Renin inhibitors versus angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Renin 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. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors in people with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: The 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 We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work.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 CRITERIA: We 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 ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We 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.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised 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 regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for diabetic patients on the basis of postulated advantages for the reduction of diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for hypertension in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in patients with hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to November 19, 2014 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to October 19, 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies with at least six months follow-up in people with primary elevated blood pressure (≥130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. Patients with proven secondary hypertension were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies, involving 65,733 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large studies at a low risk of bias for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalization, total cardiovascular (CV) events (consisted of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalizations), and ESRF. Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90, ARR 1.2%), and moderate quality evidence that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, ARI 0.7%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence), total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence). The results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11; moderate quality evidence), and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). Results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, we found low quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and low quality evidence that they decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Our analyses do not exclude potentially important differences between first-line RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers on all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; low quality evidence), HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; low quality evidence), and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; low quality evidence).Blood pressure comparisons between RAS inhibitors and other classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.In the protocol, we identified non-fatal serious adverse events (SAE) as a primary outcome. However, when we extracted the data from included studies, none of them reported total SAE in a manner that could be used in the review. Therefore, there is no information about SAE in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found predominantly moderate quality evidence that all-cause mortality is similar when first-line RAS inhibitors are compared to other first-line antihypertensive agents. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. The quality of the evidence comparing first-line beta-blockers and first-line RAS inhibitors was low and the lower risk of total CV events and stroke seen with RAS inhibitors may change with the publication of additional trials. Compared with first-line CCBs, first-line RAS inhibitors reduced HF but increased stroke. The magnitude of the reduction in HF exceeded the increase in stroke. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the primary outcomes.

Study of the process of secondary failure of sulphonylurea by a Markov model.

PURPOSE: The study was to reflect and forecast the evolutive tendency and influence factors of secondary failure of sulphonylurea (SFS) changing with time by using a Markov (MKV) model in the elderly diabetic population in Shanghai. METHODS: A total of 549 patients with elderly diabetes mellitus (DM) were enrolled and grouped in the study. A door-to-door retrospective epidemiological survey was used to collect data. The MKV model was used to assess the process and influence factors of SFS and the MKV process decision support system was adopted to calculate state probability of the MKV process. RESULTS: The rate of SFS in the group of all cases, FPG < or = 10 mmol . L(-1) before treatment and FPG > 10 mmol . L(-1) before treatment, taking single type of sulphonylurea (SU) and taking two types of SU and over respectively was 9.11%, 3.55%, 11.03%, 8.54% and 11.21%. The years of changing into the state of secondary failure in half patients was 5 years, 11-12 years, 4 years, 5 years, 4 years, respectively in the following groups: all cases, FPG < or = 10 mmol . L(-1) before treatment and FPG > 10 mmol . L(-1) before treatment, taking single type of SU and taking two types of SU and over. CONCLUSIONS: A MKV model could predict the long-term evolutive process of SFS by a short-term observation; the speed of SFS was related to the degree of DM patients' condition, patients with higher glucose levels prior to treatment would develop SFS faster; but we cannot postpone the development of secondary failure by exchanging SU types.

Changes in brain interleukin-1beta following the coadministration of norfloxacin with biphenylacetic acid in rats.

We sought to determine the changes in brain interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta) following the coadministration of norfloxacin (25 mg/kg, i.p.) with biphenylacetic acid (100 mg/kg, p.o.) in rats. Norfloxacin provoked clonic convulsions in rats treated concomitantly with biphenylacetic acid, a major metabolite of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug fenbufen. Seizure activity was analyzed by EEG monitoring. Behavioral changes were also monitored. IL-1beta expressions in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus at different time intervals were studied by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The epileptiform discharges appeared in all the rats, accompanied with limb twitching and clonic-tonic seizures after administration of norfloxacin coadministered with biphenylacetic acid. Norfloxacin plus biphenylacetic acid-induced convulsions rapidly and transiently enhanced IL-1beta mRNA in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. IL-1beta mRNA expression in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus was detected as soon as 30 min after norfloxacin injection, and decayed to control levels by 6 h. ELISA analysis revealed significant increase of the IL-1beta protein in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus at 2 h and 6 h. Administration of either norfloxacin or biphenylacetic acid alone did not elicit convulsions and increase in IL-1beta mRNA and protein expressions. The results suggest that the increased IL-1beta expressions in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus induced by norfloxacin with biphenylacetic acid relate to seizure activities, and that these brain regions play pivotal roles in norfloxacin-induced convulsions.

Neuroprotective effects of stearic acid against toxicity of oxygen/glucose deprivation or glutamate on rat cortical or hippocampal slices.

AIM: To observe the effects of stearic acid, a long-chain saturated fatty acid consisting of 18 carbon atoms, on brain (cortical or hippocampal) slices insulted by oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD), glutamate or sodium azide (NaN3) in vitro. METHODS: The activities of hippocampal slices were monitored by population spikes recorded in the CA1 region. In vitro injury models of brain slice were induced by 10 min of OGD, 1 mmol/L glutamate or 10 mmol/L NaN3. After 30 min of pre-incubation with stearic acid (3-30 micromol/L), brain slices (cortical or hippocampal) were subjected to OGD, glutamate or NaN3, and the tissue activities were evaluated by using the 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride method. MK886 [5 mmol/L; a noncompetitive inhibitor of proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR-alpha)] or BADGE (bisphenol A diglycidyl ether; 100 micromol/L; an antagonist of PPAR-gamma) were tested for their effects on the neuroprotection afforded by stearic acid. RESULTS: Viability of brain slices was not changed significantly after direct incubation with stearic acid. OGD, glutamate and NaN3 injury significantly decreased the viability of brain slices. Stearic acid (3-30 micromol/L) dose-dependently protected brain slices from OGD and glutamate injury but not from NaN3 injury, and its neuroprotective effect was completely abolished by BADGE. CONCLUSION: Stearic acid can protect brain slices (cortical or hippocampal) against injury induced by OGD or glutamate. Its neuroprotective effect may be mainly mediated by the activation of PPAR-gamma.

Assessment of quality of life and relevant factors in elderly diabetic patients in the Shanghai community.

PURPOSE: The study was to assess the quality of life (QOL) of the elderly diabetes mellitus (DM) in Shanghai community and to screen the possible risk factors. METHODS: A total of 951 patients with elderly DM and 1007 elderly subjects with normal glucose tolerance from the same community as control group were enrolled in the study. A door-to-door retrospectively epidemiological survey was used to collect data of QOL, demographic, and diabetic information. The SF-36 instrument (Chinese edition) was used to assess QOL. Multiple stepwise linear regression analysis was also used to identify possible risk factors of QOL in elder DM. RESULTS: In subjects with elderly DM, the general assessment of perceived health was worse, compared with the normal elderly people; the mean score of multi-item dimensions assessment had been decreased, the lowest and highest scores of which on SF-36, respectively, were general health and body pain (ranged from 42.08 to 77.00). Based on the multiple stepwise regression analysis, 23 risk factors entered 9 multiple regressive models (9 dependent variables of which stand for the scores of 8 dimensions and the total score on SF-36) with different amount ultimately. Within the 13 risk factors that affect QOL of the elderly diabetic patients, the negative correlated factors were gender, age, payment ability of medical treatment, tumor, level of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), medicines purchasing channels, diabetic microvascular complications, diabetic macrovascular complications, acute complications, while the positive correlated factors were occupation, income, exercises, knowledge of DM. The multiple correlation coefficient square (R2) represented the above 13 risk factors had a totally 30.5% impact on the entire QOL. CONCLUSIONS: QOL of elderly DM population had significantly been decreased; QOL of the elderly patients in Shanghai community had many risk factors, which on one hand stated the complexity of elderly DM, and on the other hand gave us many useful and practical methods to improve QOL of elderly DM.