Does the MOSES Trial Establish Superiority of AT1-Receptor Blockers over Dihydropyridine/Calcium Antagonists in Secondary Stroke Prevention?
A Fournier,Gabriel Choukroun,S. Samy Modeliar,Olivier Godefroy,Jean‐Michel Achard,Ji‐Guang Wang,Franz H. Messerli
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000199614.67737.e0
IF: 10.17
2006-01-01
Stroke
Abstract:HomeStrokeVol. 37, No. 2Does the MOSES Trial Establish Superiority of AT1-Receptor Blockers Over Dihydropyridine/Calcium Antagonists in Secondary Stroke Prevention? Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBDoes the MOSES Trial Establish Superiority of AT1-Receptor Blockers Over Dihydropyridine/Calcium Antagonists in Secondary Stroke Prevention? Albert Fournier, MD, Gabriel Choukroun, MD and Santhi Samy Modeliar, MD Olivier Godefroy, MD Jean-Michel Achard, MD, PhD Jiguang Wang, MD, PhD Franz Messerli, MD Albert FournierAlbert Fournier Nephrology Department, CHU d’Amiens France Search for more papers by this author , Gabriel ChoukrounGabriel Choukroun Nephrology Department, CHU d’Amiens France Search for more papers by this author and Santhi Samy ModeliarSanthi Samy Modeliar Nephrology Department, CHU d’Amiens France Search for more papers by this author Olivier GodefroyOlivier Godefroy Neurology Deparment, CHU d’Amiens France Search for more papers by this author Jean-Michel AchardJean-Michel Achard Physicology Department, CHU Limoges France Search for more papers by this author Jiguang WangJiguang Wang Institute of Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai, China Search for more papers by this author Franz MesserliFranz Messerli Division of Cardiology, St Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York Search for more papers by this author Originally published5 Jan 2006https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000199614.67737.e0Stroke. 2006;37:336–337Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 5, 2006: Previous Version 1 To the Editor:The MOSES study1 has unequivocally shown that in patients with a history of cerebrovascular events, a blood pressure (BP)–lowering treatment based on eprosartan is more protective against both cerebrovascular event recurrence and cardiac complications than a treatment based on nitrendipine. Of paramount importance is the fact that this superiority was documented with similar BP decrease in both treatment arms and no difference in baseline BP. Furthermore, BP was monitored not only by office BP but also by 24-hour ambulatory BP at baseline and after 12, 24 and 48 months of follow-up. The office BP-lowering effect of eprosartan was even slightly smaller (1.5 and 0.6 mm Hg for the systolic and diastolic BP, respectively), which formally excludes any BP bias. Can we therefore postulate that a specific BP-independent stroke preventive effect of eprosartan is the only possible explanation for this better cardiovascular protection compared with nitrendipine?To answer this question, it is important to carefully look at the add-on therapy. Interestingly as pointed out by the authors, the add-on therapy was comparable with the exception of the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs). In the eprosartan arm, ACEIs were less frequently used (11.3% versus 21%), whereas CCBs were used twice as often (14.4% versus 7.5%) when compared with the nitrendipine arm. Could this difference in add-on therapy have influenced the outcomes, considering that monotherapy with randomized drugs was used only in 34% and 33% of both arms? To elucidate this issue the last BP-lowering treatment (BPLT) trialist collaboration meta-analysis2 should be recalled: it showed that myocardial infarction was equally prevented by ACEI and dihydropyridine (DHP) CCBs but that prevention of stroke was better with CCBs, whereas that of heart failure was better with ACEIs (relative risk=0.89 and 0.82, respectively). This suggests that the differences in use of ACEI and DHP between the 2 groups would increase the heart failure risk but decrease the cerebrovascular risk in the eprosartan group. Conceivably, therefore, the superiority of eprosartan in cardiovascular prevention may have been attenuated with this add-on therapy, whereas superiority of eprosartan in cerebrovascular protection was likely to be enhanced.However, it is unlikely that the 25% greater stroke risk reduction by eprosartan could entirely be explained by the difference in DHP/ACEI use prevalence because the greater reduction of stroke with DHP compared with ACEI in the BPLT trialist collaboration meta-analysis was only 11%. Furthermore, the ACEI/CCB prescription differences between the 2 arms affected only 7% of the patients not on monotherapy (ie, about 5% of the whole population).Therefore, we quite agree with the editorial by Strandberg3 that the greater BP-independent cerebroprotection with eprosartan is real and might be explained by greater stimulation of AT2-receptor than with nitrendipine. Indeed, renin secretion and therefore angiotensin II formation might be increased by both dihydropyridines4 and by AT1-blockers,5 but stimulation of renin secretion may be greater with AT1-blockers because of blunting the strong AT1-mediated angiotensin II negative feedback on renin secretion. Indeed, long acting dihydropyridines may stimulate renin only by activation of the sympathetic nervous system, and this latter is heterogenous with the various DHP-CCB as documented in the recent comparison of lercanidipine with nifedipine-gastrointestinal therapeutic system.6†AT2-mediated protection against cerebral ischemia has now been formally evidenced in experimental models. The group of Unger et al7 showed that intracerebroventricular preadministration of irbesartan decreased the neurological deficit induced in the rat by transient occlusion of the midcerebral artery and that this protection was cancelled by coadministration of an AT2-receptor-blocker which impeded the blockade of anoxia-induced neuronal apoptosis. This AT2-mediated-cerebroprotection has also been confirmed by the comparison of AT2-receptor gene–deleted mice with wild mice because for the same middle cerebral artery occlusion, the ischemic area was larger and the neurological deficit more severe in the AT2 gene–deleted mice. Furthermore, 10 day pretreatment with valsartan significantly reduced mortality, neurological deficit and ischemic area, and this protective effect was significantly weaker in the AT2-KO mice than in wild-type mice, evidencing the involvement of AT2-receptor in the protective effect of valsartan.8In spite of this well established AT2-mediated cerebroprotective mechanism, it may be premature to promote eprosartan as the first choice treatment for secondary stroke prevention, all the more because its comparator nitrendipine was validated in primary9,10 but not in secondary stroke prevention. To prevent stroke recurrence in patients with or without hypertension, only indapamide alone in PATS trial11 and indamide+perindopril in PROGRESS trial12 have been validated. Because the latter combination therapy decreased stroke recurrence risk by 43%, whereas indamide alone decreased it only by 29%, the combination therapy “indapamide+perindopril” should now be considered as the gold standard of secondary stroke prevention. Therefore, to establish which bitherapy is the most efficient in secondary stroke prevention, we propose that in association with indapamide (or another thiazide), eprosartan (or another sartan) be compared with perindopril (or ramipril which decreased stroke risk by 32% in HOPE trial,13 whereas perindopril alone in PROGRESS nonsignificantly decreased stroke recurrence only by 5%).Given that about two thirds of hypertensive patients need >1 drug to control BP, the identification of the most stroke-protective bitherapy is of primary public health importance.†The reality of greater stimulation of systemic angiotensin II with a sartan when compared with a DHP has been documented by a double blind cross over study in 18 hypertensive patients since angiotensin II levels were 2.02±0.3 ng/ml with amlodipine and 2.96±0.33 with valsartans (P<0.05) (Jan Struck et al. J Hypertension. 2002;20:1143–1149).1 Schrader J, Luders S, Kulschewski A, Hammersen F, Plate K, Berger J, Zidek W, Dominiak P, Diener HC. Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared with Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention: principal results of a prospective randomized controlled study (MOSES). Stroke. 2005; 36: 1218–1226.LinkGoogle Scholar2 Blood pressure Lowering treatment trialists collaboration. Effect of ACE inhibitors, calcium antogonists and other blood pressure lowering druges: results of prospectively designed oversiews of randomised trials. Lancet. 2000; 356: 1953–1964.Google Scholar3 Strandberg TE. Secondary prevention of stroke is important: but all hypertensive drugs are not created equal? Stroke. 2005; 36: 1225–1226.LinkGoogle Scholar4 Grossman E, Messerli FH. Effect of calcium antagonists on plasma norepinephrine levels, heart rate, and blood pressure. Am J Cardiol. 1997; 80: 1453–1458.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Christen Y, Waeber B, Nussberger J, Porchet M, Borland RM, Lee RJ, Maggon K, Shum L, Timmermans PB, Brunner HR. Oral administration of DuP 753, a specific angiotensin II receptor antagonist, to normal male volunteers. Inhibition of pressor response to exogenous angiotensin I and II. Circulation. 1991; 83: 1333–1342.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Fogari R, Mugellini A, Zoppi A, Corradi L, Rinaldi A, Derosa G, Preti P. Differential effects of lercanidipine and nifedipine GITS on plasma norepinephrine in chronic treatment of hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2003; 16: 596–599.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Li J, Culman J, Hortnagl H, Zhao Y, Gerova N, Timm M, Blume A, Zimmermann M, Seidel K, Dirnagl U, Unger T. Angiotensin AT2 receptor protects against cerebral ischemia-induced neuronal injury. Faseb J. 2005; 19: 617–619.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Iwai M, Liu HW, Chen R, Ide A, Okamoto S, Hata R, Sakanaka M, Shiuchi T, Horiuchi M. Possible inhibition of focal cerebral ischemia by angiotensin II type 2 receptor stimulation. Circulation. 2004; 110: 843–848.LinkGoogle Scholar9 Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, Birkenhager WH, Bulpitt CJ, de Leeuw PW, Dollery CT, Fletcher AE, Forette F, Leonetti G, Nachev C, O’Brien ET, Rosenfeld J, Rodicio JL, Tuomilehto J, Zanchetti A. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet. 1997; 350: 757–764.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Liu L, Wang JG, Gong L, Liu G, Staessen JA. Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group. J Hypertens. 1998; 16: 1823–1829.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Post-stroke antihypertensive treatment study. A preliminary result. PATS Collaborating Group. Chin Med J (Engl). 1995; 108: 710–717.MedlineGoogle Scholar12 PROGRESS collaborative group: Randomized trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet. 2001; 358: 1033–1041.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators: Effects of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor on death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction and stroke in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342: 145–153.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Talbert R (2010) Role of antihypertensive therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers in combination with calcium channel blockers for stroke prevention, Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 10.1331/JAPhA.2010.09234, 50:5, (e116-e125), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2010. Wang J, Li Y, Franklin S and Safar M (2007) Prevention of Stroke and Myocardial Infarction by Amlodipine and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers, Hypertension, 50:1, (181-188), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2007. Mathur G, Cleland J, Rodrigues E and Davis G (2007) Role of angiotensin receptor blockers in the prevention and management of ischaemic stroke, European Journal of Neurology, 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2007.01950.x, 14:11, (1201-1209), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2007. February 2006Vol 37, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000199614.67737.e0PMID: 16397183 Originally publishedJanuary 5, 2006 PDF download Advertisement