Efficacy of losartan and carvedilol on central hemodynamics in hypertensives: a prospective, randomized, open, blinded end point, multicenter study

Antihypertensive Treatment and Central Arterial Hemodynamics: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Antihypertensive treatment may have different effects on central arterial hemodynamics. The extent of the difference in effects between various antihypertensive drugs remains undefined.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that explored the effects of antihypertensive agents on both central and peripheral systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) or central augmentation index, with a special focus on the comparison between newer [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS) inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers (CCBs)] and older antihypertensive agents (diuretics and β- and α-blockers).

Results: In total, 20 studies (n = 2,498) were included. Compared with diuretics (10 studies), β-blockers (16 studies), or an α-blocker (1 study), RAS inhibitors (21 studies), and CCBs (6 studies) more efficaciously (P < 0.001) reduced both central and peripheral SBP by a weighted mean difference of −5.63 (−6.50 to −4.76 mmHg) and −1.97 mmHg (−2.99 to −0.95 mmHg), respectively. Compared with older agents, the newer agents also more efficaciously (P < 0.001) reduced central PP (−3.27 mmHg; −4.95 to −1.59 mmHg), augmentation index (−6.11%; −7.94 to −4.29) and augmentation (−3.35 mmHg; −5.28 to –1.42 mmHg) but not peripheral PP (p ≥ 0.09). Accordingly, the newer agents reduced central-to-peripheral PP amplification significantly less than the older agents (0.11 mmHg; 0.05 to 0.17 mmHg; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Newer agents, such as RAS inhibitors and CCBs, were significantly more efficacious than older agents in their effects on central hemodynamics.

Effects of the valsartan/amlodipine combination and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system monotherapy on brachial pulse pressure and radial augmentation index in hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE

In a substudy of a randomized controlled trial, we investigated the effects of the valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) monotherapy on brachial pulse pressure (bPP) and radial augmentation index (rAI) in patients with previously uncontrolled hypertension.

METHODS

We performed measurements of clinic blood pressure (BP) and pulse rate and rAI (n = 63) and ambulatory BP monitoring (n = 42) at baseline and 12-week of follow-up. Analysis of covariance was performed to calculate the least square mean change from baseline and between-group differences [95% confidence interval (CI)]. Correlation analysis was performed to study the interrelationship between the changes in bPP and rAI and in pulse rate.

RESULTS

After 12-week treatment, clinic and ambulatory SBP/DBP and pulse rate were not differently changed between the valsartan/amlodipine (n = 29) and nifedipine GITS groups (n = 34, P ≥ 0.06) except daytime SBP (P = 0.01). The reductions in 24-h and daytime ambulatory bPP were significantly greater in the former than the latter group (P ≤ 0.04). rAI increased slightly by 3.5% (P = 0.20) and 5.2% (P = 0.06) in the valsartan/amlodipine and nifedipine groups, respectively, with a between-group difference of -1.7% (95% CI -9.6 to 6.1%, P = 0.66). In the two groups combined, the changes in clinic and ambulatory bPP were not or weakly associated with that in clinic or ambulatory pulse rate (r = -0.14 to 0.36, P = 0.02-0.95), while the changes in rAI were more strongly or significantly associated with that in clinic or ambulatory pulse rate (r = -0.39 to -0.23, P = 0.02-0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive drug-induced changes in rAI but not bPP were dependent on pulse rate.

Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors on Arterial Stiffness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

To determine the effects of ACEIs on arterial stiffness, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Relevant articles that investigated the effects of ACEIs on arterial stiffness from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library from inception to September 2018 were systematically retrieved. The investigated outcomes included brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (ba-PWV) and carotid-femoral PWV (cf-PWV) by using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the random-effects model. A total of 17 RCTs including 1,458 individuals were included. The summary results indicated no significant differences between ACEIs and control for ba-PWV and cf-PWV. Also, no significant differences between ACEI and control for ba-PWV and cf-PWV were observed in hypertensive patients, while the therapeutic effects of ACEI versus placebo showed statistically significant difference. Moreover, subgroup analysis indicated that the levels of ba-PWV were significantly associated if the study was conducted in Western countries, mean age <60.0 years, percentage male ≥60.0%, compared with ARBs, baseline PWV <10.0, and high-quality study. Furthermore, the significant levels of cf-PWV in patients who received ACEIs were observed when percentage male was ≥60.0% and the studies were of high-quality. Finally, no significant differences were observed between ACEIs and other antihypertensive drugs regarding the changes of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The overall analysis suggested no significant differences between ACEIs and other antihypertensive drugs for ba-PWV and cf-PWV levels, whereas ACEIs versus placebo showed lower levels of ba-PWV and cf-PWV.

Irreversible effects of long-term chronic smoking on arterial stiffness: An analysis focusing on ex-smokers among otherwise healthy middle-aged men

Objective: Smoking is a modifiable cardiovascular risk factor closely related to arterial stiffness (AS). However, data are lacking regarding the chronic effects of smoking on AS, especially in ex-smoker (ES) who faces remnant cardiovascular risk when compared to never-smokers (NS).Methods: Among 1722 health screening participants, we retrospectively evaluated 652 healthy men with different smoking history [240 current smoker (CS) vs. 228 ES vs. 184 NS]. To assess AS, augmentation index (AIx), pulse pressure amplification (PPamp), and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) were measured and compared.Results: Baseline characteristics were similar except age and triglyceride level. AIx was lowest in NS, followed by ES, and was highest in CS. PPamp was highest in NS, lowest in CS, and ES was of intermediate level. The differences were more robust after adjustment for baseline covariates (AIx, p = 0.005; PPamp: p = 0.001). On the other hand, no significant intergroup difference was observed for cfPWV in our middle-aged population. With the regression analyses revealing an independent association between smoking duration and AS in ES, subgroup analysis demonstrated that long-term ES (smoking duration ≥20 years) had significantly higher AS than short-term ES (<20 years) and NS, approaching levels comparable to CS (AIx and PPamp: p < 0.0001).Conclusions: Our study demonstrated impaired arterial elastic properties in long-term ES, suggesting that AS caused by chronic smoking might be irreversible even after smoking cessation. Further longitudinal studies are warranted to determine the impacts of past smoking on AS and its clinical relevance.

Impact of antihypertensive agents on arterial stiffness in hypertensive patients

AIMS

The present network meta-analysis was performed to comprehensively compare the ability of different types of antihypertensive agents to ameliorate arterial stiffness in hypertensive patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To conduct this network meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, the Embase database, and the https://clinicaltrials.gov/ website for all relevant articles concerning clinical trials on hypertension therapy. The last search date was 10 August 2017. As a result, 28 eligible articles were enrolled in our meta-analysis. According to the included studies, there was no significant difference in pulse wave velocity (PWV) between these treatments. The eight types of antihypertension agents outperformed placebo in controlling systolic blood pressure (SBP). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) outperformed angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) in SBP; and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) outperformed diuretic (D)in SBP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the eight antihypertensive agents show obvious effect on reducing SBP other than arterial stiffness.

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.

Effects of β-Blockers With and Without Vasodilating Properties on Central Blood Pressure

β-Blockers are less effective than other antihypertensive drug classes in reducing central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) as compared with peripheral SBP (pSBP). Whether this effect is less pronounced with vasodilating β-blockers (VBB) when compared with nonvasodilating β-blockers (NVBB) remains unsettled. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials exploring the effects of β-blockers on both pSBP and cSBP in hypertension. We selected 20 studies, for a total of 32 treatment arms (n=21 for NVBB, n=11 for VBB) and 1263 participants (n=962 for NVBB, n=301 for VBB). pSBP decreased from 150 to 133 mm Hg for NVBB and from 145 to 134 mm Hg for VBB. cSBP decreased from 137 to 126 mm Hg for NVBB and from 132 to 123 mm Hg for VBB. SBP amplification (pSBP–cSBP) decreased significantly under VBB (−5.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, −7.8, −3.4 mm Hg), but not under NVBB (−1.1 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, −3.4, +1.2 mm Hg; P <0.01 versus NVBB). There was high heterogeneity both within and between β-blockers subclasses. In a meta-regression model, the weighted difference in treatment-induced changes in SBP amplification between NVBB and VBB lost its significance after adjustment for mean age and baseline pSBP and heart rate (−2.9±2.3 mm Hg; P =0.22) and was almost abolished after adjustment for treatment-induced heart rate changes (−0.1±0.5 mm Hg; P =0.78). In conclusion, NVBBs, but not VBBs, determine a lower reduction in cSBP than in pSBP. However, the difference in treatment-induced SBP amplification changes between NVBB and VBB is nearly abolished after accounting for differences in heart rate changes.

Effects of different types of antihypertensive agents on arterial stiffness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This system review and meta-analysis was conducted to systematically review and analyze the clinical benefits of different antihypertensive agents in improving arterial stiffness in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

PubMed database was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or other types of antihypertensive agents on pulse wave velocity (PWV). The main indicators were the improvements of PWV and augmentation index (AI) before and after randomized treatments with antihypertensive agents. For the studies that only provided the mean and standard deviation of the indicators before and after randomization, the standardized mean difference (SMD) method was directly applied to combine the mean and standard deviation of various indicators after the treatment. For the studies provided the mean and standard deviation of the changes of the indicators, the weighted mean difference (MD) method was applied to combine the mean and standard deviation of the therapeutic effect.

RESULTS

Ten RCT studies were included and the sample sizes range from 40 to 201 (total: 938). Four studies provided the changes of PWV before and after randomization, the pooled analysis showed that the changes of PWV in ARB group were not significantly higher than other antihypertensive agents [MD: 125.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): -78.70 to 330.23, P=0.23]; 4 studies provided the PWV values before and after randomization, the PWV values in ARB group were not significantly superior (SMD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.24, P=0.71). Three studies provided the changes of AI before and after randomization, the ability of ARB to lower the level of the AI was superior to other antihypertensive agents (MD: 8.94, 95% CI: 2.18-5.71, P=0.01); 2 studies provided the AI value after randomization, the abilities of ARB and other anti-hypertensive agents to improve the AI were similar (SMD: 0.03, 95% CI: -1.20 to 1.26, P=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of ARB on the improvement of the PWV level is not superior to other types of antihypertensive agents, but ARB is superior to other types of antihypertensive agents for improving the AI level. Overall, to improve of arterial stiffness, ARB maybe is superior to other antihypertensive agents.

Carvedilol binding to β2-adrenergic receptors inhibits CFTR-dependent anion secretion in airway epithelial cells

Carvedilol functions as a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor (AR)/α1-AR antagonist that is used for treatment of hypertension and heart failure. Carvedilol has been shown to function as an inverse agonist, inhibiting G protein activation while stimulating β-arrestin-dependent signaling and inducing receptor desensitization. In the present study, short-circuit current (Isc) measurements using human airway epithelial cells revealed that, unlike β-AR agonists, which increase Isc, carvedilol decreases basal and 8-(4-chlorophenylthio)adenosine 3',5'-cyclic monophosphate-stimulated current. The decrease in Isc resulted from inhibition of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). The carvedilol effect was abolished by pretreatment with the β2-AR antagonist ICI-118551, but not the β1-AR antagonist atenolol or the α1-AR antagonist prazosin, indicating that its inhibitory effect on Isc was mediated through interactions with apical β2-ARs. However, the carvedilol effect was blocked by pretreatment with the microtubule-disrupting compound nocodazole. Furthermore, immunocytochemistry experiments and measurements of apical CFTR expression by Western blot analysis of biotinylated membranes revealed a decrease in the level of CFTR protein in monolayers treated with carvedilol but no significant change in monolayers treated with epinephrine. These results demonstrate that carvedilol binding to apical β2-ARs inhibited CFTR current and transepithelial anion secretion by a mechanism involving a decrease in channel expression in the apical membrane.

Modifiable risk factors for increased arterial stiffness in outpatient nephrology

Arterial stiffness, as measured by pulse wave velocity (PWV), is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events and mortality. Arterial stiffness increases with age. However, modifiable risk factors such as smoking, BP and salt intake also impact on PWV. The finding of modifiable risk factors may lead to the identification of treatable factors, and, thus, is of interest to practicing nephrologist. We have now studied the prevalence and correlates of arterial stiffness, assessed by PWV, in 191 patients from nephrology outpatient clinics in order to identify modifiable risk factors for arterial stiffness that may in the future guide therapeutic decision-making. PWV was above normal levels for age in 85/191 (44.5%) patients. Multivariate analysis showed that advanced age, systolic BP, diabetes mellitus, serum uric acid and calcium polystyrene sulfonate therapy or calcium-containing medication were independent predictors of PWV. A new parameter, Delta above upper limit of normal PWV (Delta PWV) was defined to decrease the weight of age on PWV values. Delta PWV was calculated as (measured PWV) - (upper limit of the age-adjusted PWV values for the general population). Mean±SD Delta PWV was 0.76±1.60 m/sec. In multivariate analysis, systolic blood pressure, active smoking and calcium polystyrene sulfonate therapy remained independent predictors of higher delta PWV, while age, urinary potassium and beta blocker therapy were independent predictors of lower delta PWV. In conclusion, arterial stiffness was frequent in nephrology outpatients. Systolic blood pressure, smoking, serum uric acid, calcium-containing medications, potassium metabolism and non-use of beta blockers are modifiable factors associated with increased arterial stiffness in Nephrology outpatients.

The impact of angiotensin receptor blockers on arterial stiffness: a meta-analysis

Some studies reported a protective role of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) against arterial stiffness. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of published clinical trials to systematically assess the impact of ARBs on arterial stiffness as measured by using pulse wave velocity (PWV). Eligible articles were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Wanfang and CNKI databanks before 31 July 2014. The data were extracted independently and in duplicate. Forty articles including 53 clinical trials qualified, including 1650 and 1659 subjects in ARB treatment and control groups, respectively. Overall reductions in carotid-femoral PWV (cfPWV) and brachial-ankle PWV (baPWV) were statistically significant, with an average of -42.52 cm s(-1) (95% CI: -81.82 to -3.21; P=0.034) and -107.08 cm s(-1) (95% CI: -133.98 to -80.18; P<0.0005), respectively, after receiving ARBs. Subgroup analysis by ARB type revealed that telmisartan (weighted mean difference or WMD=-100.82 cm s(-1); P<0.0005) and valsartan (WMD=-104.59 cm s(-1); P<0.0005) significantly reduced baPWV, but only valsartan reduced cfPWV (WMD=-65.58; P=0.030). cfPWV was significantly reduced in comparisons of ARBs with placebo (WMD=-79.65 cm s(-1); P=0.001), and baPWV was significantly reduced with calcium channel blockers (WMD=-130.74 cm s(-1); P<0.0005). There were low probabilities of publication bias. Taken together, our findings support the important role of ARB treatment in improving arterial stiffness.

Differential effects of nebivolol and metoprolol on arterial stiffness, circulating progenitor cells, and oxidative stress

Unlike traditional beta receptor antagonists, nebivolol activates nitric oxide. We hypothesized that therapy with nebivolol compared with metoprolol would improve arterial stiffness, increase levels of circulating progenitor cells (PC), and decrease oxidative stress (OS). In a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study, 30 hypertensive subjects received either once daily nebivolol or metoprolol succinate for 3 months each. Pulse wave velocity and augmentation index were measured using tonometry. Flow cytometry was used to measure circulating PC. OS was measured as plasma aminothiols. Measurements were performed at baseline, and repeated at 3 and 6 months. No significant differences were present between the levels of OS, arterial stiffness, and PC numbers during treatment with metoprolol compared with nebivolol. In subgroup analyses of beta-blocker naïve subjects (n = 19), nebivolol reduced pulse wave velocity significantly compared with metoprolol (-1.4 ± 1.9 vs. -0.1 ± 2.2; P = .005). Both nebivolol and metoprolol increased circulating levels of CD34+/CD133 + PC similarly (P = .05), suggesting improved regenerative capacity.