Olmesartan improves pulse wave velocity and lowers central systolic blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with metabolic syndrome

Arterial Stiffness Assessment by Pulse Wave Velocity in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome and Its Components: Is It a Useful Tool in Clinical Practice?

Metabolic syndrome (MS) is not a single disease but a cluster of metabolic disorders associated with increased risk for development of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Currently, the definition of MS published in 2009 is widely used, but there are more versions of the diagnostic criteria, making it difficult to conduct scientific discourse in this area. Increased arterial stiffness (AS) can predict the development of cardiovascular disease both in the general population and in patients with MS. Pulse wave velocity (PWV), as a standard method to assess AS, may point out subclinical organ damage in patients with hypertension. The decrease in PWV level during antihypertensive therapy can identify a group of patients with better outcomes independently of their reduction in blood pressure. The adverse effect of metabolic disturbances on arterial function can be offset by an adequate program of exercises, which includes mainly aerobic physical training. Non-insulin-based insulin resistance index can predict AS due to a strong positive correlation with PWV. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of the review of the literature concerning the relationship between MS and its components, and AS assessed by PWV, including clinical usefulness of PWV measurement in patients with MS and its components.

Central blood pressure lowering effect of telmisartan-rosuvastatin single-pill combination in hypertensive patients combined with dyslipidemia: A pilot study

This multicenter, phase 4, Prospective Randomized Open, Blinded End‐point (PROBE) study aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of telmisartan/rosuvastatin single‐pill combination (SPC) therapy on lowering central blood pressure (BP) compared with telmisartan monotherapy in hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia in Korea. Study was terminated earlier than planned due to COVID‐19 pandemic, thus should be considered as a pilot study. Among 125 patients who met the inclusion criteria of hypertension and dyslipidemia (defined as 10‐year Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score over 5%), 80 patients went through 4‐week single‐group run‐in period with telmisartan 40–80 mg, then randomized to telmisartan 80 mg + rosuvastatin (10 or 20 mg) SPC group or telmisartan 80 mg monotherapy group. The central/brachial BP, brachial‐ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV), and augmentation index (AIx) were assessed at baseline and 16 weeks later. Mean brachial SBP changed from 135.80 ± 14.22 mmHg to 130.69 ± 13.23 mmHg in telmisartan/rosuvastatin group and from 134.37 ± 12.50 mmHg to 133.75 ± 12.30 mmHg in telmisartan monotherapy group without significant difference (between‐group difference p = .149). Mean central SBP were reduced significantly in the telmisartan/rosuvastatin group with change from 126.72 ± 14.44 mmHg to 121.56 ± 14.56 mmHg while telmisartan monotherapy group showed no significant change (between‐group difference p = .028). BaPWV changed from 1672.57 ± 371.72 m/s to 1591.75 ± 272.16 m/s in telmisartan/rosuvastatin group and from 1542.85 ± 263.70 m/s to 1586.12 ± 297.45 m/s in telmisartan group with no significance (between‐group difference p = .078). Change of AIx had no significant difference (between‐group difference p = .314). Both groups showed excellent compliance rate of 96.9 ± 4.5% with no significant difference in adverse rate. Telmisartan/rosuvastatin SPC therapy was more effective in lowering central BP compared with the telmisartan monotherapy. The results of this study showed benefit of additive statin therapy in hypertensive patients combined with dyslipidemia.

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.

Antihypertensive effect of azilsartan versus olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The comparison of antihypertensive effects between azilsartan and olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension has been investigated in several studies. The results were not consistent. We performed this meta-analysis determining the antihypertensive effect of azilsartan versus olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched for all published randomized studies comparing the antihypertensive effects between azilsartan and olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension.

RESULTS

The antihypertensive effects were assessed in 1402 patients included in five trials. The reduction of office systolic blood pressure treated with azilsartan was greater than olmesartan (weighted mean differences (WMD) - 2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI), - 3.78, - 0.53) mm Hg, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in reduction of office diastolic blood pressure between azilsartan and olmesartan (WMD - 0.99 (95% CI, - 2.06, 0.08) mm Hg, p > 0.05). The reduction of office systolic blood pressure treated with azilsartan was greater than olmesartan at same dose for both drugs (WMD - 2.24 (95% CI, - 4.03, - 0.44) mm Hg, p < 0.05), whereas there was no significant difference in reduction of office diastolic blood pressure between azilsartan and olmesartan (WMD - 0.55 (95% CI, - 1.76, 0.66) mm Hg, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides the evidence that the reduction of office systolic blood pressure treated with azilsartan was greater than olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension. These findings suggest the importance of strict designed randomized controlled trials in determining antihypertensive effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers in clinical practice.

Assessment of hemodynamic and vascular parameters in Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and mild cognitive abnormalities: a pilot study

Abstract Objectives: this pilot study correlated cardiovascular parameters such as atherosclerosis and arterial stiffness in patients with aged-related dementia and sought to identify hemodynamic differences that can help in differential diagnosis. Method: a longitudinal prospective study was performed of 46 patients aged 60 to 80 years in the city of Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. The patients were classified into three groups: those with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), vascular dementia (VD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The groups were classified by clinical examination and CT or magnetic resonance imaging tests of the encephalon. The arterial stiffness and other hemodynamic parameters of the patients were measured using the Mobil-O-Graph device and carotid artery ultrasound scanning. Data analysis was performed by descriptive statistics, multinomial logistic regression and analysis of variance. Results: 18 patients (39.1%) had MCI, 18 (39.1%) AD and 10 (21.8%) VD. Image exams revealed greater obstructive microangiopathy in the AD group than the MCI group (p<0.05), which in turn exhibited greater normality in such tests than the AD group (p<0.05). There were no significant differences among the groups for the hemodynamic variables. The carotid artery ultrasound examinations identified a greater degree of normality in the MCI group than the AD group (p<0.05). Conclusion: the results do not support the idea of using noninvasive hemodynamic evaluation methods as additional exams in the differential diagnosis of these pathologies.