Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Calcium Channel Blockers for Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention

Effect of blood pressure-lowering agents on microvascular function in people with small vessel diseases (TREAT-SVDs): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is the leading risk factor for cerebral small vessel disease. We aimed to determine whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect microvascular function in people with small vessel disease.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised crossover trial with blinded endpoint assessment at five specialist centres in Europe. We included participants aged 18 years or older with symptomatic sporadic small vessel disease or cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) and an indication for antihypertensive treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three sequences of antihypertensive treatment using a computer-generated multiblock randomisation, stratified by study site and patient group. A 2-week washout period was followed by three 4-week periods of oral monotherapy with amlodipine, losartan, or atenolol at approved doses. The primary endpoint was change in cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) determined by blood oxygen level-dependent MRI response to hypercapnic challenge in normal-appearing white matter from the end of washout to the end of each treatment period. Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat principles in all randomly assigned participants who had at least one valid assessment for the primary endpoint, and analyses were done separately for participants with sporadic small vessel disease and CADASIL. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03082014, and EudraCT, 2016-002920-10, and is terminated.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 22, 2018, and April 28, 2022, 75 participants with sporadic small vessel disease (mean age 64·9 years [SD 9·9]) and 26 with CADASIL (53·1 years [7·0]) were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment. 79 participants (62 with sporadic small vessel disease and 17 with CADASIL) entered the primary efficacy analysis. Change in CVR did not differ between study drugs in participants with sporadic small vessel disease (mean change in CVR 1·8 × 10-4%/mm Hg [SE 20·1; 95% CI -37·6 to 41·2] for amlodipine; 16·7 × 10-4%/mm Hg [20·0; -22·3 to 55·8] for losartan; -7·1 × 10-4%/mm Hg [19·6; -45·5 to 31·1] for atenolol; poverall=0·39) but did differ in patients with CADASIL (15·7 × 10-4%/mm Hg [SE 27·5; 95% CI -38·3 to 69·7] for amlodipine; 19·4 × 10-4%/mm Hg [27·9; -35·3 to 74·2] for losartan; -23·9 × 10-4%/mm Hg [27·5; -77·7 to 30·0] for atenolol; poverall=0·019). In patients with CADASIL, pairwise comparisons showed that CVR improved with amlodipine compared with atenolol (-39·6 × 10-4%/mm Hg [95% CI -72·5 to -6·6; p=0·019) and with losartan compared with atenolol (-43·3 × 10-4%/mm Hg [-74·3 to -12·3]; p=0·0061). No deaths occurred. Two serious adverse events were recorded, one while taking amlodipine (diarrhoea with dehydration) and one while taking atenolol (fall with fracture), neither of which was related to study drug intake.

INTERPRETATION

4 weeks of treatment with amlodipine, losartan, or atenolol did not differ in their effects on cerebrovascular reactivity in people with sporadic small vessel disease but did result in differential treatment effects in patients with CADASIL. Whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect clinical outcomes in people with small vessel diseases requires further research.

FUNDING

EU Horizon 2020 programme.

The EffecTs of Amlodipine and other Blood PREssure Lowering Agents on Microvascular FuncTion in Small Vessel Diseases (TREAT-SVDs) trial: Study protocol for a randomised crossover trial

Background

Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for cerebral small vessel diseases (SVDs). Yet, it is unknown whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect microvascular function in SVDs.

Aims

To test whether amlodipine has a beneficial effect on microvascular function when compared to either losartan or atenolol, and whether losartan has a beneficial effect when compared to atenolol in patients with symptomatic SVDs.

Design

TREAT-SVDs is an investigator-led, prospective, open-label, randomised crossover trial with blinded endpoint assessment (PROBE design) conducted at five study sites across Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with symptomatic SVD who have an indication for antihypertensive treatment and are suffering from either sporadic SVD and a history of lacunar stroke or vascular cognitive impairment (group A) or CADASIL (group B) are randomly allocated 1:1:1 to one of three sequences of antihypertensive treatment. Patients stop their regular antihypertensive medication for a 2-week run-in period followed by 4-week periods of monotherapy with amlodipine, losartan and atenolol in random order as open-label medication in standard dose.

Outcomes

The primary outcome measure is cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) as determined by blood oxygen level dependent brain MRI signal response to hypercapnic challenge with change in CVR in normal appearing white matter as primary endpoint. Secondary outcome measures are mean systolic blood pressure (BP) and BP variability (BPv).

Discussion

TREAT-SVDs will provide insights into the effects of different antihypertensive drugs on CVR, BP, and BPv in patients with symptomatic sporadic and hereditary SVDs.

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 programme.

Trial registration

NCT03082014.

Prevalence, treatment, and attributed mortality of elevated blood pressure among a nationwide population-based cohort of stroke survivors in China

Background

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality in stroke survivors. China has the highest prevalence of stroke survivors and accounts for one-third of stroke-related deaths worldwide. We aimed to describe the prevalence and treatment of elevated BP across age, sex, and region, and assess the mortality attributable to elevated BP among stroke survivors in China.

Materials and methods

Based on 3,820,651 participants aged 35–75 years from all 31 provinces in mainland China recruited from September 2014 to September 2020, we assessed the prevalence and treatment of elevated BP (systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg) among those with self-reported stroke and stratified by age group, sex, and geographic region. We estimated the age- and sex-specific population attributable fractions of death from elevated BP.

Results

Among 91,406 stroke survivors, the mean (SD) age was 62 (8) years, and 49.0% were male. The median interquartile range (IQR) stroke duration was 4 (2, 7) years. The prevalence of elevated BP was 61.3% overall, and increased with age (from 47.5% aged 35–44 years to 64.6% aged 65–75 years). The increment of prevalence was larger in female patients than male patients. Elevated BP was more prevalent in northeast (66.8%) and less in south (54.3%) China. Treatment rate among patients with elevated BP was 38.1%, and rates were low across all age groups, sexes, and regions. Elevated BP accounted for 33 and 21% of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality among stroke survivors, respectively. The proportion exceeded 50% for cardiovascular mortality among patients aged 35–54 years.

Conclusion

In this nationwide cohort of stroke survivors from China, elevated BP and its non-treatment were highly prevalent across all age groups, sexes, and regions. Elevated BP accounted for nearly one-third cardiovascular mortality in stroke survivors, and particularly higher in young and middle-aged patients. National strategies targeting elevated BP are warranted to address the high stroke burden in China.

Neuroprotection in Stroke-Focus on the Renin-Angiotensin System: A Systematic Review

Stroke is the primary cause of disability in the adult population. Hypertension represents the leading risk factor being present in almost half the patients. The renin-angiotensin system is involved in the physiopathology of stroke and has an essential impact on hypertension as a risk factor. This article targeted the role of the renin-angiotensin system in stroke neuroprotection by reviewing the current literature available. The mechanism of action of the renin-angiotensin system was observed through the effects on AT1, AT2, and Mas receptors. The neuroprotective properties ascertained by angiotensin in stroke seem to be independent of the blood pressure reduction mechanism, and include neuroregeneration, angiogenesis, and increased neuronal resistance to hypoxia. The future relationship of stroke and the renin-angiotensin system is full of possibilities, as new agonist molecules emerge as potential candidates to restrict the impairment caused by stroke.

Using a Systems Approach to Explore the Mechanisms of Interaction Between Severe Covid-19 and Its Coronary Heart Disease Complications

Frontiers requested research on how a systems approach can explore the mechanisms of cardiovascular complications in Covid-19. The focus of this paper will thus be on these detailed mechanisms. It will elucidate the integrated pathogenic pathways based on an extensive review of literature. Many severe Covid-19 cases and deaths occur in patients with chronic cardiovascular comorbidities. To help understand all the mechanisms of this interaction, Covid-19 complications were integrated into a pre-existing systems-based coronary heart disease (CHD) model. Such a complete model could not be found in literature. A fully integrative view could be valuable in identifying new pharmaceutical interventions, help understand how health factors influence Covid-19 severity and give a fully integrated explanation for the Covid-19 death spiral phenomenon seen in some patients. Covid-19 data showed that CHD hallmarks namely, Hypercoagulability, Hypercholesterolemia, Hyperglycemia/Hyperinsulinemia, Inflammation and Hypertension have an important effect on disease severity. The pathogenic pathways that Covid-19 activate in CHD were integrated into the CHD model. This fully integrated model presents a visual explanation of the mechanism of interaction between CHD and Covid-19 complications. This includes a detailed integrated explanation of the death spiral as a result of interactions between Inflammation, endothelial cell injury, Hypercoagulability and hypoxia. Additionally, the model presents the aggravation of this death spiral through the other CHD hallmarks namely, Hyperglycemia/Hyperinsulinemia, Hypercholesterolemia, and/or Hypertension. The resulting model further suggests systematically how the pathogenesis of nine health factors (stress, exercise, smoking, etc.) and seven pharmaceutical interventions (statins, salicylates, thrombin inhibitors, etc.) may either aggravate or suppress Covid-19 severity. A strong association between CHD and Covid-19 for all the investigated health factors and pharmaceutical interventions, except for β-blockers, was found. It is further discussed how the proposed model can be extended in future to do computational analysis to help assess the risk of Covid-19 in cardiovascular disease. With insight gained from this study, recommendations are made for future research in potential new pharmacotherapeutics. These recommendations could also be beneficial for cardiovascular disease, which killed five times more people in the past year than Covid-19.

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Starting Antihypertensive Drug Treatment With Combination Therapy: Controversies in Hypertension - Con Side of the Argument

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Beat-to-beat blood pressure variability: an early predictor of disease and cardiovascular risk

Blood pressure (BP) varies on the long, short and very-short term. Owing to the hidden physiological and pathological information present in BP time-series, increasing interest has been given to the study of continuous, beat-to-beat BP variability (BPV) using invasive and noninvasive methods. Different linear and nonlinear parameters of variability are employed in the characterization of BP signals in health and disease. Although linear parameters of beat-to-beat BPV are mainly measures of dispersion, such as standard deviation (SD), nonlinear parameters of BPV quantify the degree of complexity/irregularity- using measures of entropy or self-similarity/correlation. In this review, we summarize the value of linear and nonlinear parameters in reflecting different information about the pathophysiology of changes in beat-to-beat BPV independent of or superior to mean BP. We then provide a comparison of the relative power of linear and nonlinear parameters of beat-to-beat BPV in detecting early and subtle differences in various states. The practical advantage and utility of beat-to-beat BPV monitoring support its incorporation into routine clinical practices.

Treatment strategies for isolated systolic hypertension in elderly patients

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is a major and modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Its prevalence is rising as the result of population aging. Isolated systolic hypertension mostly occurs in older patients accounting for up to 80% of cases.

AREAS COVERED

The authors systematically review published studies to appraise the scientific and clinical evidence supporting the role of blood pressure control in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, and to assess the influence of different drug treatment regimens on outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension significantly reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. Thiazide diuretics and dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers are the primary compounds used in randomized clinical trials. These drugs can be considered as first-line agents for the management of isolated systolic hypertension. Free or fixed combination therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium-channel blockers or thiazide-like diuretics should also be considered, particularly when compelling indications such as coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and congestive heart failure coexist. There is also hot scientific debate on the optimal blood pressure target to be achieved in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, but current recommendations are scarcely supported by evidence.

Correlates of Endothelial Function in Older Adults With Untreated Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent and consequential sleep disorder in older adults. Untreated moderate to severe OSA substantially increases the risk for hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD), which can be attributed to the accelerated progression of atherosclerosis and endothelial dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify factors that can function as correlates of endothelial function in older adults with untreated, moderate to severe OSA and CVD or CVD risk factors.

METHODS

A subsample (N = 126) of adults aged 65 years and older from the HeartBEAT study were included in the analyses. Univariate analyses and multiple linear regression models were conducted to establish which demographic and CVD risk factors were the best correlates of endothelial function.

RESULTS

In the univariate analyses, sex, employment status, body mass index, waist circumference, hip-to-waist ratio, neck circumference, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, calcium channel blocker use, and β-blocker use were associated with endothelial function at a level of P < .10. In the most parsimonious model, male sex (b = -0.305, P < .001), calcium channel blocker use (b = -0.148, P < .019), and body mass index (b = -.014, P < .037) were negatively associated with endothelial function after adjusting for the other covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors identified correlates of endothelial function in older adults with untreated OSA and CVD or CVD risk factors, which are different than the correlates in middle-aged adults with the same conditions.

Central Application of Aliskiren, a Renin Inhibitor, Improves Outcome After Experimental Stroke Independent of Its Blood Pressure Lowering Effect

Epidemiological studies suggest that pharmacological reduction of systemic hypertension lowers incidence and severity of stroke. However, whether the reduction of blood pressure per se or the compounds used to reduce hypertension are responsible for this effect received little attention. In the current study we therefore aimed to investigate whether Aliskiren, a renin-inhibitor used to treat arterial hypertension, may improve outcome in a mouse model of ischemic stroke when applied centrally and in a dose not affecting blood pressure. Male C57BL/6 mice received 0.6, 2.0, or 6.0 μg Aliskiren or vehicle by intracerebroventricular injection as a pre-treatment and were then subjected to 60 min of middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAo). Infarct volume, brain edema formation, mortality, antioxidant effects, and functional outcome were assessed up to seven days after MCAo. Central administration of Aliskiren (0.6 or 2.0 μg) had no effect on systemic blood pressure but significantly reduced infarct volume and brain edema formation, blunted mortality, and improved neurological outcome up to 1 week after MCAo. Due to the central and prophylactic administration of the compound, we cannot make any conclusions about the potency of Aliskiren for acute stroke treatment, however, our study clearly demonstrates, that in addition to lowering blood pressure Aliskiren seems to have a direct neuroprotective effect. Hence, renin-inhibitors may be an effective addition to prophylactic treatment regimens in stroke patients.

Long-term effects of antihypertensive therapy on cardiovascular events and new-onset diabetes mellitus in high-risk hypertensive patients in Japan

OBJECTIVE

During the Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial, patients with hypertension who received amlodipine had similar cardiovascular risks as those who received candesartan. We conducted a post-trial study, the Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan 10-year follow-up (CASE-J 10). This study aimed to confirm the long-term cardiovascular effects of candesartan and amlodipine.

METHODS

Case report forms were sent to CASE-J investigators who agreed to participate in the CASE-J 10. All the available information was retrospectively collected. The primary endpoint was a time-to-first event for a composite of cerebrovascular, cardiac, renal, and vascular events, and sudden death. Secondary endpoints included new-onset diabetes (NOD), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. For each endpoint, treatment effect was compared on an intention-to-treat basis, according to previous randomization categories.

RESULTS

A total of 1313 patients' data have been updated. The 10-year Kaplan-Meier rates of the primary endpoint were 14.7% for candesartan and 14.8% for amlodipine. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, the rates for the primary endpoint were similar between the two treatments (hazards ratioadj = 0.99, 95% CI 0.82-1.20). Candesartan had a lower Kaplan-Meier rate of NOD than amlodipine (8.3 vs. 11.1%), and when adjusted for clinical factors, candesartan remained an independent predictor for NOD prevention (hazard ratioadj = 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.98).

CONCLUSION

With more than 28 385 patient-years follow-up, we demonstrated that candesartan and amlodipine were comparable in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with high-risk hypertension. Additionally, our results may support candesartan's superiority in reducing NOD incidence compared with amlodipine even after the long-term follow-up.

Antihypertensive therapy and adequacy of blood pressure control among adult hypertensive diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease in a tertiary referral hospital

Background: Tight blood pressure control retards the development of end-stage renal disease in hypertensive diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease. There is limited literature on blood pressure control among this patient population in a resource-limited setting. Research design and methods: A tertiary hospital-based cross-sectional study with 237 hypertensive diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease was conducted. A pre-tested questionnaire was used to assess patients' awareness of their ideal blood pressure. Data on blood pressure readings and antihypertensive therapies were abstracted into predesigned data collection forms and analyzed using STATA software version 13.0. Results: The participants' mean age was 61.8 ± 12.7 years and 106 (44.7%) patients were aware of the blood pressure targets. Adequate blood pressure control was found in 30.8%. Most (58.7%) were using ≥ 3 antihypertensive drug classes. Calcium channel blockers (51.1%), with principally amlodipine (26.2%) and nifedipine (24.1%), were the most preferred agents. Bivariate analysis showed enalapril (p = 0.009) and nifedipine (p = 0.022) being associated with adequate blood pressure control. However, nifedipine (AOR 2.79; 95% CI: 1.12-6.9, p = 0.028) and awareness of ideal blood pressure targets (AOR 4.57; 95% CI: 1.25-16.7, p = 0.022) were independent predictors of good control. Conclusion: Adequacy of blood pressure among hypertensive diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease is low and may be attributable to unawareness of its target level and using inappropriate therapy. Future studies should correlate level of blood pressure control with patient-, clinician-, and hospital-related factors.

European and US guidelines for arterial hypertension: similarities and differences

Hypertension is one of the most common chronic diseases in adults and a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide. Recently, new Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hypertension have been released in Europe and in the United States, with changes regarding how to diagnose and treat the condition, and the extent to which intensive blood pressure control should be pursued. Important differences between the Guidelines exist in the classification of blood pressure levels and definition of treatment goals. Diagnosis of hypertension starts at 140/90 mmHg for the European Guidelines, and 130/80 mmHg for the US Guidelines. Besides, the European guidelines introduced the concept of "safety boundaries", consisting of BP thresholds not to be exceeded towards lower levels (120 mmHg for age < 65 years, 130 mmHg for older people) because of the fear of important adverse events associated with overtreatment. Such discrepancies can indeed have an impact on treatment attitudes and outcome incidence. Hence, we appraised facts in favor and against each of these controversial issues. In conclusion we believe that, instead of fixing rigid BP targets and boundaries, modern hypertension management should be aimed to achieve in each patient an optimal balance between intensive BP reduction and treatment safety.

Amlodipine and celecoxib for treatment of hypertension and osteoarthritis pain

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis constitutes one of the leading causes of pain and disability worldwide with a significant impact on health-care costs. Patients with osteoarthritis are often affected by a number of cardiovascular comorbidities, including hypertension, which is present in about 40% of cases. Just recently, a single tablet combination of amlodipine besylate, a calcium channel blocker, and celecoxib, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, indicated for patients for whom treatment with amlodipine for hypertension and celecoxib for osteoarthritis are appropriate, has been recently approved. Areas covered: We reviewed data from clinical studies that investigated safety and efficacy of the combination of amlodipine and celecoxib in hypertensive patients with osteoarthritis published before 31 August 2018. The literature search was conducted using research Methodology Filters. Expert commentary: The advantages of this single formulation over sequential administration include increased compliance, possibly reduced cost, and less likelihood of dosage-related issues. Moreover, this single tablet formulation combines the anti-inflammatory activity of the celecoxib with the systemic vasodilatation induced by the amlodipine. It is a promising treatment for patients with osteoarthritis and hypertension. Nevertheless, celecoxib may cause a variable degree of blood pressure increase and only a small clinical trial has been conducted before approval to assess interactions related to blood pressure effect between these two molecules.

Blood pressure reduction and clinical outcomes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers: protocol for a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) efficaciously reduce systolic blood pressure (BP), a well-established risk factor for myocardial infarction (MI). Both inhibit the renin-angiotensin system, albeit through different mechanisms, and produce similar reductions in BP. However, in parallel meta-analyses of ACEi and ARB trials, ACEis reduce risk of MI whereas ARBs do not-a phenomenon described as the 'ARB-MI paradox'. In addition, ACEis reduce all-cause mortality, whereas ARBs do not, which appears to be independent of BP lowering. The divergent cardiovascular effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, despite similar BP reductions, are counter-intuitive. This systematic review aims to ascertain the extent to which clinical outcomes in randomised trials of ACEi and ARBs are attributable to reductions in systolic BP.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of bibliographic databases will be performed to identify all randomised studies of agents of the ACEi and ARB class. Placebo and active comparator-controlled studies that report clinical outcomes, with greater than 500 person-years of follow-up in each study arm, will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen study records against a priori-defined eligibility criteria and perform data extraction. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be applied to all included studies. Studies retracted subsequent to initial publication will be excluded. Primary outcomes of interest include MI and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes include stroke, heart failure, revascularisation and cardiovascular mortality. Meta-regression will be performed, evaluating the relationship between attained reduction in systolic BP and relative risk of each outcome, stratified by drug class. Where a BP-dependent effect exists (two-tailed p value < 0.05), relative risks, standardised per 10 mmHg difference in BP, will be reported for each study outcome. Publication bias will be examined using Funnel plots, and calculation of Egger's statistic.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will provide a detailed synthesis of evidence regarding the relationship between BP reduction and clinical outcomes with ACEi and ARBs. Greater understanding of the dependency of the effect of each class on BP reduction will advance insight into the nature of the ARB-MI paradox and guide the future usage of these agents.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017072988.

Effect of β-Blockers Beyond 3 Years After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background

The optimal duration of β‐blocker therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the late effect of β‐blockers in patients with AMI.

Methods and Results

We enrolled all consecutive patients who presented with AMI at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, between June 3, 2003 and February 24, 2015. The primary end point was 5‐year all‐cause mortality, depending on the use of β‐blockers at discharge, 1 year after AMI, and 3 years after AMI. Of 2592 patients, the prescription rates of β‐blockers were 72%, 69%, 63%, and 60% at discharge and 1, 3, and 5 years after AMI, respectively. The patients who were receiving β‐blocker therapy had more favorable clinical characteristics, such as younger age (62 versus 65 years; P<0.001). They received reperfusion therapy more often (92% versus 80%; P<0.001) than those without β‐blocker prescription. In the univariate analysis, the patients with β‐blocker prescription had lower 5‐year mortality at all time points. In the Cox model after adjustment for significant covariates, β‐blocker prescription at discharge was associated with a 29% reduced mortality risk (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.55–0.90; P=0.006); however, β‐blocker prescriptions at 1 and 3 years after AMI were not associated with reduced mortality.

Conclusions

The beneficial effect of β‐blocker therapy after AMI may be limited until 1 year after AMI. Whether late β‐blocker therapy beyond 1 year after AMI offers clinical benefits should be confirmed in further clinical trials.

The Divergent Cardiovascular Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers in Adult Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a central role in the pathophysiology of hypertension and vascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi's) suppress angiotensin II (ANG II) concentrations, whereas angiotensin II type 1 (AT₁) receptor blockers (ARBs) block the binding of ANG II to AT₁ receptors. ACEi's and ARBs are both effective antihypertensive agents and produce similar risk reductions for stroke, a blood pressure-dependent phenomenon. ACEi's also reduce the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause mortality in high-risk hypertensive patients as well as in people with diabetes, vascular disease and congestive heart failure. ARBs, in contrast, do not reduce the risk for MI or death in randomized clinical trials when assessed vs. placebo. Systematic reviews of ARBs that include meta-analyses or metaregression analyses confirm that ARBs lack the cardiovascular-protective effects of ACEi's. Practice guidelines, especially those for high-risk patients, such as those with diabetes mellitus, should reflect the evidence that ACEi's and ARBs have divergent cardiovascular effects: ACEi's reduce mortality, whereas ARBs do not. ACEi's should remain the preferred RAAS inhibitor for patients at high risk.

Calcium Channel Blockers in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention and Risk of Acute Events: Real-World Evidence from Nested Case-Control Studies on Italian Hypertensive Elderly

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Antihypertensive treatment with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) is consolidated in clinical practice; however, different studies observed increased risks of acute events for short-acting CCBs. This study aimed to provide real-world evidence on risks of acute cardiovascular (CV) events, hospitalizations and mortality among users of different CCB classes in secondary CV prevention.

METHODS

Three case-control studies were nested in a cohort of Italian elderly hypertensive CV-compromised CCBs users. Cases were subjects with CV events (n = 25,204), all-cause hospitalizations (n = 19,237), or all-cause mortality (n = 17,996) during the follow-up. Up to four controls were matched for each case. Current or past exposition to CCBs at index date was defined based on molecule, formulation and daily doses of the last CCB delivery. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using conditional logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Compared to past users, current CCB users had significant reductions in risks of CV events [OR 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.91)], hospitalization [0.90 (0.88-0.93)] and mortality [0.48 (0.47-0.49)]. Current users of long-acting dihydropyridines (DHPs) had the lowest risk [OR 0.87 (0.84-0.90), 0.86 (0.83-0.90), 0.55 (0.54-0.56) for acute CV events, hospitalizations and mortality], whereas current users of short-acting CCBs had an increased risk of acute CV events [OR 1.77 (1.13-2.78) for short-acting DHPs; 1.19 (1.07-1.31) for short-acting non-DHPs] and hospitalizations [OR 1.84 (0.96-3.51) and 1.23 (1.08-1.42)].

CONCLUSIONS

The already-existing warning on short-acting CCBs should be potentiated, addressing clinicians towards the choice of long-acting formulations.

Long-term outcomes of lercanidipine versus other calcium channel blockers in newly diagnosed hypertension: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have been proved to have beneficial effects on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, especially in stroke. Lercanidipine, a highly lipophilic CCB, lacks data regarding long-term outcomes including: CV, stroke, renal and all-cause mortality. This retrospective cohort study aims to clarify this.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 144,630 newly diagnosed hypertension (HTN) patients (age: 18-65 years) in 2005 from the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database were enrolled in this observational study. A pure hypertension population was fetched by excluding all chronic diseases in the Charlson Comorbidities Index. Patients were stratified into the lercanidipine group (n = 1303) and the propensity-score-matched comparative group (nifedipine, amlodipine or felodipine, n = 15,301).

RESULTS

Compared to other CCBs, lercanidipine didn't have a significant difference on the study endpoints. In individual head-to-head comparisons, lercanidipine was shown to be superior to nifedipine in incident stroke with an adjusted HR with 95% CI of 0.526 (0.347-0.797) (p = .0025). The key limitations were that personal variables, such as smoking habits, alcohol intake, body mass index and physical activity and blood pressure profiles were not available in the nationwide registry database.

CONCLUSION

In newly diagnosed patients with hypertension, lercanidipine was superior to nifedipine in the six-year period when the analyzed endpoint was stroke.

Follow-up of Antihypertensive Therapy Improves Blood Pressure Control: Results of HYT (HYperTension survey) Follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Although improved during the past few years, blood pressure control remains sub optimal.

AIM

The impact of follow-up assessment on blood pressure control was evaluated in a group of patients of the HYT (HYperTension survey), treated with a combination of different dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs regimen) and inhibitors of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and with uncontrolled blood pressure. This was obtained assessing (a) the rate of blood pressure control at 3 and 6 months of follow-up in the whole group of patients, (b) the rate of blood pressure control and the average blood pressure values in subjects treated with different DHP-CCBs regimen.

METHODS

From the 4993 patients with uncontrolled blood pressure, (BP ≥ 140/90 or ≥140/85 in patients with diabetes), 3729 (mean age 61.2 ± 11.5 years), maintained CCBs regimen combined wih RAAS blockers and were evaluated at 3 and 6 months follow-up. At each visit BP (semiautomatic device, Omron-M6, 3 measurements), heart rate, adverse events and treatment persistence were collected.

RESULTS

At 1st and 2nd follow-up the rate of controlled BP was 63.5 and 72.8% respectively (p < 0.05 vs 35.3% at baseline), whereas in diabetes was 32.5 and 37.9% respectively (p < 0.05 vs 20% at baseline). No differences in heart rate were observed. No differences in control rate were observed between the different CCBs regimen. The incidence of drugs related adverse events was 3.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide evidence that: (a) the follow-up of hypertensive patients under therapy increase the rate of blood pressure control; (b) there is no significant difference in the antihypertensive effect between different CCBs regimen;

Efficacy of Calcium Channel Blockers Versus Other Classes of Antihypertensive Medication in the Treatment of Hypertensive Patients With Previous Stroke and/or Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hypertensive patients, such as those with established coronary artery disease (CAD) or those who have suffered a stroke, are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis assesses the long-term effects of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) compared with other classes of antihypertensive medications on major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in these high-risk subgroups of hypertensive patients. Randomized, active controlled parallel group trials were included if they compared CCBs with α-blockers, β-blockers, angiotensin II receptor blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or diuretics, had a follow-up of ≥6 months, and had assessments of blood pressure (BP) and CV events [all-cause death, CV death, major CV events (myocardial infarction, MI; congestive heart failure, CHF; stroke; and CV death), MI, stroke, or CHF] in patients with baseline systolic/diastolic BP ≥140/≥90 mm Hg with either concomitant previous stroke and/or CAD. The final dataset included 19 publications reporting on 7 unique trials. In hypertensive patients with previous stroke, there was no difference between CCBs and comparators for any CV outcome. In those with CAD, there was no difference for all-cause death, CV death, major CV events, and MI for CCBs relative to comparators; however, a reduction in the risk of stroke and an increase in the risk of CHF were seen. For BP lowering, CCBs were at least as efficacious as comparators. The findings of our systematic review and analysis add to the body of evidence for the use of CCBs for the long-term treatment of hypertension in difficult-to-treat high CV risk populations.

Beta-blockers for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).There was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.Total CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.

Comparative Effectiveness of Renin-Angiotensin System Antagonists in Maintenance Dialysis Patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Whether angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are differentially associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and mortality in patients receiving maintenance dialysis is uncertain. We compared outcomes between ACE and ARB users among hypertensive, maintenance dialysis patients.

METHODS

National retrospective cohort study of hypertensive, Medicare-Medicaid eligible patients initiating chronic dialysis between 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2005. The exposure of interest was new use of either an ACEI or ARB. Outcomes were all-cause mortality (ACM) and combined cardiovascular hospitalization or death (CV-endpoint). Cox proportion hazards models were used to compare the effect of ACEI vs ARB use on ACM and, separately, CV-endpoint.

RESULTS

ACM models were based on 3,555 ACEI and 1,442 ARB new users, while CV-endpoint models included 3,289 ACEI and 1,346 ARB new users. After statistical adjustments, ACEI users had higher hazard ratios for ACM (AHR = 1.22, 99% CI 1.05-1.42) and CV-endpoint (AHR = 1.12, 99% CI 0.99-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients initiating maintenance dialysis who received an ACEI faced an increased risk for mortality and a trend towards an increased risk for CV-endpoints when compared to patients who received an ARB. Validation of these results in a rigorous clinical trial is warranted.

Review: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and coronary heart disease prevention

A number of large randomised controlled trials have shown that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, compared with placebo or other blood pressure-lowering drugs, improve coronary heart disease outcomes (fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularisation) in diverse patient groups, e.g. in primary and secondary prevention, those with and without left ventricular dysfunction, and among hypertensive and non-hypertensive subjects. An updated meta-regression analysis which included five major trials in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) (EUROPA, INVEST, ACTION, PEACE and CAMELOT) concluded that ACE inhibitor (ACE-I) therapy has clear benefits in secondary prevention, but there are important and unexplained differences between trials in clinical outcome, baseline cardiovascular risk, blood pressure changes and trial design which deserve further discussion of the underlying mechanisms and clinical interpretation. For example, in placebo-controlled trials the biggest (20—22%) reductions in primary end points (including mortality) have been observed with perindopril and ramipril, whereas trials using trandolapril and quinapril had no effect on survival or recurrent CAD events. This review summarises and compares the major findings of these recent trials, and provides further analysis of the underlying mechanisms and clinical significance of secondary CAD prevention with ACE-I therapy.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension: 5. Head-to-head comparisons of various classes of antihypertensive drugs - overview and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We have recently published an overview and meta-analysis of the effects of the five major classes of blood pressure-lowering drugs on cardiovascular outcomes when compared with placebo. However, possible differences in effectiveness of the various classes can correctly be estimated only by head-to-head comparisons of different classes of agents. This has been the objective of a new survey and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A database search between 1966 and August 2014 ide ntified 50 eligible randomized controlled trials for 58 two-drug comparisons (247 006 patients for 1 029 768 patient-years). Risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals of seven outcomes were estimated by a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The effects of all drug classes are not significantly different on most outcomes when their blood pressure effect is equivalent. However, there are also significant differences involving almost all classes of drugs. When compared to all other classes together, diuretics are superior in preventing heart failure; beta-blockers less effective in preventing stroke; calcium antagonists superior in preventing stroke and all-cause death, but inferior in preventing heart failure; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors more effective in preventing coronary heart disease and less in preventing stroke; angiotensin receptor blockers inferior in preventing coronary heart disease; and renin-angiotensin system blockers more effective in preventing heart failure. When stratifying randomized controlled trials according to total cardiovascular risk, no drug class was found to change in effectiveness with the level of risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of all available evidence from head-to-head drug class comparisons do not allow the formulation of a fixed paradigm of drug choice valuable for all hypertensive patients, but the differences found may suggest specific choices in specific conditions, or preferable combinations of drugs.

The metabolic vascular syndrome - guide to an individualized treatment

In ancient Greek medicine the concept of a distinct syndrome (going together) was used to label 'a group of signs and symptoms' that occur together and 'characterize a particular abnormality and condition'. The (dys)metabolic syndrome is a common cluster of five pre-morbid metabolic-vascular risk factors or diseases associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, fatty liver disease and risk of cancer. The risk for major complications such as cardiovascular diseases, NASH and some cancers develops along a continuum of risk factors into clinical diseases. Therefore we still include hyperglycemia, visceral obesity, dyslipidemia and hypertension as diagnostic traits in the definition according to the term 'deadly quartet'. From the beginning elevated blood pressure and hyperglycemia were core traits of the metabolic syndrome associated with endothelial dysfunction and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Thus metabolic and vascular abnormalities are in extricable linked. Therefore it seems reasonable to extend the term to metabolic-vascular syndrome (MVS) to signal the clinical relevance and related risk of multimorbidity. This has important implications for integrated diagnostics and therapeutic approach. According to the definition of a syndrome the rapid global rise in the prevalence of all traits and comorbidities of the MVS is mainly caused by rapid changes in life-style and sociocultural transition resp. with over- and malnutrition, low physical activity and social stress as a common soil.

Blood pressure control versus atrial fibrillation management in stroke prevention

Hypertension is one of the major risk factors for atrial fibrillation which in turn is the most prevalent concomitant condition in hypertensive patients. While both these pathological conditions are independent risk factors for stroke, the association of hypertension and atrial fibrillation increases the incidence of disabling strokes. Moreover, documented or silent atrial fibrillation doubles the rate of cardiovascular death. Lowering blood pressure is strongly recommended, particularly for primary stroke prevention. However, a relatively small percentage of hypertensive patients still achieve the recommended blood pressure goals. The management of atrial fibrillation with respect to stroke prevention is changing. New oral anticoagulants represent a major advancement in long-term anticoagulation therapy in non valvular atrial fibrillation. They have several benefits over warfarin, including improved adherence to the anticoagulation therapy. This is an important issue since non-adherence to stroke prevention medications is a risk factor for first and recurrent strokes.

Pathophysiological Mechanisms and Correlates of Therapeutic Pharmacological Interventions in Essential Arterial Hypertension

Treating arterial hypertension (HT) remains a hard task. The hypertensive patient is often a subject with several comorbidities and metabolic abnormalities. Clinicians everyday have to choose the right drug for the single patient among the different classes of antihypertensives. Apart from lowering blood pressure, a main therapeutic target should be that of counteracting all the possible pathophysiological mechanisms involved in HT itself and in existing/potential comorbidities. All the ancillary positive and negative effects of the administered drugs should be considered: in particular, since hypertensive patients are often glucose intolerant/diabetic, carrier of serum lipids disorder, have already developed atherosclerotic diseases and endothelial dysfunction, they should not be treated with drugs negatively interfering with these conditions but with molecules that, if possible, improve them. The main pathophysiological mechanisms and correlates of therapeutic pharmacological interventions in essential HT are reviewed here.

Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) Guidelines and the Outpatient Management of Hypertension in the African-American Population

Background:

Hypertension is a common medical disease, occurring in about one third of young adults and almost two thirds of individuals over the age of 60. With the release of the Eighth Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment (JNC-8) guidelines, there have been major changes in blood pressure management in the various subgroups.

Aim:

Optimal blood pressure management and markers of end-organ damage in African-American adult patients were compared between patients who were managed according to the JNC-8 hypertension management guidelines and those who were treated with other regimens.

Materials and Methods:

African-American patients aged 18 years or older with an established diagnosis of hypertension were included in the study who were followed up in our internal medicine clinic between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2103; the data on their systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings, heart rate, body mass index (BMI), age, gender, comorbidities, and medications were recorded. Patients were divided into four groups based on the antihypertensive therapy as follows — Group 1: Diuretic only; Group 2: Calcium channel blocker (CCB) only; Group 3: Diuretic and CCB; Group 4: Other antihypertensive agent. Their blood pressure control, comorbidities, and associated target organ damage were analyzed.

Results:

In all 323 patients, blood pressures were optimally controlled. The majority of the patients (79.6%) were treated with either a diuretic, a CCB, or both. Intergroup comparison analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the mean systolic blood pressure, mean diastolic blood pressure, associated comorbidities, or frequency of target organ damage.

Conclusion:

Although diuretics or CCBs are recommended as first-line agents in African-American patients, we found no significant difference in the optimal control of blood pressure and frequency of end-organ damage compared to management with other agents.

The 2014 hypertension guidelines: implications for patients and practitioners in Asia

Hypertension is a global public health issue and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Because of population growth and ageing, the number of people with uncontrolled hypertension rose from 600 million in 1980 to nearly 1 billion in 2008. Furthermore, the number of adults with hypertension in 2025 has also been predicted to increase by about 60% to a total of 1.56 billion. The prevalence of hypertension in most Asian countries has increased over the last 30 years and more dramatically in the last 10 years. Several factors contributed to such changes in Asia, but acculturation to Western lifestyle, modernisation and urbanisation are considered key contributing factors. There are some unique features in regards to cardiovascular risk in Asia. Specifically, Asian regions have disproportionately higher mortality and morbidity from stroke compared with Western countries. Furthermore, the relationship between blood pressure level and risk of stroke is stronger in Asia than in Western regions. Although evidence-based and qualified guidelines for hypertension diagnosis and management have been released recently from Europe and North America, the unique features of Asian patients with hypertension raise concerns in regards to the real clinical applicability of Western guidelines in Asian populations. Specifically, it is not yet clear to what extent the new blood pressure target proposed by Western guidelines for high risk and elderly hypertensive individuals apply to Asian populations.

Association between higher rates of cardioprotective drug use and survival in patients on dialysis

BACKGROUND

While cardiovascular (CV) disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients on chronic dialysis, utilization rates of cardioprotective drugs for dialysis patients remain low. This study sought to determine whether higher rates of cardioprotective drug use among dialysis patients might increase survival.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of incident dialysis patients (n = 50,468) with dual eligibility for U.S. Medicare and Medicaid was constructed using USRDS data linked with billing claims. Medication exposures included angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), β-blockers, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) prescribed within 90 days of dialysis initiation. The outcomes were one- and two-year survival and CV event-free survival. Variation in treatment rates based on local area practice styles were used as instruments in instrumental variable (IV) estimation, yielding average treatment effect estimates for patients whose treatment choices were affected by local area practice styles.

RESULTS

Patients aged 65 years and older comprised 47.4% of the sample, while 59.5% were female and 35.0% were white. The utilization rate was 40.7% for ACEIs/ARBs, 43.0% for β-blockers, 50.7% for CCBs and 26.4% for statins. The local area practice style instruments were highly significantly related to cardioprotective drug use in dialysis patients (Chow-F values > 10). IV estimates showed only that higher rates of β-blockers increased one-year survival (β = 0.161, P-value = 0.020) and CV event-free survival (β = 0.189, P-value = 0.033), but that higher rates of CCBs decreased two-year CV event-free survival (β = -0.520, P-value = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that higher utilization rates of β-blockers might yield higher survival rates for dialysis patients. However, higher rates of the other drugs studied had no correlations with survival, and higher CCB rates might actually reduce CV-event free survival. Since the benefits of cardioprotective drugs may vary across dialysis patients, the study findings should be interpreted only with respect to changes of utilization rates around the rates observed in this study.

Lung Volume Reduction Surgery and Improvement of Endothelial Function and Blood Pressure in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Randomized Controlled Trial

RATIONALE

Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Preliminary studies have shown that both airflow obstruction and systemic inflammation may contribute to endothelial dysfunction in COPD. Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is a treatment option in selected patients with COPD with emphysema that improves breathing mechanics and lung function.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of LVRS on endothelial function and systemic inflammation.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 30 patients scheduled for LVRS. In the intervention group, immediate LVRS was performed after baseline evaluation followed by reassessment 3 months later. In the control group, reassessment followed 3 months after baseline evaluation, and thereafter LVRS was performed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome measures were the treatment effect on endothelial function and systemic inflammation. In the LVRS group 14 patients completed the trial and 13 in the control group. LVRS led to a relative reduction in mean (SD) residual volume/total lung capacity of -12% (12%) and an increase in FEV1 of 29% (27%). Flow-mediated dilatation of the brachial artery increased in the intervention group as compared with the control group (+2.9%; 95% confidence interval, +2.1 to +3.6%; P < 0.001), whereas there was no significant change in systemic inflammation. A significant treatment effect on mean blood pressure was observed (-9.0 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -17.5 to -0.5; P = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Endothelial function and blood pressure are improved 3 months after LVRS in patients with severe COPD and emphysema. LVRS may therefore have beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01020344).

Long-Term Anti-Hypertensive Therapy and Stroke Prevention: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Stroke causes approximately 6.7 million deaths worldwide per year and is the second leading cause of death. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension, an independent risk factor for stroke, significantly reduces the incidence of stroke. Although prior meta-analyses demonstrate various antihypertensive classes are superior to placebo in reducing stroke risk, which class is most effective is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic MEDLINE search including only randomized controlled trials (RCT) of antihypertensive medications published between 1999 and 2014 in adults with stroke as a primary or secondary outcome. Five classes compared against all others were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (T-TLDs). Among 17 RCTs with 31 comparative arms, risk ratio was used to assess effect size, and a fixed- and random-effect model was used to calculate summary effect size, utilizing comprehensive meta-analysis statistical software version 2.0.

RESULTS

The 251,853 subjects (46 ± 11.4 % female; mean age 67.2 ± 6.8 years), were grouped as follows: ACEI 52,887; ARB 7278; ACEI/ARB 60,165; β-blocker 24,099; CCB 98,950; and T-TLD 68,639. The mean follow-up was 42.9 ± 15 months. A random-effect model was used to assess for summary effect size in ACEI, ACEI/ARB, ARB, and T-TLD groups. The summary risk ratio for stroke occurrence in the different antihypertensive drug classes were as follows: ACEIs 1.01 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p = 0.92); ACEIs/ARBs 0.94 (95 % CI 0.78-1.13; p = 0.51); T-TLDs 0.90 (95 % CI 0.75-1.08; p = 0.25); ARBs 0.83 (95 % CI 0.59-1.18; p = 0.30); β-blockers 1.42 (95 % CI 1.26-1.61; p < 0.01); and CCBs 0.83 (95 % CI 0.79-0.89; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Among the antihypertensive classes, CCBs were most effective in reducing the long-term incidence of stroke, whereas β-blockers were associated with significantly increased risk.

Primary and secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease in women

Cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of mortality among women. With increasing awareness of heart disease in women and increasing focus on including more women in trials, mortality from cardiovascular disease has fallen. Despite this, more women than men die from cardiovascular disease, and increasing cardiovascular disease is seen in young women. Preventive therapies have been the focus of recent guidelines to close this gap. In this review, data for primary and secondary prevention therapies for ischemic heart disease in women will be reviewed.

Clinical implications of the 2013 ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines: targets, choice of therapy, and blood pressure monitoring

The European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2013 guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension included simplified blood pressure (BP) targets across patient groups, more balanced discussion on monotherapy vs. combination therapy, as well as reconfirmation of the importance of out-of-office BP measurements. In light of these updates, we wished to review some issues raised and take a fresh look at the role of calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy; an established antihypertensive class that appears to be a favorable choice in many patients. Relaxed BP targets for high-risk hypertensive patients in the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines were driven by a lack of commanding evidence for an aggressive approach. However, substantial evidence demonstrates cardiovascular benefits from more intensive BP lowering across patient groups. Individualized treatment of high-risk patients may be prudent until more solid evidence is available. Individual patient profiles and preferences and evidence for preferential therapy benefits should be considered when deciding upon the optimal antihypertensive regimen. CCBs appear to be a positive choice for monotherapy, and in combination with other agent classes, and may provide specific benefits beyond BP lowering. Ambulatory and home BP monitoring have an increasing role in defining the diagnosis and prognosis of hypertension (especially non-sustained); however, their value for comprehensive diagnosis and appropriate treatment selection should be more widely acknowledged. In conclusion, further evidence may be required on BP targets in high-risk patients, and optimal treatment selection based upon individual patient profiles and comprehensive diagnosis using out-of-office BP measurements may improve patient management.

Randomized Controlled Trials of Blood Pressure Lowering in Hypertension

Sixty-eight blood pressure (BP)–lowering randomized controlled trials (defined as randomized controlled trials comparing active treatment with placebo, or less active treatment, achieving a BP difference, performed between 1966 and end 2013 in cohorts with ≥40% hypertensive patients, and exclusive of trials in acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and dialysis) were identified and meta-analyzed grouping the randomized controlled trials on the basis of clinically relevant questions: (1) does BP lowering reduce all types of cardiovascular outcome? (2) Is prevention of all outcomes proportional to the extent of systolic, diastolic, and pulse BP? (3) Have all classes of BP-lowering drugs been shown capable of reducing all types of cardiovascular outcome? (4) Is BP lowering beneficial when intervention is initiated at any grade (or stage) of hypertension? (5) Do BP-lowering randomized controlled trials provide evidence about systolic BP and diastolic BP targets of treatment? (6) Should BP-lowering treatment be preferentially addressed to patients in higher risk categories promising larger absolute treatment benefits? The results of these meta-analyses provide further support to current hypertension treatment guidelines by showing that BP lowering can significantly reduce major cardiovascular outcomes largely independent of the agents used, significant risk reduction is found at all hypertension grades (stages), and when systolic BP is lowered below a cut off of 140 mm Hg with some further reduction limited to stroke at systolic BP values just <130 mm Hg. Absolute risk reduction progressively increases higher is total cardiovascular risk, but this greater benefit is associated with a progressively higher residual risk, ie, higher treatment failures.

Combination therapy in the extended cardiovascular continuum: a focus on perindopril and amlodipine

The progression of cardiovascular disease could be regarded as following atherosclerosis-related and age-related pathways. The starting points for these pathways are different--risk factors or aortic ageing--but they conclude in the same way: end-stage heart disease. Together these interlinked pathways form the extended cardiovascular continuum. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors have been shown to interrupt or slow the progression of cardiovascular disease along one pathway, the cardiovascular atherosclerotic continuum. Cardiovascular protection with RAAS inhibitors varies; different RAAS inhibitors offer different levels of protection. Similarly, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) also have clearly shown protective effect of cardiovascular system, especially as it regards cerebrovascular disease risk. The AngloScandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) showed that a combination of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor perindopril and CCB amlodipine offered better cardiovascular protection in at-risk hypertensive patients than beta-blocker and thiazide. By attenuating the deleterious effects of cardiovascular disease at multiple stages of the extended cardiovascular continuum on top of lowering blood pressure (BP), perindopril and amlodipine could interrupt and slow the progression of cardiovascular disease. These antihypertensive agents have complementary vascular effects that enhance cardiovascular protection and reduce side-effects. Evidence from ASCOT shows that antihypertensive and vascular effects of amlodipine with and without perindopril have translated into real-life clinical benefits. A strategy using ACE inhibitors and CCBs, such as perindopril and amlodipine, to target multiple stages in both pathways of cardiovascular disease could effectively reduce cardiovascular risk and lower BP.

Effects of lercanidipine versus amlodipine in hypertensive patients with cerebral ischemic stroke

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of lercanidipine and amlodipine in the treatment of hypertensive patients with acute cerebral ischemic stroke.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

An open label, controlled, randomized, parallel-group study was conducted on 104 hypertensive patients (blood pressure [BP] >130/80 mmHg) diagnosed with ischemic stroke. Enrolled subjects were randomly assigned to a 4 week treatment with lercanidipine 20 mg/day or amlodipine 10 mg/day. The treatment was administered during the acute phase of the stroke, either immediately after the diagnosis or during an observation period of maximum 6 days.

RESULTS

Both lercanidipine and amlodipine were able to significantly reduce mean clinical systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP), mean 24 h ambulatory BP and day-time and night-time BP. In particular, mean clinical SBP/DBP was reduced from 168.9 ± 21.6/96.2 ± 13.6 mmHg to 147.1 ± 22.0/87.1 ± 14.0 mmHg in the lercanidipine group (p < 0.001 for SBP and p < 0.01 for DBP) and from 167.1 ± 19.9/97.8 ± 14.5 mmHg to 143.3 ± 21.9/82.8 ± 14.1 mmHg in the amlodipine-treated group (p < 0.001 for both SBP and DBP). No statistical difference was observed between the two treatments in the reduction of clinical BP. The response and normalization rates registered in the two groups of patients were also similar, with no significant difference between the two drugs. In addition, both treatments reported comparable results in terms of early morning BP surge reduction and BP stabilization, measured through trough-peak ratio and smoothness index. However lercanidipine showed a better tolerability profile than amlodipine, with fewer adverse events and a lower percentage of patients suffering from side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Lercanidipine is as effective as amlodipine in the reduction and stabilization of BP in hypertensive patients after a stroke, and presents some advantages in terms of safety. Larger studies are necessary to further evaluate these preliminary findings.