dual RAS blockade not beneficial but harmful

The question arises occasionally as to whether there is an advantage of dual blockade of the renin angiotensin system, especially in cases of patients with heart failure or severe proteinuria.  The rationale of dual blockade is that ACE inhibitors by themselves lead to incomplete and often transient RAS blockade in most patients because of a physiologic escape mechanism/alternative pathway, and the objectives of RAS blockade are to decrease cardiac remodeling, reduce endothelial dysfunction, and decrease renal dysfunction by decreasing the putative nephrotoxic effects of severe proteinuria.  Dual blockade has been mostly achieved through the combination of an ACE inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), or the combination of an ARB/ACE-I with the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren.  There was meta-analysis in the BMJ recently of 33 randomized controlled trials with 68K patients with a mean age of 61 and followed a mean of 52 weeks  (see chf dual RAS blockade bmj 2013 in dropbox or BMJ 2013;346:f360 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f360), with the major indications for the dual blockade being congestive heart failure and hypertension.  Results:
    --No overall benefit for all-cause mortality, although there was a trend to a decrease in the subgroup with heart failure but a significant 7% increase  in the subgroup without heart failure (i.e., mostly in those treated for hypertension)
    --No benefit in cardiovascular mortality
    --In the subgroup with heart failure, there was an 18% decrease in hospital admissions
    --However, dual therapy was associated with the 55% increase in the risk of hyperkalemia (defined as a potassium greater than 5.5), a 41% increase in the risk of renal failure (defined as a creatinine above 2 or a doubling of the creatinine), and a 66% increased risk of hypotension.
so, the bottom line is that dual RAS blockade seems only to help in decreasing hospitalizations in patients who have heart failure.  In terms of severe proteinuria, the COOPERATE trial did find that dual therapy led to a decrease in renal failure, spurring many of us on to advocate aggressive dual therapy in this circumstance.  However, this study was ultimately retracted and the ONTARGET study found that the combination of the ARB telmsartan and ACE-I ramipril decreased albuminuria, but led to more renal dysfunction.  So, yet again, what seemed mechanistically to be an attractive therapy (dual RAS blockade), ultimately proved not to be clinically beneficial, except perhaps in decreasing hospitalizations in patients with severe heart failure.  Although dual blockade does decreased blood pressure, I am unaware of any study showing positive clinical outcomes with this therapy and the increase in all-cause mortality in patients in this meta-analysis with dual therapy not for a heart failure indication (which is mostly in patients with hypertension) was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more