Effects of graded-release diltiazem versus ramipril, dosed at bedtime, on early morning blood pressure, heart rate, and the rate-pressure product

Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. Complete 24-hour blood pressure control is the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment and reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes is the ultimate aim. This is an update of the review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of administration-time-related effects of once-daily evening versus conventional morning dosing antihypertensive drug therapy regimens on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, total adverse events, withdrawals from treatment due to adverse effects, and reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register via Cochrane Register of Studies (17 June 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 6, 2022); MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print (1 June 2022); Embase (1 June 2022); ClinicalTrials.gov (2 June 2022); Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBLD) (1978 to 2009); Chinese VIP (2009 to 7 August 2022); Chinese WANFANG DATA (2009 to 4 August 2022); China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (CAJD) (2009 to 6 August 2022); Epistemonikos (3 September 2022) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration-time-related effects of evening with morning dosing monotherapy regimens in people with primary hypertension. We excluded people with known secondary hypertension, shift workers or people with white coat hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two to four review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or with another review author. We performed data synthesis and analyses using Review Manager Web for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, serious adverse events, overall adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, change in 24-hour blood pressure and change in morning blood pressure. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis, fixed-effect meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 RCTs in this updated review, of which two RCTs were excluded from the meta-analyses for lack of data and number of groups not reported. The quantitative analysis included 25 RCTs with 3016 participants with primary hypertension. RCTs used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (six trials), calcium channel blockers (nine trials), angiotensin II receptor blockers (seven trials), diuretics (two trials), α-blockers (one trial), and β-blockers (one trial). Fifteen trials were parallel designed, and 10 trials were cross-over designed. Most participants were white, and only two RCTs were conducted in Asia (China) and one in Africa (South Africa). All trials excluded people with risk factors of myocardial infarction and strokes. Most trials had high risk or unclear risk of bias in at least two of several key criteria, which was most prominent in allocation concealment (selection bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across trials. No RCTs reported on cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. There may be little to no differences in all-cause mortality (after 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.42; RD 0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (after 8 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.57; RD 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence), overall adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; I² = 37%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; I² = 38%; very low-certainty evidence) and withdrawals due to adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks active treatment: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23; I² = 0%; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very limited data and the defects of the trials' designs, this systematic review did not find adequate evidence to determine which time dosing drug therapy regimen has more beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes or adverse events. We have very little confidence in the evidence showing that evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs is no more or less effective than morning administration to lower 24-hour blood pressure. The conclusions should not be assumed to apply to people receiving multiple antihypertensive drug regimens.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced cough compared with placebo, and other antihypertensives: A systematic review, and network meta-analysis

Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05-2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32-6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient's comorbidity.

Clinical Experience with Diltiazem in the Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases

Abstract

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the world. Coronary artery diseases, atrial fibrillation or hypertensive heart disease, are among the most important cardiovascular disorders. Hypertension represents a significant risk factor for cardiovascular mortality; thus, control of high blood pressure has become a priority to prevent major complications. Although the choice of drugs for treating hypertension remains controversial, extensive clinical evidences point to calcium channel blockers as first-line agents. Diltiazem, a non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, is an effective and safe antihypertensive drug, alone or in combination with other agents. Diltiazem lowers myocardial oxygen demand through a reduction in heart rate, blood pressure, and cardiac contractility, representing also a good alternative for the treatment of stable chronic angina. Furthermore, diltiazem reduces conduction in atrioventricular node, which is also useful for heart rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. In this review, clinical experts highlight studies on diltiazem effectiveness and safety for the treatment of several cardiovascular diseases and make evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of diltiazem in the clinical practice.

Funding

Lacer Spain.

A trial of 2 strategies to reduce nocturnal blood pressure in blacks with chronic kidney disease

The objective of our study was to determine the effects of 2 antihypertensive drug dose schedules (PM dose and add-on dose) on nocturnal blood pressure (BP) in comparison with usual therapy (AM dose) in blacks with hypertensive chronic kidney disease and controlled office BP. In a 3-period, crossover trial, former participants of the African American Study of Kidney Disease were assigned to receive the following 3 regimens, each lasting 6 weeks, presented in random order: AM dose (once-daily antihypertensive medications taken in the morning), PM dose (once-daily antihypertensives taken at bedtime), and add-on dose (once-daily antihypertensives taken in the morning and an additional antihypertensive medication before bedtime [diltiazem 60-120 mg, hydralazine 25 mg, or additional ramipril 5 mg]). Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at the end of each period. The primary outcome was nocturnal systolic BP. Mean age of the study population (n=147) was 65.4 years, 64% were men, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 44.9 mL/min per 1.73 m(2). At the end of each period, mean (SE) nocturnal systolic BP was 125.6 (1.2) mm Hg in the AM dose, 123.9 (1.2) mm Hg in the PM dose, and 123.5 (1.2) mm Hg in the add-on dose. None of the pairwise differences in nocturnal, 24-hour, and daytime systolic BP was statistically significant. Among blacks with hypertensive chronic kidney disease, neither PM (bedtime) dosing of once-daily antihypertensive nor the addition of drugs taken at bedtime significantly reduced nocturnal BP compared with morning dosing of antihypertensive medications.

Effects of the hormone therapy, drospirenone and 17-beta estradiol, on early morning blood pressure in postmenopausal women with hypertension

Drospirenone (DRSP), is a unique progestin with antimineralocorticoid activity that has been combined with 17-beta estradiol (E2) for the treatment of symptoms of the menopause in women with hypertension. We assessed the effects of DRSP/E2, E2 alone, and placebo on early morning systolic blood pressure (BP) as well as the rate of rise in systolic BP in 748 postmenopausal women with stage 1 and 2 hypertension at baseline and after 8 weeks of double-blind therapy. Patient characteristics (mean age, 56.5 years, 73% to 77% Caucasian; 13% to 17% African-American) and the clinic (152/95 mm Hg) and 24-hour BP (139/83 mm Hg) measurements were similar at baseline. The early morning systolic BP was reduced significantly on DRSP at 3 mg, 2 mg, and 1 mg with E2 compared with placebo, while E2 alone was similar to placebo. The reductions in early morning systolic BP were larger with increasing dose. Changes in the rate of rise in systolic BP between the lowest values during sleep and following a plateau period post-awakening was significant for the 3 mg DRSP group. In conclusion, DRSP/E2 induced significant reductions in early morning systolic BP in post-menopausal women. This attribute could play a potential role in reducing some of the untoward cardiac and cerebrovascular events that have been observed in studies of other progestins/estrogens in postmenopausal women.

Predictive value for mortality of the double product at rest obtained by home blood pressure measurement: the Ohasama study

BACKGROUND

To clarify whether the double product (DP) (product of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse rate (PR)) at rest based on home blood pressure (HBP) measurement has prognostic value for mortality.

METHODS

HBP data of 2,583 participants from a Japanese general population (40% men) ≥35 years of age (mean, 59 years) without a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were obtained. The prognostic significance for a 1,000 mm Hg × beats/min elevation in the DP was determined by Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. The association between mortality and the DP was compared to that between mortality and the SBP or the PR using the likelihood ratio (LR) test.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 12.0 years, 454 total deaths, 153 CVD deaths (85 cardiac diseases, 68 strokes), and 301 non-CVD deaths occurred. The DP was positively and significantly associated with total, CVD, cardiac, stroke, and non-CVD mortality. The LR test showed that the DP was more strongly associated with total mortality, mortality from cardiac disease, and non-CVD than SBP. Similarly, the DP was more strongly associated with total death, CVD death, and death from stroke than PR.

CONCLUSIONS

The home DP was significantly associated with mortality, and the LR test indicated that the association between the DP and mortality would be stronger than that between mortality and SBP or PR. These findings are preliminary, and further study is needed to confirm the usefulness of the DP in risk stratification.

Peripheral edema associated with calcium channel blockers: incidence and withdrawal rate--a meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Peripheral edema is considered to be a common and annoying adverse effect of calcium channel blockers (CCBs). It has been thought to occur secondary to arteriolar dilatation causing intracapillary hypertension and fluid extravasation. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and withdrawal rate of peripheral edema with CCBs.

METHODS

A systematic search was made in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from 1980 to January 2011 for randomized clinical trials reporting peripheral edema with CCBs in patients with hypertension. Trials enrolling at least 100 patients in the CCB arm and lasting at least 4 weeks were included in the analysis. Both the incidence and withdrawal rate due to edema were pooled by weighing each trial by the inverse of the variance. Head-to-head comparison was done to evaluate the risk of edema between newer lipophilic dihydropyridine (DHP) CCBs and older DHPs.

RESULTS

One hundred and six studies with 99 469 participants, mean age 56 ± 6 years, satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. The weighted incidence of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the CCBs group when compared with controls/placebo (10.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, the withdrawal rate due to edema was higher in patients on CCBs compared with control/placebo (2.1 vs. 0.5%, P < 0.0001). Both the incidence of edema and patient withdrawal rate due to edema increased with the duration of therapy with CCBs reaching 24 and 5%, respectively, after 6 months. The risk of peripheral edema with lipophilic DHPs was 57% lower than with traditional DHPs (relative risk 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.53; P < 0.0001). Incidence of peripheral edema in patients on DHPs was 12.3% compared with 3.1% with non-DHPs (P < 0.0001). Edema with high-dose CCBs (defined as more than half the usual maximal dose) was 2.8 times higher than that with low-dose CCBs (16.1 vs. 5.7%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of peripheral edema progressively increased with duration of CCB therapy up to 6 months. Over the long term, more than 5% of patients discontinued CCBs because of this adverse effect. Edema rates were lower with both non-DHPs and lipophilic DHPs.

Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. The morning surge in blood pressure is known to increase the risk of myocardial events in the first several hours post awakening. A systematic review of the administration-time-related-effects of evening versus morning dosing regimen of antihypertensive drugs in the management of patients with primary hypertension has not been conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the administration-time-related-effects of antihypertensive drugs administered as once daily monotherapy in the evening versus morning administration regimen on all cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and reduction of blood pressure in patients with primary hypertension.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL on Ovid (4th Quarter 2009), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to October 2009), EMBASE (1974 to October 2009), the Chinese Biomedical literature database (1978 to 2009) and the reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing the administration-time-related effects of evening with morning dosing monotherapy regimens in patients with primary hypertension were included. Patients with known secondary hypertension, shift workers or white coat hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis and analysis were done using RevMan 5.1. Random effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 1,993 patients with primary hypertension met the inclusion criteria for this review - ACEIs (5 trials), CCBs (7 trials), ARBs (6 trials), diuretics (2 trials), alpha-blockers (1 trial), and beta-blockers (1 trial). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across trials.No RCT reported on all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and serious adverse events.There was no statistically significant difference for overall adverse events (RR=0.78, 95%CI: 0.37 to 1.65) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.26 to 1.07).No significant differences were noted for morning SBP (-1.62 mm Hg, 95% CI: -4.19 to 0.95) and morning DBP (-1.21 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.28 to 0.86); but 24-hour BP (SBP: -1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI: -2.78 to -0.65; DBP: -1.38 mm Hg, 95% CI: -2.13 to -0.62) showed a statistically significant difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No RCT reported on clinically relevant outcome measures - all cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and morbidity. There were no significant differences in overall adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events among the evening versus morning dosing regimens. In terms of BP lowering efficacy, for 24-hour SBP and DBP, the data suggests that better blood pressure control was achieved with bedtime dosing than morning administration of antihypertensive medication, the clinical significance of which is not known.

Nocturnal dosing and chronic kidney disease progression: new insights

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several studies have identified the presence of altered diurnal blood pressure patterns, specifically elevated nighttime blood pressure in patients with chronic kidney disease. The lack of nocturnal decline in blood pressure is associated with markers of hypertensive target organ damage and predictive of long-term clinical outcomes. The purpose of this review is to summarize the literature in this area and explore the potential for use of nighttime blood pressure for improving risk stratification and as a therapeutic target.

RECENT FINDINGS

The mechanisms of persistent elevation of blood pressure at night in chronic kidney disease are likely to be multifactorial, including altered sodium handling and sympathetic activation among others. Elevated nocturnal blood pressures have been shown to be associated with increased adverse clinical outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that it is feasible to lower nocturnal blood pressure by modifying the time of administration of antihypertensive medications.

SUMMARY

Currently, clinical blood pressure measurements are assessed and targeted for drug therapy. This article shows the importance of measuring ambulatory blood pressures, specifically nocturnal blood pressures to improve risk stratification. More research needs to be done to identify interventions that lower nighttime blood pressure, and test their efficacy in improving clinical outcomes.

Clinical benefits versus shortcomings of diltiazem once-daily in the chronotherapy of cardiovascular diseases

BACKGROUND

The introduction of chronotherapy (that is improving a drugs therapeutic efficacy by paralleling the drugs plasma levels to circadian rhythms) has recently become a focus of interest.

OBJECTIVE

This article addresses the efficacy and potential shortcomings of chronotherapy, and focuses on one specific type of chronotherapy: a novel long-acting diltiazem formulation, DTZ-LA.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature to assess the clinical benefits and shortcomings associated with DTZ-LA in the management of hypertension and angina.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

The clinical benefits of DTZ-LA outweigh its disadvantages when surrogate outcomes are evaluated, but it still remains to be determined whether chronotherapy benefits hard clinical outcomes. Nonetheless, chronotherapy has the potential to address the cardiovascular triggers that peak in the early morning hours when the preponderance of cardiovascular events occur, as well as providing better target organ protection compared with non-chronotherapeutic therapy.

Relating cardiovascular risk to out-of-office blood pressure and the importance of controlling blood pressure 24 hours a day

Blood pressure exhibits a natural circadian rhythm characterized by a decrease during sleep, then a steep increase in the early morning period followed by higher values throughout the active waking period. Because an excessive early morning surge in blood pressure is associated with an elevated risk for cardiovascular events, it represents a potential therapeutic target in patients with hypertension, especially those already at high risk for such events. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is an out-of-office technique that allows assessment of blood pressure control during a 24-hour period, including the morning surge. It is known that 24-hour control based on ABPM is a better predictor of hypertensive target-organ involvement and cardiovascular events than conventional in-office blood pressure measurement. ABPM also reveals that many antihypertensive drugs do not adequately control early morning blood pressure, particularly when given once daily in the morning. There are several effective ways to improve morning blood pressure control. These include using agents with a long pharmacologic half-life; prescribing drug formulations specifically designed to target the morning blood pressure surge when given at bedtime; or increasing dosages to twice daily that of conventional shorter-acting agents.

Chronobiology and chronotherapy of ischemic heart disease

The occurrence of the clinical manifestations of ischemic heart disease (IHD)--myocardial ischemia and angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death--is unevenly distributed during the 24 h with greater than expected events during the initial hours of the daily activity span and in the late afternoon or early evening. Such temporal patterns result from circadian rhythms in pathophysiological mechanisms plus cyclic environmental stressors that trigger ischemic events. Both the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of many, though not all, anti-ischemic oral nitrate, calcium channel blocker, and beta-adrenoceptor antagonist medications have been shown to be influenced by the circadian time of their administration. The requirement for preventive and therapeutic interventions varies predictably during the 24 h, and thus therapeutic strategies should also be tailored accordingly to optimize outcomes. During the past decade, two first generation calcium channel blocker chronotherapies have been developed, trialed, and marketed in North America for the improved treatment of IHD. Nonetheless, there has been relatively little investigation of the administration-time (circadian rhythm) dependencies of the PK and PD of conventional anti-ischemic medications, and there has been little progress in the development of new generation IHD chronotherapies. Available epidemiologic, pharmacologic, and clinico-therapeutic evidence demonstrates how the chronobiologic approach to IHD can contribute new insight and opportunities to improve drug design and drug delivery to enhance therapeutic outcomes.

Chronotherapy of hypertension: administration-time-dependent effects of treatment on the circadian pattern of blood pressure

Some specific features of the 24-hour blood pressure (BP) pattern are linked to the progressive injury of target tissues and the triggering of cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Thus, there is growing interest in how to best tailor the treatment of hypertensive patients according to the circadian BP pattern of each individual. Significant administration-time differences in the kinetics (i.e., chronokinetics) plus beneficial and adverse effects (i.e., chronodynamics) of antihypertensive medications are well known. Thus, bedtime dosing with nifedipine GITS is more effective than morning dosing, while also significantly reducing adverse effects. The dose-response curve, therapeutic coverage, and efficacy of doxazosin GITS are all markedly dependent on the circadian time of drug administration. Moreover, valsartan administration at bedtime, as opposed to upon wakening, results in an improved diurnal/nocturnal BP ratio, increased percentage of controlled patients, and significant reduction in urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive patients. Chronotherapy provides a means of individualizing the treatment of hypertension according to the circadian BP profile of each patient, and constitutes a new option to optimize BP control and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction and stroke) and of end-organ injury of the blood vessels and tissue of the heart, brain, kidney, eye, and other organs.

Chronotherapy in hypertensive patients: administration-time dependent effects of treatment on blood pressure regulation

Ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) correlate more closely with target organ damage and cardiovascular events than clinical cuff measurements. ABPM reveals the significant circadian variation in BP, which in most individuals presents a morning increase, small post-prandial decline, and more extensive lowering during nocturnal rest. However, under certain pathophysiological conditions, the nocturnal BP decline may be reduced (nondipper pattern) or even reversed (riser pattern). This is clinically relevant since the nondipper and riser circadian BP patterns constitute a risk factor for left ventricular hypertrophy, microalbuminuria, cerebrovascular disease, congestive heart failure, vascular dementia and myocardial infarction. Hence, there is growing interest in how to best tailor and individualize the treatment of hypertension according to the circadian BP pattern of each patient. Significant administration-time differences in the kinetics and in the beneficial and adverse effects of antihypertensive medications are well known. Thus, bedtime dosing with nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) is more effective than morning dosing, while also significantly reducing adverse effects. The therapeutic coverage and efficacy of doxazosin GITS are dependent on the circadian time of drug administration. Moreover, valsartan administration at bedtime, as opposed to upon wakening, results in an improved diurnal/nocturnal BP ratio, increased percentage of controlled patients, and significant reduction in urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive patients. Chronotherapy provides a means of individualizing the treatment of hypertension according to the circadian BP profile of each patient, and constitutes a new option to optimize BP control and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Assessment of single versus twice daily dosing of ramipril by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients similar to those included in the HOPE study

Ramipril has been used in twice daily dose of 5 mg in most heart failure trials, whereas the dose used in Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study was 10 mg once at bedtime. The HOPE investigators in an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) substudy observed a fall of nighttime but not daytime blood pressure (BP). We examined the effects of once daily ramipril 10 mg versus 5 mg twice a day. Twenty-nine patients were recruited based on the original criteria for the HOPE study and were given ramipril either in twice-daily dose (5 mg b.d.) or once daily (10 mg o.d.) each morning in randomized, prospective crossover trial. Twenty-four hour ABP recordings were taken just before commencement of ramipril therapy and after treatment with twice-daily and once-daily ramipril. Our results show that ramipril causes a significant reduction of BP over 24-h period as compared with baseline. The mean baseline ABP was 124/73 mm Hg, which reduced to 117/69 mm Hg for the twice-a-day regimen (P<0.001) and 115/68 mm Hg for the once a day regimen (P<0.001). Both regimes effectively lower BP to a similar extent. Ramipril causes significant BP reduction in both once- and twice-daily dosing. The fall in BP after daytime dosing is greater than that observed in the HOPE study (including ABP substudy). Once-daily dosing in the morning seems to be effective in causing a significant reduction in the ABP profile of patients at high-risk of a future vascular event.

Hemodialysis timing, survival, and cardiovascular outcomes in the Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study

BACKGROUND

The timing of medical therapies has been shown to influence the outcomes and side effects of treatments for disease. This report examines the extent to which hemodialysis treatment time of day was associated with cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and all-cause mortality in a secondary analysis of the Hemodialysis Study.

METHODS

Dialysis start time defined dialysis shift: morning beginning between 0400 and 0930 hours (n = 822); midday, between 0930 and 1530 hours (n = 851); and evening, between 1530 and 2200 hours (n = 172). Outcome measures included all-cause mortality, cardiac death, composite end point of all-cause mortality or first cardiac hospitalization, and composite end point of first cardiac hospitalization or cardiac death.

RESULTS

Morning hemodialysis was associated with a lower likelihood of cardiovascular events compared with the evening shift in all-cause mortality or first cardiac hospitalization (evening versus morning, relative risk [RR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.65; P = 0.043), as well as first cardiac hospitalization or cardiac death (evening versus morning, RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.89; P = 0.007). No differences were noted in the other 2 outcomes, and there was no statistically significant difference between the morning and midday shifts. Although crude mortality rates were greater in the midday compared with morning (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.39; P = 0.008), this association was attenuated after adjustment (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.22; P = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

Making extensive adjustment for patient characteristics, this report does not support the association of lower all-cause mortality with morning hemodialysis or a particular benefit for older patients.

Bedtime administration of graded-release diltiazem in patients with inadequate BP control: a tolerability and efficacy study

BACKGROUND

Achievement of target BP is a challenge in patients attending family practice. The long duration between administration of the last bedtime dose of antihypertensive medication and the physiologic early morning surge in BP makes it difficult to achieve satisfactory BP control.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a new graded-release preparation of diltiazem (diltiazem XC), taken once daily at bedtime, will show an acceptable adverse-effect profile as well as improved BP control.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is an open label, observational study in an ambulatory care setting.

PATIENTS

954 patients with mild to moderate hypertension and BP not at target levels were attended by 85 physicians. Group 1 patients were receiving a diltiazem preparation and group 2 patients were not receiving any diltiazem preparation at baseline.

INTERVENTION

Group 1 patients were given diltiazem XC at the same dose as the prestudy diltiazem. Treatment with diltiazem XC 180 mg was initiated in group 2 patients. Diltiazem XC was taken once daily at bedtime in both groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The predetermined main outcome measure was the development of adverse events with diltiazem XC when changing or adding the study medication. The secondary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who achieved target BP levels.

RESULTS

Moderate or severe adverse events occurred in 8.7% of patients. Although 21.8% of patients reported either new or worsening adverse events after starting diltiazem XC, the large majority of adverse events were mild in severity. The most frequent moderate or severe adverse events were headache (2.0%) and constipation (1.7%). More patients in group 2 reported adverse events compared with patients in group 1. Target BP levels were achieved in 47.8% (95% CI 44.3, 51.3) of patients completing the 8- to 12-week treatment. No difference was found in the proportion of patients at target BP levels in groups 1 and 2.

CONCLUSION

Diltiazem XC, when used in an ambulatory care setting for patients who have not achieved BP targets, shows an acceptable adverse-effect profile and results in an important improvement of BP control.

Long-acting diltiazem HCL for the chronotherapeutic treatment of hypertension and chronic stable angina pectoris

Hypertension is associated with increased cardio- and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality; antihypertensive drugs have been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events. These events tend to be more common during the morning hours, a time when both normo- and hypertensives show a circadian peak in blood pressure (BP). Although clinicians have a number of safe and well-tolerated antihypertensive agents in various classes and formulations at their disposal, few are designed to specifically attenuate the morning BP surge while maintaining 24-h efficacy. A novel, once-daily, long-acting formulation of diltiazem HCl (DTZ-LA) has been developed with chronodynamics in harmony with diurnal BP variation. DTZ-LA effectively reduces BP in a dose-dependent fashion over a 24-h dosing interval in patients with moderate-to-severe essential hypertension. When compared with a morning dose, the evening dose is associated with significant and clinically meaningful greater reductions in BP during the morning hours, when adverse cardiovascular events tend to cluster. Evening-dosed DTZ-LA was more effective than morning-dosed amlodipine in reducing morning diastolic BP in African-Americans. Evening-dosed DTZ-LA was also more effective than evening-dosed ramipril in reducing morning BP. Evening dosing of DTZ-LA significantly increased exercise tolerance in patients with angina pectoris over the 24-h interval. DTZ-LA is associated with adverse effects consistent with other diltiazem formulations, and overall is safe and well tolerated, even when titrated to doses of 540 mg/day.