Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Versus Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors for the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension and the Role of Olmesartan

As shown in Fig. 1, in large randomized controlled trials ACEIs and ARBs showed benefits on major CV events comparable to other antihypertensive medications, but less pronounced effects on CV and all-cause mortality [7]. This might be explained by the fact that trials of ACEIs and ARBs have been performed more recently than trials of other antihypertensive agents (e.g. thiazide diuretics), and RAAS blockers tended to be compared to other drug regimens rather than to placebo, hence resulting in smaller BP reductions and generally no substantial mortality benefit.

Current guidelines on the management of arterial hypertension recommend ACEIs and ARBs as first choice drugs for initiation and maintenance of antihypertensive treatment, preferably in combination with a calcium channel blocker or diuretic [4, 12]. In addition to their antihypertensive effect, both ACEIs and ARBs exhibit other biological properties, which contribute to prevent diabetes and improve outcomes in chronic heart failure. ACEIs and ARBs are indicated in previous CVDs, such as myocardial infarction and stroke, left ventricular hypertrophy and dysfunction and in the presence of renal disease at any stage or metabolic syndrome. They are contraindicated in patients with bilateral renal stenosis, in the presence of hyperkalaemia and during pregnancy (Table 1).

Although the effect on BP lowering is similar among antihypertensive agents, some differences in the efficacy are reported in clinical practice. The differences can be partially ascribed to higher adherence and improved quality of life observed during ACEI and ARB treatments, compared to calcium channel blockers, diuretics or beta-blockers. Adherence or discontinuation is often the consequence of undesirable side effects, which are peculiar for each drug class: diuretics, for example, can cause frequent micturition, erectile dysfunction, fatigue and muscle cramps or, in other circumstances, they can produce metabolic and electrolyte abnormalities that may lead physicians to discontinue them [13].

The lower rate of adverse events and the perception of health benefit from the treatment add up to potential psychotropic effects that have been described in RAAS blockers. A recent meta-analysis indicates that treatment of healthy adults with hypertension with ACEIs or ARBs is associated with improved mental health quality of life, although this was a secondary outcome in the included studies and thus the benefit may only be hypothesized [14].

ARBs and ACEIs are associated also with a lower risk to develop new-onset diabetes mellitus with ranking probabilities of 79.8% and 72.8%, respectively, while beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers may significantly increase this risk [beta-blockers: odds ratio, 2.18 (95% confidence intervals, 1.36–3.50); calcium channel blockers: odds ratio, 1.16 (1.05–1.29)] [15]. The relationship between antihypertensive treatment and diabetes onset has not been completely understood, and it may be related to glucose tolerance, differently induced by each drug class [15]. RAAS blockade promotes the recruitment and differentiation of adipocytes via angiotensin II type 1, thus improving the effect of peripheral insulin and insulin secretion; this implies the prevention in diabetes mellitus onset [15].

Although medication for hypertension has been well established, many well-controlled hypertensive patients still suffer from atrial fibrillation. RAAS promotes atrial fibrosis, atrial electrophysiological and structural remodelling, and it may lead to atrial fibrillation recurrence [16]. Blocking RAAS may attenuate the deleterious effects of cardiac remodelling and reduce atrial fibrillation risk [16]. Furthermore, RAAS blockers can be effective in primary prevention in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. In secondary prevention, RAAS inhibitors are often added to anti-arrhythmic drugs (i.e. amiodarone) to further decrease the odds for atrial fibrillation recurrence after cardioversion and in patients on medical therapy [17].

ACEIs or ARBs are beneficial also in normotensive patients at high risk and with atherosclerosis: their effect in reducing the composite primary outcome of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke is independent of baseline SBP. This may support calls to base decisions about the prescription of these agents on the basis of each patient’s estimated CV risk rather than just upon their BP level [18]. A consistent reno-protective effect of ACEIs and ARBs over other antihypertensive drugs, mainly calcium channel blockers, and placebo has been reported in type 2 diabetes, lowering the risk of serum creatinine doubling, macroalbuminuria and albuminuria [19, 20].

Numerous data indicate that blockage of RAAS provides efficient BP control and favourable long-term outcomes in terms of CV events, mortality and improved quality of life (Table 2). However, in view of a more personalized approach to hypertensive patients based on specific profile and therapeutic options for each patient, ACEIs and ARBs cannot always be considered interchangeable. Of course, the most reliable information to compare ACEIs and ARBs can be retrieved from head-to-head clinical trials, since there is a “generation gap” between placebo-controlled trials performed on ACEIs and ARBs that does not allow indirect comparisons of these agents [29]. Head-to-head studies have been important to test whether the observation that raised the hypothesis that ARBs may increase the risk of myocardial infarction (so-called myocardial infarction paradox) really holds true. Indeed, in a very large randomized controlled trial (ONTARGET, Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial) performed on about 30,000 patients, ACEIs and ARBs did not show any significant difference in myocardial infarction or any of the CV efficacy outcomes [30]. In addition to this, several meta-analyses have provided evidence that ARBs are as protective as ACEIs [31‐33]. In a real-world practice study, however, ARBs reduced by 10% the incidence of CV mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or hospitalization for CV disease at 4 years, providing superior protection against CV events than ACEIs in high-risk patients [34]. Furthermore, ARBs were better tolerated than ACEIs and showed a lower risk of drug withdrawal because of serious adverse effects [23, 25]. This favourable profile of ARBs in terms of lower incidence of serious adverse events should be considered in treating more challenging patients with concomitant disease, such as end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and diabetes-related retinopathy. Both ESRD and diabetic retinopathy can benefit from RAAS blockade that improves hypertension and hemodynamic alterations in microcirculation. In patients with ESRD, ARBs significantly (p < 0.05) reduced its incidence and doubling of serum creatinine concentration without, however, affecting total mortality [35]. A cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that the number needed to treat to prevent one patient from developing ESRD was 21 (95% confidence interval, 12.94–56.82) with ARBs and 333 (p = 0.610) with ACEIs [35]. In patients with diabetes, RAAS blockade reduces the risk of diabetic retinopathy and increases the possibility of retinopathy regression. ACEIs might be better than ARBs for treating diabetic retinopathy and might exert the most beneficial effect on diabetic retinopathy of all widely used antihypertensive drug classes [36].

In summary, although both ACEIs and ARBs are equally important in the treatment of hypertension, there are substantial differences in their CV protective effects and likelihood of adverse events occurrence, mainly due to non-overlapping mechanisms of action [37].

Among ARBs class, olmesartan medoxomil is one of the latest generation compounds introduced in clinical practice for treating hypertension. Head-to-head comparative trials suggest that the efficacy of olmesartan is superior to that of commonly prescribed ACEIs. As shown in Fig. 2, compared to the ACEI ramipril, olmesartan affords significantly superior office SBP and DBP reductions in different categories of hypertensive patients, with a particularly more favourable action in patients aged 80 years or older, in men and in patients with metabolic syndrome [38]. As a monotherapy, olmesartan is also superior to ramipril in patients previously treated with two or more antihypertensive drugs or with an ACEI.

Olmesartan is more effective than ramipril in controlling BP over 24 h, and particularly in the last 6 h from the drug intake and during awakening (morning surge) where the risk of CV events is higher (Fig. 3) [39]. It is also superior in sustained hypertensive patients, who present the concomitant occurrence of elevated office (SBP ≥ 140 mmHg and/or DBP ≥ 90 mmHg) and ambulatory BP (24-h SBP ≥ 130 mmHg and/or DBP ≥ 80 mmHg) (Fig. 3) [39]. Olmesartan is also capable of efficiently controlling BP when the cut-off for normalization is lower than 150/90 mmHg and the chance of attaining BP normalization is significantly larger under olmesartan than under ramipril for both the thresholds considered (140/90 mmHg: 54.4% vs 46.7%, p = 0.012; 150/90 mmHg: 68.4% vs 60.3%, p = 0.006) [40].

In studies using combinations based on these agents, olmesartan with amlodipine was superior to perindopril with amlodipine in reducing both central SBP and 24-h DBP (Fig. 4), and normalized BP in 75.6% of patients (mean seated BP < 140/90 mmHg) compared with 57.5% of perindopril recipients (p < 0.0001) [41]. A post hoc analysis of the SEVITENSION (efficacy of SEVIkar compared to the combination of perindopril plus amlodipine on central arterial BP in patients with hyperTENSION) study confirmed greater efficacy of olmesartan plus amlodipine compared to the combination of perindopril with amlodipine in diabetic patients; after 24 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with the combination including olmesartan had normalized BP (< 130/80 mmHg according to the study protocol: 37.6% vs 21.8%; p = 0.018; BP < 140/90 mmHg: 73.3% vs 59.1%; p = 0.030) [42].

Olmesartan with amlodipine was non-inferior to perindopril and amlodipine in reducing central SBP and office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment and at 48 h from the last administration in diabetic patients. The percentage of responders and percentage of those with normalized BP were similar between the two groups [43, 44]. However, the olmesartan plus amlodipine combination provided longer-lasting efficacy in terms of office BP reduction compared to the perindopril plus amlodipine combination [43]. Both combinations were well tolerated and showed a good safety profile [43, 44]. Peripheral BP, augmentation index and pulse wave velocity were significantly lower in both groups after 24 weeks of treatment and 48 h after the missed dose, observing a trend to a greater reduction in parameters related to the central aortic BP in the olmesartan plus amlodipine group [44].

Despite similar antihypertensive properties and a favourable safety profile for both ACEIs and ARBs, evidence indicates that patients treated with ARBs have lower rates of withdrawal for adverse events and greater persistence to therapy than those treated with ACEIs. This point is pivotal in the choice of long-term therapies in current medical practice. Indeed, even if caused by adverse events of minor health impact, permanent discontinuations of treatment have obvious untoward implications on health by depriving the hypertensive patients of the beneficial effects of BP lowering. When compared with placebo treatment, all major classes of BP-lowering drugs (diuretics, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACEIs and central agents) significantly and markedly (twofold to threefold) increase treatment discontinuations, with the relevant exception of ARBs that have been found not to increase discontinuations over those occurring with placebo (Fig. 5) [45]. Cough is a well-described class adverse effect of ACEIs, with an incidence ranging between 5% and 35% and it often causes treatment discontinuation [46]. The incidence of ARB-induced cough is much lower (3.2% in controlled trials and 0.6% in cohort studies). Although cough may occur with ARBs, they are considered an alternative treatment for patients who discontinued ACEI because of cough and who need the blockade of the renin–angiotensin cascade [46]. The mechanism of action of ARBs that does not affect the metabolism of bradykinin contributes to limit the rate of angioedema (0.11%) compared to that observed with ACEIs (0.3%) in controlled trials [47]. Switching ACEIs to ARBs in patients with previous ACEIs angioedema is quite safe, but close monitoring of those patients is mandatory [47].

Since ARBs act on the renin–angiotensin system to produce angiotensin II that is not only an effective antihypertensive agent but also regulates cell growth, their potential for an increased risk of cancer has been widely investigated. In 2010, a meta-analysis by Sipahi and coworkers [48] reported that ARBs were associated with a modestly increased risk of new cancer occurrence without, however, resulting in a significant excess in cancer deaths. Since oncogenesis, tumour growth and treatment failure followed by death are typically slow processes, it is not possible to conclude regarding the effect of ARBs on cancer-related deaths with short-term clinical trials [48]. This has been discussed in an expert consensus paper analysing the available literature [49]. In addition, other studies did not show any significant association between the use of ACEIs or ARBs and the overall risk of cancer [50]. Therefore, it may be plausible to exclude any correlation between ARBs and cancer. Overall, treatment with both ACEIs and ARBs reduces the occurrence of atrial fibrillation, diabetes onset and the likelihood of bone fractures (Table 3).

Olmesartan shows similar tolerability in terms of incidence of adverse events as other ARBs (losartan, valsartan, candesartan and irbesartan), with similar relative risk of dizziness, headache and diarrhoea as losartan or valsartan [54]. In 2012, a case series of sprue-like syndrome was reported regarding the use of olmesartan [55]. However, patients treated with other ARBs presented similar clinical-pathological findings as those described in the limited reports of olmesartan-associated enteropathy, thus suggesting the presence of a class effect, rather than an olmesartan-specific adverse event [56‐59]. In elderly patients, olmesartan showed a similar rate of adverse events compared to ramipril; the risk of adverse drug reaction was not related to BP levels achieved during treatment [38]. In combination with amlodipine, olmesartan showed a similar tolerability profile to perindopril, but lower rate of discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events. The most common adverse events were peripheral oedema, nasopharyngitis and cough with lower incidence with olmesartan [41]. In patients with diabetes mellitus, 24 weeks of treatment with amlodipine combined with either olmesartan or perindopril showed that only few patients in both groups discontinued because of an adverse effect with any relationship to study drug [43] (Table 4).