Systolic and diastolic blood pressure control in antihypertensive drug trials

Blood pressure and antihypertensive therapy according to the global cardiovascular risk level in Italy: the CHECK Study

BACKGROUND

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is one of the most important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. In this study we assessed the excess of cardiovascular risk attributable to high BP and antihypertensive treatment in a sample of Italian patients enrolled by the 'Cholesterol and Health: Education, Control and Knowledge' (CHECK) study.

METHODS

CHECK is a large, cross-sectional epidemiological study, which randomly enrolled patients aged 40-79 years from 425 Italian General Practices from March 2002 to April 2004. Among 5731 patients enrolled in the study [49.6% men, mean age (standard deviation) 57.7 (10.3) years], 723 (12.6%) had 'optimal' BP, 1496 (26.1%) had 'high normal' BP, and 1942 (33.9%) were hypertensive.

RESULTS

According to the European Guidelines stratification of the cardiovascular risk-excess attributable to high BP, 34.7% of the sample had a low added risk and 53.2% had a moderate-to-very high added risk. The pharmacological therapy was prescribed in 22.3, 43.9, 61.4, and 76.9% of the patients with low, moderate, high, and very high added risk, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Overall dietary and drug therapies are under prescribed, as most of the treated patients would require two additional antihypertensive drugs to meet the recommended BP target. This effort could provide significant individual benefit to moderate/high-risk patients.

The Rise and Fall of Hypertension: Lessons Learned from Eastern Europe

Hypertension is a progressive cardiovascular syndrome that arises from many differing, but interrelated, etiologies. Hypertension is the most prevalent cardiovascular disorder, affecting 20% to 50% of the adult population in developed countries. Arterial hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and death. Epidemiologic data have shown that control of hypertension is achieved in only a small percentage of hypertensive patients. Findings from the World Health Organization project Monitoring Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Diseases (MONICA) showed a remarkably high prevalence (about 65%) of hypertension in Eastern Europeans. There is virtually no difference however, between the success rate in controlling hypertension when comparing Eastern and Western European populations. Diagnosing hypertension depends on both population awareness of the dangers of hypertension and medical interventions aimed at the detecting elevated blood pressure, even in asymptomatic patients. Medical compliance with guidelines for the treatment of hypertension is variable throughout Eastern Europe. Prevalence of hypertension increases with age, and the management of hypertension in elderly is a significant problem. The treatment of hypertension demands a comprehensive approach to the patient with regard to cardiovascular risk and individualization of hypertensive therapy.

Controle da hipertensão arterial e fatores associados na atenção primária em Unidades Básicas de Saúde localizadas na Região Oeste da cidade de São Paulo

Realizou-se estudo para caracterizar o controle de hipertensos atendidos na atenção primária com amostra de 440 hipertensos. Os hipertensos foram entrevistados e a medida da pressão foi realizada com aparelho automático validado. A relação entre as variáveis classificatórias foi avaliada com o teste qui-quadrado e posterior análise multivariada. Os resultados mostraram que o controle da hipertensão arterial foi de 45,5% e se associou (p<0,05) a mulheres, idade menos elevada, menos tempo de doença, já ter feito tratamento para hipertensão, menos interrupção do tratamento, conhecimento sobre a importância dos exercícios físicos, raramente deixar de tomar remédio na hora certa, menor número de drogas anti-hipertensivas prescritas, antecedentes para doenças cardíacas, prática de exercícios físicos e menos tristeza. A análise de regressão logística mostrou que a falta de controle da hipertensão foi dependente de tratamento anterior para hipertensão (OR = 2,26; IC 95%, 1,4 - 3,6), falta de conhecimento sobre prática de atividade física (OR = 3,5; IC 95%, 1,1 - 10,8) e ausência de antecedente familiar para problemas cardíacos (OR = 2,2; IC 95%, 1,3 - 3,5). Menos da metade dos hipertensos estava controlada e o controle se associou a variáveis biológicas, tratamento, atitudes e conhecimento sobre a hipertensão e seu tratamento.

Blood pressure control and cardiovascular risk profile in hypertensive patients from central and eastern European countries: results of the BP-CARE study

AIMS

Limited information is available on office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control as well as on cardiovascular (CV) risk profile in treated hypertensive patients living in central and eastern European countries.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 2008, a survey on 7860 treated hypertensive patients followed by non-specialist or specialist physicians was carried out in nine central and eastern European countries (Albania, Belarus, Bosnia, Czech Republic, Latvia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine). Cardiovascular risk assessment was based on personal history, clinic BP values, as well as target organ damage evaluation. Patients had a mean (±SD) age of 60.1 ± 11 years, and the majority of them (83.5%) were followed by specialists. Average clinic BP was 149.3 ± 17/88.8 ± 11 mmHg. About 70% of patients displayed a very high-risk profile. Electrocardiogram was performed in 99% of patients, echocardiography in 65%, carotid ultrasound in 24%, fundoscopy in 68%, and search for microalbuminuria in 10%. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed in about one-fifth of the recruited patients. Despite the widespread use of combination treatment (87% of the patients), office BP control (<140/90 mmHg) was achieved in 27.1% only, the corresponding control rate for ambulatory BP (<130/80 mmHg) being 35.7%. Blood pressure control was (i) variable among different countries, (ii) worse for systolic than for diastolic BP, (iii) slightly better in patients followed by specialists than by non-specialists, (iv) unrelated to patients' age, and (v) more unsatisfactory in high-risk hypertensives and in patients with coronary heart disease, stroke, or renal failure.

CONCLUSION

These data provide evidence that in central and eastern European countries office and ambulatory BP control are unsatisfactory, particularly in patients at very high CV risk, and not differ from that seen in Western Europe. They also show that assessment of subclinical organ damage is quite common, except for microalbuminuria, and that combination drug treatment is frequently used.

Effect of an olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm on systolic blood pressure in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Elevated systolic BP (SBP) is a major contributor to cardiovascular disease. SBP control reduces the occurrence of stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular and total mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze the magnitude of SBP reductions and the achievement of individual SBP targets in the original BENIFORCE study.

METHODS

An olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm was evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled titration study in 276 patients with stage 1 (47.1%) or 2 (52.9%) hypertension. After placebo run-in, patients were randomized to placebo (12 weeks) or olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day (weeks 1-3). Olmesartan medoxomil was uptitrated to 40 mg/day (weeks 4-6), then olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 40/12.5 mg per day (weeks 7-9), and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25 mg per day (weeks 10-12) if BP remained ≥120/80 mmHg at any time interval.

SETTING

The BENIFORCE study was a multicenter (29 sites) study conducted between January and October 2007 in the US.

RESULTS

In patients receiving olmesartan medoxomil-based therapy, 81.0%, 67.2%, and 46.6% of patients with stage 1 hypertension and 70.4%, 49.4%, and 23.5% of patients with stage 2 hypertension achieved SBP targets of <140, <130, and <120 mmHg, respectively (all p < 0.01 vs placebo). The proportions of patients achieving SBP targets increased with escalating doses of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ, administered alone or in combination, and was highest for combination therapy. Similarly, escalating doses of olmesartan medoxomil or olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ increased the proportion of patients achieving SBP reductions of >15 but ≤30, >30 but ≤45, and >45 mmHg compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

An olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm effectively reduced SBP and achieved SBP targets in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension. This regimen resulted in >80% of patients achieving SBP reductions of ≥15 mmHg while 44% achieved SBP reductions of >30 mmHg.

Efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg combination therapy versus olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational, phase III study

BACKGROUND

Current hypertension guidelines recommend using two antihypertensive agents when blood pressure (BP) control is not achieved with one single agent.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess the antihypertensive benefit of the olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg combination versus olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe hypertension.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, up-titration, multicentre, multinational, phase III study. Following a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in phase, 846 hypertensive patients with mean seated systolic BP (SeSBP) of 160-200 mmHg and mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) of 100-120 mmHg were randomized (1 : 2 ratio) to receive double-blind treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg or olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg for 8 weeks (phase A). At week 8, patients not reaching BP goal (<140/90 mmHg; <130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) were up-titrated from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg for an additional 8 weeks (phase B). Patients on goal continued their initial treatment. The primary efficacy parameter was the change in mean SeDBP during phase A.

RESULTS

Olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg reduced mean SeDBP significantly more (-18.9 mmHg) than olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg (-15.8 mmHg) after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment (difference: -3.1 mmHg, p < 0.0001). Olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg also reduced mean SeSBP significantly more than olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg (-5.4 mmHg, p < 0.0001). As a result, BP goal rates at week 8 were significantly higher with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg than with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg (58.5% vs 44.3%; odds ratio 1.88; 95% CI 1.32, 2.54). During phase B, mean BP reductions were greater in patients up-titrated from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg than in those continuing on olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg (SeDBP: -9.3 mmHg vs -0.5 mmHg; SeSBP: -12.4 mmHg vs -0.5 mmHg). Similarly, mean BP reductions were greater in patients up-titrated from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg than in those continuing on olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (SeDBP: -8.0 mmHg vs -0.3 mmHg; SeSBP: -12.1 mmHg vs -0.4 mmHg). In patients not on goal at week 8, addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg or up-titration from olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg brought additional patients to goal at week 16 (38.8% vs 36.9%). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg combination is superior to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg monotherapy in reducing SeDBP and SeSBP and increasing BP goal rates after 8 weeks. Patients not on goal at week 8 with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg or olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg benefited from adding HCTZ 12.5 mg or up-titrating to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, respectively, confirming that up-titration is a clinically meaningful way to improve BP control. [

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00441350 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier)].

Antihypertensive treatment and stroke prevention: from recent meta-analyses to the PRoFESS trial

Blood pressure control is the cornerstone of therapeutic interventions aimed at preventing first strokes and recurrent strokes. All antihypertensive drug classes may be useful in preventing cerebrovascular events, depending on their efficacy in lowering elevated blood pressure values and achieving blood pressure control. However, recent findings indicate that drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system (-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers) may exert cerebrovascular protective effects in addition to blood pressure reduction. This article examines the cerebrovascular protection provided by antihypertensive drug treatment in the light of the results of recent meta-analyses and of the findings of the Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes (PRoFESS) trial.

Effectiveness and safety of high-dose valsartan monotherapy in hypertension treatment: the ValTop study

Early combination therapy is increasingly recommended in hypertension management because of increased risk of adverse effects with high-dose monotherapy. However, this risk is not necessarily increased for high doses of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). ValTop study compared efficacy and safety of high vs. conventional dose of valsartan in hypertensive patients. ValTop was a controlled, randomized, double-blind trial. Of 6035 screened subjects, 4004 mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients (mean seated diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) 90-109 mm Hg) started 4-week open-label treatment with valsartan 160 mg. Of them, 3776 were randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg (N=1900) or 320 mg (N=1876) o.d. for 4 weeks. In 28-week open-label extension study, all participating patients (N=642) received valsartan 320 mg. Valsartan 160 mg reduced MSDBP by 10.0 mm Hg in the initial open-label phase. Further BP reductions in the double-blind phase were significantly (P<0.0001) greater in the 320 mg group than in the 160 mg group for MSDBP (1.6 ± 0.18 mm Hg vs. 0.5 ± 0.18 mm Hg) and mean seated systolic BP (3.3 ± 0.31 mm Hg vs. 0.7 ± 0.31 mm Hg). The size of the additional effect of the 320 mg dose on BP was similar in subjects controlled or not by the initial 160 mg dose. Adverse event (AE) rates were similar in both treatment groups, drug-related AEs occurring in <5% of subjects in each phase. High-dose valsartan is safe and effective in uncomplicated mild-to-moderate hypertension independently of the initial response to a moderate dose. High-dose ARB monotherapy may thus be a viable option in hypertension management.

Efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil plus amlodipine in age, gender and hypertension severity defined subgroups of hypertensive patients

Effective antihypertensive therapy is crucial for preventing cardiovascular events; however, blood pressure (BP) control rates remain poor. The objective of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine in age, severity and gender-based subgroups of patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension uncontrolled by amlodipine monotherapy. Patients with uncontrolled BP after 8 weeks' amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy (n=755) were randomized to continue amlodipine 5 mg or receive olmesartan (10-40 mg) plus amlodipine 5 mg for 8 weeks. Patients whose BP remained suboptimal were up-titrated to olmesartan/amlodipine 20/5, 40/5 or 40/10 mg. Changes in BP and numbers of controlled patients were calculated separately to assess efficacy in patients aged <65 or ≥65 years, in those with moderate or severe hypertension, and in males and females. The antihypertensive effects of olmesartan/amlodipine were similar in patients aged <65 and ≥65 years of age. Compared with patients with moderate hypertension at baseline, those with severe hypertension tended to show higher decreases in BP, but achieved lower goal rates despite this. Females showed larger mean reductions in diastolic (1.61 mm Hg; P=0.003) and systolic BP (1.72 mm Hg; P=0.053) than males, independent of age and dose. This gender difference appeared to be higher and more consistent across dose groups for patients <50 years of age, but the difference in the pattern between both age groups was not statistically significant (P=0.1526). These results suggest that olmesartan/amlodipine is effective and safe in a wide range of patients, regardless of age or hypertension severity. Small differences in responsiveness between females and males may exist, which require further investigation.

Efficacy and safety of irbesartan/HCTZ in severe hypertension according to cardiometabolic factors

This post hoc analysis of a 7-week, randomized, double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of initial irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide treatment in 468 patients with severe, uncontrolled, hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or =100 mm Hg) at high cardiovascular risk. Systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP reductions ranged from 28.0 to 42.9/22.9 to 27.2 mm Hg in patients with obesity, diabetes, baseline SBP > or =180 mm Hg, and in the elderly. Blood pressure control to <140/90 mm Hg in the age and obesity subgroups ranged from 32.1% to 39.2% while control to <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes was 11.5%. After 1 week of therapy, 72.5% of patients no longer had SBP > or =180 mm Hg; by 7 weeks, 51.3% had SBP 140 to 159 mm Hg and 26.5% had SBP <140 mm Hg. Treatment was well tolerated regardless of the subgroup. No excess of prespecified events was noted. Thus, initial treatment with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide was rapidly effective in high-risk, difficult-to-treat, severely hypertensive patients.

Salt supplementation blunts the blood pressure response to telmisartan with or without hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We assessed the effects of sodium chloride (NaCl) supplementation on the blood pressure response to treatment with telmisartan with or without hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and habitually high (HDS, sodium excretion >200 mmol/24 h on two out of three consecutive occasions) or low (LDS, sodium excretion <100 mmol/24 h on two out of three consecutive occasions) salt intake.

METHODS

Patients received 4 weeks of telmisartan followed by 4 weeks of telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide. In a double-blind randomised fashion, patients received sodium chloride (NaCl, 100 mmol/24 h) or placebo capsules in addition to their habitual salt intake during the last 2 weeks of telmisartan and telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide therapy. The protocol was repeated with NaCl and placebo capsules administered in reverse order to allow each participant to act as his or her own control. At 0, 4, 8, 14, 18 and 22 weeks, 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and 24 h urine collections were performed.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were seen in the ABP response in the LDS vs HDS groups to any of the interventions (p = 0.58). NaCl supplementation reduced the effect of telmisartan with or without hydrochlorothiazide on systolic BP by approximately 50% (-5.8 mmHg during NaCl supplementation vs -11.3 mmHg during placebo, mean difference 5.6 mmHg [95% CI 1.7-9.4 mmHg], p = 0.005), irrespective of habitual salt intake. By contrast, addition of hydrochlorothiazide increased the antihypertensive effect of telmisartan on systolic BP by approximately 35% (p = 0.048) in both groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

NaCl supplementation blunts the effectiveness of telmisartan with or without hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes, independently of habitual low or high salt intake.

De-stiffening drug therapy and blood pressure control

In hypertensive subjects, cardiovascular risk reduction is critically related to the decrease of systolic blood pressure (SBP). De-stiffening therapy means that, in a controlled therapeutic trial of long duration, a selective reduction of SBP has been obtained in the studied group by comparison with the control group, and that this SBP reduction is due to a decrease of either arterial stiffness, or wave reflections, or both. Central SBP reduction and cardiovascular remodeling are specifically involved. Most protocols require the presence of an angiotensin II blocker, potentially associated with a diuretic compound and/or a calcium-channel blocker. Cardiovascular outcomes are significantly reduced by comparison with the control group, particularly when this latter group involves administration of a beta-blocking agent.

Management of essential hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Epidemiological studies have unequivocally shown that hypertension (HT)is a major cardiovascular (CV) risk factor and that a direct linear relationship exists between the severity of the blood pressure (BP) elevation and the occurrence of CV events.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND CONTROVERSY

The beneficial effects of the BP-lowering interventions have been recognized since a number of years. These include not only the reduction in CV morbidity and mortality but also the regression (or the delay of progression) of HT-related end-organ damage, such as left ventricular hypertrophy, vascular remodelling, endothelial dysfunction and renal damage. Along with these well-established features, antihypertensive drug treatment still faces a number of unmet goals and unanswered questions, such as the target BP values to achieve in high-risk patients, the threshold of treatment in low-risk patients as well as the choice of the therapeutic approach more likely to offer greater CV protection.

CONCLUSION

Despite unmet goals, antihypertensive treatment has provided throughout the years successful results. Future efforts will be need to achieve a better BP control in the population and thus to obtain a greater CV protection.

Hypertension treatment and management concerns in the elderly

Much of the developed world’s population is aging. Hypertension is a common condition that increases steadily with age and is most prevalent in the elderly. In the last two decades, a number of clinical trials have increased the awareness of the consequences of hypertension and enhanced the understanding of its treatment. Both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies have been found to be successful in treating hypertension and reducing the frequency of associated morbidity and mortality in the elderly. Moreover, these treatments appear to be well tolerated and feasible to implement in geriatric populations. It is incumbent upon healthcare providers and policymakers alike to diligently pursue judicious management of hypertension in older patients.

Antihypertensive drug therapy and blood pressure control in men and women: an international perspective

Cardiovascular death represents the single largest cause of mortality in women with 70% of deaths attributable to modifiable risk factors, such as hypertension. This analysis aims at evaluating, whether there are gender disparities in antihypertensive drug usage and blood pressure (BP) control. We included 18 017 patients with arterial hypertension from the International Survey Evaluating Microalbuminuria Routinely by Cardiologists in patients with Hypertension (I-SEARCH). The study was conducted between September 2005 and March 2006 in 26 countries, and data on patient demographics, cardiovascular disease and risk factors, BP, and cardiovascular drug treatment were collected. Mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 2.1 mm Hg higher in women (150.6+/-0.35 mm Hg, n=8357/18 017) than in men (148.5+/-0.35 mm Hg; P<0.0001, n=9526/18 017), whereas no difference in diastolic BP was seen (88.2+/-0.20 vs 88+/-0.20 mm Hg; P=0.198). Gender differences in SBP were more pronounced in diabetic as compared with non-diabetic patients (3.5 vs 1.7 mm Hg, n=4272 vs n=13 611; P<0.0001) and became evident at an age 55 years old. Overall BP-control rate was 33.6% in men and 30.6% in women (P<0.0001) and was lower in diabetic as compared with non-diabetic patients. In all, 30% of patients used one, 40% used two and 30% used > or = 3 drugs without gender differences. Response rates to different drug regimens appeared to be similar. However, women received more frequently thiazides and beta-blockers, and less frequently ACE-inhibitors as monotherapy. Major efforts are required to improve BP-management, especially in women.

Management of hypertension in patients with diabetes: the place of angiotensin-II receptor blockers

Hypertension is an important cardiovascular (CV) risk factor in patients with diabetes mellitus. In this setting, tight control of blood pressure (BP) significantly reduces CV morbidity and mortality. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study, a 10 mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) was superior to a 0.7% decrease in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) as far as reducing morbidity and mortality was concerned. In the Hypertension Optimal Treatment study, the risk of CV events decreased by 51% among patients with type 2 diabetes randomized to the lower BP level. Based on these findings, contemporary treatment guidelines recommend a target SBP/diastolic blood pressure of <130/80 mmHg for patients with diabetes.

Determinants of poor hypertension management in patients with ischaemic heart disease

Not much is known about factors influencing hypertension management in patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD). Therefore, the aim of the study was to assess factors influencing hypertension management in patients hospitalized due to IHD. We reviewed hospital records of 1051 consecutive patients with a discharge diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI; n = 290), unstable angina (n = 247), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; n = 259) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; n = 255) who were hospitalized at three university (n = 533) or three community (n = 518) cardiac departments. During the follow-up interview (6-18 months after discharge) 70.2% of study participants fulfilled the criteria for a diagnosis of hypertension. Hypertension had not been diagnosed during index hospitalization in 17.5% of hypertensive participants. Overall, 7.1% of hypertensives were not treated with any blood pressure lowering agent. Irregular health checks (odds ratio, OR, 16.3, 95% confidence interval, CI, 4.1-64.0), alcohol drinking (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.5-7.0), unstable angina (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-5.8), hypertension awareness (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5) and blood pressure lowering drugs prescribed at discharge (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.19) were significantly related to the probability of not being on antihypertensive medication. High blood pressure (>or=140/90 mmHg) was found in 68.9% of hypertensives; older age (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6) and hypertension awareness (OR 0.6, 95% 0.3-1.0) were the only significant predictors of uncontrolled hypertension. Among treated participants with uncontrolled hypertension, 33.4% were on monotherapy, 66.6% were on combination therapy, 25.5% were on three or more drugs and 14.7% were on combination of three or more drugs with diuretic.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertension management in the secondary prevention of IHD is not satisfactory. Age and hypertension awareness are the main factors related to the quality of blood pressure control in the post-discharge period.

Daytime, home and office blood pressures in treated hypertensive patients according to accretion of cardiovascular risk

The relative accuracy of office, home and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements has not been established in patients with metabolic syndrome (MS+). We set out to compare BP values obtained using different measurement modalities and their relationship to MS intensity in hypertensive outpatients. Office, ambulatory and home BPs and risk profile were ascertained. MS was defined according to ATPIII criteria. The study included a cohort of 104 men and 132 women with a mean age of 51.8 +/- 14.2 years; 40.3% had metabolic syndrome (MS+). The MS+ patients had higher home SBP (150 vs 142 mmHg, p < 0.01), were treated with more drugs (3.9 vs 3.0, p < 0.001) and had a poorer BP control on home measurements (11.6 vs 24.8%, p = 0.01). However, the clinical BP control rates were overall higher, and did not differ between two groups when daytime ambulatory (34.7 vs 27%) or office (26.7 vs 22.3%) values were employed. The deviation of home measurements was associated in a dose-dependent fashion with intensity of MS. Thus, in MS+ patients, the well standardized measurement protocols and equipment should be used to assess the antihypertensive efficacy. This is especially true for patients with high body mass index.

Implementation of guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. The impulsion study

This study assessed the effects of a pilot best practice implementation enhancement program on the control of hypertension. We enrolled 697 consecutive known hypertensive patients with other vascular risk factors but free from overt vascular disease. There was no “control” group because it was considered unethical to deprive high-risk patients from “best medical treatment”. Following a baseline visit, previously trained physicians aimed to improve adherence to lifestyle measures and drug treatment for hypertension and other vascular risk factors. Both at baseline and at study completion (after 6 months), a 1-page form was completed showing if patients achieved treatment targets. If not, the reasons why were recorded. This program enhanced compliance with lifestyle measures and increased the use of evidence-based medication. There was a substantial increase in the number of patients who achieved treatment targets for blood pressure (p<0.0001) and other vascular risk factors. In non-diabetic patients (n=585), estimated vascular risk (PROCAM risk engine) was significantly reduced by 41% (p<0.0001). There was also a 12% reduction in vascular risk according to the Framingham risk engine but this did not achieve significance (p=0.07). In conclusion, this is the first study to increase adherence to multiple interventions in hypertensive patients on an outpatient basis, both in primary care and teaching hospitals. Simple, relatively low cost measures (e.g. educating physicians and patients, distributing printed guidelines/brochures and completing a 1-page form) motivated both physicians and patients to achieve multiple treatment goals. Further work is needed to establish if the improvement observed is sustained. [ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00416611].

Issues in blood pressure control and the potential role of single-pill combination therapies

Hypertension (HTN) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular mortality, yet only a small proportion of hypertensive individuals receive appropriate therapy and achieve target blood pressure (BP) values. Factors influencing the success of antihypertensive therapy include physicians' acceptance of guideline BP targets, the efficacy and tolerability of the drug regimen, and patient compliance and persistence with therapy. It is now well recognised that most hypertensive patients require at least two antihypertensive agents to achieve their target BP. However, complicated treatment regimens are a major contributory factor to poor patient compliance. The use of combination therapy for HTN offers a number of advantages over the use of monotherapy, including improved efficacy, as drug combinations with a synergistic mechanism of action can be used. This additive effect means that lower doses of the individual components can be used, which may translate into a decreased likelihood of adverse events. The use of single-pill combination therapy, in which two or more agents are combined in a single dosage form, offers all the benefits of free combination therapy (improved efficacy and tolerability over monotherapy) together with the added benefit of improved patient compliance because of the simplified treatment regimen. The use of single-pill combination therapy may also be associated with cost savings compared with the use of free combinations for reasons of cheaper drug costs, fewer physician visits and fewer hospitalisations for uncontrolled HTN and cardiovascular events. Thus, the use of single-pill combination therapy for HTN should help improve BP goal attainment through improved patient compliance, leading to reduced costs for cardiovascular-related care.

The evolution of systolic blood pressure as a strong predictor of cardiovascular risk and the effectiveness of fixed-dose ARB/CCB combinations in lowering levels of this preferential target

Elevated blood pressure is an important cardiovascular risk factor. Although targets for both diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) are defined by current guidelines, DBP has historically taken precedence in hypertension management. However, there is strong evidence that SBP is superior to DBP as a predictor of cardiovascular events. Moreover, achieving control of SBP is assuming greater importance amongst an aging population. In spite of the growing recognition of the importance of SBP in reducing cardiovascular risk and the emphasis by current guidelines on SBP control, a substantial proportion of patients still fail to achieve SBP targets, and SBP control is achieved much less frequently than DBP control. Thus, new approaches to the management of hypertension are required in order to control SBP and minimize cardiovascular risk. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy is an approach that offers the advantages of multiple drug administration and a reduction in regimen complexity that favors compliance. We have reviewed the latest evidence demonstrating the efficacy in targeting SBP of the most recent FDC products; combinations of the calcium channel blocker (CCB), amlodipine, with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), valsartan or olmesartan. In addition, results from studies with new classes of agent are outlined.

Angiotensin receptor blocker and dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker combinations: an emerging strategy in hypertension therapy

Hypertension is a leading contributor to the burden of cardiovascular disease. The importance of lowering blood pressure (BP) to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events has been demonstrated in numerous clinical trials. Most patients require combination antihypertensive therapy utilizing agents from complementary drug classes to achieve BP goals. A calcium channel blocker (CCB)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination is a rational approach for such an antihypertensive strategy. Benefits of CCB/ARB combination therapy include additive BP-lowering effects and lower incidences of adverse events (AEs). These agents demonstrate benefits associated with their respective drug classes. The ARBs confer stroke protection, renal protection, and tolerability similar to placebo, without dose-related symptomatic and metabolic AEs, while CCBs are beneficial in reducing stroke and treating angina and cardiac ischemia. The efficacy of this combination has been recently investigated in clinical trials wherein amlodipine was combined with olmesartan medoxomil or valsartan. This article discusses the rationale for using CCB/ARB combinations in patients with hypertension.

New insights from ADVANCE

OBJECTIVES

ADVANCE (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease - PreterAx and DiamicroN MR Controlled Evaluation) is a large-scale clinical trial designed to investigate the benefits of blood pressure lowering and intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS

ADVANCE is a 2 x 2 factorial randomized trial evaluating the benefits of the low-dose fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide versus placebo to lower blood pressure and of an intensive gliclazide-MR-based regimen, targeting glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 6.5% or less versus standard therapy to lower blood glucose. The two primary outcomes, taken separately and jointly, are a composite macrovascular endpoint and a composite microvascular endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 11 140 participants were randomized between July 2001 and March 2003 from among 12 878 individuals with type 2 diabetes recruited from 215 centres in 20 countries, who entered a 6-week run-in phase. The average (SD) baseline blood pressure of 145(22)/81 (11) mmHg fell by 8/3 mmHg during the run-in phase during which participants received one tablet of open-labelled perindopril 2 mg-indapamide 0.625 mg. Only 3.6% of the 12 878 patients who entered the run-in phase withdrew because of suspected intolerance to perindopril-indapamide. With over 4 years of follow-up on average so far, over 80% of participants are still adhering to randomized therapy. Follow-up of the blood pressure arm will be completed during 2007.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of perindopril-indapamide in lowering blood pressure and of a gliclazide-MR-based regimen in lowering blood glucose have been established with the completion of a 6-week run-in phase and of more than 4 years of post-randomization follow-up. It is anticipated that ADVANCE will provide many new insights including: whether blood pressure lowering with perindopril-indapamide reduces the risk of both macrovascular and microvascular events irrespective of baseline blood pressure; whether more intensive blood pressure lowering with a gliclazide-MR-based regimen targeting on HbA1c levels of 6.5% or less reduces these two outcomes compared with standard guidelines therapy; and finally whether the separate benefits of these two treatment regimens are additive.

Fixed combination of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide in the management of hypertension

Approximately 25% of the adult population worldwide is hypertensive and thus at risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of many antihypertensive drugs, at least 50% of patients do not achieve blood pressure (BP) targets and thus remain at increased cardiovascular risk. Fixed-dose (FD) irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) is an antihypertensive combination therapy approved for the treatment of patients whose BP is not adequately controlled on monotherapy and for initial treatment of patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve their BP goal. The efficacy and tolerability of FD irbesartan/HCTZ has been demonstrated in both patient populations in large multicenter studies. In patients failing antihypertensive monotherapy, FD irbesartan/HCTZ (150/12.5 mg) has been shown to be more effective than FD valsartan/HCTZ (80/12.5 mg) and at least comparable to FD losartan/HCTZ (50/12.5 mg). In patients with moderate or severe hypertension receiving FD irbesartan/HCTZ as initial therapy, this combination achieved more rapid BP reductions compared with irbesartan monotherapy and enabled a greater proportion of patients with severe hypertension to achieve their BP target. FD irbesartan/HCTZ is thus a valuable addition to the clinician’s armamentarium for the management of hypertension and should help more patients achieve their BP target.

CORD: COmparison of Recommended Doses of ace inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers

The CORD trials tested ramipril and losartan in patients with hypertension. CORD A randomised 4016 patients with blood pressure (BP) <160/100 mm Hg, who had been treated with an ACEI for >3 months. The patients discontinued ACEI and switched to losartan. After 1 month the BP decreased to 7.7/4.7 mm Hg (p<0.001) and after 1 year to 13.8/8.7 mm Hg (p<0.001). CORD B compared ramipril and losartan in 3813 patients with hypertension who were not being treated with an ACEI or ARB. The patients were randomised to ramipril (n=1926) or losartan (n=1887). After 1 year the BP decreased in the ramipril group to 21.8/13.7 mm Hg (p<0.001) and in the losartan group to 22.0/13.3 mm Hg (p<0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups. No differences were in serious adverse events. Dry cough was more frequently after ramipril (33 vs 4, p<0.001).

Principal results of the Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS)

The benefits of lowering a systolic blood pressure below 140 mmHg in elderly hypertension remain controversial. This study is a prospective, randomized, open-label study with blinded assessment of endpoints to compare the 2-year effect of strict treatment to maintain systolic blood pressure below 140 mmHg with that of mild treatment to maintain systolic blood pressure below 160 but at or above 140 mmHg in elderly hypertensive patients. Patients with essential hypertension (65-85 years old, with a pretreatment systolic blood pressure of above 160 mmHg) were randomly assigned to receive strict treatment (n=2,212) or mild treatment (n=2,206). The baseline drug was efonidipine hydrochloride, a long-acting calcium antagonist. The primary endpoint was the combined incidence of cardiovascular disease and renal failure, and the secondary endpoints were total deaths and any safety problems. Although final blood pressures (systolic/diastolic) were significantly lower in the strict-treatment group compared with the mild-treatment group (135.9/74.8 vs. 145.6/78.1 mmHg; p<0.001), the incidence of the primary endpoint was similar in the two groups (86 patients in each group; p=0.99). Total deaths were 54 in the strict-treatment group vs. 42 in the mild-treatment group (p=0.22), and treatment was withdrawn because of adverse events in 36 patients in each group (p=0.99). An interaction between age and treatment for the primary endpoints (p=0.03) was seen. Complex clinical features associated with aging seem to have obscured the difference in effect between the two treatments. Further studies are needed to assess the optimal treatment strategy for hypertension in the elderly.

Low diastolic ambulatory blood pressure is associated with greater all-cause mortality in older patients with hypertension

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relationship between office and ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and pulse pressure (PP) and total mortality in elderly patients with hypertension.

DESIGN

Observational prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Hypertension outpatient clinic in a geriatric academic hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eight hundred five older (> or =60) subjects with hypertension underwent office and ambulatory BP measurement. Mortality was assessed after a mean follow-up of 3.8 years.

RESULTS

In a total of 3,090 person-years of follow-up, 107 participants died (average mortality rate 3.5% per year). With bivariate analysis, participants who died had higher SBP and PP and lower DBP, with office and ambulatory measurements. Mortality rates were greater with higher SBP and lower with higher DBP. As a combined effect of these trends, PP was associated with the widest death rate gradients, from 12 to 66, 13 to 63, and 9 to 70 per 1,000 person-years across office, 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime PP quartiles, respectively. Multivariate Cox analysis confirmed these trends; the adjusted hazard of death increased linearly with increasing ambulatory SBP and PP, whereas it decreased significantly with increasing ambulatory DBP. A five times greater risk of death was detected when comparing night-time PP quartile 4 (median PP value 78 mmHg) with quartile 1 (median PP value 46 mmHg).

CONCLUSION

In older patients with hypertension, low DBP and high PP, particularly when measured using ambulatory BP monitoring, are associated with greater risk of death. The achievement of an SBP treatment goal should not be obtained at the expense of an excessive DBP reduction.