Rationale and design of the NAGOYA HEART Study: Comparison between valsartan and amlodipine regarding morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension and glucose intolerance

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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 We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials.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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Methods of Blood Pressure Assessment Used in Milestone Hypertension Trials

In the present review, we summarized the blood pressure (BP) measurement protocols of contemporary outcome trials in hypertension. In all these trials, clinic BP was used for the diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of hypertension. In most trials, BP was measured in the sitting position with mercury sphygmomanometers or automated electronic BP monitors by trained observers. BP readings were taken on each occasion at least twice with a 30-to-60-s interval after 5 min of rest. Details regarding the arm side, cuff size, and the timing of BP measurement were infrequently reported. If clinic BP continues being used in future hypertension trials, the measurement should strictly follow current guidelines. The observers must be trained and experienced, and the device should be validated by automated electronic BP monitors. On each occasion, BP readings should be taken 2-3 times. The time interval between successive measurements has to be 30-60 s, and the resting period before the measurement should be at least 5 min in the supine or seated position and 1-3 min standing. BP should usually be measured in the seated position. The higher arm side and an appropriate size cuff should be chosen and noted. BP should be measured at defined trough hours. Automated office BP measurement has recently been used and seems to have less white-coat effect. The out-of-office BP measurement, either ambulatory or home BP monitoring, was only used in a subset of study participants of few hypertension trials. Future trials should consider these novel office or out-of-office BP measurements in guiding the therapy and preventing cardiovascular events.

The Efficacy of Fimasartan for Cardiovascular Events and Metabolic Syndrome (K-MetS Study): Rationale, Design and Participant Characteristics

Fimasartan, the eighth angiotensin receptor blocker, was launched in March 2011 and was found to have an excellent efficacy and safety profile in a large cross-sectional population study [Safety and Efficacy of Fimasartan in Patients with Arterial Hypertension (Safe-KanArb); Park et al.: Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2013;13:47-56]. However, there is no long-term study to evaluate its efficacy for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and other effects. The purpose of this study (K-MetS study) was to evaluate whether the early reduction of blood pressure (BP) and/or correction of metabolic derangements with fimasartan will affect MACE and the development of diabetes after long-term use in patients with hypertension. A total of 10,734 patients were screened between October 2011 and October 2012. Of these, 10,601 patients from 582 private clinics and 11 university hospitals were enrolled and are currently treated with fimasartan. The primary endpoints are MACE (cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for heart failure) and the development of diabetes after 3 years of follow-up. In addition to BP monitoring in the clinic, home BP monitoring is performed in about two thirds of patients. The patients were 56.2 ± 10.9 years old (mean ± SD), with 48.4% being women. The mean clinic and home systolic/diastolic BP at baseline were 145.0 ± 17.0/88.8 ± 11.4 and 138.6 ± 14.8/82.6 ± 9.9 mm Hg, respectively. The metabolic syndrome was found in 56.4%, increased abdominal circumference in 52.8%, elevated fasting glucose in 46.8%, hypertriglyceridemia in 44.7%, and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in 33.3% of patients. Further, complicated hypertension with diabetes occurred in 15.1%, ischemic heart disease in 3.3%, stroke in 0.9%, heart failure in 0.7%, and atrial fibrillation in 0.4% of patients. Most participants in this study had a low-to-moderate risk for hypertension. The K-MetS study is expected to provide valuable information about the effects of early BP control and correction of metabolic abnormalities on future cardiovascular outcomes relative to low-risk hypertension.

Deteriorating renal function and clinical outcomes in HIV-positive persons

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relationship between measures of renal function [current estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proportion of follow-up with a low eGFR (%FU ≤60 ml/min)] and fatal/ nonfatal AIDS, non-AIDS events and all-cause mortality.

DESIGN

An observational, longitudinal cohort study of 12 155 persons from EuroSIDA.

METHODS

Persons with at least one eGFR measurement after 1 January 2004, using the CKD-EPI formula, were included. Poisson regression analyses were used to determine whether current eGFR or %FU of 60 ml/min or less were independent prognostic markers for clinical events.

RESULTS

During 61 425 person-years of follow-up (PYFU), the crude incidence of deaths was 11.1/1000 PYFU [95% confidence interval (CI) 10.0-12.1] at current eGFR more than 90 ml/min and 199.6 (95% CI 1144.3-254.3/1000 PYFU) when current eGFR was 30 ml/min or less. Corresponding figures for AIDS were 12.2 (11.1-13.3) and 63.9 (36.5-103.7) and for non-AIDS were 16.0 (14.8-17.3) and 203.6 (147.7-259.5). After adjustment, current eGFR of 30 ml/min or less was a strong predictor of death [adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) 4.35; 95% CI 3.20-5.91] and non-AIDS events (3.63; 95% CI 2.57-5.13), although the relationship with AIDS was less strong (1.45; 95% CI 1.01-2.08). After adjustment, %FU of 60 ml/min or less was associated with a 22% increased incidence of death (aIRR 1.22 per 10% longer; 95% CI 1.18-1.27), a 13% increased incidence of non-AIDS events (95% CI 1.08-1.18) and a 15% increased incidence of AIDS events (95% CI 1.06-1.24).

CONCLUSION

Both current eGFR and %FU of 60 ml/min or less were associated with death and non-AIDS events in HIV-positive persons. Our findings highlight the association between underlying renal dysfunction and morbidity and mortality in HIV infection, although reverse causality cannot be excluded.

Preventing cardiovascular events with angiotensin II receptor blockers: a closer look at telmisartan and valsartan

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) inhibit the renin-angiotensin system. As a result, these agents provide beneficial effects in terms of cardiovascular (CV) and renal protection, independent of their blood pressure-lowering effects. Telmisartan and valsartan are the most intensively studied ARBs for the effects on CV outcomes. Randomized clinical trials assessing morbidity and mortality end points have included a range of patient types, including those with hypertension, hypertension with Type 2 diabetes, high CV risk without hypertension, ischemic heart disease, stroke and heart failure. Few head-to-head comparisons between telmisartan and valsartan have been performed. However, some blood pressure-independent properties of these two ARBs can be scrutinized from separate studies in the available literature.

Evaluation of the impact of atrial fibrillation on rehospitalization events in heart failure patients in recent years

BACKGROUND

Although we have previously reported that the presence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) is an independent risk factor for rehospitalization in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) in a population from 1996 to 2002, the impact of AF configuration as a risk factor in a more recent population remains to be clarified.

METHODS AND RESULTS

319 patients with CHF admitted to our institute in 2006-2007 were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were divided into 3 groups in accordance with their basic cardiac rhythm, i.e. sinus rhythm (n=210), chronic AF (n=68), and paroxysmal AF (n=41). During the follow-up period of 19 ± 17 months, there was no significant difference in mortality or rehospitalization events among the 3 groups (p=0.542). In the multivariate analysis, no administration of β-blockers was the only independent risk factor for rehospitalization due to CHF exacerbation.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical impact of AF configuration as a risk factor of rehospitalization due to CHF exacerbation was considered to be decreased in recent years.

Recent mortality of Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation in an urban city of Tokyo

BACKGROUND

In Japan, the recent status of the mortality of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients is still unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used a single-hospital based cohort database in an urban city (Tokyo) in Japan, including all the new visitors from 2004 to 2009 (n=13,228). The non-adjusted death rates of AF patients for all-cause, stroke, and cardiovascular death were 1091, 97, and 727 per 100,000 patient-years, and the age-adjusted ones were 317 (95% CI, 316-318), 16 (95% CI, 16-16), and 238 (95% CI, 237-239), respectively. The age-adjusted relative risk of AF on all-cause mortality was 1.7 in the particular population.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provides the most recent data about the characteristics and the mortality of AF patients in Tokyo, thus serving as the basic information for finding problems to solve regarding Japanese AF patients.