Cardiac Protection across the cardiac continuum Dong-Ju Choi, MD, PhD College of Medicine Seoul National University
Renin Angiotensin Cascade Nitric oxide (NO) Bradykinin Degradation products ACE ACEI site of action Angiotensinogen Renin A I A II CAGE Cathepsin G Chymase t-pa Cathepsin G Tonin AT 1 receptor AT 2 receptor Hypertrophy/proliferation Vasoconstriction Aldosterone release Antidiuretic hormone release Antiproliferation NO Release Differentiation Vasodilation de Gasparo M, et al. Hypertension. Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1995:1695 1720. Dzau VJ. J Hypertens. 1989;7:933-936.
Pathophysiologic Effects of Angiotensin II Contractility Abnormal vasoconstriction PAI-1/ thrombosis Platelet aggregation Activate SNS Aldosterone Vasopressin Angiotensin II Superoxide production Vascular smooth muscle growth Endothelin Collagen Myocyte growth Burnier M, Brunner HR. Lancet. 2000;355:637 645.
Adverse Effects of RAS on CV System Vascular change 1. Vascular remodeling 2. Endothelial dysfunction 3. Inflammation Myocardial damage 1. Myocyte sequestration 2. Myocyte isolation
Increase BP Ang II
Vascular Remodeling
AngII-induced Inflammation The inflammatory response by AngII: 1) Increase in vascular permeability, 2) Infiltration of leukocytes, and 3) Tissue remodeling.
Myocardial Damage by RAS 1. Myocyte sequestration Hypertrophy Apoptosis Necrosis 2. Myocyte isolation Interstitial fibrosis Conduction disturbance
Blocking RAS is critical to prevent 1. Vascular change (Vascular remodeling, endothelial dysfunction and inflammation) and 2. Myocardial damage (Myocyte sequestration and myocyte isolation)
The Cardiovascular Continuum: Mechanisms and Mediators Oxidative Stress/Endothelial Dysfunction Vascular CAD Disease Myocardial Tissue Injury Infarction Pathological Tissue Loss Remodeling Target Ventricular Organ Dysfunction Enlargement Target Organ Damage Atherosclerosis Vascular Dysfunction Hypertrophy Risk Factors: ANGIOTENSIN II Heart End-stage Failure Organ Failure Death
Clinical Trials with ACE inhibitors MI Vascular and CAD HOPE, QUIET, EUROPA, PEACE CONSENSUS, ISIS-4, GISSI-3 SMILE, SAVE AIRE, TRACE Myocardial Infarction Pathological Remodeling CAD Atherosclerosis Hypertrophy Hypertension HF Ventricular Enlargement Heart Failure Risk Factors: Diabetes Hypertension Hyperlipdemia CAPPP, ALLHAT DM ABCD, REIN, AASK SOLVD V-HeFT II SAVE, Death ATLAS
Clinical Trials with ARB DM/Renal RENAAL, IDNT IRMAII, ARVAL ABCD-2V, NAVIGATOR Post-MI VALIANT, OPTIMAL VAL-PREST CAD, Nephropathy Atherosclerosis Hypertrophy Myocardial Infarction Pathological Remodeling Ventricular Enlargement Heart Failure Risk Factors: Diabetes Hypertension Hyperlipdemia Hypertension SCOPE, VALUE, TROPHY, LIFE HF ELITE I&II Val-HeFT CHARM Death
Val-Syst Trial: Powerful Double-digit BP Reductions with Valsartan-based Therapy in Patients with ISH Aged 60 80 Randomised, double-blind, titration to effect study of patients (aged 60 80 years) with ISH: 24 weeks treatment SBP Mean change in BP (mmhg) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 DIOVANbased (n=166) Amlodipinebased (n=163) 33.4 33.5 NS Val-Syst: Valsartan in Isolated Systolic Hypertension (ISH); Per protocol population data shown; NS = not significant DIOVANbased (n=166) 6.0 DBP NS Amlodipinebased (n=163) 6.5 Patients were randomised to DIOVAN 80 mg or amlodipine 5 mg After 8 weeks, patients with SBP 140 mmhg were titrated to DIOVAN 160 mg/d or amlodipine 10 mg After an additional 8 weeks, HCTZ 12.5 mg was added to treatment in patients with SBP 140 mmhg Clin Ther 2003;25:2765 80
Time Course of Morning BP Changes Mediated by ARBs Morning home BP 165 Patients with essential hypertension: 4 weeks treatment SBP (mmhg) 155 145 135 7 0 7 14 21 28 Start of treatment Day Valsartan 40 80 mg (n=18) Telmisartan 10 40 mg (n=18) Losartan 25 100 mg (n=18) Candesartan 2 12 mg (n=18) Clin Exp Hypertens 2005;27:477 89
The role of arterial stiffness The role of arterial stiffness as the major cause of cardiovascular risk can be seen in recent outcome data. Pulse Wave Velocity aortic pulse wave velocity on entry was used to stratify arterial stiffness in a cohort of ESRD patients into tertiles 1st tertile has almost normal results; 3rd tertile has 6x risk of all cause mortality Clin Exp Hypertens. 2004 Oct-Nov;26(7-8):689-99
Reduces Arterial Stiffness Randomised study of patients with hypertension: 3 months treatment Brachial ankle PWV* (cm/sec) 0 50 100 150 200 250 Nifedipine 20 mg (n=20) 69 p=0.02 Diovan 80 mg (n=21) 195 *Brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (PWV), a measure for systemic arterial stiffness Am J Hypertens 2004;17:1050 5
Reduces Arterial Stiffness Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group design study of patients with essential hypertension: 6 weeks treatment Change in AIx from baseline 0 10 20 30 40 Diovan 80 mg HCTZ 25 mg Placebo 21.7* (n=20) 3.2 (n=20) 0.3 (n=20) Diovan improves arterial compliance in patients with hypertension Effects are independent of BP reduction (BP reductions similar for Diovan and HCTZ) Augmentation index (AIx), a measure of arterial function * p<0.01 vs HCTZ and vs placebo J Hypertens 2002;20:2423 8
DETECTIV : Valsartan Increases Small Artery Elasticity in Asymptomatic Risk Patients with High CV Risk Results from a 12-month study in 76 asymptomatic patients # with RDS 6 and controlled BP and cholesterol levels (DETECTIV study) Change in small artery elasticity from baseline (ml/mmhg x100) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.55 1.51 77% increase* 2.39 3.24 6 months 12 months Change in RDS from baseline 0-0.5-1 -1.5-2 -2.5-3 -3.5-4 6 months 12 months -2.2-3.1 44% reduction* -3.9-3.6 Placebo DIOVAN 160 mg od for 6 months DIOVAN 160 mg od for 12 months # Individuals completing the study with or without antihypertensive or lipid lowering medications, BP <140/90 mmhg; *p<0.000; RDS=Rasmussen Disease Score Duprez et al. JACC 2007;50:published online
Val-MARC: Managing BP Aggressively and Evaluating Reductions in hscrp Multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel-group study of patients with Stage II hypertension Objectives, to determine: If BP reduction with DIOVAN/Co-DIOVAN is effective at reducing hscrp levels If there is a difference between moderate and aggressive BP reduction in terms of hscrp change Primary endpoints: Change in SBP from baseline to Week 6 with DIOVAN vs Co-DIOVAN Change in hscrp from baseline to Week 6 with DIOVAN vs Co-DIOVAN Change in hscrp from baseline to Week 12 in the overall group Screening 0 7 days DIOVAN 160 mg (n=836) Co-DIOVAN 160/12.5 mg (n=832) DIOVAN 320 mg (n=807) Co-DIOVAN 320/12.5 mg (n=808) DIOVAN 320 mg (plus optional HCTZ 12.5 mg) Co-DIOVAN 320/12.5mg (or optional Co-DIOVAN 320/25mg) Week 0 Visit 1 (randomisation) Week 2 Visit 2 Week 6 Visit 3 Week 12 Visit 4 (End of study) Hypertension 2006;48:73-79
Val-MARC : DIOVAN Reduces hscrp Levels Independent of Blood Pressure Reduction Results from a 6-week study* in 1,615 patients with stage II HTN # (Val-MARC study) Change in hscrp plasma level (%) from baseline to 6 weeks* 6 4 2 0-2 -4-6 -8-10 -8.9% DIOVAN 160-320 mg od (n=807, median change -0.12) 4.4% Co-DIOVAN 160/12.5-320/12.5 mg od (n=808, median change +0.05) # SBP 160 mmhg or DBP 100 mmhg, patients completing the study; *Study duration 12 weeks, after 6 weeks of treatment, HCTZ 12.5 mg/day allowed at discretion in both groups to reach BP <140/90 mmhg); p<0.001 for DIOVAN vs. Co-DIOVAN Ridker et al. Hypertension 2006;48:73-79
VALUE: Elective Titration to Target BP(<140/90 mmhg) Patients aged 50 years, with treated or untreated hypertension and at high risk of CV events DIOVAN-based regimen DIOVAN 80 mg Rollover from previous therapy (92%) Amlodipinebased regimen Amlo 5 mg DIOVAN 160 mg Amlo 10 mg Co-DIOVAN 160/12.5 mg Amlo 10 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg Co-DIOVAN 160/25 mg DIOVAN 160 mg + HCTZ 25 mg + Free add-on Amlo 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg Amlo 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg + Free add-on Month 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 6 * 72 Screening Randomisation End of treatment adjustment period *Patient visits every 6 months for Months 6 72; Amlo = amlodipine Lancet 2004;363:2022 31
VALUE: Rate of Cardiac Events Did not Differ Between the Vasarta and Amlodipine Groups Proportion of patients with first event (%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 DIOVAN-based regimen Amlodipine-based regimen HR=1.03; 95% CI=0.94 1.14; p=0.49 Number at risk 0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 Time (months) DIOVAN 7,649 7,459 7,407 7,250 7,085 6,906 6,732 6,536 6,349 5,911 3,765 1,474 Amlodipine 7,596 7,469 7,424 7,267 7,117 6,955 6,772 6,576 6,391 5,959 3,725 1,474 Lancet 2004;363:2022 31
LIFE : The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Study Patients aged 55 years, with treated or untreated hypertensionand at high risk of CV events * Titration to target blood pressure: <140 / 90 mmhg Losartan 100 mg + HCTZ 12.5-25 mg + others** Losartan 100 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg* Losartan 50 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg* Placebo Losartan 50 mg Atenolol 50 mg Atenolol 50 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg* Atenolol 100 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg* Atenolol 100 mg + HCTZ 12.5-25mg + others** Day 14 Day 7 Day 1 Mth 1 Mth 2 Mth 4 Mth 6 Yr 1 Yr 1.5 Yr 2 Yr 2.5 Yr 3 Yr 3.5 Yr 4 Yr 5 * Titration encouraged if SiDBP >90 mmhg or SiSBP >140 mmhg but was mandatory if SiBP >160 / 95 mmhg **Other antihypertensives excluding ACEIs, A II antagonists, beta blockers Lancet 2002;359;995-1003-1010
LIFE : BP reductions 180 160 Atenolol Losartan 140 Systolic mmhg 120 100 Mean arterial 80 Diastolic 60 40 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 Time (months) Lancet 2002;359;995-1003-1010
LIFE : Primary Composite Endpoint 0.16 0.14 0.12 Intention-to-Treat Atenolol Endpoint Rate 0.10 0.08 0.06 Losartan 0.04 0.02 Adjusted Risk Reduction 13 0%, p=0 021 Unadjusted Risk Reduction 14 6%, p=0 009 0.00 Study Day 0 180 360 540 720 900 1080 1260 1440 1620 1800 1980 Study Month Losartan (n) 0 4605 6 4524 12 4460 18 4392 24 4312 30 4247 36 4189 42 4110 48 4045 54 3895 60 1888 66 901 Atenolol (n) 4588 4494 4414 4349 4289 4205 4135 4066 3992 3821 1854 876 Lancet 2002;359;995-1003-1010
Atrial fibrillation accounts for 1/3 of all patients discharges with arrhythmia as principal diagnosis 6% PVCs 4% Atrial Flutter 6% PSVT 9% SSS 18% Unspecified 34% Atrial Fibrillation 8% Conduction Disease 3% SCD 10% VT 2% VF J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19(3):41A.
Relative Risk of Stroke and Mortality in Patients with AF vs. without AF Relative Risk (times) 8 6 4 2 Stroke Mortality 0 Framingham Whitehall Regional Heart Study Whitehall Framingham (no Heart Disease) Framingham (overall) Manitoba Stroke rate in Non-Rheumatic HD with AF : 5% / year (Patients without AF) Lancet 1987;1:526 Am Heart J 1983;106:389 Am J Med 1995;98:476
VALUE - AF : Reduces the risk of new onset AF by 16% DIOVAN significantly reduces the risk of new-onset AF by 16% compared with amlodipine DIOVAN significantly reduces the risk of persistent AF by 32% compared with amlodipine J Hypertens 2008, 26:403 411
VALIANT: Study Design and Inclusion Criteria 0.5 10 days after acute MI SAVE, AIRE or TRACE eligible (either clinical/radiological signs of HF or LVSD) Major exclusion criteria Serum creatinine >2.5 mg/dl DBP <100 mmhg Prior intolerance of an ARB or ACE-I Double-blind active-controlled, stepwise titration Captopril 50 mg tid (n=4,909) DIOVAN 160 mg bid (n=4,909) Captopril 50 mg tid + DIOVAN 80 mg bid (n=4,885) Median duration: 24.7 months Event-driven Primary endpoint: Secondary endpoints: Other endpoints: All-cause mortality CV morbidity and mortality Safety and tolerability Am Heart J 2000;140:727 50 N Engl J Med 2003;349:1893 906
VALIANT: Risk of Mortality is Similarly Reduced with Valsartan and Captopril Patients with acute MI complicated by either HF or LVSD Probability of death from any cause 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0 Captopril 50 mg tid* (n=4,909) DIOVAN 160 mg bid* (n=4,909) DIOVAN 80 mg bid + captopril 50 mg tid* (n=4,885) *titration to target dose DIOVAN vs captopril: HR=1.00; p=0.98 DIOVAN + captopril vs captopril: HR=0.98; p=0.73 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Time (months) Captopril 4,909 4,428 4,241 4,018 2,635 1,432 364 Diovan 4,909 4,464 4,272 4,007 2,648 1,437 357 Diovan + captopril 4,885 4,414 4,265 3,994 2,648 1,435 382 LVSD = left ventricular systolic dysfunction HF = heart failure N Engl J Med 2003;349:1893 906
OPTIMAAL(Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) 50 years of age AMI-patients with heart failure or anterior Q-wave AMI 31,738 assessed 26,261 excluded 5,477 randomised 2,744 Losartan 2,733 Captopril 459 discont d 424 discont d 2,744 analysed 2,733 analysed Lancet 2002;360:752 60
OPTIMAAL: No Difference in Mortality Risk Between Losartan and Captopril Endpoint rate (%) 25 20 15 10 5 Losartan (n= 2,744) Captopril (n=2,733) Relative risk 1.13 (85% CI 0.99 1.28) p=0.069 0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 Months Lancet 2002;360:752 60
Val-HeFT (The Valsartan in Heart Failure Trial ) 5,010 patients with HF 18 years; EF <40%; NYHA II IV; LVIDd >2.9 cm/m 2 ACE-I (93%), diuretics (86%), digoxin (67%), beta-blockers (36%) Randomised to Receiving standard therapy DIOVAN 40 mg bid titrated to 160 mg bid Placebo Two primary endpoints: 1) Mortality 2) Combined endpoint of mortality and morbidity EF = ejection fraction NYHA = New York Heart Association LVIDd = left-ventricular internal diastolic diameter N Engl J Med 2001;345:1667 75
Val-HeFT: Improves CV Outcomes* in CHF Results from a 23-month mean follow-up study in 5,010 patients with CHF on standard therapy (Val-HeFT study) 100 Event-free probability (%) 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 0 DIOVAN (n=2,511) Placebo (n=2,499) RR=0.87; 97.5% CI: 0.77-0.97 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 Time (months) 13.2% risk reduction *Combined 1 endpoint: all-cause mortality, cardiac arrest with resuscitation, hospitalization for worsening HF, or therapy with intravenous inotropes or vasodilators; p=0.009 vs. placebo; 1 endpoint of mortality was not significantly different between valsartan and placebo; DIOVAN regimen started at 40 mg bid after placebo run-in, doubled every 2 weeks to target 160 mg bid Cohn et al. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1667-1675
ELITE II :Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure 60 yrs; NYHA II - IV; EF 40 % ACEI naive or < 7 days in 3 months prior to entry Standard Rx ( ± Dig / Diuretics ), ß - blocker stratification Captopril 50 mg 3 times daily n = 1574 Event Driven Targeting 510 deaths estimate 2 yrs median follow-up 555 days Losartan 50 mg daily n = 1578 Primary Endpoint : All-cause Mortality Secondary Endpoint : Sudden cardiac death and/or Resuscitated Arrest Other : All-cause Mortality / Hospitalizations Safety and Tolerability Lancet 2000;355:1582 87
ELITE II: 1.0 Risk of All-cause Mortality or Hospital Admission is Similarly Reduced with Losartan and Captopril Event-free probability 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 p=0.18 Losartan (n=1578) Captopril (n=1574) 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Follow-up (days) Lancet 2000;355:1582 87
JIKEI HEART : Valsartan-based Therapy Improved Outcomes in Japanese Patients with HT and/or Coronary Heart Disease and/or HF Valsartan-based therapy group (n=1541) Run-in Conventional treatment (non-arb) + valsartan 40 80 mg daily + valsartan 40 160 mg daily + non-arb treatment Conventional treatment (non-arb) + non-arb Non-ARB treatment arm (n=1540) + non-arb + non-arb 4 Randomisation 0 Titration 8 12 Weeks Titration 12 16 End of study (median follow-up was 3.1 years) Mochizuki et al. Lancet 2007;369:1431 9
JIKEI HEART 0 CV mortality and morbidity Stroke/TIA Hospitalisation for HF Hospitalisation for angina Risk reduction (%) 20 40 60 39 * p=0.0002 40* p=0.0280 47* p=0.0293 65* p=0.0001 80 TIA = transient ischemic attack *With DIOVAN-based therapy compared with non-arb therapy; primary endpoint Lancet 2007;369:1431 9
Mortality and Morbidity Endpoint Trials with ARB 60,000 VALUE 1 ONTARGET 8 CHARM 14 50,345 VALIANT 2 TRANSEND 8 SCOPE 15 50,000 NAVIGATOR 3 LIFE 9 SCAST* 16 Val-HeFT 4 OPTIMAAL 10 CASE-J 17 Number of patients 40,000 30,000 20,000 29,400 JIKEI HEART 5,6 KYOTO HEART* 7 22,991 19,768 ELITE II 11 RENAAL 12 NCT00090259* 13 14,815 I-Preserve 18 IDNT 19 ACTIVE* 20 SUPPORT* 21 MOSES 22 10,000 1,000 1,405 0 DIOVAN Telmisartan Losartan Candesartan Irbesartan Olmesartan Eprosartan 1 Julius et al. Lancet 2004;363:2022 31; 2 Pfeffer et al. NEJM 2003;349:1893 906; 3 www.novartis.com; 4 Cohn et al. NEJM 2001;345:1667 75; 5 Mochizuki et al. J Hypertens 2006;24(Suppl. 4):S31; 6 Mochizuki et al. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2004;18:305 9; 7 http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00149227) 8 www.ontarget-micardis.com; 9 Dahlof et al. Lancet 2002;359:955 1003; 10 Dickstein et al. Lancet 2002;360:752 60; 11 Pitt et al. Lancet 2000;355:1582 7; 12 Brenner et al. NEJM 2001;345:861 9; 13 http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00090259) 14 www.atacand.com; 15 Papademetriou et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1175 80; 16 http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00120003); 17 Ogihara J Hypertens 2006;24(Suppl. 4):S30; 18 Carson et al. J Card Fail 2005;11:576 85; 19 Lewis et al. NEJM 2001;345:851 60; 20 http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00249795); 21 http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00417222); 22 Schrader et al. Stroke 2005;36:1218 26 *Expected enrolment
Summary: To protect and improve vascular and cardiac structure/function understanding the effects of angiotensin II is an important issue in HT. Blocking the negative effects of angiotensin II at the AT 1 receptor improves endothelial function, improves inflammation, reduces oxidative stress improves left ventricular remodeling and function ARB has proven clinical benefits from HT to HF patients in the spectrum of CV continuum. ARB provides proven cardioprotective benefits.