Beta-blockers for hypertension

Beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart disease in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Beta-blockers are recommended and are often used in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. However, it is currently unclear whether beta-blockers should be used in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methods has assessed the effects of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no treatment in patients without heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 40% in the non-acute phase after myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index - Expanded, BIOSIS Citation Index, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Turning Research Into Practice, Google Scholar, and SciSearch from their inception to February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing effects of beta-blockers versus control (placebo or no treatment) in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction, irrespective of publication type and status, date, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants with diagnosed heart failure at the time of randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed our published protocol, with a few changes made, and methodological recommendations provided by Cochrane and Jakobsen and colleagues. Two review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and major cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial reinfarction). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We systematically assessed risks of bias using seven bias domains and we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials randomising a total of 22,423 participants (mean age 56.9 years). All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. In all, 24 of 25 trials included a mixed group of participants with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST myocardial infarction, and no trials provided separate results for each type of infarction. One trial included participants with only ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All trials except one included participants younger than 75 years of age. Methods used to exclude heart failure were various and were likely insufficient. A total of 21 trials used placebo, and four trials used no intervention, as the comparator. All patients received usual care; 24 of 25 trials were from the pre-reperfusion era (published from 1974 to 1999), and only one trial was from the reperfusion era (published in 2018). The certainty of evidence was moderate to low for all outcomes. Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.90; I² = 15%; 22,085 participants, 21 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) and myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.76, 98% CI 0.69 to 0.88; I² = 0%; 19,606 participants, 19 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events (RR 0.72, 97.5% CI 0.69 to 0.84; 14,994 participants, 15 trials; low-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 98% CI 0.68 to 0.85; I² = 47%; 21,763 participants, 19 trials; low-certainty evidence). Hence, evidence seems to suggest that beta-blockers versus placebo or no treatment may result in a minimum reduction of 10% in RR for risks of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may not affect the risk of angina (RR 1.04, 98% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I² = 0%; 7115 participants, 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). No trials provided data on serious adverse events according to good clinical practice from the International Committee for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-GCP), nor on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blockers probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality and myocardial reinfarction in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers may further reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo or no intervention in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. These effects could, however, be driven by patients with unrecognised heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers on serious adverse events, angina, and quality of life are unclear due to sparse data or no data at all. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias, and incomplete outcome data bias alone could account for the effect seen when major cardiovascular events, angina, and myocardial infarction are assessed. The evidence in this review is of moderate to low certainty, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented here. Future trials should particularly focus on patients 75 years of age and older, and on assessment of serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP and quality of life. Newer randomised clinical trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of beta-blockers in contemporary patients without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction are to be assessed properly. Such trials ought to be designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

Effects of low sodium diet versus high sodium diet on blood pressure, renin, aldosterone, catecholamines, cholesterol, and triglyceride

BACKGROUND

Recent cohort studies show that salt intake below 6 g is associated with increased mortality. These findings have not changed public recommendations to lower salt intake below 6 g, which are based on assumed blood pressure (BP) effects and no side-effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sodium reduction on BP, and on potential side-effects (hormones and lipids) SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to April 2018 and a top-up search in March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. The top-up search articles are recorded under "awaiting assessment."

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies randomizing persons to low-sodium and high-sodium diets were included if they evaluated at least one of the outcome parameters (BP, renin, aldosterone, noradrenalin, adrenalin, cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein and triglyceride,.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected data, which were analysed with Review Manager 5.3. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Since the first review in 2003 the number of included references has increased from 96 to 195 (174 were in white participants). As a previous study found different BP outcomes in black and white study populations, we stratified the BP outcomes by race. The effect of sodium reduction (from 203 to 65 mmol/day) on BP in white participants was as follows: Normal blood pressure: SBP: mean difference (MD) -1.14 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): -1.65 to -0.63), 5982 participants, 95 trials; DBP: MD + 0.01 mmHg (95% CI: -0.37 to 0.39), 6276 participants, 96 trials. Hypertension: SBP: MD -5.71 mmHg (95% CI: -6.67 to -4.74), 3998 participants,88 trials; DBP: MD -2.87 mmHg (95% CI: -3.41 to -2.32), 4032 participants, 89 trials (all high-quality evidence). The largest bias contrast across studies was recorded for the detection bias element. A comparison of detection bias low-risk studies versus high/unclear risk studies showed no differences. The effect of sodium reduction (from 195 to 66 mmol/day) on BP in black participants was as follows: Normal blood pressure: SBP: mean difference (MD) -4.02 mmHg (95% CI:-7.37 to -0.68); DBP: MD -2.01 mmHg (95% CI:-4.37, 0.35), 253 participants, 7 trials. Hypertension: SBP: MD -6.64 mmHg (95% CI:-9.00, -4.27); DBP: MD -2.91 mmHg (95% CI:-4.52, -1.30), 398 participants, 8 trials (low-quality evidence). The effect of sodium reduction (from 217 to 103 mmol/day) on BP in Asian participants was as follows: Normal blood pressure: SBP: mean difference (MD) -1.50 mmHg (95% CI: -3.09, 0.10); DBP: MD -1.06 mmHg (95% CI:-2.53 to 0.41), 950 participants, 5 trials. Hypertension: SBP: MD -7.75 mmHg (95% CI:-11.44, -4.07); DBP: MD -2.68 mmHg (95% CI: -4.21 to -1.15), 254 participants, 8 trials (moderate-low-quality evidence).   During sodium reduction renin increased 1.56 ng/mL/hour (95%CI:1.39, 1.73) in 2904 participants (82 trials); aldosterone increased 104 pg/mL (95%CI:88.4,119.7) in 2506 participants (66 trials); noradrenalin increased 62.3 pg/mL: (95%CI: 41.9, 82.8) in 878 participants (35 trials); adrenalin increased 7.55 pg/mL (95%CI: 0.85, 14.26) in 331 participants (15 trials); cholesterol increased 5.19 mg/dL (95%CI:2.1, 8.3) in 917 participants (27 trials); triglyceride increased 7.10 mg/dL (95%CI: 3.1,11.1) in 712 participants (20 trials); LDL tended to increase 2.46 mg/dl (95%CI: -1, 5.9) in 696 participants (18 trials); HDL was unchanged -0.3 mg/dl (95%CI: -1.66,1.05) in 738 participants (20 trials) (All high-quality evidence except the evidence for adrenalin).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In white participants, sodium reduction in accordance with the public recommendations resulted in mean arterial pressure (MAP) decrease of about 0.4 mmHg in participants with normal blood pressure and a MAP decrease of about 4 mmHg in participants with hypertension. Weak evidence indicated that these effects may be a little greater in black and Asian participants. The effects of sodium reduction on potential side effects (hormones and lipids) were more consistent than the effect on BP, especially in people with normal BP.

Beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization, 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart diseases in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Acute myocardial infarction is caused by blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Beta-blockers are often used in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results ranging from harms, neutral effects, to benefits. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of beta-blockers for acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded and BIOSIS Citation Index in June 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Turning Research into Practice, Google Scholar, SciSearch, and the reference lists of included trials and previous reviews in August 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction. Trials were included irrespective of trial design, setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the Cochrane methodological recommendations. Four review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. Our primary time point of interest was less than three months after randomisation. We also assessed the outcomes at maximum follow-up beyond three months. Due to risk of multiplicity, we calculated a 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes and a 98% CI for the secondary outcomes. We assessed the risks of systematic errors through seven bias domains in accordance to the instructions given in the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 trials randomising a total of 85,550 participants (mean age 57.4 years). Only one trial was at low risk of bias. The remaining trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence according to GRADE ranged from very low to high. Fifty-six trials commenced beta-blockers during the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction and seven trials during the subacute phase. At our primary time point 'less than three months follow-up', meta-analysis showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of a reinfarction during follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 98% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.91; 67,562 participants; 18 trials; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.5% and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 196 participants. However, we found little or no effect of beta-blockers when assessing all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 97.5% CI 0.90 to 1.00; 80,452 participants; 46 trials/47 comparisons; high-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4% and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; 45,852 participants; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4%. Regarding angina, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect (RR 0.70, 98% CI 0.25 to 1.84; 98 participants; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 7.1%. None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. Only two trials specifically assessed major adverse cardiovascular events, however, no major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in either trial. At maximum follow-up beyond three months, meta-analyses showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.93, 97.5% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 25,210 participants; 21 trials/22 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% and a NNTB of 91 participants, and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 98% CI 0.83 to 0.98; 22,457 participants; 14 trials/15 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.2% and a NNTB of 83 participants. However, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect when assessing major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.81, 97.5% CI 0.40 to 1.66; 475 participants; 4 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.7%; reinfarction (RR 0.89, 98% CI 0.75 to 1.08; 6825 participants; 14 trials; low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.9%; and angina (RR 0.64, 98% CI 0.18 to 2.0; 844 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. None of the trials assessed quality of life. We identified two ongoing randomised clinical trials investigating the effect of early administration of beta-blockers after percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis to patients with an acute myocardial infarction and one ongoing trial investigating the effect of long-term beta-blocker therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our present review indicates that beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction probably reduce the short-term risk of a reinfarction and the long-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Nevertheless, it is most likely that beta-blockers have little or no effect on the short-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Regarding all remaining outcomes (serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP, major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up), the long-term risk of a reinfarction during follow-up, quality of life, and angina), further information is needed to confirm or reject the clinical effects of beta-blockers on these outcomes for people with or suspected of acute myocardial infarction.

Standardizing hypertension management in a primary care setting in India through a protocol based model

Hypertension is a leading cause of death in India. Control rates of hypertension are abysmal, even for people on treatment. There are a number of barriers to adequate control of hypertension in India, including therapeutic inertia and the lack of a systematic, simplified approach. Standardizing hypertension management through an evidence based model that sets thresholds for diagnosis, treatment goals, follow up intervals and choice of drugs can lead to improved management of hypertension in an individual hospital or health system. In this paper, we summarize the evidence for such a model, and adapt it to the Indian context, focusing on maximizing effectiveness, safety and ease of use by a non-expert. This model can be utilized by individual practitioners, hospitals, primary health centers (PHCs) and the Health and Wellness Centers (HWCs) under the Ayushman Bharat initiative.

Blood Pressure Lowering With Nilvadipine in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer Disease Does Not Increase the Prevalence of Orthostatic Hypotension

Background Hypertension is common among patients with Alzheimer disease. Because this group has been excluded from hypertension trials, evidence regarding safety of treatment is lacking. This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial assessed whether antihypertensive treatment increases the prevalence of orthostatic hypotension (OH) in patients with Alzheimer disease. Methods and Results Four hundred seventy-seven patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease were randomized to the calcium-channel blocker nilvadipine 8 mg/day or placebo for 78 weeks. Presence of OH (blood pressure drop ≥20/≥10 mm Hg after 1 minute of standing) and OH-related adverse events (dizziness, syncope, falls, and fractures) was determined at 7 follow-up visits. Mean age of the study population was 72.2±8.2 years and mean Mini-Mental State Examination score was 20.4±3.8. Baseline blood pressure was 137.8±14.0/77.0±8.6 mm Hg. Grade I hypertension was present in 53.4% (n=255). After 13 weeks, blood pressure had fallen by -7.8/-3.9 mm Hg for nilvadipine and by -0.4/-0.8 mm Hg for placebo ( P<0.001). Across the 78-week intervention period, there was no difference between groups in the proportion of patients with OH at a study visit (odds ratio [95% CI]=1.1 [0.8-1.5], P=0.62), nor in the proportion of visits where a patient met criteria for OH, corrected for number of visits (7.7±13.8% versus 7.3±11.6%). OH-related adverse events were not more often reported in the intervention group compared with placebo. Results were similar for those with baseline hypertension. Conclusions This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02017340.

Pathological cardiac hypertrophy: the synergy of adenylyl cyclases inhibition in cardiac and immune cells during chronic catecholamine stress

Response to stressors in our environment and daily lives is an adaptation conserved through evolution as it is beneficial in enhancing the survival and continuity of humans. Although stressors have evolved, the drastic physiological response they elicit still remains unchanged. The chronic secretion and circulation of catecholamines to produce physical responses when they are not required may result in pathological consequences which affect cardiac function drastically. This review seeks to point out the probable implication of chronic stress in inducing an inflammation disorder in the heart. We discussed the likely synergy of a G protein-independent stimuli signaling via β₂-adrenergic receptors in both cardiomyocytes and immune cells during chronic catecholamine stress. To explain this synergy, we hypothesized the possibility of adenylyl cyclases having a regulatory effect on G protein-coupled receptor kinases. This was based on the negative correlations they exhibit during normal cardiac function and heart failures. As such, the downregulation of adenylyl cyclases in cardiomyocytes and immune cells during chronic catecholamine stress enhances the expressions of G protein-coupled receptor kinases. In addition, we explain the maladaptive roles played by G protein-coupled receptor kinase and extracellular signal-regulated kinase in the synergistic cascade that pathologically remodels the heart. Finally, we highlighted the therapeutic potentials of an adenylyl cyclases stimulator to attenuate pathological cardiac hypertrophy (PCH) and improve cardiac function in patients developing cardiac disorders due to chronic catecholamine stress.

Risk of Hospitalization for Cardiovascular Events with β-Blockers in Hypertensive Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

β-Blockers are a heterogenous class of drugs that are no longer recommended for initial antihypertension monotherapy due to unfavorable long-term cardiovascular events observed with non-vasodilatory β-blockers. However, the comparative cardiovascular event risk between the vasodilatory β1-selective antagonist/β3 agonist nebivolol and non-vasodilatory β1-blockers, atenolol and metoprolol, is unknown.

METHODS

Incident nebivolol, atenolol, or metoprolol monotherapy users with hypertension were identified using US claims data (2007-2014). The first β-blocker claim on/after 1/1/2008 defined the index drug/date. Hypertensive patients without pre-index cardiovascular history were followed until index drug discontinuation (> 90 day supply gap), use of other β-blockers, or end of continuous plan enrollment. Patients were pair-wise propensity score-matched using logistic regression, adjusted for baseline demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, comorbid chronic pulmonary disease, rheumatic disease, renal disease, and diabetes, and use of other antihypertensive drugs during baseline. Time to first hospital claim for a cardiovascular event was assessed via Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for the variables above.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met by 81,402 patients (n = 27,134 in each matched treatment cohort), with no between-cohort differences in baseline characteristics, comorbid conditions, or average follow-up duration. Atenolol and metoprolol cohorts had greater risk of hospitalization for a composite event (myocardial infarction, angina, congestive heart failure, stroke) than nebivolol users (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval] atenolol: 1.68 [1.29, 2.17]; metoprolol: 2.05 [1.59, 2.63]; P < 0.001, both). Risks of most individual cardiovascular events were also lower with nebivolol, including myocardial infarction and angina versus atenolol, and myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and angina versus metoprolol (P < 0.05, all).

CONCLUSIONS

Nebivolol was associated with significantly lower risk of hospitalization due to composite cardiovascular events than atenolol or metoprolol in this large retrospective cohort study of monotherapy with three different β1-selective blockers in hypertensive patients.

FUNDING

Allergan plc, Madison, NJ, USA.

Clinical Pharmacology of Antihypertensive Therapy for the Treatment of Hypertension in CKD

CKD is common and frequently complicated with hypertension both predialysis and in ESKD. As a major modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease in this high-risk population, treatment of hypertension in CKD is important. We review the mechanisms and indications for the major classes of antihypertensive drugs, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, β-adrenergic blocking agents, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, thiazide diuretics, loop diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers, direct vasodilators, and centrally acting α-agonists. Recent evidence suggests that β-adrenergic blocking agents may have a greater role in patients on dialysis and that thiazide diuretics may have a greater role in patients with advanced CKD. We conclude with sharing our general prescribing algorithm for both patients with predialysis CKD and patients with ESKD on dialysis.

Optimal medical treatment of hypertension in patients with coronary artery disease

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, and hypertension is its most prevalent modifiable risk factor. Patients with CAD and concomitant hypertension are a special population with distinct physiologic and structural alterations. Optimal blood pressure (BP) control in this population has been linked with reduction in adverse outcomes, however, excessive lowering of BP could jeopardize myocardial and cerebral perfusion. Areas covered: Authors highlight the prevalence of the CAD and hypertension dyad, as well as the implications of various structural and physiological changes in this population. Subsequently, available data on optimal BP targets in such patients, and lastly the J-curve phenomenon as well as antihypertensive agent use are discussed. Expert commentary: Current guideline recommendations are based on data from trials such as SPRINT and ACCORD which did not specifically focus on the CAD population. Based on data from observational studies and post hoc analyses, the best therapeutic systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) targets may be ~ 130 mmHg and ~ 80 mmHg, respectively. Caution should be taken to not lower SBP below 120 mmHg and DBP below 60 mmHg.

Effectiveness and safety of beta blockers in the management of hypertension in older adults: a systematic review to help reduce inappropriate prescribing

BACKGROUND

The benefit from a blood pressure lowering therapy with beta blockers may not outweigh its risks, especially in older populations. The aim of this study was to look for evidence on risks and benefits of beta blockers in older adults and to use this evidence to develop recommendations for the electronic decision support tool of the PRIMA-eDS project.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature using a stage approach with searches for systematic reviews and meta-analyses first, and individual studies only if the previous searches are inconclusive. The target population were older adults (≥65 years old) with hypertension. We included studies reporting on the effectiveness and/or safety of beta blockers on clinically relevant endpoints (e.g. mortality, cardiovascular events, and stroke) in the management of hypertension. The recommendations were developed according to the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included, comprising one meta-analysis, four randomized controlled trials, six secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials and four observational studies. Seven studies involved only older adults and eight studies reported subgroup analyses by age. With regard to a composite endpoint (death, stroke or myocardial infarction) beta blockers were associated with a higher risk of events then were other antihypertensive agents. Further, beta blockers showed no benefit compared to other antihypertensive agents or placebo regarding mortality. They appear to be less effective than other antihypertensive agents in reducing cardiovascular events. Contradictory results were found regarding the effect of beta blockers on stroke. None of the studies explored the effect on quality of life, hospitalisation, functional impairment/status, safety endpoints or renal failure.

CONCLUSION

The quality of current evidence to interpret the benefits of beta blockers in hypertension is rather weak. It cannot be recommended to use beta blockers in older adults as first line agent for hypertension.

The Real Role of β-Blockers in Daily Cardiovascular Therapy

The role of β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers) in cardiovascular therapy has been subject to diverse trends and changes over the decades. With the advent of a wide variety of excellent drugs for the treatment of antihypertension, β-blockers have been relegated from the first-line treatment of essential hypertension. However, they remain the drugs of first choice in recommendations from the respective medical societies for heart failure, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation as well as in hypertension complicated with heart failure, angina pectoris, or prior myocardial infarction. When indicated, cardioselective β-blockers should be prescribed in patients with diabetes mellitus or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We review the available evidence for the use of β-blockers in clinical conditions in which recommendations can be made for everyday practice.

Association of Blood Pressure Control Level With Left Ventricular Morphology and Function and With Subclinical Cerebrovascular Disease

Background

Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and subclinical cerebrovascular disease are early manifestations of cardiac and brain target organ damage caused by hypertension. This study aimed to investigate whether intensive office systolic blood pressure (SBP) control has beneficial effects on LV morphology and function and subclinical cerebrovascular disease in elderly patients with hypertension.

Methods and Results

We examined 420 patients treated for hypertension without history of heart failure and stroke from the CABL (Cardiovascular Abnormalities and Brain Lesions) study. All patients underwent 2‐dimensional echocardiographic examination and brain magnetic resonance imaging. Subclinical cerebrovascular disease was defined as silent brain infarcts and white matter hyperintensity volume. Patients were divided into 3 groups: SBP <120 mm Hg (intensive control); SBP 120 to 139 mm Hg (less intensive control); and SBP ≥140 mm Hg (uncontrolled). Prevalence of LV hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction were lowest in the intensive control, intermediate in the less intensive control, and highest in the uncontrolled groups (12.8%, 31.8%, and 44.7%, respectively [P<0.001], for LV hypertrophy; 46.8%, 61.7%, and 72.6%, respectively [P=0.003], for diastolic dysfunction). Patients with less intensive SBP control had greater risk of LV hypertrophy than those with intensive control (adjusted odds ratio, 3.26; P=0.013). A similar trend was observed for LV diastolic dysfunction but did not reach statistical significance (adjusted odds ratio, 1.65; P=0.144). Conversely, intensive SBP control was not significantly associated with reduced risk of silent brain infarcts and white matter hyperintensity volume compared with less intensive control.

Conclusions

Compared with less intensive control, intensive SBP control may have a stronger beneficial effect on cardiac than cerebral subclinical disease.

Effects of low sodium diet versus high sodium diet on blood pressure, renin, aldosterone, catecholamines, cholesterol, and triglyceride

BACKGROUND

In spite of more than 100 years of investigations the question of whether a reduced sodium intake improves health is still unsolved.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of low sodium intake versus high sodium intake on systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), plasma or serum levels of renin, aldosterone, catecholamines, cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and triglycerides.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to March 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies randomising persons to low-sodium and high-sodium diets were included if they evaluated at least one of the above outcome parameters.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected data, which were analysed with Review Manager 5.3.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 185 studies were included. The average sodium intake was reduced from 201 mmol/day (corresponding to high usual level) to 66 mmol/day (corresponding to the recommended level).The effect of sodium reduction on blood pressure (BP) was as follows: white people with normotension: SBP: mean difference (MD) -1.09 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): -1.63 to -0.56; P = 0.0001); 89 studies, 8569 participants; DBP: + 0.03 mmHg (MD 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.43; P = 0.89); 90 studies, 8833 participants. High-quality evidence. Black people with normotension: SBP: MD -4.02 mmHg (95% CI:-7.37 to -0.68; P = 0.002); seven studies, 506 participants; DBP: MD -2.01 mmHg (95% CI:-4.37 to 0.35; P = 0.09); seven studies, 506 participants. Moderate-quality evidence. Asian people with normotension: SBP: MD -0.72 mmHg (95% CI: -3.86 to 2.41; P = 0.65); DBP: MD -1.63 mmHg (95% CI:-3.35 to 0.08; P =0.06); three studies, 393 participants. Moderate-quality evidence.White people with hypertension: SBP: MD -5.51 mmHg (95% CI: -6.45 to -4.57; P < 0.00001); 84 studies, 5925 participants; DBP: MD -2.88 mmHg (95% CI: -3.44 to -2.32; P < 0.00001); 85 studies, 6001 participants. High-quality evidence. Black people with hypertension: SBP MD -6.64 mmHg (95% CI:-9.00 to -4.27; P = 0.00001); eight studies, 619 participants; DBP -2.91 mmHg (95% CI:-4.52, -1.30; P = 0.0004); eight studies, 619 participants. Moderate-quality evidence. Asian people with hypertension: SBP: MD -7.75 mmHg (95% CI:-11,44 to -4.07; P < 0.0001) nine studies, 501 participants; DBP: MD -2.68 mmHg (95% CI: -4.21 to -1.15; P = 0.0006). Moderate-quality evidence.In plasma or serum, there was a significant increase in renin (P < 0.00001), aldosterone (P < 0.00001), noradrenaline (P < 0.00001), adrenaline (P < 0.03), cholesterol (P < 0.0005) and triglyceride (P < 0.0006) with low sodium intake as compared with high sodium intake. All effects were stable in 125 study populations with a sodium intake below 250 mmol/day and a sodium reduction intervention of at least one week.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sodium reduction from an average high usual sodium intake level (201 mmol/day) to an average level of 66 mmol/day, which is below the recommended upper level of 100 mmol/day (5.8 g salt), resulted in a decrease in SBP/DBP of 1/0 mmHg in white participants with normotension and a decrease in SBP/DBP of 5.5/2.9 mmHg in white participants with hypertension. A few studies showed that these effects in black and Asian populations were greater. The effects on hormones and lipids were similar in people with normotension and hypertension. Renin increased 1.60 ng/mL/hour (55%); aldosterone increased 97.81 pg/mL (127%); adrenalin increased 7.55 pg/mL (14%); noradrenalin increased 63.56 pg/mL: (27%); cholesterol increased 5.59 mg/dL (2.9%); triglyceride increased 7.04 mg/dL (6.3%).

Beta-Blocker Use Is Associated With Impaired Left Atrial Function in Hypertension

Background

Impaired left atrial (LA) mechanical function is present in hypertension and likely contributes to various complications, including atrial arrhythmias, stroke, and heart failure. Various antihypertensive drug classes exert differential effects on central hemodynamics and left ventricular function. However, little is known about their effects on LA function.

Methods and Results

We studied 212 subjects with hypertension and without heart failure or atrial fibrillation. LA strain was measured from cine steady‐state free‐precession cardiac MRI images using feature‐tracking algorithms. In multivariable models adjusted for age, sex, race, body mass index, blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, LA volume, left ventricular mass, and left ventricular ejection fraction, beta‐blocker use was associated with a lower total longitudinal strain (standardized β=−0.21; P=0.008), and lower LA expansion index (standardized β=−0.30; P<0.001), indicating impaired LA reservoir function. Beta‐blocker use was also associated with a lower positive strain (standardized β=−0.19; P=0.012) and early diastolic strain rate (standardized β=0.15; P=0.039), indicating impaired LA conduit function. Finally, beta‐blocker use was associated with a lower (less negative) late‐diastolic strain (standardized β=0.15; P=0.049), strain rate (standardized β=0.18; P=0.019), and a lower active LA emptying fraction (standardized β=−0.27; P<0.001), indicating impaired booster pump function. Use of other antihypertensive agents was not associated with LA function.

Conclusions

Beta‐blocker use is significantly associated with impaired LA function in hypertension. This association could underlie the increased risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke seen with the use of beta‐blockers (as opposed to other antihypertensive agents) demonstrated in recent trials.

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.

First-line combination therapy versus first-line monotherapy for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm-to-benefit balance of each strategy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to February 2016. We searched in clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs in Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, double-blind trials with at least 12 months' follow-up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first-line antihypertensive drug with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events or serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data. Primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug-related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial) and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. We summarized data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We found three studies in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment so we asked investigators for data for this subgroup (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants). They included outpatients, and mostly European and white people. Two trials included only people with type 2 diabetes, whereas the other trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia or cardiovascular drugs. The follow-up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. Certainty of evidence was very low due to the serious imprecision, and for using a subgroup not defined in advance. Confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The numbers of included participants and, hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

Cancer cells become less deformable and more invasive with activation of β-adrenergic signaling

Invasion by cancer cells is a crucial step in metastasis. An oversimplified view in the literature is that cancer cells become more deformable as they become more invasive. β-adrenergic receptor (βAR) signaling drives invasion and metastasis, but the effects on cell deformability are not known. Here, we show that activation of β-adrenergic signaling by βAR agonists reduces the deformability of highly metastatic human breast cancer cells, and that these stiffer cells are more invasive in vitro We find that βAR activation also reduces the deformability of ovarian, prostate, melanoma and leukemia cells. Mechanistically, we show that βAR-mediated cell stiffening depends on the actin cytoskeleton and myosin II activity. These changes in cell deformability can be prevented by pharmacological β-blockade or genetic knockout of the β₂-adrenergic receptor. Our results identify a β₂-adrenergic-Ca²⁺-actin axis as a new regulator of cell deformability, and suggest that the relationship between cell mechanical properties and invasion might be dependent on context.

Effect of inspiratory muscle training with load compared with sham training on blood pressure in individuals with hypertension: study protocol of a double-blind randomized clinical trial

Background

Hypertension is a complex chronic condition characterized by elevated arterial blood pressure. Management of hypertension includes non-pharmacologic strategies, which may include techniques that effectively reduce autonomic sympathetic activity. Respiratory exercises improve autonomic control over cardiovascular system and attenuate muscle metaboreflex. Because of these effects, respiratory exercises may be useful to lower blood pressure in subjects with hypertension.

Methods/design

This randomized, double-blind clinical trial will test the efficacy of inspiratory muscle training in reducing blood pressure in adults with essential hypertension. Subjects are randomly allocated to intervention or control groups. Intervention consists of inspiratory muscle training loaded with 40 % of maximum inspiratory pressure, readjusted weekly. Control sham intervention consists of unloaded exercises. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures are co-primary endpoint measures assessed with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Secondary outcome measures include cardiovascular autonomic control, inspiratory muscle metaboreflex, cardiopulmonary capacity, and inspiratory muscle strength and endurance.

Discussion

Previously published work suggests that inspiratory muscle training reduces blood pressure in persons with hypertension, but the effectiveness of this intervention is yet to be established. We propose an adequately sized randomized clinical trial to test this hypothesis rigorously. If an effect is found, this study will allow for the investigation of putative mechanisms to mediate this effect, including autonomic cardiovascular control and metaboreflex.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02275377. Registered on 30 September 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1514-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of Antihypertensive Agents on Central Systolic Blood Pressure and Augmentation Index: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

New evidence suggests that central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) and augmentation index (AI) are superior predictors of adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared to peripheral systolic BP (pSBP). We performed a meta-analysis assessing the impact of antihypertensives on cSBP and AI.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched until September 2014 to identify eligible articles. A DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). Fifty-two and 58 studies incorporating 4,381 and 3,716 unique subjects were included for cSBP and AI analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

Overall, antihypertensives reduced pSBP more than cSBP (WMD 2.52 mm Hg, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.69; I (2) = 21.9%). β-Blockers (BBs) posed a significantly greater reduction in pSBP as compared to cSBP (WMD 5.19 mm Hg, 95% CI 3.21 to 7.18). α-Blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors and nicorandil reduced cSBP and pSBP in a similar manner. The overall reduction in AI from baseline was 3.09% (95% CI 2.28 to 3.90; I (2) = 84.5%). A significant reduction in AI was seen with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors, BBs, α-blockers (ABs), nicorandil, and moxonidine reduced AI nonsignificantly.

CONCLUSIONS

BBs are not as beneficial as the other antihypertensives in reducing cSBP and AI.

Differences in weight change trajectory patterns in a publicly funded adult weight management centre

Objective

To describe differences in weight loss (WL) trajectory patterns at a publicly funded clinical weight management centre.

Methods

Groups with differences in the attainment of a 5% total body WL and percentage WL patterns over time were identified in 7,121 patients who attended a physician lead multi‐disciplinary clinical lifestyle weight management that predominantly focused on education and diet counselling. Resultant health differences were examined.

Results

Patients had 3.2 ± 6.3%WL with 35% of patients achieving and maintaining a 5%WL. Half of these patients achieved the 5%WL within 6 months, while the other half had a more gradual approach. Another 10% achieved 5%WL, but regained weight after 6 months. There were seven distinct WL patterns identified: LargeWL (Mean WL: 21.2 ± 8.1%; Probability of group membership (PGM): 2.4%), ModerateWL (15.1 ± 5.1%WL; 5.4%PGM), SlowWL (6.7 ± 3.2%WL; 20.1%PGM) and MinimalWL (2.4 ± 2.2%WL; 34.6%PGM), WL Regain (9.4 ± 3.5%WL; 8.2%PGM), Weight Stable (1.2 ± 3.2%WL; 28.5%PGM) and Weight Gain (18.4 ± 11.2%WG; 0.8%PGM) groups. Improvements in blood pressure, lipids and glucose were generally related to the magnitude of WL achieved more than the pattern or speed of WL.

Conclusions

There are large differences in the absolute WL attained and the pattern of WL during a publicly funded weight management program. Changes in clinical health markers appear to be more strongly related with the absolute WL attained as opposed to patterns of weight change. © 2016 The Authors. Obesity Science & Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, World Obesity and The Obesity Society.

Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death in hypertensive individuals

BACKGROUND

High blood pressure is an important public health problem because of associated risks of stroke and cardiovascular events. Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent cardiac events, including myocardial infarction and sudden death (death of unknown cause within one hour of the onset of acute symptoms or within 24 hours of observation of the patient as alive and symptom free).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in preventing sudden death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal myocardial infarction among hypertensive individuals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (all years to January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2016, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2016), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to January 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for hypertension, defined, when possible, as baseline resting systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mmHg and/or resting diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mmHg. Comparisons included one or more antihypertensive drugs versus placebo, or versus no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data. Outcomes assessed were sudden death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and change in blood pressure.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials (39,908 participants) that evaluated antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for a mean duration of follow-up of 4.2 years. This review provides moderate-quality evidence to show that antihypertensive drugs do not reduce sudden death (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.15) but do reduce both non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74, 0.98; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.3% over 4.2 years) and fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90; ARR 0.3% over 4.2 years). Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased in the drug treatment group to 12.8%, as compared with 6.2% in the no treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although antihypertensive drugs reduce the incidence of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, they do not appear to reduce the incidence of sudden death. This suggests that sudden cardiac death may not be caused primarily by acute myocardial infarction. Continued research is needed to determine the causes of sudden cardiac death.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective beta blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Beta blockers are commonly used to treat hypertension. The blood pressure reading is the primary tool for physicians and patients to assess the efficacy of the treatment. The blood pressure lowering effect of beta-1 selective blockers is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related effects of various doses and types of beta-1 selective adrenergic receptor blockers on systolic and diastolic blood pressure versus placebo in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) for related reviews.We searched the following databases for primary studies: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (All years to 15 October 2015), CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2015, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 15 October 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 15 October 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to 15 October 2015).The Hypertension Group Specialised Register includes controlled trials from searches of CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, LILACS, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).Electronic databases were searched using a strategy combining the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity-maximizing version (2008 revision) with selected MeSH terms and free text terms. No language restrictions were used. The MEDLINE search strategy was translated into CENTRAL, EMBASE, the Hypertension Group Specialised Register and ClinicalTrials.gov using the appropriate controlled vocabulary as applicable. Full strategies are in Appendix 1.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies had to contain a beta blocker monotherapy arm with fixed dose. People enrolled into the studies had to have primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of studies had to be between 3 weeks to 12 weeks. Drugs in this class of beta blockers are atenolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, esmolol, metoprolol, nebivolol, pafenolol, practolol.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.5 was used to synthesise data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 56 RCTs (randomised controlled trials) that examined the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective blockers (beta-1 blocker) in 7812 primary hypertensive patients. Among the included trials, 26 RCTs were parallel studies and 30 RCTs were cross-over studies, examining eight beta-1 blockers. Overall, the majority of beta-1 blockers studied significantly lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). In people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute. The maximum BP reduction of beta-1 blockers occurred at twice the starting dose. Individual beta-1 blockers did not exhibit a graded dose-response effect on SBP and DBP over the recommended dose range.Most beta-1 blockers tested significantly lowered heart rate. A graded dose-response of beta-1 blockers on heart rate was evident. Higher dose beta-1 blockers lowered heart rate more than lower doses. Individually and overall beta-1 blockers did not affect pulse pressure, which distinguishes them from other classes of drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides low quality evidence that in people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute as compared to placebo. The effect of beta-1 blockers at peak hours, -12/-9 mmHg, was greater than the reduction at trough hours, -8/-7 mmHg. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by a greater magnitude than dual receptor beta-blockers and partial agonist beta-blockers, lowered BP similarly to nonselective beta-blockers. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered SBP by a similar degree and lowered DBP by a greater degree than diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Because DBP is lowered by a similar extent to SBP, beta-1 selective blockers do not reduce pulse pressure.

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.

Single Agent Antihypertensive Therapy and Orthostatic Blood Pressure Behaviour in Older Adults Using Beat-to-Beat Measurements: The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing

Background

Impaired blood pressure (BP) stabilisation after standing, defined using beat-to-beat measurements, has been shown to predict important health outcomes. We aimed to define the relationship between individual classes of antihypertensive agent and BP stabilisation among hypertensive older adults.

Methods

Cross-sectional analysis from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, a cohort study of Irish adults aged 50 years and over. Beat-to-beat BP was recorded in participants undergoing an active stand test. We defined grade 1 hypertension according to European Society of Cardiology criteria (systolic BP [SBP] 140-159mmHg ± diastolic BP [DBP] 90-99mmHg). Outcomes were: (i) initial orthostatic hypotension (IOH) (SBP drop ≥40mmHg ± DBP drop ≥20mmHg within 15 seconds [s] of standing accompanied by symptoms); (ii) sustained OH (SBP drop ≥20mmHg ± DBP drop ≥10mmHg from 60 to 110s inclusive); (iii) impaired BP stabilisation (SBP drop ≥20mmHg ± DBP drop ≥10mmHg at any 10s interval during the test). Outcomes were assessed using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression.

Results

A total of 536 hypertensive participants were receiving monotherapy with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor (n = 317, 59.1%), beta-blocker (n = 89, 16.6%), calcium channel blocker (n = 89, 16.6%) or diuretic (n = 41, 7.6%). A further 783 untreated participants met criteria for grade 1 hypertension. Beta-blockers were associated with increased odds of initial OH (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.31–3.21) and sustained OH (OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.87–6.03) versus untreated grade 1 hypertension. Multivariable adjustment did not attenuate the results. Impaired BP stabilisation was evident at 20s (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.58–4.25) and persisted at 110s (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.64–5.11). No association was found between the other agents and any study outcome.

Conclusion

Beta-blocker monotherapy was associated with a >2-fold increased odds of initial OH and a >3-fold increased odds of sustained OH and impaired BP stabilisation, compared to untreated grade 1 hypertension. These findings support existing literature questioning the role of beta-blockers as first line agents for essential hypertension.

Leptin decreases heart rate associated with increased ventricular repolarization via its receptor

Leptin has been proposed to modulate cardiac electrical properties via β-adrenergic receptor activation. The presence of leptin receptors and adipocytes in myocardium raised a question as to whether leptin can directly modulate cardiac electrical properties such as heart rate and QT interval via its receptor. In this work, the role of local direct actions of leptin on heart rate and ventricular repolarization was investigated. We identified the protein expression of leptin receptors at cell surface of sinus node, atrial, and ventricular myocytes isolated from rat heart. Leptin at low doses (0.1-30 μg/kg) decreased resting heart rate; at high doses (150-300 μg/kg), leptin induced a biphasic effect (decrease and then increase) on heart rate. In the presence of high-dose propranolol (30 mg/kg), high-dose leptin only reduced heart rate and sometimes caused sinus pauses and ventricular tachycardia. The leptin-induced inhibition of resting heart rate was fully reversed by leptin antagonist. Leptin also increased heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc), and leptin antagonist did not. In isolated ventricular myocytes, leptin (0.03-0.3 μg/ml) reversibly increased the action potential duration. These results supported our hypothesis that in addition to indirect pathway via sympathetic tone, leptin can directly decrease heart rate and increase QT interval via its receptor independent of β-adrenergic receptor stimulation. During inhibition of β-adrenergic receptor activity, high concentration of leptin in myocardium can cause deep bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, and ventricular arrhythmias.

An assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for non-communicable diseases (NCDs): more and higher quality research is required in less developed countries

Research is crucial to implement evidence-based health interventions for control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study aims to assess main features of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for control of NCDs, and to identify gaps in clinical research on NCDs between high-income and less developed countries. The study included 1177 RCTs in 82 Cochrane Systematic reviews (CSRs) and evaluated interventions for adults with hypertension, diabetes, stroke, or heart diseases. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore factors associated with risk of bias in included RCTs. We found that 78.2% of RCTs of interventions for major NCDs recruited patients in high-income countries. The number of RCTs included in the CSRs was increasing over time, and the increasing speed was more noticeable for RCTs conducted in middle-income countries. RCTs conducted in less developed countries tended to be more recently published, less likely to be published in English, with smaller sample sizes, and at a higher risk of bias. In conclusion, there is still a lack of research evidence for control of NCDs in less developed countries. To brace for rising NCDs and avoid waste of scarce research resources, not only more but also higher quality clinical trials are required in low-and-middle-income countries.

[Role of antihypertensive drugs in the treatment of migraine]

The treatment of migraine depends on the frequency, severity and concomitant diseases. There are several specific drugs developed for migraine prevention in addition to the additive antimigraine effects of some other non-specific drugs. The aim of this literature-based review is to summarize the possible antimigraine properties of different antihypertensive agents (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, etc.) focusing on the possible side effects (avoidance of beta blockers in the absence of heart disease, possible antiparkinson effect of calcium channel blockers, additive effect of drugs modifying the renin-angiotensin system activity, etc.). Current evidence supports the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (mainly lisinopril) and angiotensin receptor blockers (mainly candesartan) for long-term migraine prevention and blood pressure control. Long-term beta-blocker treatment should be avoided in the absence of ischemic heart disease due to possible unfavourable cardiovascular effects.

β-Blockers in hypertension, diabetes, heart failure and acute myocardial infarction: a review of the literature

β-Blockers (BBs) are an essential class of cardiovascular medications for reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). However, a large body of data indicates that BBs should not be used as first-line therapy for hypertension (HTN). Additionally, new data have questioned the role of BBs in the treatment of stable coronary heart disease (CHD). However, these trials mainly tested the non-vasodilating β₁ selective BBs (atenolol and metoprolol) which are still the most commonly prescribed BBs in the USA. Newer generation BBs, such as the vasodilating BBs carvedilol and nebivolol, have been shown not only to be better tolerated than non-vasodilating BBs, but also these agents do not increase the risk of diabetes mellitus (DM), atherogenic dyslipidaemia or weight gain. Moreover, carvedilol has the most evidence for reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with HF and those who have experienced an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This review discusses the cornerstone clinical trials that have tested BBs in the settings of HTN, HF and AMI. Large randomised trials in the settings of HTN, DM and stable CHD are still needed to establish the role of BBs in these diseases, as well as to determine whether vasodilating BBs are exempt from the disadvantages of non-vasodilating BBs.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for diabetic patients on the basis of postulated advantages for the reduction of diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for hypertension in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in patients with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to November 19, 2014 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to October 19, 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies with at least six months follow-up in people with primary elevated blood pressure (≥130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. Patients with proven secondary hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies, involving 65,733 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large studies at a low risk of bias for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalization, total cardiovascular (CV) events (consisted of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalizations), and ESRF. Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90, ARR 1.2%), and moderate quality evidence that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, ARI 0.7%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence), total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence). The results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11; moderate quality evidence), and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). Results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, we found low quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and low quality evidence that they decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Our analyses do not exclude potentially important differences between first-line RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers on all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; low quality evidence), HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; low quality evidence), and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; low quality evidence).Blood pressure comparisons between RAS inhibitors and other classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.In the protocol, we identified non-fatal serious adverse events (SAE) as a primary outcome. However, when we extracted the data from included studies, none of them reported total SAE in a manner that could be used in the review. Therefore, there is no information about SAE in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found predominantly moderate quality evidence that all-cause mortality is similar when first-line RAS inhibitors are compared to other first-line antihypertensive agents. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. The quality of the evidence comparing first-line beta-blockers and first-line RAS inhibitors was low and the lower risk of total CV events and stroke seen with RAS inhibitors may change with the publication of additional trials. Compared with first-line CCBs, first-line RAS inhibitors reduced HF but increased stroke. The magnitude of the reduction in HF exceeded the increase in stroke. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the primary outcomes.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of partial agonist beta blocker monotherapy for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Partial agonists are a subclass of beta blockers used to treat hypertension in many countries. Partial agonist act by stimulating beta receptors when they are quiescent and blocking beta receptors when they are active. The blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of partial agonist beta blockers has not been quantified.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related effects of various partial agonists beta blockers on systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate versus placebo in patients with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to October 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Group's Specialised Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies must contain a partial agonist monotherapy arm with fixed dose. Patients enrolled into the studies must have primary hypertension at baseline (defined as SBP/DBP > 140/90 mmHg). Duration of studies must be between three to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (GW and HB) confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trials that examined the blood pressure lowering efficacy of six partial agonists in 605 hypertensive patients were included in this review. Five of the included studies were parallel studies and the other eight were cross-over studies. The overall risk of bias is high in this review due to the small sample size and high risk of detection bias. Pindolol, celiprolol and alprenolol lowered SBP and DBP compared to placebo. Acebutolol lowered SBP but there was no clear evidence that it lowered DBP. There was no clear evidence that pindolol and oxprenolol lowered SBP or DBP. Other than for celiprolol, sample sizes were generally small increasing the uncertainty in findings for individual agents versus placebo. In patients with moderate to severe hypertension, partial agonists (considered as a subclass) lowered peak BP by an average of 8 mmHg systolic (95% CI, -10 to -6, very low quality evidence), 4 mmHg diastolic (95%CI, -5 to -3, very low quality evidence) and reduced heart rate by five beats per minute (95%CI, -6 to -4, very low quality evidence). Higher dose partial agonists did not appear to provide additional BP lowering effects compared to lower dose. The maximum BP lowering effect of the overall subclass occurred at the starting dose. Partial agonists reduced pulse pressure by 4 mmHg (95% CI, -5 to -2, very low evidence). Only one study reported withdrawal due to adverse effects, the risk ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.72 (0.07, 7.67).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was very low quality evidence that in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, partial agonists lowered peak BP by an average of 8/4 mmHg and reduced heart rate by five beats per minute. There was no evidence of a greater effect at doses higher than the initial doses. This estimate was probably exaggerated as it was subject to a high risk of bias. Based on the indirect comparison of the results in this review and two Cochrane reviews on angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which also used similar inclusion criteria as this review, the BP lowering effect appeared to be less than the effect in patients with mild to moderate elevated BP who were taking ACE inhibitors and ARBs based on an indirect comparison. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were only reported in one trial so it is impossible to assess the harm of these drugs.

Administration of a selective β2 adrenergic receptor antagonist exacerbates neuropathology and cognitive deficits in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease

Currently, there are no available approaches to cure or slow down the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD), which is characterized by the accumulation of extracellular amyloid-β (Aβ) deposits and intraneuronal tangles that comprised hyperphosphorylated tau. The β2 adrenergic receptors (β2ARs) are expressed throughout the cortex and hippocampus and play a key role in cognitive functions. Alterations in the function of these receptors have been linked to AD; however, these data remain controversial as apparent contradicting reports have been published. Given the current demographics of growing elderly population and the high likelihood of concurrent β-blocker use for other chronic conditions, more studies into the role of this receptor in AD animal models are needed. Here, we show that administration of ICI 118,551 (ICI), a selective β2AR antagonist, exacerbates cognitive deficits in a mouse model of AD, the 3xTg-AD mice. Neuropathologically, ICI increased Aβ levels and Aβ plaque burden. Concomitantly, ICI-treated 3xTg-AD mice showed an increase in tau phosphorylation and accumulation. Mechanistically, these changes were linked to an increase in amyloidogenic amyloid precursor protein processing. These results suggest that under the conditions used here, selective pharmacologic inhibition of β2ARs has detrimental effects on AD-like pathology in mice. Overall, these studies strengthen the notion that the link between β2ARs and AD is likely highly complex and suggest caution in generalizing the beneficial effects of β blockers on AD.

β-Blockers

Objective: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic properties of commonly used β-blockers (atenolol, carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, metoprolol tartrate, and nebivolol). Data Sources: A MEDLINE literature search (1966-May 2013) was performed using the following key terms: hypertension, β-blockers, atenolol, carvedilol, metoprolol tartrate, metoprolol succinate, nebivolol, pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, blood pressure, metabolic, lipid, central aortic pressure, diabetes, and insulin resistance. References from publications reviewed were included. Study Selection and Data Extraction: English-language articles identified were reviewed. Animal studies and studies in patients for a primary diagnosis of coronary artery disease were excluded. Data Synthesis: β-Blockers are no longer recommended first-line therapy for primary hypertension, based on data showing that β-blockers are inferior to other antihypertensives and no better than placebo, in spite of provision of blood pressure reduction. Because atenolol is the β-blocker used in 75% of these studies, uncertainty about widespread application to all β-blockers exists. Different pharmacological and physiological properties, both within β-blockers and compared with other antihypertensives, may explain divergent effects. Evidence shows that β-blockers have a truncated effect on central aortic pressure, an independent predictor of cardiovascular events, compared with other antihypertensive classes; differences within the class may exist, but the evidence is inconclusive. Metabolic effects differ within the β-blocker class, with evidence that carvedilol causes less metabolic dysregulation. Conclusion: Emerging evidence reveals physiological differences within the β-blocker class and in comparison to other antihypertensives. These differences provide insight into the diverse clinical effects β-blockers provide in cardiovascular disease.

Increasing complexity: which drug class to choose for treatment of hypertension in the elderly?

Treatment of hypertension in the elderly is expected to become more complex in the coming decades. Based on the current landscape of clinical trials, guideline recommendations remain inconclusive. The present review discusses the latest evidence derived from studies available in 2013 and investigates optimal blood pressure (BP) and preferred treatment substances. Three common archetypes are discussed that hamper the treatment of hypertension in the very elderly. In addition, this paper presents the current recommendations of the NICE 2011, JNC7 2013-update, ESH/ESC 2013, CHEP 2013, JNC8 and ASH/ISH guidelines for elderly patients. Advantages of the six main substance classes, namely diuretics, beta-blockers (BBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) are discussed. Medical and economic implications of drug administration in the very elderly are presented. Avoidance of treatment-related adverse effects has become increasingly relevant. Current substance classes are equally effective, with similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes. Selection of substances should therefore also be based on collateral advantages of drugs that extend beyond BP reduction. The combination of ACEIs and diuretics appears to be favorable in managing systolic/diastolic hypertension. Diuretics are a preferred and cheap combination drug, and the combination with CCBs is recommended for patients with isolated systolic hypertension. ACEIs and CCBs are favorable for patients with dementia, while CCBs and ARBs imply substantial cost savings due to high adherence.

First-line beta-blockers versus other antihypertensive medications for chronic type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) is a severe and often lethal complication in people with hypertension. Current practice in the treatment of chronic type B aortic dissections is the use of beta-blockers as first-line therapy to decrease aortic wall stress. Other antihypertensive medications, such as calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), have been suggested for the medical therapy of type B TAD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of first-line beta-blockers compared with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for treating chronic type B TAD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) for related reviews. We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register (1946 to 26 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to 24 January 2014), MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE (1974 to 24 January 2014) and ClinicalTrials.gov (to 26 January 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different antihypertensive medications in the treatment of chronic type B TAD to be eligible for inclusion. Total mortality rate was the primary outcome of this review. Secondary outcomes included total non-fatal adverse events relating to TADs and number of people not requiring surgical treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (KC, PL) independently reviewed titles and abstracts and decided on studies to include based on the inclusion criteria. We resolved discrepancies between the two review authors by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

After a thorough review of the search results, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any RCTs that compared first-line beta-blockers with other first-line antihypertensive medications for the treatment of chronic type B TAD. Therefore, there is no RCT evidence to support the current guidelines recommending the use of beta-blockers. RCTs are required to assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers and other antihypertensive medications as first-line treatment of chronic type B TAD.

Blood pressure control and primary prevention of stroke: summary of the recent clinical trial data and meta-analyses

Stroke is the second most common cause of death worldwide and of adult disability, but in the near future the global burden of cerebrovascular diseases will rise due to ageing and adverse lifestyle changes in populations worldwide. The risk of stroke increases at blood pressure levels above 115/75 mm Hg and high blood pressure (BP) is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke, associated with 54 % episodes of stroke worldwide. There is strong evidence from clinical trials that antihypertensive therapy reduces substantially the risk of any type of stroke, as well as stroke-related death and disability. The risk attributed to BP is associated not only with absolute values but also with certain parameters describing BP diurnal pattern as well as short-term and long-term variability. Many studies reported that certain features of BP like nocturnal hypertension, morning surge or increased variability predict an increased stroke risk. However, there is no accepted effective modality for correction of these disturbances (chronotherapy, certain classes of antihypertensive drugs). In the elderly, who are mostly affected by stroke, the primary prevention guidelines recommend treatment with diuretics and calcium channel blockers to lower blood pressure to the standard level.