Blood pressure responder rates versus goal rates: which metric matters?

A Prospective, Randomized Open-Label Study for Assessment of Antihypertensive Effect of Telmisartan Versus Cilnidipine Using Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (START ABPM Study)

Background

The antihypertensive agent telmisartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker with a terminal elimination half-life of 24 h and has a high lipophilicity, thereby enhancing its bioavailability. Another antihypertensive agent, cilnidipine is a calcium antagonist and has dual mode of action on the calcium channels. This study aimed at determining effect of these drugs on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) levels.

Methods

A randomized, open-label, single-center study was conducted during 2021 - 2022 on newly diagnosed adult patients with stage-I hypertension, in a mega city of India. Forty eligible patients were randomized to telmisartan (40 mg) and cilnidipine (10 mg) groups, with once daily dose administered for 56 consecutive days. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) (24 h) was performed pre- and post-treatment, and the ABPM-derived parameters were compared statistically.

Results

Statistically significant mean reductions were observed in all BP endpoints in telmisartan group but only in 24-h systolic blood pressure (SBP), daytime and nighttime SBP, and manual SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in cilnidipine group. The mean change from baseline to day 56 between two treatment groups showed statistical significance in last 6-h SBP (P = 0.01) and DBP (P = 0.014), and morning SBP (P = 0.019) and DBP (P = 0.028). The percent nocturnal drop within and between groups was statistically nonsignificant. Also, the between group mean SBP and DBP smoothness index differed nonsignificantly.

Conclusions

Telmisartan and cilnidipine once daily were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of newly diagnosed stage-I hypertension. Telmisartan provided sustained 24-h BP control and may offer advantages over cilnidipine in terms of BP reductions, particularly over the 18- to 24-h post-dose period or critical early morning hours.

Race-Specific Comparisons of Antihypertensive and Metabolic Effects of Hydrochlorothiazide and Chlorthalidone

BACKGROUND

Chlorthalidone is recommended over hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) as the preferred thiazide, but the supporting evidence is not robust at routinely used doses, or in whites vs blacks, in whom differences in response to thiazides are well known. We compare the efficacy and safety of HCTZ and chlorthalidone as first-line therapies for white and black hypertensive patients.

METHODS

We compared treatment-related outcomes between the HCTZ arm (12.5 mg for 2-3 weeks; 25 mg for additional 6 weeks) of the Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses (PEAR, n = 376) and chlorthalidone arm (15 mg for 2 weeks; 25 mg for additional 6 weeks) of PEAR-2 (n = 326) clinical trials, in 17-65-year-old mild-moderate uncomplicated hypertensive whites and blacks.

RESULTS

Mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) reduction with HCTZ vs chlorthalidone: 8 ± 8/4 ± 5 vs 12 ± 9/7 ± 5 mm Hg in whites (P < 10^-6 SBP and DBP); 12 ± 10/7 ± 6 vs 15 ± 10/9 ± 6 in blacks (P = .008 SBP, P = .054 DBP). Treatment with HCTZ vs chlorthalidone in whites resulted in significantly fewer patients achieving target BP (<140/90 mm Hg) (44% vs 57%, P = .018) and clinical response rate (≥10 mm Hg DBP reduction); and significantly higher nonresponse rate (<6 mm Hg DBP reduction); but no significant differences in rates among blacks (eg, target-BP rate: 56% vs 63%, P = .31). HCTZ treatment led to significantly lower rates of hypokalemia and hyperuricemia in whites and blacks, vs chlorthalidone, and significantly lower odds of requiring potassium supplementation among blacks (odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.37; P = 3.4e^-7).

CONCLUSION

Compared with HCTZ, chlorthalidone showed greater blood pressure lowering and adverse metabolic effects in whites, but similar blood pressure lowering and greater adverse effects in blacks; suggesting that the recent guideline recommendations to choose chlorthalidone over HCTZ may not be warranted in blacks.

Management instructions for elderly patients with hypertension

Aim: To compare the understanding of hypertension and antihypertensive treatment in Japanese patients (aged <75 years vs. ≥75 years) with blood pressure (BP) targets as per the 2014 Japanese guidelines.Methods: A 10-question survey was administered before and after treatment.Results: Majority of patients aged ≥75 years did not achieve their BP targets (75%); >50% of these patients had little knowledge of hypertension and poor understanding of their physician's explanation of it.Conclusions: Elderly patients with hypertension (aged ≥75 years) require daily BP monitoring and detailed and repeated explanation of hypertension and BP targets.

The COSEHC™ Global Vascular Risk Management quality improvement program: first follow-up report

The Global Vascular Risk Management (GVRM) Study is a 5-year prospective observational study of 87,863 patients (61% females) with hypertension and associated cardiovascular risk factors began January 1, 2010. Data are gathered electronically and cardiovascular risk is evaluated using the Consortium for Southeastern Hypertension Control™ (COSEHC™)-11 risk score. Here, we report the results obtained at the completion of 33 months since study initiation. De-identified electronic medical records of enrolled patients were used to compare clinical indicators, antihypertensive medication usage, and COSEHC™ risk scores across sex and diabetic status subgroups. The results from each subgroup, assessed at baseline and at regular follow-up periods, are reported since the project initiation. Inference testing was performed to look for statistically significant differences between goal attainments rates between sexes. At-goal rates for systolic blood pressure (SBP) were improved during the 33 months of the study, with females achieving higher goal rates when compared to males. On the other hand, at-goal control rates for total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (chol) were better in males compared to females. Diabetic patients had lower at-goal rates for SBP and triglycerides but higher rates for LDL-chol. The LDL-chol at-goal rates were higher for males, while high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-chol rates were higher for females. Utilization of antihypertensive medications was similar during and after the baseline period for both men and women. Patients taking two or more antihypertensive medications had higher mean COSEHC™-11 scores compared to those on monotherapy. With treatment, hypertensive patients can reach SBP and cholesterol goals; however, population-wide improvement in treatment goal adherence continues to be a challenge for physicians. The COSEHC™ GVRM Study shows, however, that continuous monitoring and feedback to physicians of accurate longitudinal data is an effective tool in achieving better control rates of cardiovascular risk factors.

Safety and efficacy of fimasartan in patients with arterial hypertension (Safe-KanArb study): an open-label observational study

Background

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) play a key role in hypertension therapy. Recently, fimasartan, the ninth ARB, was developed, but its safety and efficacy have not been well established.

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine whether age, sex, concomitant disease, and current antihypertensive medications affect the safety and efficacy of fimasartan in patients with arterial hypertension.

Methods

This was a large-scale, open-label observational study to determine the safety and efficacy of fimasartan in patients with hypertension. Patients who were treated for more than 2 months with fimasartan (60 or 120 mg, once daily) were recruited, and the data were systematically collected using electronic case report forms. Written informed consent forms were obtained from all patients.

Results

A total of 14,151 patients (50.7 % males; mean age 59 ± 12 years) were evaluated, of whom 37.9 % were never treated with fimasartan, 53.5 % were switched to fimasartan, and 8.5 % had fimasartan added to their treatment. Overall, fimasartan reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) from 145.4 ± 18.1 to 126.8 ± 12.6 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from 88.7 ± 11.8 to 79.0 ± 8.7 mmHg (all p < 0.001). The pulse rate decreased from 74.4 ± 10.3 to 71.9 ± 9.2 beats/min in comparison with before treatment (p < 0.001). The reductions were similar between sexes, age groups, and patients with and without co-morbidities, and were not dependent on prior or concomitant treatment with other antihypertensive drugs. Adverse events were reported in 3.31 % (treatment-emergent) and 2.35 % (drug-related) of patients; there were no dose differences for adverse events. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (1.55 %) and headache (0.52 %); other adverse events were rare. The responder rate (DBP to <90 mmHg or a reduction of ≥10 mmHg) and the goal rate (combined SBP/DBP <140/90 mmHg) were 85.0 and 75.6 %, respectively. Global drug compliance was rated as excellent, very good, good, and poor in 68.1, 26.9, 3.4, and 1.7 % of patients, respectively.

Conclusion

The safety, efficacy, and compliance of fimasartan were found to be excellent in a large patient population that included patients potentially at higher risk for adverse events.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40256-013-0004-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.