductions in BP. However, in parallel meta-analyses of ACEi and ARB trials, ACEis reduce risk of MI whereas ARBs do not-a phenomenon described as the 'ARB-MI paradox'. In addition, ACEis reduce all-cause mortality, whereas ARBs do not, which appears to be independent of BP lowering. The divergent cardiovascular effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, despite similar BP reductions, are counter-intuitive. This systematic review aims to ascertain the extent to which clinical outcomes in randomised trials of ACEi and ARBs are attributable to reductions in systolic BP. METHODS: A comprehensive search of bibliographic databases will be performed to identify all randomised studies of agents of the ACEi and ARB class. Placebo and active comparator-controlled studies that report clinical outcomes, with greater than 500 person-years of follow-up in each study arm, will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen study records against a priori-defined eligibility criteria and perform data extraction. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be applied to all included studies. Studies retracted subsequent to initial publication will be excluded. Primary outcomes of interest include MI and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes include stroke, heart failure, revascularisation and cardiovascular mortality. Meta-regression will be performed, evaluating the relationship between attained reduction in systolic BP and relative risk of each outcome, stratified by drug class. Where a BP-dependent effect exists (two-tailed p value < 0.05), relative risks, standardised per 10 mmHg difference in BP, will be reported for each study outcome. Publication bias will be examined using Funnel plots, and calculation of Egger's statistic. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide a detailed synthesis of evidence regarding the relationship between BP reduction and clinical outcomes with ACEi and ARBs. Greater understanding of the dependency of the effect of each class on BP reduction will advance insight into the nature of the ARB-MI paradox and guide the future usage of these agents. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017072988.

The Divergent Cardiovascular Effects of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers on Myocardial Infarction and Death.

The renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a central role in the pathophysiology of hypertension and vascular disease. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) suppress angiotensin II (ANG II) concentrations, whereas angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) block the binding of ANG II to AT1 receptors. ACEis and ARBs are both effective anti-hypertensive agents and have similar risk reductions in stroke - a blood pressure dependent phenomenon. ACEis also reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality in high risk hypertensive patients, as well as in diabetics, the elderly, those with vascular disease, and in congestive heart failure. ARBs, in contrast, do not reduce the risk of MI or death in clinical trials where the comparator has been another active therapy or even a placebo. Systematic reviews of ARBs that include meta-analyses or meta-regression analyses confirm that ARBs lack the cardiovascular protective effects of ACEis, which in part are "independent" of blood pressure lowering. Practice guidelines, especially those in high risk hypertensive patients, should reflect the evidence that ACEis and ARBs have divergent cardiovascular effects - ACEis reduce mortality, whereas ARBs do not. ACEis should be the preferred RAAS inhibitor in high risk patients.