Using Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in African-American Hypertensives: A New Approach to Treating Hypertension and Preventing Target-Organ Damage

Weight loss with subcutaneous semaglutide versus other glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduce elevated blood glucose levels and induce weight loss. Multiple GLP-1 RAs and one combined GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist are currently available. This review was conducted with the aim of summarising direct comparisons between subcutaneous semaglutide and other GLP-1 RAs in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly with respect to efficacy for inducing weight loss and improving other markers of metabolic health. This systematic review of PubMed and Embase from inception to early 2022 was registered on PROSPERO and was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Of the 740 records identified in the search, five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Comparators included liraglutide, exenatide, dulaglutide and tirzepatide. In the identified studies, multiple dosing regimens were utilised for semaglutide. Randomised trials support the superior efficacy of semaglutide over other GLP-1 RAs with respect to weight loss in T2D, but tirzepatide is more effective than semaglutide.

Inter-ethnic differences in pharmacokinetics-is there more that unites than divides?

Inter-ethnic variability in pharmacokinetics (PK) has been attributed to several factors ranging from genetic to environmental. It is not clear how current teaching in higher education (HE) reflects what published literature suggests on this subject. This study aims to gain insights into current knowledge about inter-ethnic differences in PK based on reports from published literature and current teaching practices in HE. A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus to identify suitable literature to be reviewed. Insights into inter-ethnic differences in PK teaching among educators in HE and industry were determined using a questionnaire. Thirty-one percent of the studies reviewed reported inter-ethnic differences in PK, of these, 37% of authors suggested genetic polymorphism as possible explanation for the inter-ethnic differences observed. Other factors authors proposed included diet and weight differences between ethnicities. Most respondents (80%) who taught inter-ethnic difference in PK attributed inter-ethnic differences to genetic polymorphism. While genetic polymorphism is one source of variability in PK, the teaching of genetic polymorphism is better associated with interindividual variabilities rather than inter-ethnic differences in PK as there are no genes with PK implications specific to any one ethnic group. Nongenetic factors such as diet, weight, and environmental factors, should be highlighted as potential sources of interindividual variation in the PK of drugs.

Confronting Racism in Environmental Health Sciences: Moving the Science Forward for Eliminating Racial Inequities

BACKGROUND

The twin pandemics of COVID-19 and systemic racism during 2020 have forced a conversation across many segments of our society, including the environmental health sciences (EHS) research community. We have seen the proliferation of statements of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and commitments to fight racism and health inequities from academia, nonprofit organizations, governmental agencies, and private corporations. Actions must now arise from these promises. As public health and EHS scientists, we must examine the systems that produce and perpetuate inequities in exposure to environmental pollutants and associated health effects.

OBJECTIVES

We outline five recommendations the EHS research community can implement to confront racism and move our science forward for eliminating racial inequities in environmental health.

DISCUSSION

Race is best considered a political label that promotes inequality. Thus, we should be wary of equating race with biology. Further, EHS researchers should seriously consider racism as a plausible explanation of racial disparities in health and consider structural racism as a factor in environmental health risk/impact assessments, as well as multiple explanations for racial differences in environmental exposures and health outcomes. Last, the EHS research community should develop metrics to measure racism and a set of guidelines on the use and interpretation of race and ethnicity within the environmental sciences. Numerous guidelines exist in other disciplines that can serve as models. By taking action on each of these recommendations, we can make significant progress toward eliminating racial disparities. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8186.

Evaluation of the clinical outcome of captopril use for hypertensive urgency in Khartoum State's emergency centres

Background

Captopril is an important drug and is used to control hypertensive urgency world-wide. But there is very little data available regarding the evaluation of its outcomes in hypertensive urgency among African patients. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of captopril use for hypertensive urgency at a selection of Sudanese emergency centres.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study, conducted between 15 to 30 November 2015. A total of 50 patients, attending a selection of Khartoum State hospital emergency centres, with a clinical diagnosis of hypertensive urgency were approached by investigators for the study. Dose regimen, prognosis, and reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were collected alongside a questionaire to patients regarding their care (compliance, etc.). Data were analysed using the Chi-square Test to compare the mean differences for various results. Differences were considered to be significant at P < 0.05.

Results

Around two-thirds (60%) of participants were female, and 28% were non-compliant with treatment. A 25mg dose of captopril was the most frequently used dose. Most of the patients (66%) did not have pre-existing disease. The majority of patients showed an improved blood pressure: both systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced by 16-25% and 5-15%, respectively.

Conclusion

The study concluded that the dose of 25 mg of captopril is effective in managing hypertensive urgency and controlling the blood pressure. We also recommend that patients receiving captopril must be observed in the emergency centre for further evaluation.

Is hypertension in African-descent populations contributed to by an imbalance in the activities of the ACE2/Ang-(1-7)/Mas and the ACE/Ang II/AT1 axes?

Introduction:

Low plasma renin activity hypertension is prevalent in Afro-Caribbean persons. Reduced angiotensin converting enzyme 2 activity from the counter angiotensin converting enzyme 2 /angiotensin-(1-7)/Mas receptor axis of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system has been reported in people with pre-hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic renal disease. This study investigates whether an imbalance in the regulatory mechanisms between the pressor arm of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (angiotensin converting enzyme/angiotensin II/AT1 receptor) and the depressor axis (angiotensin converting enzyme 2/angiotensin-(1-7)/Mas receptor) predisposes persons of African descent to hypertension.

Methods:

In total, 30 normotensives and 30 recently diagnosed hypertensives aged 18–55 of Afro-Caribbean origin who are naïve to antihypertensive treatment will be recruited from public sector polyclinics in Barbados. Demographic and anthropometric data, clinical blood pressure readings, 24-hour urine collections and venous blood samples will be collected. Biological samples will be analysed for renin angiotensin aldosterone system peptide markers using radioimmunoassay.

Conclusion:

We describe the design, methods and rationale for the characterization of renin angiotensin aldosterone system mechanisms that may contribute to hypertension predisposition in persons of African descent. Our findings will characterize any imbalance in the counter axes of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system in hypertensive Afro-Caribbeans with a potential view of identifying novel approaches with the use of renin angiotensin aldosterone system and mineralocorticoid blockers to manage the condition.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors vs Other Antihypertensives in Hypertensive Blacks: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors vs other antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive black patients. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), diuretics, and β-blockers in hypertensive black patients on cardiovascular outcomes. A total of 38,983 patients with a mean age of 60 years and mean follow-up of 4 years were included in our meta-analysis. No significant differences were found in all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality rates among patients treated with RAS inhibitors compared with CCBs, diuretics, and β-blockers. The incidence of stroke was significantly increased in patients treated with RAS inhibitors compared with CCBs (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.87 [P<.00001]; I2 =0%) and diuretics (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.17 [P=.004]; I2 =56%) but not β-blockers.

Blood pressure effects of high-dose amlodipine-benazepril combination in Black and White hypertensive patients not controlled on monotherapy

Background

Black hypertensive patients are more resistant to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor monotherapy than White patients. This resistance can be overcome with the combination of ACE inhibitors with diuretics or calcium-channel blockers (CCBs).

Objectives

The objective of this clinical investigation was to evaluate the antihypertensive effectiveness of monotherapy with the ACE inhibitor benazepril or the CCB amlodipine and their combination in Black and White hypertensive patients in two separate studies.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of data from two separate studies, pooled because of their similarities, to increase the sample size. Outpatient Black and White hypertensive patients were selected for these studies. In study H2303, 201 patients of both sexes and races, whose mean seated diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with benazepril 40mg/day, were randomized into two groups. Group 1 received benazepril 40mg/day and group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 5/40mg/day, which was uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day at week 4 of the study. In study H2304, 812 similar patients, whose MSDBP was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with amlodipine 10 mg/day, were randomized into three groups. Group 1 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day, uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day after 2 weeks. Group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day. Group 3 received amlodipine 10 mg/day. All three groups were followed up for 6 additional weeks.

Results

This report presents the results of post hoc analysis of pooled data from two separate but similar studies. Combination therapy resulted in greater lowering of MSDBP and mean seated systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) than monotherapy with either benazepril or amlodipine (p< 0.001). With respect to combination therapy, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day resulted in greater blood pressure (BP) reductions in White patients than in Black patients (p<0.004). In contrast, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day resulted in similar BP reductions in both Black and White hypertensive patients. There were no serious clinical or metabolic side effects noted, with the exception of pedal edema, which was more common with amlodipine monotherapy.

Conclusion

This study showed that combination therapy with amlodipine/benazepril is more effective in BP lowering than monotherapy with the component drugs. Black hypertensive patients are responsive to the combination of amlodipine/benazepril; however, they require higher dose combinations for BP reductions similar to those achieved in White hypertensive patients.

Comparison of the effects of aliskiren/valsartan in combination versus valsartan alone in patients with stage 2 hypertension

The extent to which the combination of a renin inhibitor with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) lowers clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) versus an ARB alone in stage 2 hypertension is not well known. Hence, we performed an 8-week, randomized, double-blind study in 451 patients with stage 2 hypertension to compare the efficacy of the combination of aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg versus valsartan 320 mg. The primary endpoint was change in seated systolic BP from baseline to week 8 analyzed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach; patients completing the entire treatment period (per-protocol completers) were similarly analyzed. For the predefined primary analysis, systolic BP reductions for aliskiren/valsartan (n = 230) and valsartan (n = 217) were -22.1 and -20.5 mm Hg, respectively (P = .295). In per-protocol completers, aliskiren/valsartan (n = 201) lowered BP significantly greater than valsartan (n = 196); -23.7 mm Hg versus -20.3 mm Hg, respectively (P = .028). Although limited by a small sample size (n = 76) using ambulatory BP monitoring, aliskiren/valsartan lowered the 24-hour BP significantly more than valsartan alone (-14.6/-9.0 mm Hg versus -5.9/-4.2 mm Hg; P < .01). Safety and tolerability were similar for the two treatment groups. These data demonstrate the importance of multiple modalities to assess BP changes in clinical trials of antihypertensive therapies, particularly in stage 2 hypertension.

Antihypertensive effects of double the maximum dose of valsartan in African-American patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and albuminuria

OBJECTIVE

The blood pressure (BP)-lowering response to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in hypertensive African-Americans is typically less than in whites. To determine whether higher than conventional doses of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade can improve BP reduction in African-American patients.

METHODS

Hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria were enrolled: 110 African-Americans (BP = 150/87 mmHg, aged 57.5 +/- 11 years) and 281 non-African-Americans (BP = 151/89 mmHg, aged 57.7 +/- 11 years). All patients received valsartan 160 mg once daily in the morning for 4 weeks, following which patients were randomized to receive one of three valsartan doses: 160, 320 or 640 mg/day (2x, maximal recommended dose) for 26 weeks. If at week 6, target BP (<130/80 mmHg) was not achieved, then other add-on antihypertensives were allowed.

RESULTS

The predominant BP (DeltaSBP/DeltaDBP) reduction was observed within 4 weeks and was lesser in African-Americans (7.8 +/- 15/4.5 +/- 9 mmHg) than non-African-Americans (8.9 +/- 14/6.6 +/- 1 mmHg, P < 0.05). Greater reduction in urinary albumin excretion was observed with higher doses (320 or 640 mg); however, the responses were similar between African-Americans and non-African-Americans. Use of add-on antihypertensives was higher in African-American (56%) vs. non-African-American patients (36%) with a similar rate across the three valsartan doses. From week 4-26, reduction in BP was lesser (P < 0.05) for African-American than non-African-American patients at the160-mg dose but not with 320 and 640-mg doses.

CONCLUSION

In African-American patients, a lower BP reduction response was observed to conventional doses of valsartan than non-African-American patients, but at 640 mg, a higher response was observed in African-American patients than in non-African-American patients.

Racial differences in central blood pressure and vascular function in young men

Young African-American men have altered macrovascular and microvascular function. In this cross-sectional study, we tested the hypothesis that vascular dysfunction in young African-American men would contribute to greater central blood pressure (BP) compared with young white men. Fifty-five young (23 yr), healthy men (25 African-American and 30 white) underwent measures of vascular structure and function, including carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) and carotid artery β-stiffness via ultrasonography, aortic pulse wave velocity, aortic augmentation index (AIx), and wave reflection travel time (Tr) via radial artery tonometery and a generalized transfer function, and microvascular vasodilatory capacity of forearm resistance arteries with strain-gauge plethysmography. African-American men had similar brachial systolic BP (SBP) but greater aortic SBP ( P < 0.05) and carotid SBP ( P < 0.05). African-American men also had greater carotid IMT, greater carotid β-stiffness, greater aortic stiffness and AIx, reduced aortic Tr and reduced peak hyperemic, and total hyperemic forearm blood flow compared with white men ( P < 0.05). In conclusion, young African-American men have greater central BP, despite comparable brachial BP, compared with young white men. Diffuse macrovascular and microvascular dysfunction manifesting as carotid hypertrophy, increased stiffness of central elastic arteries, heightened resistance artery constriction/blunted resistance artery dilation, and greater arterial wave reflection are present at a young age in apparently healthy African-American men, and conventional brachial BP measurement does not reflect this vascular burden.

Prompt, aggressive BP lowering in high-risk patients

Various populations with hypertension have been singled out by current treatment guidelines as requiring more specific treatment. These include patients with stage 2 hypertension, black patients, and patients with coexistent diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease. Hypertension in these groups is often associated with higher risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This article reviews current knowledge regarding hypertension in high-risk patient populations, with a particular focus on the importance of prompt, aggressive treatment to lower blood pressure and prevent cardiovascular disease progression. Such treatment includes the early use of multiple-drug therapy with agents that have complementary blood pressure-lowering mechanisms and provide protection from target organ damage. While 2- or 3-drug antihypertensive therapy in these high-risk groups has typically included a diuretic, other combinations of agents may be indicated. Evidence suggests that therapy with a calcium channel blocker and an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin system is one effective strategy for lowering blood pressure and improving outcomes in these populations.

The management of hypertension in African Americans

The prevalence of hypertension in blacks in the United States is among the highest in the world. Compared with whites, blacks develop hypertension at an earlier age, their average blood pressures are much higher and they experience worse disease severity. Consequently, blacks have a 1.3 times greater rate of nonfatal stroke, 1.8 times greater rate of fatal stroke, 1.5 times greater rate of heart disease death, 4.2 times greater rate of end-stage kidney disease, and a 50% higher frequency of heart failure; overall, mortality due to hypertension and its consequences is 4 to 5 times more likely in African Americans than in whites. The increased prevalence of hypertension and excessive target organ damage is due to a combination of genetic and, most likely, environmental factors. There are no clinical trial data at present to suggest that lower-than-usual BP targets should be set for high-risk demographic groups such as African Americans. The primary means of prevention and early treatment of hypertension in African Americans will be the appropriate use of lifestyle modification. The International Society of Hypertension in Blacks guidelines realize that most patients will require combination therapy, many of them first-line, to reach appropriate BP goals. Although certain classes and combinations of antihypertensive agents have been well-established to be effective, the choice of drugs for combination therapy in African American patients may be different. Within the African American group, the responsiveness to monotherapy with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta blockers may be less than the responsiveness to diuretics and calcium channel blockers, but these differences are corrected when diuretics are added to the neurohormonal antagonists. Of note, African American patients with systolic BP >15 mm Hg or a diastolic BP >10 mm Hg above goal should be treated with first-line combination therapy.

A Noninferiority Comparison of Valsartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Combination Versus Amlodipine in Black Hypertensives

The objective of the study was to demonstrate that reduction in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure with 160 mg valsartan and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide was not inferior to 10 mg amlodipine in hypertensive blacks. A total of 482 blacks with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension (mean seated blood pressure 140 to 180/90 to 110 mm Hg) were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, prospective study. After a placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 160 mg valsartan or 5 mg amlodipine for 2 weeks, then force-titrated to 160 mg valsartan and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide or 10 mg amlodipine for an additional 10 weeks. Blood pressure was assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Other assessments included quality of life, peripheral edema, and safety. Noninferiority of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide to amlodipine was demonstrated by comparable reductions in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure with both treatments (-10.2+/-8.6 mm Hg versus -9.1+/-8.3 mm Hg, respectively; P<0.001 for noninferiority), as well as in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (-15.9+/-12.1 mm Hg versus -14.5+/-12.2 mm Hg; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The proportion of patients reporting adverse events and the incidence of most events were similar in both treatment groups, although more patients treated with amlodipine reported peripheral edema (5.8% versus 1.7%; P=0.03) and joint swelling (2.9% versus 0%; P=0.008) compared with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. We conclude that a starting dose of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (160/12.5 mg) is as effective as high-dose amlodipine (10 mg) in reducing blood pressure in blacks with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide is better tolerated.

Hypertension in black patients: Special issues and considerations

The excess risk for hypertension in black Americans continues to be a major health concern. Although there is considerable information regarding these disease trends, many of the major underpinnings of the etiology of hypertension remain unclear. The excess mortality in blacks due to heart disease, renal failure, and stroke is clearly directly related to the excess burden of hypertension. Amid the recent findings about the pathophysiology of hypertension, some clear differences in the effects of overweight, salt sensitivity, and vascular biology emerge along ethnic lines. These differences may shed some light on the development of more effective treatment strategies. Based on our current knowledge, aggressive management of hypertension in blacks is critical. This review highlights what is known about various factors affecting hypertension and its treatment in black Americans.

Hypertension in black patients: special issues and considerations

The excess risk of hypertension in black Americans continues to be a major health concern. Although there is considerable information regarding these disease trends, much of the major underpinnings of the etiology of hypertension remain unclear. The excess mortality in blacks due to heart disease, renal failure, and stroke are clearly directly related to the excess burden of hypertension. Amid the recent findings about the pathophysiology of hypertension, some clear differences in the effects of overweight, salt sensitivity, and vascular biology emerge along ethnic lines. These differences may shed some light on the development of more effective treatment strategies. Based on our current knowledge, aggressive management of hypertension in blacks is critical. This review highlights what is known about various factors affecting hypertension and its treatment in black Americans.

Determinants of blood pressure response to quinapril in black and white hypertensive patients: the Quinapril Titration Interval Management Evaluation trial

Race has been considered an important factor in determining blood pressure response to treatment and selection of antihypertensive drug therapy. Data collected during a clinical trial that evaluated rapidity of medication up-titration with blood pressure response to monotherapy with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor quinapril were used to characterize response in 533 black and 2046 white participants. Our objectives were to examine the influence of race and other factors on blood pressure response and to assess the degree to which nonrace factors account for apparent racial differences in response. Average systolic and diastolic blood pressure responses (baseline minus follow-up) to treatment were assessed with treatment groups combined. Crude systolic and diastolic blood pressure responses averaged 4.7 and 2.4 mm Hg less, respectively, in black compared with white participants; however, the response distributions largely overlapped. In multivariate linear regression models adjusted for study design variables and measured participant characteristics, the racial difference in systolic response was reduced by 51% to 2.3 mm Hg, and diastolic response by 21% to 1.9 mm Hg. In these models, participant characteristics, including age, gender, body size, and pretreatment blood pressure severity, significantly predicted either attenuated or enhanced blood pressure response to treatment. Our findings demonstrate that a large source of variability of blood pressure response to treatment is within, not between, racial groups, and that factors that vary at the level of the individual contribute to apparent racial differences in response to treatment.

Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in high-risk clinical and ethnic groups with diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetes causes 45% of incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Risk of progression is higher in those with clinical risk factors (albuminuria and hypertension), and in ethnic minorities (including blacks, Asians, and Latinos). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy, yet little is known about their use among patients at high risk for progression to ESRD.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the prevalence of ACE or ARB (ACE/ARB) use overall and within patients with high-risk clinical indications, and to assess for ethnic disparities in ACE/ARB use.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) Diabetes Registry, a longitudinal registry that monitors quality and outcomes of care for all KPNC patients with diabetes.

PATIENTS

Individuals (N= 38887) with diabetes who were continuously enrolled with pharmacy benefits during the year 2000, and had self-reported ethnicity data on survey.

INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

Pharmacy dispensing of ACE/ARB.

RESULTS

Forty-one percent of the cohort had both hypertension and albuminuria, 30% had hypertension alone, and 12% had albuminuria alone. Fourteen percent were black, 11% Latino, 13% Asian, and 63% non-Latino white. Overall, 61% of the cohort received an ACE/ARB. ACE/ARB was dispensed to 74% of patients with both hypertension and albuminuria, 64% of those with hypertension alone, and 54% of those with albuminuria alone. ACE/ARB was dispensed to 61% of whites, 63% of blacks, 59% of Latinos, and 60% of Asians. Among those with albuminuria alone, blacks were significantly (P =.0002) less likely than whites to receive ACE/ARB (47% vs 56%, respectively). No other ethnic disparities were found.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, the majority of eligible patients received indicated ACE/ARB therapy in 2000. However, up to 45% to 55% of high-risk clinical groups (most notably individuals with isolated albuminuria) were not receiving indicated therapy. Additional targeted efforts to increase use of ACE/ARB could improve quality of care and reduce ESRD incidence, both overall and in high-risk ethnic groups. Policymakers might consider use of ACE/ARB for inclusion in diabetes performance measurement sets.

What have we learned from the current trials?

Even well-conducted randomized controlled trials can only reduce uncertainty, not eliminate it. The trials presented in this article all have gaps, and like many studies, some raise more questions than answers. A summary of the current trials, however, can be presented as follows. For patients with essential hypertension who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, the use of diuretic therapy (excluding simultaneous use of ACE or CCB) resulted in outcomes at least equivalent to the use of either ACE or CCB without diuretics. Naturally, the dilemma for clinicians is that these drugs are most often used in combination with thiazide diuretics, as indicated by the RENAAL trial where 80% of ARB were used with diuretics in patients with type II diabetes and known nephropathy. The increased risk of heart failure observed with ACE and CCB in that trial may be relevant only to patients in whom diuretics were not also used. The study does raise important awareness, however, that ACE or CCB use without diuretic therapy is no better than diuretic therapy, and may be associated with higher risk of certain outcomes. A substantial number of patients with essential hypertension might achieve adequate blood pressure control with diuretic monotherapy. If so, that certainly has important implications for the cost of medical care in this country. For African Americans with essential hypertension, ACE may have advantages as a component of therapy in comparison with CCBs or beta-blockers, although diuretics should probably be the cornerstone of therapy for them and supported by the Seventh Joint National Committee. For patients with proteinuric renal disease, whether associated with diabetes or hypertension, it should be considered inappropriate to use DHP CCB as monotherapy in any setting, whether as part of a clinical trial or in clinical practice. These drugs should not be considered as ethical placebo arms in trials, most especially in diabetic nephropathy, nor should they be used without an ACE or ARB in patients with proteinuric renal disease in the absence of documented contraindications or intolerance to ACE, ARB, or non-DHP CCB (which are now considered second-line agents for proteinuric renal disease, and are acceptable placebo or comparison arms in clinical trials). For patients with type I diabetes, ACE remain the cornerstone of therapy. Because of recent RENAAL and IDNT trial results, the greatest benefit for slowing progression of renal disease in type II diabetic nephropathy now belongs to ARBs. In contrast, however, the HOPE trial showed that ACE, specifically ramipril, had the greatest evidence for prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with renal insufficiency, regardless of diabetic status. Cardiovascular outcomes were secondary end points in the RENAAL and IDNT trials, and with the exception of heart failure for losartan, no benefits on cardiovascular outcomes were statistically significant. Progression of renal disease has only been studied in a relatively small cohort of Israeli patients comparing enalapril with nifedipine. These gaps lead to a classic dilemma in medical decision-making. Because evidence has shown that patients with elevated serum creatinine (greater than or equal to 1.4 mg/dL) are just as likely to die from cardiovascular disease as they are to reach end-stage renal disease, which outcome should be the focus for clinicians, or for researchers? Using a strictly evidence-based approach, this question can only be answered by yet another large, long, randomized, controlled trial. Given the similarity of actions between the ARB and ACE, it is likely there is considerable overlap of both benefits and side-effects between the two, although ARB may have a lower incidence of cough and hyperkalemia. The decision of which antihypertensive agents to use will have to be tailored carefully to the needs of the patient and careful consideration of both medical and economic factors. Regardless of the choice between an ACE or ARB, however, post hoc analysis of clinical trials [21,47] and observational data clearly indicate that patients with chronic kidney disease, even if considered mild (ie, serum creatinine greater than or equal to 1.4 mg/dL) are at significantly greater risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with those with better kidney function. As stated in a recent review by the authors of the HOPE trial [50], "the frequent practice of withholding ACE [or ARB] in patients with mild renal insufficiency is unwarranted," because not only are these patients precisely those who might benefit most from their use, but safety and tolerability are generally excellent. Based on the results of the AASK trial, the authors add the same for the use of ACE inhibitors in African Americans.

Epidemiology of hypertension and cardiovascular disease in African Americans

Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular-renal morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality. It is a highly significant problem for African Americans; about 30% of all deaths in this population are attributable to hypertension. Compared with whites, hypertension in African Americans is more prevalent, occurs earlier in life, is more severe, and is more often associated with target organ injury such as left ventricular hypertrophy and other cardiovascular complications. Only 25% of all African Americans with hypertension and fewer than 50% of those receiving drug treatment attain a blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg. These control rates are somewhat less than in white Americans. Enhanced awareness and understanding of the epidemiologic patterns of hypertension, other cardiovascular risk factors, risk-factor control rates, and factors influencing these control rates should lead to better approaches to risk-factor control. This most likely would result in a reduction of cardiovascular disease complications.

Optimal treatment of hypertension in African Americans. Reaching and maintaining target blood pressure goals

Treatment of hypertension in African Americans has special challenges, including a lack of objective trial data on which to base decisions and differing benefits and responses than with other patients. However, adequate control is possible and should be the goal of treating physicians. This article describes current "best practice" guidance on appropriate treatment of high blood pressure in African Americans. Two patient scenarios offer insight into clinical strategies.

Hypertension in special populations

This article discusses various aspects of hypertension in selected special populations. The groups discussed herein are children, pregnant women, African Americans, persons with kidney insufficiency, kidney transplant survivors, and persons with diabetes mellitus. These groups present unique epidemiological, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for the practitioner. The detection of reduced kidney function merits special attention since it attenuates the blood pressure response to antihypertensive therapy, affects therapeutic decision-making, is both a cause and consequence of poorly controlled hypertension, often lurks undetected, and is excessively prevalent in some special populations.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of losartan alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in adult African Americans with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND

African Americans with hypertension, particularly those with more severe blood pressure elevations, are generally less responsive to monotherapy from any antihypertensive class. These patients usually require treatment with drugs from > or = 2 antihypertensive classes to achieve adequate blood pressure control.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of losartan alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in African American adults with mild to moderate hypertension.

METHODS

In this 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, African American patients were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio to I of 3 treatment groups: placebo, losartan monotherapy (50 to 150 mg), or losartan plus HCTZ (50/0 to 50/12.5 to 100/25 mg). Doses were titrated at weeks 4 and 8 if sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) was > or = 90 mm Hg. Safety was assessed by determining the incidence of clinical and laboratory Adverse events and evaluating mean changes in pulse, body weight, electrocardiographic parameters, and laboratory test results.

RESULTS

A total of 440 patients were randomized-188 to placebo, 193 to losartan monotherapy, and 59 to losartan/HCTZ; 391 completed the study. At week 12, the response rate with losartan monotherapy was 45.8%, with a significant (P < or = 0.01) lowering in mean SiDBP by 6.6 mm Hg compared with placebo; the response rate with placebo was 27.2%, with a mean SiDBP reduction of 3.9 mm Hg. Sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) was significantly lowered with losartan monotherapy, by 6.4 mm Hg, compared with placebo (reduction of 2.3 mm Hg). The response rate with losartan/ HCTZ was 62.7%, with reductions in SiSBP and SiDBP of 16.8 mm Hg and 10.8 mm Hg, respectively (P < or = 0.01 vs placebo and losartan monotherapy). The incidence of clinical adverse events was comparable in the 3 treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that in African American patients, losartan monotherapy was significantly more effective than placebo in lowering SiSBP and SiDBP. Moreover, the losartan/ HCTZ combination regimen resulted in significant and clinically meaningful additional reductions in SiSBP and SiDBP compared with losartan monotherapy or placebo. Losartan monotherapy and the losartan/HCTZ regimens were generally as well tolerated as placebo.