Efficacy of zofenopril in combination with amlodipine in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual patient data analysis of four randomized, double-blind, controlled, prospective studies.

OBJECTIVE: In the four SMILE (Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation) studies, early administration of zofenopril in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) showed beneficial effects as compared to placebo and other angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). This study investigated whether the concomitant administration of the dihydropyridine calcium channel-blocker amlodipine may improve zofenopril efficacy to prevent cardiovascular events in post-AMI patients. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data from the four large randomized SMILE studies. The primary endpoint was the 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: In total, 3488 patients were considered, 303 (8.7%) treated with concomitant amlodipine. Baseline systolic blood pressure and prevalence of metabolic syndrome were higher in amlodipine treated patients. The 1-year occurrence of major cardiovascular outcomes was significantly reduced in patients receiving concomitant treatment with amlodipine (hazard ratio, HR = 0.66; and 95% confidence interval, CI = 0.44-0.98; p = .039). After accounting for treatment with amlodipine, the risk of cardiovascular events was significantly reduced with zofenopril compared to placebo (HR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.63-0.97; p = .026]. Among ACEI-treated patients, the zofenopril plus amlodipine combination reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 38%, compared to the combination of other ACEIs plus amlodipine [HR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.61-0.94); p = .013). The prognostic benefit of concomitant treatment with zofenopril plus amlodipine was independent from blood pressure lowering. CONCLUSIONS: Zofenopril had a positive impact on prognosis in post-AMI patients, compared to other ACEIs. Concomitant administration of amlodipine may help to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events at 1 year.

Efficacy of zofenopril in combination with thiazide diuretics in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of four randomized, double-blind, controlled, prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: In the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation (SMILE) studies, early administration of zofenopril after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was prognostically beneficial as compared to placebo and other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), such as lisinopril and ramipril. Here, we investigated whether zofenopril efficacy could be affected by a concomitant use of thiazide diuretics (TDs). METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data from the SMILE studies. Patients treated with other diuretics than TDs were excluded. The primary study endpoint was the 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for CV causes, with or without TD. RESULTS: Among 2,995 patients, 263 (8.8%) were treated with a combination including a TD (TD+), whereas 2,732 (91.2%) were not treated with any diuretic (TD-). Proportions of subjects who were treated with TD were equally distributed (p=0.774) within the placebo, zofenopril, and other ACEIs groups. The 1-year risk of major cardiovascular events was similar in TD+ (18.3%) and TD- (16.8%) patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.74-1.45; p=0.838). After stratifying per concomitant treatment and TD, the 1-year risk of CV events was significantly lower with zofenopril than with placebo (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.88; p=0.002) and other ACEIs (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.46-0.74; p=0.0001). Treatment with ACEIs and TD as concomitant therapy was associated with a larger blood pressure (BP) reduction (p=0.0001 for systolic BP and p=0.045 for diastolic BP). CONCLUSION: In post AMI patients, zofenopril maintained its positive impact on prognosis compared to placebo or other ACEIs, regardless concomitant TD administration. In this setting, TD shows advantages in managing the most difficult hypertensive patients.

Effects of the concomitant administration of xanthine oxidase inhibitors with zofenopril or other ACE-inhibitors in post-myocardial infarction patients: a meta-analysis of individual data of four randomized, double-blind, prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: Oxidative stress is increased in hyperuricemic patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Use of sulfhydryl ACE-inhibitors (ACEIs), such as zofenopril or captopril, plus xanthine oxidase inhibitors (XOIs), may potentially result in enhanced antioxidant effects and improved survival. OBJECTIVE: We verified the benefit of such combination in a randomly stratified sample of 525 of the 3630 post-AMI patients of the four randomized prospective SMILE (Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation) studies. METHODS: One hundred sixty-five (31.4%) patients were treated with XOIs (79 under zofenopril, 86 placebo, lisinopril or ramipril), whereas 360 were not (192 zofenopril, 168 placebo or other ACEIs). In these four groups, we separately estimated the 1-year combined risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE, death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes). RESULTS: MACE occurred in 10.1% of patients receiving zofenopril + XOIs, in 18.6% receiving placebo or other ACEIs + XOIs, in 13.5% receiving zofenopril without XOIs and in 22.0% receiving placebo or other ACEIs, but no XOIs (p = 0.034 across groups). Rate of survival free from MACE was significantly larger under treatment with zofenopril + XOIs than with other ACEIs with no XOIs [hazard ratio: 2.29 (1.06-4.91), p = 0.034]. A non-significant trend for superiority of zofenopril + XOIs combination was observed vs. zofenopril alone [1.19 (0.54-2.64), p = 0.669] or vs. placebo or other ACEIs + XOIs [1.82 (0.78-4.26), p = 0.169]. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective analysis suggests an improved survival free from MACE in post-AMI patients treated with a combination of an urate lowering drug with antioxidant activity and an ACEI, with best effects observed with zofenopril.

Efficacy and Safety of Zofenopril Versus Ramipril in the Treatment of Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure: A Review of the Published and Unpublished Data of the Randomized Double-Blind SMILE-4 Study.

Zofenopril is a lipophilic, sulfhydryl group-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor, characterized by wide tissue distribution, long duration of action, and pleiotropic effects on endothelial dysfunction. Its clinical efficacy and safety have been described in the four randomized controlled trials of the SMILE program, which globally enrolled more than 3600 patients in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) setting. The SMILE-4 study specifically selected patients with left ventricular dysfunction at admission, and compared the effects of zofenopril or ramipril in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Zofenopril demonstrated its superiority over ramipril in reducing the combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes both in the overall population included in the original study and in subgroups of patients at highest risk, namely hypertensive and diabetic subjects. The effects of the early treatment with zofenopril were sustained over time, and, after 5 years of follow-up, zofenopril increased the survival likelihood and reduced the hospitalization rate. Compared to ramipril, zofenopril was cost-effective with a number to treat of 13 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 2125.45 euros for any additional event prevented. Furthermore, in real-world settings, zofenopril decreased the risk of death in patients with heart failure, particularly in men, and in subjects older than 76 years or with ejection fraction lower than 54%. These results support the early use of zofenopril immediately after AMI, even in the presence of comorbidities, and its maintenance over time to reduce the risk of heart failure. FUNDING: Menarini International Operations Luxembourg S.A.

Early Treatment With Zofenopril and Ramipril in Combination With Acetyl Salicylic Acid in Patients With Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results of a 5-Year Follow-up of Patients of the SMILE-4 Study.

The SMILE-4 study showed that in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) after acute myocardial infarction, early treatment with zofenopril plus acetyl salicylic acid is associated with an improved 1-year survival, free from death or hospitalization for cardiovascular (CV) causes, as compared to ramipril plus acetyl salicylic acid. We now report CV outcomes during a 5-year follow-up of the patients of the SMILE-4 study. Three hundred eighty-six of the 518 patients completing the study (51.2%) could be tracked after the study end and 265 could be included in the analysis. During the 5.5 (±2.1) years of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 27.8% of patients originally randomized and treated with zofenopril and in 43.8% of patients treated with ramipril [odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval, 0.65 (0.43-0.98), P = 0.041]. Such a result was achieved through a significantly larger reduction in CV hospitalization under zofenopril [OR: 0.61 (0.37-0.99), P = 0.047], whereas reduction in mortality rate with zofenopril did not achieve statistical significance versus ramipril [OR: 0.75 (0.36-1.59), P = 0.459]. These results were in line with those achieved during the initial 1-year follow-up. Benefits of early treatment of patients with LVD after acute myocardial infarction with zofenopril are sustained over many years as compared to ramipril.

Cardioprotective role of zofenopril in hypertensive patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of the SMILE studies.

PURPOSE: The four SMILE studies demonstrated that early administration of zofenopril following acute myocardial infarction is prognostically beneficial compared to placebo or other angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. In the present retrospective pooled analysis of individual SMILE studies, we evaluated the efficacy of zofenopril on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in 1880 hypertensive and 1662 normotensive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred and forty-nine hypertensives and 486 normotensives were treated with placebo, 980 and 786 with zofenopril 30-60 mg daily, 252 and 259 with lisinopril 5-10 mg daily, 199 and 131 with ramipril 10 mg daily, for 6 to 48 weeks. RESULTS: The 1-year risk of death or hospitalization for CV causes was significantly reduced with zofenopril and lisinopril vs. placebo in both hypertensive (HR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.48-0.86; p = .003 and .60, .36-.99; p = .049, respectively) and normotensive patients (0.56, 0.42-0.75; p = .0001 and .51, .28-.90; p = .020), whereas this was not the case for ramipril (hypertensives: 1.02, 0.69-1.52; p = .918; normotensives: 0.91, 0.59-1.41; p = .670). Zofenopril significantly reduced the risk of CV outcomes vs. the other two ACE-inhibitors pooled together in hypertensive (0.76; 0.58-0.99; p = .045), but not in normotensive patients (0.77; 0.55-1.10; p = .150). CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac patients of the SMILE studies with arterial hypertension treatment with the ACE-inhibitor zofenopril was beneficial in reducing the 1-year risk of CV events as compared to placebo and ramipril. An efficacy similar to that of zofenopril was observed with lisinopril.

Efficacy of Zofenopril Compared With Placebo and Other Angiotensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Previous Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Pooled Individual Data Analysis of 4 Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled, Prospective Studies.

In the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (SMILE) 1, 3, and 4 studies, early administration of zofenopril in acute myocardial infarction showed to be prognostically beneficial versus placebo or ramipril. The SMILE-2 showed that both zofenopril and lisinopril are safe and showed no significant differences in the incidence of major cardiovascular (CV) complications. In this pooled analysis of individual data of the SMILE studies, we evaluated whether the superior efficacy of zofenopril is maintained also in patients with ≥1 CV risk factor (CV+, n = 2962) as compared to CV- (n = 668). The primary study end point was set to 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for CV causes. The risk of CV events was significantly reduced with zofenopril versus placebo either in the CV+ (-37%; hazard ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.78; P = 0.0001) or in the CV- group (-55%; hazard ratio: 0.45; 0.26-0.78; P = 0.004). Also, the other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduced the risk of major CV outcomes, though the reduction was not statistically significant versus placebo (CV+: 0.78; 0.58-1.05; P = 0.107; CV-: 0.71; 0.36-1.41; P = 0.334). The benefit was larger in patients treated with zofenopril than other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, with a statistically significant difference for CV+ (0.79; 0.63-0.99; P = 0.039) versus CV- (0.62; 0.37-1.06; P = 0.081). In conclusion, zofenopril administered to patients after acute myocardial infarction has a positive impact on prognosis, regardless of the patient's CV risk profile.

Zofenopril and ramipril in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: A propensity analysis of the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (SMILE) 4 study.

INTRODUCTION: This was a propensity score analysis of the prospective, randomized, double-blind Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (SMILE) 4 study in which one-year treatment with zofenopril 60 mg plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg gave superior results compared to ramipril 10 mg plus ASA in terms of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 716 patients of the intention-to-treat population were divided into homogeneous propensity quintiles (Q) using a logistic regression model (QI: best risk profile; QV: worst risk profile). RESULTS: Treatment was associated with a similar low rate of major cardiovascular events in any Q. However, the efficacy of zofenopril was better than that of ramipril in QII, QV, and particularly QIII (odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval: 0.43 (0.21-0.87), p<0.05]. This result was primarily attributed to a decrease in the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization, particularly striking in the QIII (OR: 0.40, 0.19-0.85; p<0.05). Mortality rate did not significantly differ between the two treatments in any Q. CONCLUSIONS: In the SMILE-4 study the propensity analysis confirmed the efficacy of zofenopril in the prevention of long-term cardiovascular outcomes irrespective of the cardiovascular risk profile of post-AMI patients.

Zofenopril and Ramipril in Combination with Acetyl Salicylic Acid in Postmyocardial Infarction Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: A Retrospective Analysis of the SMILE-4 Randomized, Double-Blind Study in Diabetic Patients.

OBJECTIVE: In the SMILE-4 study, zofenopril + acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) was more effective than ramipril + ASA on 1-year prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated drug efficacy in subgroups of patients, according to a history of diabetes mellitus. METHODS: The primary study endpoint was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Diabetes was defined according to medical history (previous known diagnosis). RESULTS: A total of 562 of 693 (81.0%) patients were classified as nondiabetics and 131 (18.9%) as diabetics. The adjusted rate of MACE was lower under zofenopril than under ramipril in both nondiabetics [27.9% vs. 34.9% ramipril; odds ratio, OR and 95% confidence interval: 0.55 (0.35, 0.86)] and diabetics [30.9% vs. 41.3%; 0.56 (0.18, 1.73)], although the difference was statistically significant only for the nondiabetic group (P = 0.013). Zofenopril was superior to ramipril as regards to the primary study endpoint in the subgroup of 157 patients with uncontrolled blood glucose (≥ 126 mg/dL), regardless of a previous diagnosis of diabetes [0.31 (0.10, 0.90), P = 0.030]. Zofenopril significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in both nondiabetics [0.64 (0.43, 0.96), P = 0.030] and diabetics [0.38 (0.15, 0.95), P = 0.038], whereas it was not better than ramipril in terms of prevention of cardiovascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril plus ASA in the prevention of long-term MACE also in the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus.

Cardioprotective role of zofenopril in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of four randomised, double-blind, controlled, prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: Early administration of zofenopril following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) proved to be prognostically beneficial in the four individual randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, prospective SMILE (Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation) studies. In the present analysis, we evaluated the cumulative efficacy of zofenopril by pooling individual data from the four SMILE studies. METHODS: 3630 patients with AMI were enrolled and treated for 6-48 weeks with zofenopril 30-60 mg/day (n=1808), placebo (n=951), lisinopril 5-10 mg/day (n=520) or ramipril 10 mg/day (n=351). The primary study end point of this pooled analysis was set to 1 year combined occurrence of death or hospitalisation for cardiovascular (CV) causes. RESULTS: Occurrence of major CV outcomes was significantly reduced with zofenopril versus placebo (-40%; HR=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; p=0.0001) and versus the other ACE inhibitors (-23%; HR=0.77, 0.63 to 0.95; p=0.015). The risk reduction observed under treatment with the other ACE inhibitors was nearly statistically significant (-22%; HR=0.78, 0.60 to 1.02; p=0.072). The benefit of zofenopril versus placebo was already evident after the first 6 weeks of treatment (-28%; HR=0.72, 0.54 to 0.97; p=0.029), while this was not the case for the other ACE inhibitors (-19%; HR=0.81, 0.57 to 1.17; p=0.262). In this early phase of treatment, zofenopril showed a non-significant trend towards a larger reduction in CV events versus the other ACE inhibitors (-11%; HR=0.89, 0.69 to 1.15; p=0.372). CONCLUSIONS: The pooled data analysis from the SMILE Programme confirms the favourable effects of zofenopril treatment in patients with post-AMI and its long-term benefit in terms of prevention of CV morbidity and mortality.

Randomised comparison of zofenopril and ramipril plus acetylsalicylic acid in postmyocardial infarction patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a post hoc analysis of the SMILE-4 Study in patients according to levels of left ventricular ejection fraction at entry.

OBJECTIVE: Conflicting evidence exists on the benefits of treating patients with coronary artery disease and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with an ACE inhibitor. This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 Study sought to compare the efficacy of zofenopril 60 mg plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus ramipril 10 mg plus ASA 100 mg in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure, according to an impaired or preserved LVEF. METHODS: The primary study end point was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalisation for cardiovascular causes. A preserved LVEF was defined by a baseline LVEF >40% and an impaired one by an LVEF ≤40%. RESULTS: 448 patients (63%) had preserved and 262 (37%) had impaired LVEF. The primary end point occurred in 125 patients with preserved (28%) and 106 patients with impaired LVEF (41%, p=0.001). In the first group, the rate of major cardiovascular events was significantly lower under zofenopril than under ramipril (23% vs 33%; OR and 95% CI 0.60, 0.39 to 0.91; p=0.016). This was also the case for patients with impaired LVEF, though between-group difference was not statistically significant (38% zofenopril vs 44% ramipril; OR 0.77, 0.47 to 1.26; p=0.297). LVEF values significantly (p<0.0001) increased during the follow-up in both subsets with no between-treatment differences. However, improvement rates in LVEF (increase ≥5%) were higher in patients with impaired LVEF (72% vs 61%, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In the SMILE-4 Study, the cardiovascular outcome of patients with post-AMI with preserved LVEF was more favourable in the zofenopril than in the ramipril treatment group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT Number: 2004-001150-88 (http://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu); Italian Ministry of Health Code: GUIDOTT_III_2004_001 (https://oss-sper-clin.agenziafarmaco.it).

Effects of treatment with zofenopril in men and women with acute myocardial infarction: gender analysis of the SMILE Program.

BACKGROUND: The SMILE studies proved the prognostic benefit of zofenopril vs. placebo or other ACE-inhibitors (ACEIs) in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In this retrospective pooled analysis of these studies we assessed whether the zofenopril effect is influenced by gender. METHODS: The four double-blind, randomized, parallel-group SMILE studies, compared the efficacy and safety of 6-48 week treatment with zofenopril 60 mg/day with that of placebo, lisinopril 10 mg/day or ramipril 10 mg/day in 3630 AMI patients. This pooled analysis compared treatment efficacy (1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for CV causes) in 2733 men and 897 women. RESULTS: Women were older than men, had a higher prevalence of diabetes and of other major CV risk factors. The risk of a major CV event was significantly larger for women (23% vs. 17% men, p<0.001). Between-gender risk difference was more marked for people living in Southern (+54%) than in Northern Europe (+12%). In both genders zofenopril similarly reduced the 1-year risk of CV morbidity and mortality vs. placebo (-39% men, p = 0.0001; -40% women, p = 0.005). The risk reduction was more marked with zofenopril than with the other ACEIs, particularly in men (-27%, p = 0.012; women: -14%, p = 0.479). The drug safety profile was similar between genders in zofenopril-treated patients, while it was worse in women treated with other ACEIs. CONCLUSIONS: Post-AMI women are at higher risk of CV complications than men, particularly when living in Mediterranean countries. Their response to ACE-inhibition varies according to the type of drug and is usually better in men.

National survey on excellence centers and reference centers for hypertension diagnosis and treatment: geographical distribution, medical facilities and diagnostic opportunities.

INTRODUCTION: Blood pressure (BP) control is poorly achieved in Western Countries, including Italy. Several interventions have been proposed at national and local level to improve BP control rate. AIM: This survey of the Italian Society of Hypertension (SIIA) is aimed at analysing the number and the distribution of reference centers and excellence centers for the diagnosis and treatment of arterial hypertension (hypertension centers) in Italy. METHODS: In October 2011, a specifically designed survey questionnaire was developed by SIIA National Committee, both to evaluate geographical distribution of the reference hypertensive population and to assess general requirements (days of activity, number of active physicians, medical facilities, diagnostic opportunities, use of electronic support), deemed necessary to identify an outpatient clinic as hypertension center in Italy. This questionnaire was locally distributed by regional coordinators of the Society and all collected data were centrally analysed by two independent study coordinators. RESULTS: From October 2011 to September 2012, 89 centers with clinical expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension provided data on their own activity. Among these, 45 (50.5 %) centers are located in the North, 20 (22.5 %) in the Center and 24 (27.0 %) in the South of Italy. Approximately 50 % of the hypertensive outpatients who are referred from general practitioners to hypertension centers are living in the province and about one third in the region. More than half of the centers is active for 3-5 days per week, and approximately 40 % of the centers have 3-5 active physicians. Beyond outpatient visits for hypertension, these centers are able to organize day hospital (25 %), day service (29 %), or hospital admission (29 %) for advanced diagnostic evaluation or therapeutic interventions. All centers collect data from clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements, and almost all (95 %) centers are able to perform a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram. In addition, the majority of the centers are able to perform advanced diagnostic examinations, including echocardiography (74 %) or carotid Doppler ultrasound (71 %) analysis. Finally, 78 % of the centers use an electronic case report form, specifically designed for the clinical management of hypertensive patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although with some limitations related to the study methodology applied for data collection, the survey illustrates a quite unbalanced distribution of the hypertension centers, the majority of which are located in the North of Italy, with a medium-high standard of quality of care. This analysis may provide useful elements for a rational and effective use of existing resources, in order to improve BP control in our Country.

Cost-effectiveness of zofenopril in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: a post hoc analysis of SMILE-4.

BACKGROUND: In SMILE-4 (the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation 4 study), zofenopril + acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was superior to ramipril + ASA in reducing the occurrence of major cardiovascular events in patients with left ventricular dysfunction following acute myocardial infarction. The present post hoc analysis was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of zofenopril and ramipril. METHODS: In total, 771 patients with left ventricular dysfunction and acute myocardial infarction were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive zofenopril 60 mg/day (n = 389) or ramipril 10 mg/day (n = 382) + ASA 100 mg/day and were followed up for one year. The primary study endpoint was the one-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. The economic analysis was based on evaluation of cost of medications and hospitalizations and was applied to the intention-to-treat population (n = 716). Cost data were drawn from the National Health Service databases of the European countries participating in the study. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to quantify the cost per event prevented with zofenopril versus ramipril. RESULTS: Zofenopril significantly (P = 0.028) reduced the risk of the primary study endpoint by 30% as compared with ramipril (95% confidence interval, 4%-49%). The number needed to treat to prevent a major cardiovascular event with zofenopril was 13 less than with ramipril. The cost of drug therapies was higher with zofenopril (328.78 Euros per patient per year, n = 365) than with ramipril (165.12 Euros per patient per year, n = 351). The cost related to the occurrence of major cardiovascular events requiring hospitalization averaged 4983.64 Euros for zofenopril and 4850.01 Euros for ramipril. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for zofenopril versus ramipril was 2125.45 Euros per event prevented (worst and best case scenario in the sensitivity analysis was 3590.09 and 3243.96 Euros, respectively). CONCLUSION: Zofenopril is a viable and cost-effective treatment for managing patients with left ventricular dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction.

Zofenopril and ramipril and acetylsalicylic acid in postmyocardial infarction patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis in hypertensive patients of the SMILE-4 study.

BACKGROUND: Antecedent hypertension represents a risk factor for adverse outcomes in survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prognosis of such patients might be greatly improved by drugs enhancing blood pressure control. In the present retrospective analysis of the randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, SMILE-4 study we compared the efficacy of zofenopril 60 mg and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg versus ramipril 10 mg and ASA in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, classified according to a history of hypertension. METHODS: The primary study end-point was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Hypertension was defined according to medical history and current blood pressure values at entry and could be determined in 682 of 716 patients of the intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients (23%) were normotensives and 525 (77%) hypertensives. In the normotensive population the primary end-point occurred in 19 of 76 zofenopril-treated patients (25%) and in 23 of 81 ramipril-treated patients (28%) [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.84 (0.41-1.71), P = 0.631]. In the hypertensive population, major cardiovascular outcomes were reported in 84 of 273 zofenopril-treated patients (31%) and in 99 of 252 ramipril-treated patients (39%), with a 31% significantly (P = 0.041) lower risk with zofenopril [0.69 (0.48-0.99)]. The superiority of zofenopril versus ramipril was particularly evident in patients with isolated systolic hypertension [n = 131, 0.48 (0.23-0.99), P = 0.045]. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril and ASA in the prevention of long-term cardiovascular outcomes also in the subgroup of patients with hypertension.

2012 consensus document of the Italian Society of Hypertension (SIIA): strategies to improve blood pressure control in Italy: from global cardiovascular risk stratification to combination therapy.

Observational clinical studies have demonstrated that only 30-40% of patients with arterial hypertension achieve the recommended blood pressure goals (below 140/90 mmHg). In contrast, interventional trials consistently showed that it is possible to achieve effective blood pressure targets in about 70% of treated hypertensive patients with different cardiovascular risk profiles, especially through the use of rational, effective and well tolerated combination therapies. In order to bridge the gap between current and desired blood pressure control and to achieve more effective prevention of cardiovascular diseases, the Italian Society of Hypertension (SIIA) has developed an interventional strategy aimed at reaching nearly 70% of treated controlled hypertensive patients by 2015. This ambitious goal can be realistically achieved by a more rational use of modern tools and supports, and also through the use of combination therapy in hypertension in daily clinical practice, especially if this approach can be simplified into a single pill (fixed combination therapy), which is a therapeutic option now also available in Italy. Since about 70-80% of treated hypertensive patients require a combination therapy based on at least two classes of drugs in order to achieve the recommended blood pressure goals, it is of key importance to implement this strategy in routine clinical practice. Amongst the various combination therapies currently available for hypertension treatment and control, the use of those strategies based on drugs that antagonize the renin-angiotensin system, such as angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers) and ACE inhibitors, in combination with diuretics and/or calcium channel blockers, has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events and to improve patient compliance to treatment, resulting in a greater antihypertensive efficacy and better tolerability compared with monotherapy. The present document of the Italian Society of Arterial Hypertension (SIIA) aims to gather the main indications for the implementation of combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension, in order to improve blood pressure control in Italy.

[Renal denervation for the treatment of resistant hypertension: definition, patient selection and description of the procedure. 2012 Position paper of the Italian Society of Hypertension]. / Denervazione delle arterie renali nel trattamento dell'ipertensione arteriosa resistente: definizione della patologia, selezione dei pazienti e descrizione della procedura. Documento di Indirizzo 2012 della Società Italiana dell'Ipertensione Arteriosa (SIIA).

Hypertension is responsible for a relevant burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although several appropriate and integrated pharmacological strategies are available, blood pressure control still remains largely unsatisfactory. Failure to achieve effective blood pressure control in treated hypertensive patients may have a substantial impact on overall cardiovascular risk, since it significantly increases the risk of both macrovascular and microvascular complications. Hypertension is arbitrarily defined as "resistant" or "refractory" when recommended blood pressure goals (clinic blood pressure <140/90 mmHg, or <130/80 mmHg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus) are not achieved, despite changes in lifestyle and treatment with adequate doses of at least three antihypertensive drugs from different classes, including a diuretic. A new non-pharmacological option for the treatment of patients with resistant hypertension has recently become available. Renal sympathetic denervation is a minimally invasive procedure performed via femoral access that uses radiofrequency catheter ablation to disable renal sympathetic afferent and efferent nerves. It results in isolation of renal parenchymal and juxtaglomerular cells from the abnormal enhancement of renal adrenergic nerve activity. The present position paper of the Italian Society of Hypertension provides a diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the early identification and effective clinical management of patients with resistant hypertension, who may be candidates for renal denervation. These indications may have important implications not only from a clinical viewpoint but also from an economic perspective. The accurate identification of patients with resistant hypertension and the appropriate selection of patients eligible for this procedure may help improve blood pressure control and reduce the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications in these patients.

[Strategies for improving blood pressure control in Italy: from global cardiovascular risk stratification to combination therapy. 2012 Position paper of the Italian Society of Hypertension]. / Strategie per migliorare il controllo della pressione arteriosa in Italia: dalla stratificazione del rischio cardiovascolare globale alla terapia di combinazione. Documento di Indirizzo 2012 della Società Italiana dell'Ipertensione Arteriosa (SIIA).

Observational studies demonstrate that the proportion of treated hypertensive patients who attain the recommended blood pressure goals (140/90 mmHg) does not exceed 30-40%. Conversely, clinical trials have consistently shown that effective blood pressure control within the recommended targets can be achieved in 70-80% of treated hypertensive patients with different cardiovascular risk profile, especially when appropriate, effective and well tolerated combination therapies are used. In order to bridge the gap between current and optimal blood pressure control rates and to achieve a more effective cardiovascular prevention, the Italian Society of Hypertension has recently developed an interventional strategy that aims to approximate 70% of treated controlled patients by 2015. This ambitious goal can be realistically achieved by the appropriate use of modern aids and tools, also including the implementation of combination therapy, especially if this approach can be simplified into a single pill, now available in Italy. At present, 70-80% of hypertensive patients require combination therapies based on at least two classes of antihypertensive drugs to achieve the recommended blood pressure goals. It is therefore of paramount importance to implement this strategy in routine clinical practice. Among the different combination therapies, the use of combination strategies based on drugs inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system, such as angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, combined with diuretics and/or calcium-channel blockers, have demonstrated to significantly reduce the rates of major cardiovascular events and discontinuations from prescribed therapies, resulting in higher antihypertensive efficacy and better tolerability than monotherapy. The present document of the Italian Society of Hypertension aims to provide main indications for implementing combination therapy in the clinical management of hypertension in order to improve blood pressure control in Italy.