First-line antihypertensive treatment in patients with pre-diabetes: rationale, design and baseline results of the ADaPT investigation

[Obesity and type 2 diabetes (Update 2023)]

The body mass index (BMI) is a very crude measure of body fatness in individuals. Even normal weight persons can have too much body fat in cases of a lack of muscle mass (sarcopenia), which is why additional measurements of waist circumference and body fatness, e.g. bioimpedance analysis (BIA), are recommended. Lifestyle management including nutrition modification and increase in physical activity are important measures for the prevention and treatment of diabetes. Regarding the treatment of type 2 diabetes, body weight is increasingly used as a secondary target parameter. The choice of anti-diabetic treatment and additional concomitant therapies is increasingly influenced by body weight. The importance of modern GLP‑1 agonists and dual GLP‑1 GIP agonists increases since these drugs target obesity and type 2 diabetes. Bariatric surgery is at present indicated with a BMI > 35 kg/m² with concomitant risk factors, such as diabetes and can lead at least to partial diabetes remission but has to be incorporated into an appropriate lifelong care concept.

["Diabesity"-Obesity and type 2 diabetes (Update 2019)]

For several years obesity and type 2 diabetes have been increasingly summarized under the name "diabesity". This is due to the fact that in most cases obesity precedes diabetes and is the most important risk factor for the worldwide increase of type 2 diabetes. The body mass index (BMI) is a very crude measure of body fatness in individuals. Even normal weight persons can have too much body fat in cases of a lack of muscle mass (sarcopenia), which is why additional measurements of waist circumference and body fatness, e. g. bioimpedance analysis (BIA), are recommended. Lifestyle management including nutrition modification and increase in physical activity are important measures for the prevention and treatment of diabetes. Regarding the treatment of type 2 diabetes, body weight is increasingly used as a secondary target parameter. The choice of anti-diabetic treatment and also concomitant treatment is increasingly influenced by body weight. The significance of anti-obesity medications in the treatment of type 2 diabetes will have to be clarified by future studies with body weight as the primary endpoint. Bariatric surgery is at present indicated with a BMI >35 kg/m² with concomitant risk factors, such as diabetes and can lead at least to partial diabetes remission but has to be incorporated into an appropriate lifelong care concept.

Comparative risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus for antihypertensive drugs in elderly: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

There is no study to compare different class of antihypertensive drugs on new-onset diabetes mellitus (NOD) in elderly. We aimed to investigate the risk of antihypertensive drugs on NOD in elderly patients. The databases were retrieved in an orderly manner from the dates of their establishment to October, 2018, including Medline, Embase, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients (age > 60 years). Then, a network meta-analysis was conducted using R and Stata 12.0 softwares. A total of 14 RCTs involving 74 042 patients were included. The relative risk of NOD mellitus associated with six classes of antihypertensive drugs was analyzed, including placebo, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), diuretics, and β blockers. Patients with ACEIs or ARBs appeared to have significantly reduced risk of NOD compare with placebo: ACEIs (OR = 0.49, 95% CrI 0.28-0.85), ARBs (OR = 0.37, 95% CrI 0.26-0.52), while CCBs, diuretics, and β blockers appeared to have not significantly reduced risk of NOD mellitus compare with placebo: CCBs (OR = 1.10, 95% CrI 0.85-1.60), diuretics (OR = 1.40, 95% CrI 0.92-2.50), β blockers (OR = 1.40, 95% CrI 0.93-2.10). The SUCRA of placebo, ACEIs, ARBs, CCBs, diuretics, and β blockers was, respectively, 65.3%, 69.3%, 92.3%, 44.1%, 12.1%, and 16.5%. According to the evidence, ARBs have an advantage over the other treatments in reducing the risk of NOD in elderly patients.

Beta-blockers for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).There was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.Total CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.

Outcomes with Angiotensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitors vs Other Antihypertensive Agents in Hypertensive Blacks

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are used widely in the treatment of patients with hypertension. However, their efficacy in hypertensive blacks when compared with other antihypertensive agents is not well established.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study of patients using data from a clinical data warehouse of 434,646 patients from New York City's Health and Hospitals Corporation from January 2004 to December 2009. Patients were divided into the following comparison groups: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs thiazide diuretics, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs β-blockers. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Secondary outcomes included the individual components and heart failure.

RESULTS

In the propensity score-matched angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs calcium channel blocker comparison cohort (4506 blacks in each group), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.77; P = .0003), myocardial infarction (HR, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.25-9.22; P = .02), stroke (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.29-2.57; P = .001), and heart failure (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.42; P = .0003) when compared with calcium channel blockers. For the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs thiazide diuretics comparison (5337 blacks in each group), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of primary outcome (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.33-2.05; P < .0001), death (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03-1.76; P = .03), myocardial infarction (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.34-11.96; P = .01), stroke (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.34-2.92; P = .001), and heart failure (HR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.99-4.54; P < .0001). For the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs β-blocker comparison, the outcomes between the groups were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world cohort of hypertensive blacks, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events when compared with calcium channel blockers or thiazide diuretics.

Beta-blockers for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2007, which assessed the role of beta-blockade as first-line therapy for hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2011 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and reference lists of previous reviews; for eligible studies published since the previous search we conducted in May 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and combined them using the fixed-effects or random-effects method, as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs which compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 trials, N=23,613), diuretics (5 trials, N=18,241), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 trials, N=44,825), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 trials, N=10,828). Three-quarters of the 40,245 participants on beta-blockers used atenolol. Most studies had a high risk of bias; resulting from various limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis.Total mortality was not significantly different between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.11; I(2)=0%), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.14; I(2)=2%). Total cardiovascular disease (CVD) was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.97; I(2)=21%). This is primarily a reflection of the significant decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.96; I(2)=0%), since there was no significant difference in coronary heart disease (CHD) between beta-blockers and placebo. There was no significant difference in withdrawals from assigned treatment due to adverse events between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 1.12, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.54; I(2)=66%).The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was significantly worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.29; I(2)=0%), but was not different from that of diuretics or RAS inhibitors. In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.11-1.40; I(2)=0%) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.53; I(2)=29%). However, CHD was not significantly different between beta-blockers and diuretics, CCBs or RAS inhibitors. Participants on beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than those on RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; I(2)=12%), but there was no significant difference with diuretics or CCBs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest reductions in cardiovascular disease and no significant effects on mortality. These effects of beta-blockers are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. The GRADE quality of this evidence is low, implying that the true effect of beta-blockers may be substantially different from the estimate of effects found in this review. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different sub-types of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and elderly patients.

Beta-blockers for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2007, which assessed the role of beta-blockade as first-line therapy for hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2011 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and reference lists of previous reviews; for eligible studies published since the previous search we conducted in May 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and combined them using the fixed-effects or random-effects method, as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs which compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 trials, N=23,613), diuretics (5 trials, N=18,241), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 trials, N=44,825), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 trials, N=10,828). Three-quarters of the 40,245 participants on beta-blockers used atenolol. Most studies had a high risk of bias; resulting from various limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis.Total mortality was not significantly different between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.11; I(2)=0%), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.14; I(2)=2%). Total cardiovascular disease (CVD) was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.97; I(2)=21%). This is primarily a reflection of the significant decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.96; I(2)=0%), since there was no significant difference in coronary heart disease (CHD) between beta-blockers and placebo. There was no significant difference in withdrawals from assigned treatment due to adverse events between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 1.12, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.54; I(2)=66%).The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was significantly worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.29; I(2)=0%), but was not different from that of diuretics or RAS inhibitors. In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.11-1.40; I(2)=0%) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.53; I(2)=29%). However, CHD was not significantly different between beta-blockers and diuretics, CCBs or RAS inhibitors. Participants on beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than those on RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; I(2)=12%), but there was no significant difference with diuretics or CCBs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest reductions in cardiovascular disease and no significant effects on mortality. These effects of beta-blockers are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. The GRADE quality of this evidence is low, implying that the true effect of beta-blockers may be substantially different from the estimate of effects found in this review. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different sub-types of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and elderly patients.

Pre-diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular risk

Pre-diabetes represents an elevation of plasma glucose above the normal range but below that of clinical diabetes. Pre-diabetes can be identified as either impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). The latter is detected by oral glucose tolerance testing. Both IFG and IGT are risk factors for type 2 diabetes, and risk is even greater when IFG and IGT occur together. Pre-diabetes commonly associates with the metabolic syndrome. Both in turn are closely associated with obesity. The mechanisms whereby obesity predisposes to pre-diabetes and metabolic syndrome are incompletely understood but likely have a common metabolic soil. Insulin resistance is a common factor; systemic inflammation engendered by obesity may be another. Pre-diabetes has only a minor impact on microvascular disease; glucose-lowering drugs can delay conversion to diabetes, but whether in the long run the drug approach will delay development of microvascular disease is in dispute. To date, the drug approach to prevention of microvascular disease starting with pre-diabetes has not been evaluated. Pre-diabetes carries some predictive power for macrovascular disease, but most of this association appears to be mediated through the metabolic syndrome. The preferred clinical approach to cardiovascular prevention is to treat all the metabolic risk factors. For both pre-diabetes and metabolic syndrome, the desirable approach is lifestyle intervention, especially weight reduction and physical activity. When drug therapy is contemplated and when the metabolic syndrome is present, the primary consideration is prevention of cardiovascular disease. The major targets are elevations of cholesterol and blood pressure.

Ramipril-based versus diuretic-based antihypertensive primary treatment in patients with pre-diabetes (ADaPT) study

Background

Previous randomized controlled trials demonstrated a protective effect of renin angiotensin system blocking agents for the development of type-2 diabetes in patients with pre-diabetes. However, there are no real-world data available to illustrate the relevance for clinical practice.

Methods

Open, prospective, parallel group study comparing patients with an ACE inhibitor versus a diuretic based treatment. The principal aim was to document the first manifestation of type-2 diabetes in either group.

Results

A total of 2,011 patients were enrolled (mean age 69.1 ± 10.3 years; 51.6% female). 1,507 patients were available for the per-protocol analysis (1,029 ramipril, 478 diuretic group). New-onset diabetes was less frequent in the ramipril than in the diuretic group over 4 years. Differences were statistically different at a median duration of 3 years (24.4% vs 29.5%; p < 0.05). Both treatments were equally effective in reducing BP (14.7 ± 18.0/8.5 ± 8.2 mmHg and 12.7 ± 18.1/7.0 ± 8.3 mmHg) at the 4 year follow-up (p < 0.001 vs. baseline; p = n.s. between groups). In 38.6% and 39.7% of patients BP was below 130/80 mmHg (median time-to-target 3 months). There was a significant reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in favour of ramipril (p = 0.033). No significant differences were found for a change in HbA1c as well as for fasting blood glucose levels during follow-up. The rate of adverse events was higher in diuretic treated patients (SAE 15.4 vs. 12.4%; p < 0.05; AE 26.6 vs. 25.6%; p = n.s).

Conclusions

Ramipril treatment is preferable over diuretic based treatment regimens for the treatment of hypertension in pre-diabetic patients, because new-onset diabetes is delayed.

Prediabetes: the importance of early identification and intervention

Prediabetes is a state of abnormal glucose homeostasis characterized by the presence of impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, or both. Individuals with prediabetes are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, compared with individuals with normal glucose values (normal fasting plasma glucose, < 100 mg/dL [5.6 mmol/L]). The increased risk for cardiovascular disease in prediabetes is multifactorial, with etiologies including insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, hypertension, systemic inflammation, and oxidative stress. The preferred treatment is intensive lifestyle management and aggressive pharmacologic therapies directed toward individual coronary heart disease risk factors. The use of antihyperglycemic agents in this setting is a topic of intense debate. This review discusses the pathophysiology of prediabetes and its clinical implications, highlighting the importance of early identification and intervention.

Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality: a review of the evidence

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2009;11:512-519. (c)2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Cardiovascular disease accounts for the majority of deaths in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Lifestyle interventions aimed at weight loss and increased physical activity and therapy with antidiabetic drugs have proven effective in reducing the risk of new-onset diabetes in high-risk individuals. Substantial evidence also suggests that drugs that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system, namely angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, also prolong the time to onset of clinical diabetes. An open question is whether delay of new-onset diabetes with antidiabetic or antihypertensive agents reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. A large ongoing study is investigating whether therapy with an oral antidiabetic drug or an angiotensin II receptor blocker reduces the incidence of new-onset diabetes and cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.

Antihypertensive medications: benefits of blood pressure lowering and hazards of metabolic effects

Blood pressure reduction is associated with significant reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Certain blood pressure-lowering drugs have adverse effects on glucose homeostasis, and have been associated with the development of both prediabetes and diabetes during use. There is controversy over the significance of diabetes that develops during treatment with antihypertensives and whether the benefits of blood pressure reduction offset the hazards of dysglycemia that can lead to diabetes. Many treatment guidelines have recently undergone revisions to include consideration for the metabolic effects of antihypertensive drugs, particularly in high-risk populations. This review summarizes the data related to the benefits of blood pressure reduction as well as the adverse metabolic effects and new-onset diabetes associated with some medications.

Antihypertensive therapy, new-onset diabetes, and cardiovascular disease

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a worldwide epidemic with considerable health and economic consequences. Diabetes is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in diabetic patients, and decreasing the incidence of diabetes may potentially reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease. This article discusses the clinical trial evidence for modalities associated with a reduction in the risk of new-onset diabetes, with a focus on the role of antihypertensive agents that block the renin-angiotensin system. Lifestyle interventions and the use of antidiabetic, anti-obesity, and lipid-lowering drugs are also reviewed. An unresolved question is whether decreasing the incidence of new-onset diabetes with non-pharmacologic or pharmacologic intervention will also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. A large ongoing study is investigating whether the treatment with an oral antidiabetic drug or an angiotensin-receptor blocker will reduce the incidence of new-onset diabetes and cardiovascular disease in patients at high risk for developing diabetes.