Statin's role on blood pressure levels: Meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Greater use of antihypertensive medications explains lower blood pressures and better control in statin-treated than statin-eligible untreated adults

OBJECTIVE

Statins appear to have greater antihypertensive effects in observational studies than in randomized controlled trials. This study assessed whether more frequent treatment of hypertension contributed to better blood pressure (BP, mmHg) control in statin-treated than statin-eligible untreated adults in observational studies.

METHODS

National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009-2020 data were analyzed for adults 21-75 years ( N  = 3814) with hypertension (BP ≥140/≥90 or treatment). The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Guideline defined statin eligibility. The main analysis compared BP values and hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in statin-treated and statin-eligible but untreated adults. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of statin therapy to hypertension control and the contribution of antihypertensive therapy to that relationship.

RESULTS

Among adults with hypertension in 2009-2020, 30.3% were not statin-eligible, 36.9% were on statins, and 32.8% were statin-eligible but not on statins. Statin-treated adults were more likely to be aware of (93.4 vs. 80.6%) and treated (91.4 vs. 70.7%) for hypertension than statin-eligible adults not on statins. The statin-treated group had 8.3 mmHg lower SBP (130.3 vs. 138.6), and 22.8% greater control (<140/<90: 69.0 vs. 46.2%; all P values <0.001). The association between statin therapy and hypertension control [odds ratio 1.94 (95% confidence interval 1.53-2.47)] in multivariable logistic regression was not significant after also controlling for antihypertensive therapy [1.29 (0.96-1.73)].

CONCLUSION

Among adults with hypertension, statin-treated adults have lower BP and better control than statin-eligible untreated adults, which largely reflects differences in antihypertensive therapy.

Blood Pressure Variability in Acute Stroke: A Narrative Review

The management of blood pressure variability (BPV) in acute stroke presents a complex challenge with profound implications for patient outcomes. This narrative review examines the role of BPV across various stages of acute stroke care, highlighting its impact on treatment strategies and prognostic considerations. In the prehospital setting, while guidelines lack specific recommendations for BP management, emerging evidence suggests a potential link between BPV and outcomes. Among ischaemic stroke patients who are ineligible for reperfusion therapies, BPV independently influences functional outcomes, emphasising the need for individualised approaches to BP control. During intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular therapy, the intricate interplay between BP levels, recanalisation status, and BPV is evident. Striking a balance between aggressive BP lowering and avoiding hypoperfusion-related complications is essential. Intracerebral haemorrhage management is further complicated by BPV, which emerges as a predictor of mortality and disability, necessitating nuanced BP management strategies. Finally, among patients with acute subarachnoid haemorrhage, increased BPV may be correlated with a rebleeding risk and worse outcomes, emphasizing the need for BPV monitoring in this population. Integration of BPV assessment into clinical practice and research protocols is crucial for refining treatment strategies that are tailored to individual patient needs. Future studies should explore novel interventions targeting BPV modulation to optimise stroke care outcomes.

Sympathetic modulation as a goal of antihypertensive treatment: from drugs to devices

The present study aims to examine the effects of nonpharmacological, pharmacological and devices-based treatment on hypertension-related sympathetic overactivity. This will be done by analyzing the results of different published studies, in which sympathetic activity has been assessed via indirect or direct techniques. After examining the rationale for sympathomodulatory interventions in antihypertensive treatment, the study will discuss the methodological intrinsic limitations of the studies aimed at assessing different therapeutic interventions. The core of the study will be then focused on the effects of nonpharmacological (dietary restriction of sodium intake, physical exercise training, weight reduction), pharmacological (monotherapy, combination drug treatment, new drugs such as sodium glucose co-transport protein-2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors), as well as devices-based interventions (renal sympathetic nerves ablation and carotid baroreceptor activation therapy) on the hypertension-related sympathetic overdrive. Finally, the areas worthy of future research as well as the debated issues in the field will be highlighted.

Randomized, multicenter, parallel, open, phase 4 study to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin/amlodipine polypill versus atorvastatin/amlodipine polypill in hypertension patient with dyslipidemia

The authors performed this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin (RSV)/amlodipine (AML) polypill compared with those of atorvastatin (ATV)/AML polypill. We included 259 patients from 21 institutions in Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, or ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the RSV 10.20 mg/AML 5 mg via percentage changes in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment, compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. There was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (full analysis set [FAS]: -7.08%, 95% CI: -11.79 to -2.38, p = .0034, per-protocol analysis set [PPS]: -6.97%, 95% CI: -11.76 to -2.19, p = .0046). Also, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (FAS: -10.13%, 95% CI: -15.41 to -4.84, p = .0002, PPS: -10.96%, 95% CI: -15.98 to -5.93, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the adverse events rates between RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, and ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg. In conclusion, while maintaining safety, RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg more effectively reduced LDL-C compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg (Clinical trial: NCT03951207).