Prevention of cardiovascular events with calcium channel blocker-based combination therapies in patients with hypertension: a randomized controlled trial

Clinical studies on pharmacological treatment of hypertension in Japan

Differences in the epidemiology and phenotypes of hypertension in Japan compared with Western countries mean that optimal approaches to the pharmacological management of hypertension should be based on local data. Fortunately, there is a large body of evidence from studies conducted in Japanese populations to inform guidelines and treatment decisions. This article highlights treatment recommendations and BP targets for Japanese patients with hypertension, and summarizes key literature supporting these recommendations. The latest version of the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) guidelines is consistent with US and European guidelines in recommending that the general BP target should be <130/80 mmHg for office blood pressure (BP) and <125/75 mmHg for home BP. There is good local evidence to support these targets. The JSH guidelines also strongly recommend that antihypertensive therapy is managed and monitored based on home BP, due to the closer association of this parameter with cardiovascular risk compared with office BP. Japan is a leader in out-of-office BP research, meaning that there is good evidence for the Japanese recommendations. Key features of antihypertensive agents for use in Japanese patients with hypertension include the ability to reduce stroke risk provide antihypertensive efficacy throughout the 24-h dosing period. Calcium channel blockers appear to be particularly effective in Asian populations, and are the most commonly prescribed agents in Japan. Again consistent with international recommendations, antihypertensive therapy should be started with a combination of agents to maximize the chances of achieving target BP.

First-line diuretics versus other classes of antihypertensive drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.

Blood pressure—lowering medication prescribing, its adherence to guidelines and relationship with blood pressure control at a family medicine department

Background

In many resource‐constrained countries, control of blood pressure (BP) is low. Antihypertensive drug prescribing practices may influence BP control. However, adherence of prescribing to treatment guidelines may not be optimal in resource‐constrained settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pattern of blood pressure‐lowering medication prescribing, and how it adheres to treatment guidelines, and to identify the relationship between medication prescriptions and BP control.

Methods

It was a cross‐sectional study of hypertensive outpatients at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH) Family Medicine department (FMD)/Polyclinic. Data was collected with a validated structured form. Adherence of “prescribing” to recommendations of the 2017 Standard Treatment Guidelines of Ghana and 2018 European Society of Cardiology guidelines was assessed using a composite measure. We analyzed data with SPSS.

Results

About 81% (247/304) of patients received two or more antihypertensive drugs. Most patients (41%; 267/651) received calcium channel blockers (CCB), and 21.8% (142/651), 15.7% (102/651) and 12.7% (83/651) were on diuretics, angiotensin‐receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors respectively. CCB plus RAS inhibitor (50%) was the most prescribed two‐drug combination. Number of BP drugs per patient had a statistically significant inverse relationship with BP control (beta Coefficient = –0.402; 95% Cl: 1.252–2.470; p = 0.015). The composite adherence score was 0.73 (moderate adherence) but Single‐pill combination (SPC) was poor (3.2%; n = 8).

Conclusion

Most patients received multiple‐pill combination treatment, and overall adherence to guidelines was suboptimal, largely owing to complex drug therapy. Number of drugs predicted BP control. Our findings suggest a need to prioritize simplified treatment, and implement other strategies to improve hypertension guideline adherence. Further research on the influence of SPC on BP control may inform future hypertension guidelines in Ghana and elsewhere in Africa.

European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on pharmacological interventions for long-term secondary prevention after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack

Recurrent stroke affects 9% to 15% of people within 1 year. This European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on pharmacological management of blood pressure (BP), diabetes mellitus, lipid levels and antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent stroke and other important outcomes in people with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). It does not cover interventions for specific causes of stroke, including anticoagulation for cardioembolic stroke, which are addressed in other guidelines. This guideline was developed through ESO standard operating procedures and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The working group identified clinical questions, selected outcomes, performed systematic reviews, with meta-analyses where appropriate, and made evidence-based recommendations, with expert consensus statements where evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation. To reduce the long-term risk of recurrent stroke or other important outcomes after ischaemic stroke or TIA, we recommend: BP lowering treatment to a target of <130/80 mmHg, except in subgroups at increased risk of harm; HMGCoA-reductase inhibitors (statins) and targeting a low density lipoprotein level of <1.8 mmol/l (70 mg/dl); avoidance of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel after the first 90 days; to not give direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) for embolic stroke of undetermined source and to consider pioglitazone in people with diabetes or insulin resistance, after careful consideration of potential risks. In addition to the evidence-based recommendations, all or the majority of working group members supported: out-of-office BP monitoring; use of combination treatment for BP control; consideration of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors when lipid targets are not achieved; consideration of use of low-dose DOACs in addition to an antiplatelet in selected groups of people with coronary or peripheral artery disease and aiming for an HbA1c level of <53 mmol/mol (7%) in people with diabetes mellitus. These guidelines aim to standardise long-term pharmacological treatment to reduce the burden of recurrent stroke in Europe.

Therapeutic Effect of Benidipine on Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is an intractable disease that is typically observed in patients with osteoporosis or tumors that have been treated with either bisphosphonate (BP) or antiangiogenic medicine. The mechanism of MRONJ pathogenesis remains unclear, and no effective definitive treatment modalities have been reported to date. Previous reports have indicated that a single injection of benidipine, an antihypertensive calcium channel blocker, in the vicinity of a tooth extraction socket promotes wound healing in healthy rats. The present study was conducted to elucidate the possibility of using benidipine to promote the healing of MRONJ-like lesions. In this study, benidipine was administered near the site of MRONJ symptom onset in a model rat, which was then sacrificed two weeks after benidipine injection, and analyzed using histological sections and CT images. The analysis showed that in the benidipine groups, necrotic bone was reduced, and soft tissue continuity was recovered. Furthermore, the distance between epithelial edges, length of necrotic bone exposed in the oral cavity, necrotic bone area, and necrotic bone ratio were significantly smaller in the benidipine group. These results suggest that a single injection of benidipine in the vicinity of MRONJ-like lesions can promote osteonecrotic extraction socket healing.

Effectiveness of a clinical decision support system for hypertension management in primary care: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are low-cost, scalable tools with the potential to improve guideline-based antihypertensive treatment in primary care, but their effectiveness needs to be tested, especially in low- and middle-income countries such as China.

METHODS

The Learning Implementation of Guideline-based decision support system for Hypertension Treatment (LIGHT) trial is a pragmatic, four-stage, cluster-randomized trial conducted in 94 primary care sites in China. For each city-based stage, sites are randomly assigned to either implementation of the CDSS for hypertension management (which guides doctors' treatment recommendations based on measured blood pressure and patient characteristics), or usual care. Patients are enrolled during the first 3 months after site randomization and followed for 9 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of hypertension management visits at which guideline-based treatment is provided. In a nested trial conducted within the CDSS, with the patient as the unit of randomization, the LIGHT-ACD trial, patients are randomized to receive different initial mono- or dual-antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcome of the LIGHT-ACD trial is the changes in blood pressure.

DISCUSSION

The LIGHT trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a CDSS for improving guideline adherence for hypertension management in primary care in China. The nested trial, the LIGHT-ACD trial, will provide data on the effect of different initial antihypertensive regimens for blood pressure management in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: LIGHT (NCT03636334) and LIGHT-ACD (NCT03587103). Registered on 3 July 2018.

Blood Pressure and Stroke: A Review of Sex- and Ethnic/Racial-Specific Attributes to the Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Management of Raised Blood Pressure

Raised blood pressure (BP) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, and its particular strong association with stroke is well established. Although systolic BP increases with age in both sexes, raised BP is more prevalent in males in early adulthood, overtaken by females at middle age, consistently across all ethnicities/races. However, there are clear regional differences on when females overtake males. Higher BP among males is observed until the seventh decade of life in high-income countries, compared with almost 3 decades earlier in low- and middle-income countries. Females and males tend to have different cardiovascular disease risk profiles, and many lifestyles also influence BP and cardiovascular disease in a sex-specific manner. Although no hypertension guidelines distinguish between sexes in BP thresholds to define or treat hypertension, observational evidence suggests that in terms of stroke risk, females would benefit from lower BP thresholds to the magnitude of 10 to 20 mm Hg. More randomized evidence is needed to determine if females have greater cardiovascular benefits from lowering BP and whether optimal BP is lower in females. Since 1990, the number of people with hypertension worldwide has doubled, with most of the increase occurring in low- and-middle-income countries where the greatest population growth was also seen. Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and South Asia have the lowest detection, treatment, and control rates. High BP has a more significant effect on the burden of stroke among Black and Asian individuals than Whites, possibly attributable to differences in lifestyle, socioeconomic status, and health system resources. Although pharmacological therapy is recommended differently in local guidelines, recommendations on lifestyle modification are often very similar (salt restriction, increased potassium intake, reducing weight and alcohol, smoking cessation). This overall enhanced understanding of the sex- and ethnic/racial-specific attributes to BP motivates further scientific discovery to develop more effective prevention and treatment strategies to prevent stroke in high-risk populations.

Effectiveness of indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination in patients with isolated systolic hypertension: post-hoc analysis of the ARBALET study

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the effectiveness of treatment with an indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination (SPC) in outpatients with uncontrolled isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) aged over 55 years in real-life clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis of the subgroup of patients with ISH from ARBALET, a 3-month, multicenter, observational, open-label study conducted in Russia among patients with grade I or II hypertension who were either uncontrolled on previous antihypertensive treatment or treatment-naïve. The effectiveness of indapamide/amlodipine SPC was assessed by the change in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) and the rate of target SBP (< 140 mmHg) achievement at 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months, in four age groups: 55-59 years, 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and 80 years or older.

RESULTS

The ARBALET study recruited 2217 patients, of whom 626 had ISH and were included in this post-hoc analysis (mean age 66.1 ± 7.8 years; 165 men [26.4%] and 461 women [73.6%]). Target SBP < 140 mmHg was achieved in 43%, 75% and 93% of patients at 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months, respectively. SBP decreased from baseline by 18.8 ± 10.5 mmHg, 27.2 ± 10.6 mmHg and 31.8 ± 9.9 mmHg at 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months, respectively. In the groups of patients aged 55-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 years, SBP reductions at 3 months compared with baseline were - 30.3 ± 9.4, - 32.4 ± 9.7, - 32.5 ± 10.7, and - 28.9 ± 9.6 mmHg, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This post-hoc analysis of the observational ARBALET study showed that indapamide/amlodipine SPC was associated with significant reductions in BP and high rates of target BP achievement in a broad age range of patients with ISH treated in routine clinical practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN40812831.

Guide de Pratique Clinique. Prise en charge de l’hypertension artérielle chez l’adulte en Tunisie

Ce document a été réalisé dans le cadre d'une collaboration entre l'Instance Nationale de l’Évaluation et de l'Accréditation en Santé (INEAS), la Société Tunisienne de Cardiologie et de Chirurgie Cardiovasculaire (STCCCV) et la Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie (CNAM).

Beta-blockers in hypertension: overview and meta-analysis of randomized outcome trials

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses from randomized outcome-based trials have challenged the role of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension. However, because they often include trials on diseases other than hypertension, the role of these drugs in the choice of the blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment strategies remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared beta-blockers vs. placebo/no-treatment/less-intense treatment (BP-lowering trials) or beta-blockers vs. other antihypertensive agents in patients with or without hypertension (comparison trials). Among BP-lowering trials and according to baseline comorbidity, we separately considered trials in hypertension, trials without chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction, and trials with either chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were calculated (random-effects model) for BP-lowering or comparison trials.

RESULTS

A total of 84 BP-lowering or comparison trials (165 850 patients) were eligible. In 67 BP-lowering trials (68 478 patients; mean follow-up 2.5 years; baseline SBP/DBP, 136/82 mmHg), beta blockers were associated with a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events [risk ratio 0.85 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.78-0.92] and all-cause death (risk ratio 0.81 and 95% CI 0.75-0.86). Restriction of the analysis to five trials recruiting exclusively hypertensive patients (18 724 patients; mean follow-up 5.1 years; baseline SBP/DBP 163/94 mmHg), a -10.5/-7.0 mmHg BP decrease was accompanied by reduction of major cardiovascular events by 22% (95% CI, 6-34). In 24 comparison trials (103 764 patients, 3.92 years of mean follow-up), beta-blockers compared with other agents were less protective for stroke and all-cause death in all trials and in trials conducted exclusively in hypertensive patients (averaged risk ratio increase 20 and 6%, respectively, for both cases).

CONCLUSION

Compared with other antihypertensive agents, beta-blockers appear to be substantially less protective against stroke and overall mortality. However, they exhibit a substantial risk-reducing ability for all events when prescribed to lower BP in patients with modest or more clear BP elevations, and therefore can be used as additional agents in hypertensive patients.

Blood pressure-lowering treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomised evidence on the efficacy of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of BP-lowering drugs in patients with and without AF at baseline.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The study was based on the resource provided by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC), in which individual participant data (IPD) were extracted from trials with over 1,000 patient-years of follow-up in each arm, and that had randomly assigned patients to different classes of BP-lowering drugs, BP-lowering drugs versus placebo, or more versus less intensive BP-lowering regimens. For this study, only trials that had collected information on AF status at baseline were included. The effects of BP-lowering treatment on a composite endpoint of major cardiovascular events (stroke, ischaemic heart disease or heart failure) according to AF status at baseline were estimated using fixed-effect one-stage IPD meta-analyses based on Cox proportional hazards models stratified by trial. Furthermore, to assess whether the associations between the intensity of BP reduction and cardiovascular outcomes are similar in those with and without AF at baseline, we used a meta-regression. From the full BPLTTC database, 28 trials (145,653 participants) were excluded because AF status at baseline was uncertain or unavailable. A total of 22 trials were included with 188,570 patients, of whom 13,266 (7%) had AF at baseline. Risk of bias assessment showed that 20 trials were at low risk of bias and 2 trials at moderate risk. Meta-regression showed that relative risk reductions were proportional to trial-level intensity of BP lowering in patients with and without AF at baseline. Over 4.5 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg systolic BP (SBP) reduction lowered the risk of major cardiovascular events both in patients with AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 1.00) and in patients without AF at baseline (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), with no difference between subgroups. There was no evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline SBP or drug class in patients with AF at baseline. The findings of this study need to be interpreted in light of its potential limitations, such as the limited number of trials, limitation in ascertaining AF cases due to the nature of the arrhythmia and measuring BP in patients with AF.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, we found that BP-lowering treatment reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events similarly in individuals with and without AF. Pharmacological BP lowering for prevention of cardiovascular events should be recommended in patients with AF.

Antihypertensive treatment and risk of cancer: an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested a link between antihypertensive medication and cancer, but the evidence is so far inconclusive. Thus, we aimed to investigate this association in a large individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from Jan 1, 1966, to Sept 1, 2019, to identify potentially eligible randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing one blood pressure lowering drug class with a placebo, inactive control, or other blood pressure lowering drug. We also required that trials had at least 1000 participant years of follow-up in each treatment group. Trials without cancer event information were excluded. We requested individual participant data from the authors of eligible trials. We pooled individual participant-level data from eligible trials and assessed the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics on cancer risk in one-stage individual participant data and network meta-analyses. Cause-specific fixed-effects Cox regression models, stratified by trial, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was any cancer event, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018099283).

FINDINGS

33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4·2 years (IQR 3·0-5·0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0·99 [95% CI 0·95-1·04] for ACEIs; 0·96 [0·92-1·01] for ARBs; 0·98 [0·89-1·07] for β blockers; 1·01 [0·95-1·07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1·06 [1·01-1·11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·93-1·09] for ACEIs; 0·99 [0·92-1·06] for ARBs; 0·99 [0·89-1·11] for β blockers; 1·04 [0·96-1·13] for calcium channel blockers; 1·00 [0·90-1·10] for thiazides).

INTERPRETATION

We found no consistent evidence that antihypertensive medication use had any effect on cancer risk. Although such findings are reassuring, evidence for some comparisons was insufficient to entirely rule out excess risk, in particular for calcium channel blockers.

FUNDING

British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Martin School.

Combined Therapy of Arterial Hypertension. The Opinion of a Clinical Pharmacologist

Modern tactics of treatment of arterial hypertension (AH) involves the use of both monotherapy and combination therapy. Monotherapy is recommended primarily for low-risk patients with systolic blood pressure (BP)< 150 mm Hg. Monotherapy should also be preferred in very high risk patients with high normal BP and frail elderly patients. However, combination therapy is recommended for most hypertensive patients as initial therapy. Starting combination therapy is more effective in lowering BP than monotherapy. Even at low doses, it is usually more effective than maximum dose monotherapy. The most commonly prescribed combinations today contain a renin-angiotensin system blocker (angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blocker) with a calcium antagonist or diuretic. The combination of lisinopril with amlodipine not only proved its high efficiency in various international and Russian studies, but also turned out to be pharmacoeconomically more profitable. Fixed combinations of lisinopril and amlodipine are the optimal choice in the treatment of hypertensive patients, due to all the advantages of both components: higher efficacy and safety rates compared to monotherapy and better patient adherence to treatment.

Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Adverse Cardiovascular Outcome in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients Younger than 60 Years Old

Background

Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a new inflammatory marker; the relationship between NLR and adverse cardiovascular (CV) prognosis has been gradually emphasized in the general population. However, their association in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients remains unclear.

Methods

From January 1, 2010, to May 31, 2017, a total of 1652 patients were recruited. NLR was categorized in triplicates: NLR ≤ 2.74, 2.74 < NLR ≤ 3.96, and NLR > 3.96. Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence curve and multivariable COX regression analysis were used to determine the relationship between NLR and the incidence of adverse CV outcome, while a competitive risk model was applied to assess the effects of other outcomes on adverse CV prognosis. Besides, forest plot was investigated to analyze the adverse CV prognosis in different subgroups.

Results

During follow-up, 213 new-onset CV events and 153 CV disease (CVD) deaths were recorded. Multivariable COX regression models showed that the highest tertile of NLR level was associated with increased risk of CV events (HR = 1.39, 95%CI = 1.01‐1.93, P = 0.046) and CVD mortality (HR = 1.81, 95%CI = 1.22‐2.69, P = 0.003), while compared to the lowest tertile. Competitive risk models showed that the differences in CV event (P < 0.001) and CVD mortality (P = 0.004) among different NLR groups were still significant while excluding the effects of other outcomes. In subgroups, with each 1 increased in the NLR level, adjusted HR of new-onset CV event was 2.02 (95%CI = 1.26 − 3.23, P = 0.003) and CVD mortality was 2.98 (95%CI = 1.58 − 5.62, P = 0.001) in the younger group (age < 60 years).

Conclusions

NLR is an independent risk factor for adverse CV prognosis in PD patients younger than 60 years old.

Arterial hypertension in adults. Clinical guidelines 2020

Arterial hypertension in adults. Clinical guidelines 2020

Österreichischer Blutdruckkonsens 2019

Erhöhter Blutdruck bleibt eine Hauptursache von kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen, Behinderung und frühzeitiger Sterblichkeit in Österreich, wobei die Raten an Diagnose, Behandlung und Kontrolle auch in rezenten Studien suboptimal sind. Das Management von Bluthochdruck ist eine häufige Herausforderung für Ärztinnen und Ärzte vieler Fachrichtungen. In einem Versuch, diagnostische und therapeutische Strategien zu standardisieren und letztendlich die Rate an gut kontrollierten Hypertoniker/innen zu erhöhen und dadurch kardiovaskuläre Erkrankungen zu verhindern, haben 13 österreichische medizinische Fachgesellschaften die vorhandene Evidenz zur Prävention, Diagnose, Abklärung, Therapie und Konsequenzen erhöhten Blutdrucks gesichtet. Das hier vorgestellte Ergebnis ist der erste Österreichische Blutdruckkonsens. Die Autoren und die beteiligten Fachgesellschaften sind davon überzeugt, daß es einer gemeinsamen nationalen Anstrengung bedarf, die Blutdruck-assoziierte Morbidität und Mortalität in unserem Land zu verringern.

Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from Multinational Heterogeneous Cohorts

Background and Objectives

2018 ESC/ESH Hypertension guideline recommends 2-drug combination as initial anti-hypertensive therapy. However, real-world evidence for effectiveness of recommended regimens remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of first-line anti-hypertensive treatment combining 2 out of the following classes: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blocker (A), calcium channel blocker (C), and thiazide-type diuretics (D).

Methods

Treatment-naïve hypertensive adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated dual anti-hypertensive medications were identified in 5 databases from US and Korea. The patients were matched for each comparison set by large-scale propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite outcome comprised the secondary measure.

Results

A total of 987,983 patients met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 222,686, 32,344, and 38,513 patients were allocated to A+C vs. A+D, C+D vs. A+C, and C+D vs. A+D comparison, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mortality during total of 1,806,077 person-years: A+C vs. A+D (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97−1.20; p=0.127), C+D vs. A+C (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87−1.01; p=0.067), and C+D vs. A+D (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95−1.47; p=0.104). A+C was associated with a slightly higher risk of heart failure (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01−1.18; p=0.040) and stroke (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01−1.17; p=0.040) than A+D.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in mortality among A+C, A+D, and C+D combination treatment in patients without previous CVD. This finding was consistent across multi-national heterogeneous cohorts in real-world practice.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality: 14 - effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in older and younger patients: overview and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The five major classes of blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs have all been shown to significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events when compared with placebo, and when directly (head-to-head) compared, no significant differences in their overall effectiveness have been detected, except for minor differences in cause-specific events. It is unknown, however, whether age-related differences exist and if some classes of drugs are differently effective in older or younger individuals. This clinically relevant question has been the object of a systematic search and meta-analysis of all available data.

METHODS

Two databases we had previously identified [72 placebo-controlled BP-lowering randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in 260 210 individuals and 50 RCTs head-to-head comparing treatments with BP-lowering drugs of different classes in 247 006 individuals) were searched for separately reported data on patients older or younger than 65 years, and the data were further stratified according to the class of drug [diuretics, beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers] compared with placebo or with other drug classes. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were considered for benefits. Adverse events were investigated as permanent treatment discontinuations for adverse events. Risk ratios and absolute risk changes were calculated by a random effects model. Effects at older and younger ages were compared by heterogeneity test.

RESULTS

We identified 20 placebo-controlled RCTs on 55 645 older individuals and 21 on 99 621 younger individuals, and 21 head-to-head drug comparison RCTs on 94 228 older individuals and 27 on 100 232 younger individuals (for a total of 349 726 individuals). When compared with placebo, all five classes of BP-lowering drugs significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events or stroke, with no significant difference between older and younger patients. However, in head-to-head comparisons, no significant difference was found between older and younger patients in the effects of diuretics, calcium antagonists, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on all cardiovascular outcomes, whereas beta-blockers revealed an age-dependent effectiveness, being equally effective as the other agents at an age below 65 years, but less effective at an older age.

CONCLUSION

Most BP-lowering classes are equally effective in preventing risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events both in older and younger patients, whereas beta-blockers, though being equally effective as the other agents in patients younger than 65, loose some of their effectiveness at an older age.

Effect of a Single Injection of Benidipine-Impregnated Biodegradable Microcarriers on Bone and Gingival Healing at the Tooth Extraction Socket

Objective: A dihydropyridine-type calcium channel blocker, benidipine (BD), is extensively used in hypertension therapy. In vitro study reported BD promoting bone metabolism. We evaluated the effect of sustained release of BD-loaded poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) microcarriers on the promotion of bone and gingival healing at an extraction socket in vivo. In addition, the effect of BD on osteoblasts, osteocytes, fibroblasts, and epithelial cells was evaluated in vitro. Approach: The maxillary first molar of rats was extracted. Next, PLGA microcarriers containing BD were directly injected into the gingivobuccal fold as a single dose. After injection, bone and soft-tissue healing was histologically evaluated. Effect of BD on proliferation, migration, and gene expression of gingival and bone cell was also examined in vitro. Results: After tooth extraction, BD significantly augmented bone volume and density, and also epithelial wound healing. During in vitro studies, BD promoted significant proliferation and migration of fibroblasts and epithelial cells. Real-time RT-PCR revealed that BD upregulated messenger RNA expression of Ahsg (alpha 2-HS glycoprotein) and Csf2 (colony-stimulating factor 2) in osteoblasts. Innovation: The prevention of bone and soft-tissue reduction associated with tooth extraction has been eagerly anticipated in the field of dentistry. This study first reported the effect of BD on extraction socket healing. Conclusion: A single dose of topically administered BD-loaded PLGA microcarriers promoted bone and soft-tissue healing at the extraction site of tooth.

2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension

: Document reviewers: Guy De Backer (ESC Review Co-ordinator) (Belgium), Anthony M. Heagerty (ESH Review Co-ordinator) (UK), Stefan Agewall (Norway), Murielle Bochud (Switzerland), Claudio Borghi (Italy), Pierre Boutouyrie (France), Jana Brguljan (Slovenia), Héctor Bueno (Spain), Enrico G. Caiani (Italy), Bo Carlberg (Sweden), Neil Chapman (UK), Renata Cifkova (Czech Republic), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Jean-Philippe Collet (France), Ioan Mircea Coman (Romania), Peter W. de Leeuw (The Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (The Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Hans-Christoph Diener (Germany), Maria Dorobantu (Romania), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Csaba Farsang (Hungary), Marc Ferrini (France), Ian M. Graham (Ireland), Guido Grassi (Italy), Hermann Haller (Germany), F. D. Richard Hobbs (UK), Bojan Jelakovic (Croatia), Catriona Jennings (UK), Hugo A. Katus (Germany), Abraham A. Kroon (The Netherlands), Christophe Leclercq (France), Dragan Lovic (Serbia), Empar Lurbe (Spain), Athanasios J. Manolis (Greece), Theresa A. McDonagh (UK), Franz Messerli (Switzerland), Maria Lorenza Muiesan (Italy), Uwe Nixdorff (Germany), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Gianfranco Parati (Italy), Joep Perk (Sweden), Massimo Francesco Piepoli (Italy), Jorge Polonia (Portugal), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Stefano F. Rimoldi (Switzerland), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Naveed Sattar (UK), Petar M. Seferovic (Serbia), Iain A. Simpson (UK), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Alice V. Stanton (Ireland), Philippe van de Borne (Belgium), Panos Vardas (Greece), Massimo Volpe (Italy), Sven Wassmann (Germany), Stephan Windecker (Switzerland), Jose Luis Zamorano (Spain).The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these Guidelines are available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines.

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.

S-amlodipine plus chlorthalidone vs. S-amlodipine plus telmisartan in hypertensive patients unresponsive to amlodipine monotherapy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The efficacy of a combination of a calcium channel blocker (CCB) plus chlorthalidone (diuretic) versus a CCB plus an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in patients not responding to CCB monotherapy has not been evaluated previously. We plan to compare the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine (CCB) plus chlorthalidone versus S-amlodipine plus telmisartan (ARB) combinations among hypertension patients unresponsive to amlodipine monotherapy.

Methods/design

This study is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel, non-inferiority phase 4 study. Hypertension patients who have been treated with amlodipine (5 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) monotherapy for ≥2 weeks and whose mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is greater than 90 mmHg will be randomized to either S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus chlorthalidone (25 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus telmisartan (40 mg) therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint is mean sitting DBP change after 12 weeks of treatment. The study objective is to prove the non-inferiority of the former combination (test drug) as compared to the latter one (control) with a non-inferiority margin of 3 mmHg in mean DBP change. The secondary endpoints are 6-week DBP change, 6- and 12-week sitting systolic BP (SBP) change, and the attainment of the target BP (SBP < 140 mmHg or DBP < 90 mmHg). Urine albumin, albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR), pulse wave velocity, central BP, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, and body fluid composition analysis will be performed at each hospital’s discretion. The sample size was estimated as 170 in total with 1:1 randomization.

Discussion

This is the first study comparing the efficacy of a CCB plus chlorthalidone versus a CCB plus an ARB in patients who are not responding to CCB single therapy. The study result will help clinicians to choose between chlorthalidone and telmisartan in CCB-unresponsive patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03226340. Registered on 2 December 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2636-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Effects of Calcium-Channel Blocker Benidipine-Based Combination Therapy on Cardiac Events - Subanalysis of the COPE Trial

BACKGROUND

The Combination Therapy of Hypertension to Prevent Cardiovascular Events (COPE) trial was conducted to compare the effects of regimens combining the dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker benidipine with each of 3 secondary agent types (an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), a β-blocker and a thiazide) in Japanese hypertensive outpatients who did not achieve target blood pressure (<140/90 mmHg) with benidipine 4 mg/day alone. The analysis included 3,293 patients (ARB, 1,110; β-blocker, 1,089; thiazide, 1,094) with a median follow-up of 3.61 years. The main results of the COPE trial demonstrated that the incidences of hard cardiovascular composite endpoints and fatal or non-fatal strokes were significantly higher in the benidipine/β-blocker group than in the benidipine/thiazide group.Methods and Results:We further evaluated the treatment effects on different cardiac events among the 3 benidipine-based regimens.We observed a total of 50 cardiac events, 4.2 per 1000 person-years. The incidences of total cardiac events and each cardiac event were similarly low among the 3 treatment groups. Unadjusted and multi-adjusted hazard ratios for total cardiac events showed no significant difference among the 3 treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This subanalysis of the COPE trial demonstrated that blood pressure-lowering regimens combining benidipine with an ARB, β-blocker or thiazide diuretic were similarly effective for the prevention of cardiac events in Japanese hypertensive outpatients.

Blood Pressure Management for Stroke Prevention and in Acute Stroke

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is the leading modifiable risk factor for stroke and the benefit of BP lowering therapy on the stroke risk reduction is well established. The optimal BP target for preventing stroke and other vascular events have been controversial, but the evidences from epidemiological studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) support intensive BP lowering for greater vascular protection, particularly for stroke prevention. For secondary stroke prevention, the evidence of intensive BP lowering benefit is limited since only a single RCT for patients with lacunar infarctions was conducted and most data were driven by exploratory analyses. In acute intracerebral hemorrhage, immediate BP lowering targeting systolic BP<140 mm Hg is recommended by guidelines based on the results from RCTs. In contrast, in acute ischemic stroke, early BP lowering is not usually recommended because of no benefit on functional outcome and future vascular events and potential harm of stroke progression. This review aims to summarize the updated evidence for optimal BP management for primary and secondary stroke prevention and in patients with acute stroke.

Effects of calcium channel blocker benidipine-based combination therapy on target blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcome: a sub-analysis of the COPE trial

We compared three benidipine-based regimens-that is, benidipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), β-blocker (BB) or thiazide-and found that the benidipine-BB combination was less beneficial in reducing the risk of stroke than the benidipine-thiazide combination. This sub-analysis sought to compare the effects of reaching a target blood pressure (BP) (<140/90 mm Hg) on the cardiovascular outcomes among the three benidipine-based treatment groups in the Combination Therapy of Hypertension to Prevent Cardiovascular Events trial. This sub-analysis included 3001 subjects to evaluate the achievement of target BP at a minimum of three points at 6-month intervals of clinical BP measurements during the study period. After randomization, the patients were categorized into two groups on the basis of achieved on-treatment target BP: a good control (GC) group achieving a BP⩾66.7% of the target and a poor control (PC) group with a BP <66.6% of the target. For each of the two control groups, outcomes were compared among the three treatment groups. The event rates for cardiovascular composite endpoints, stroke and hard cardiovascular events were higher in the PC group than the GC group (P=0.041, P=0.042 and P=0.038, respectively). Within the PC group, hazard ratios for the incidence of cardiovascular events were lower in the benidipine-thiazide group than in the benidipine-BB group (composite cardiovascular events: 2.04, P=0.033; stroke: 4.14, P=0.005; and hard cardiovascular events: 3.52, P=0.009). Within the GC group, the incidence of cardiovascular events was not different among the three treatment regimens. The benidipine-thiazide combination may provide better cardiovascular outcomes than the benidipine-BB combination even in patients with poor BP control.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension: 5. Head-to-head comparisons of various classes of antihypertensive drugs - overview and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We have recently published an overview and meta-analysis of the effects of the five major classes of blood pressure-lowering drugs on cardiovascular outcomes when compared with placebo. However, possible differences in effectiveness of the various classes can correctly be estimated only by head-to-head comparisons of different classes of agents. This has been the objective of a new survey and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A database search between 1966 and August 2014 ide ntified 50 eligible randomized controlled trials for 58 two-drug comparisons (247 006 patients for 1 029 768 patient-years). Risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals of seven outcomes were estimated by a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The effects of all drug classes are not significantly different on most outcomes when their blood pressure effect is equivalent. However, there are also significant differences involving almost all classes of drugs. When compared to all other classes together, diuretics are superior in preventing heart failure; beta-blockers less effective in preventing stroke; calcium antagonists superior in preventing stroke and all-cause death, but inferior in preventing heart failure; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors more effective in preventing coronary heart disease and less in preventing stroke; angiotensin receptor blockers inferior in preventing coronary heart disease; and renin-angiotensin system blockers more effective in preventing heart failure. When stratifying randomized controlled trials according to total cardiovascular risk, no drug class was found to change in effectiveness with the level of risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of all available evidence from head-to-head drug class comparisons do not allow the formulation of a fixed paradigm of drug choice valuable for all hypertensive patients, but the differences found may suggest specific choices in specific conditions, or preferable combinations of drugs.

Combinations of olmesartan and a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic in elderly hypertensive patients: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to compare the cardiovascular effects of olmesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, combined with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a diuretic, in a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint trial.

METHODS

Japanese hypertensive patients aged at least 65 to less than 85 years with SBP at least 140 mmHg and/or DBP at least 90 mmHg with antihypertensive treatment, or SBP at least 160 mmHg and/or DBP at least 100 mmHg without antihypertensive treatment were randomized to receive olmesartan with either a dihydropyridine CCB or a low-dose diuretic. If SBP and/or DBP remained at least 140 and/or at least 90 mmHg, the other antihypertensive drug was added. The primary endpoint was a composite of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. The median follow-up time was 3.3 years.

RESULTS

Blood pressure decreased similarly in both groups. The primary endpoint occurred in 116/2568 patients (4.5%) in the olmesartan plus CCB group and in 135/2573 patients (5.3%) in the olmesartan plus diuretic group [hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.07, P = 0.16]. Rates of all-cause death and cardiovascular deaths were similar. Among patients aged at least 75 years, the incidence of stroke tended to be lower in the olmesartan plus CCB group than in the olmesartan plus diuretic group (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.38-1.02, P = 0.059, interaction P = 0.019). Fewer patients in the olmesartan plus CCB group (8.2%, 211/2568) than in the olmesartan plus diuretic group (9.8%, 253/2573; P = 0.046) experienced serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Despite no significant difference in cardiovascular events, the different safety profiles suggest that the combination of olmesartan and CCB may be preferable to that of olmesartan and diuretic.

The 2014 hypertension guidelines: implications for patients and practitioners in Asia

Hypertension is a global public health issue and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Because of population growth and ageing, the number of people with uncontrolled hypertension rose from 600 million in 1980 to nearly 1 billion in 2008. Furthermore, the number of adults with hypertension in 2025 has also been predicted to increase by about 60% to a total of 1.56 billion. The prevalence of hypertension in most Asian countries has increased over the last 30 years and more dramatically in the last 10 years. Several factors contributed to such changes in Asia, but acculturation to Western lifestyle, modernisation and urbanisation are considered key contributing factors. There are some unique features in regards to cardiovascular risk in Asia. Specifically, Asian regions have disproportionately higher mortality and morbidity from stroke compared with Western countries. Furthermore, the relationship between blood pressure level and risk of stroke is stronger in Asia than in Western regions. Although evidence-based and qualified guidelines for hypertension diagnosis and management have been released recently from Europe and North America, the unique features of Asian patients with hypertension raise concerns in regards to the real clinical applicability of Western guidelines in Asian populations. Specifically, it is not yet clear to what extent the new blood pressure target proposed by Western guidelines for high risk and elderly hypertensive individuals apply to Asian populations.

Effects of calcium channel blocker-based combinations on intra-individual blood pressure variability: post hoc analysis of the COPE trial

Visit-to-visit blood pressure (BP) variability is an important predictor of stroke. However, which antihypertensive drug combination is better at reducing visit-to-visit BP variability and therefore at reducing stroke incidence remains uncertain. We have previously reported that the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker benidipine combined with a β-blocker appeared to be less beneficial in reducing the risk of stroke than a combination of benidipine and thiazide. Here, we further compare the visit-to-visit BP variability among three benidipine-based regimens, namely angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), β-blocker and thiazide combinations. The present post hoc analysis included 2983 patients without cardiovascular events or death during the first 18 months after randomization. We compared the BP variability (defined as the s.d. and the coefficient of variation (CV)), maximum systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) of the clinic mean on-treatment BPs obtained at 6-month intervals, starting 6 months after the treatment initiation, among the 3 treatments (ARB, n=1026; β-blocker, n=966; thiazide, n=991). During the first 6–36 months after randomization, both the s.d. and CV-BPs were lower in the benidipine–thiazide group than in the benidipine–β-blocker group (s.d.-SBP, P=0.019; s.d.-DBP, P=0.030; CV-SBP, P=0.012; CV-DBP, P=0.022). The s.d. and CV in the ARB group did not reach statistical significance compared with the other two groups. The maximum BPs did not differ among the three treatments. These findings suggest that the benidipine–thiazide combination may reduce visit-to-visit BP variability more than the benidipine–β-blocker combination.

Long-Term Anti-Hypertensive Therapy and Stroke Prevention: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Stroke causes approximately 6.7 million deaths worldwide per year and is the second leading cause of death. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension, an independent risk factor for stroke, significantly reduces the incidence of stroke. Although prior meta-analyses demonstrate various antihypertensive classes are superior to placebo in reducing stroke risk, which class is most effective is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic MEDLINE search including only randomized controlled trials (RCT) of antihypertensive medications published between 1999 and 2014 in adults with stroke as a primary or secondary outcome. Five classes compared against all others were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (T-TLDs). Among 17 RCTs with 31 comparative arms, risk ratio was used to assess effect size, and a fixed- and random-effect model was used to calculate summary effect size, utilizing comprehensive meta-analysis statistical software version 2.0.

RESULTS

The 251,853 subjects (46 ± 11.4 % female; mean age 67.2 ± 6.8 years), were grouped as follows: ACEI 52,887; ARB 7278; ACEI/ARB 60,165; β-blocker 24,099; CCB 98,950; and T-TLD 68,639. The mean follow-up was 42.9 ± 15 months. A random-effect model was used to assess for summary effect size in ACEI, ACEI/ARB, ARB, and T-TLD groups. The summary risk ratio for stroke occurrence in the different antihypertensive drug classes were as follows: ACEIs 1.01 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p = 0.92); ACEIs/ARBs 0.94 (95 % CI 0.78-1.13; p = 0.51); T-TLDs 0.90 (95 % CI 0.75-1.08; p = 0.25); ARBs 0.83 (95 % CI 0.59-1.18; p = 0.30); β-blockers 1.42 (95 % CI 1.26-1.61; p < 0.01); and CCBs 0.83 (95 % CI 0.79-0.89; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Among the antihypertensive classes, CCBs were most effective in reducing the long-term incidence of stroke, whereas β-blockers were associated with significantly increased risk.

Advances in stroke prevention

Stroke remains to be a leading cause of disability. However, optimal strategies can prevent up to 80% of strokes. A large body of evidence supports many strategies for primary and secondary prevention of stroke. The purpose of this paper is to highlight recent major advances for management of modifiable medical and behavioral risk factors of stroke. Specific studies are highlighted, including those related to atrial fibrillation (AF), hypertension, revascularization, hyperlipidemia, antiplatelets, smoking, diet, and physical activity. Effective strategies include the use of novel oral anticoagulants for AF, antiplatelet therapy, and intensive lowering of atherosclerosis risk factors.

Systolic hypertension: an increasing clinical challenge in Asia

Systolic hypertension, the predominant form of hypertension in patients aged over 50-60 years, is a growing health issue as the Asian population ages. Elevated systolic blood pressure is mainly caused by arterial stiffening, resulting from age-related vascular changes. Elevated systolic pressure increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, mortality and renal function decline, and this risk may increase at lower systolic pressure levels in Asian than Western subjects. Hence, effective systolic pressure lowering is particularly important in Asians yet blood pressure control remains inadequate despite the availability of numerous antihypertensive medications. Reasons for poor blood pressure control include low awareness of hypertension among health-care professionals and patients, under-treatment, and tolerability problems with antihypertensive drugs. Current antihypertensive treatments also lack effects on the underlying vascular pathology of systolic hypertension, so novel drugs that address the pathophysiology of arterial stiffening are needed for optimal management of systolic hypertension and its cardiovascular complications.

Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

The aim of this updated statement is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of stroke among individuals who have not previously experienced a stroke or transient ischemic attack. Evidence-based recommendations are included for the control of risk factors, interventional approaches to atherosclerotic disease of the cervicocephalic circulation, and antithrombotic treatments for preventing thrombotic and thromboembolic stroke. Further recommendations are provided for genetic and pharmacogenetic testing and for the prevention of stroke in a variety of other specific circumstances, including sickle cell disease and patent foramen ovale.

Thiazide-like/calcium channel blocker agents: a major combination for hypertension management

In recent years, treatment strategies for hypertension have often focused on combination therapies that include diuretics and renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockers such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. However, in clinical practice, a significant number of patients do not respond completely to these combination treatments, and long-term reduction of cardiovascular risk remains insufficient. The particularly high residual cardiovascular risk of hypertensive patients, even when adequately treated with strategies based on renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockers, speaks in favor of new, innovative strategies. Thus, it has become relevant to consider whether it is always necessary to block plasma renin activation and whether other guideline-approved combinations should be considered routinely. Diuretic/calcium channel blocker combinations, which are supported by significant long-term evidence, are put forth as a preferred combination in the main guidelines, but are still underused by physicians who do not yet have easy access to such treatments. Fixed-dose indapamide sustained release/amlodipine is the first such single-pill combination to become available. Complementary mechanisms of action of these two molecules are expected to lead to greater and longer-term reductions in systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure and potentially to the reduction of cardiovascular risk.

Effects of the T/L-type calcium channel blocker benidipine on albuminuria and plasma aldosterone concentration. A pilot study involving switching from L-type calcium channel blockers to benidipine

Albuminuria and a high plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) are prognosis factors predicting a poor outcome for cardiovascular disease. We examined here the effects of benidipine, a T/L-type calcium channel blocker (CCB), on albuminuria and PAC.Thirty-one patients with essential hypertension who received an L-type CCB and achieved the target blood pressure (BP) indicated by the Treatment Guidelines of the Japan Society of Hypertension (JSH2009) were investigated. The Ltype CCB under treatment was switched to benidipine at a dose in which equivalent BP reduction was expected. BP and estimated glomerular filtration rate at 6 months after switching to benidipine were not significantly different from those at baseline. The urinary-albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) decreased significantly by 36.9% (P = 0.001). No significant change was observed in plasma renin activity (P = 0.063). The PAC of all patients decreased significantly by 11.8% (P = 0.002). When analyzed by daily doses of benidipine, the PAC appeared to have decreased in patients who received 4 mg per day of benidipine (n = 14), although statistical significance was not reached (P = 0.096). The PAC in patients who received 8 mg per day of benidipine (n =17) was significantly reduced by 13.2% (P = 0.017).In hypertensive patients whose BP is controlled by L-type CCB, switching to the T/L-type CCB benidipine maintained BP control and reduced UACR. In addition, the high dose of benidipine reduced the PAC independent of BP control. These results suggest the T/L-type CCB benidipine may contribute to cardio-renal protection in addition to lowering BP.