Enlighten -Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.ukT h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med 374;16 nejm. BACKGROUNDAmong patients with chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the role of a renin inhibitor in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor enalapril with the renin inhibitor aliskiren (to test superiority or at least noninferiority) and with the combination of the two treatments (to test superiority) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. METHODSAfter a single-blind run-in period, we assigned patients, in a double-blind fashion, to one of three groups: 2336 patients were assigned to receive enalapril at a dose of 5 or 10 mg twice daily, 2340 to receive aliskiren at a dose of 300 mg once daily, and 2340 to receive both treatments (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTSAfter a median follow-up of 36.6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 770 patients (32.9%) in the combination-therapy group and in 808 (34.6%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03). The primary outcome occurred in 791 patients (33.8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified test for noninferiority was not met. There was a higher risk of hypotensive symptoms in the combination-therapy group than in the enalapril group (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P = 0.005), as well as higher risks of an elevated serum creatinine level (4.1% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.009) and an elevated potassium level (17.1% vs. 12.5%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONSIn patients with chronic heart failure, the addition of aliskiren to enalapril led to more adverse events without an increase in benefit. 1522T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine A ngiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risks of death and hospitalization among patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.1,2 As a consequence, there has been interest in other approaches to interruption of the renin-angiotensin system in patients with heart failure. Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) were the first alternative tested, and in one placebo-controlled trial, candesartan was associated with lower risks of death from cardiovascular causes and hospitalization for heart failure among patients who could not take ACE inhibitors.3 However, in a head-to-head comparison, losartan was not as effective as captopril. 4 The combination of an ARB and an ACE inhibitor has also been examined in two trials involving patients with heart failure. 5,6 In both trials, the addition of an ARB to standard therapy with an ACE inhibitor was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure than was standard therapy alone and, in one trial, with a lower risk of death from cardiovascular causes. Neither trial, ...

Introduction. This subgroup analysis assessed the effects of treatment based on the direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren, or the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on plasma renin activity (PRA), plasma renin concentration (PRC) and other biomarkers in a 26-week randomised, double-blind trial. Changes in PRA and PRC after stopping treatment were also assessed. Methods. After placebo run-in, 842 patients (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) 95—109 mmHg) were randomised to aliskiren 150 mg or ramipril 5 mg. Dose titration and hydrochlorothiazide addition were allowed after Week 6 and 12, respectively, for inadequate BP control. Patients completing active treatment were re-randomised to current regimen or placebo during a 4-week posttreatment phase. Results. BP reductions were independent of baseline PRA at Week 12, were greater with aliskiren- than ramipril-based therapy at Week 26 (17.9/13.3 vs. 15.2/12.0 mmHg, p<0.05) and persisted for longer after stopping aliskiren. Aliskiren-based therapy reduced geometric mean PRA (−63%, p<0.05; n=103), while ramipril-based therapy increased PRA (+143%, p<0.05; n=100) at Week 26; PRC increased in both groups (aliskiren: +224% [n=33], ramipril: +145% [n=39], both p<0.05). Four weeks after stopping aliskiren-based therapy, PRA remained 52% below pre-treatment baseline; PRA returned to baseline 2 weeks after stopping ramipril-based therapy. Conclusions. Aliskiren-based therapy produced sustained BP and PRA reductions over 26 weeks; ramipril-based therapy lowered BP and increased PRA. PRA reductions persisted 4 weeks after stopping aliskiren, suggesting an inhibitory effect beyond the elimination half-life of the drug.

Aims Nearly 60% of the world's population lives in Asia but little is known about the characteristics and outcomes of Asian patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared to other areas of the world. Methods and results We pooled two, large, global trials, with similar design, in 13 174 patients with HFrEF (patient distribution: China 833, India 1390, Japan 209, Korea 223, Philippines 223, Taiwan 199 and Thailand 95, Western Europe 3521, Eastern Europe 4758, North America 613, and Latin America 1110). Asian patients were younger (55.0–63.9 years) than in Western Europe (67.9 years) and North America (66.6 years). Diuretics and devices were used less, and digoxin used more, in Asia. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use was higher in China (66.3%), the Philippines (64.1%) and Latin America (62.8%) compared to Europe and North America (range 32.8% to 49.6%). The rate of cardiovascular death/heart failure hospitalization was higher in Asia (e.g. Taiwan 17.2, China 14.9 per 100 patient‐years) than in Western Europe (10.4) and North America (12.8). However, the adjusted risk of cardiovascular death was higher in many Asian countries than in Western Europe (except Japan) and the risk of heart failure hospitalization was lower in India and in the Philippines than in Western Europe, but significantly higher in China, Japan, and Taiwan. Conclusion Patient characteristics and outcomes vary between Asia and other regions and between Asian countries. These variations may reflect several factors, including geography, climate and environment, diet and lifestyle, health care systems, genetics and socioeconomic influences.