Effect of calcium channel blockers on incidence of diabetes: a meta-analysis

Effects of high-intensity statin combined with telmisartan versus amlodipine on glucose metabolism in hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease patients with impaired fasting glucose: A randomized multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

There is lacking evidence that telmisartan can improve insulin resistance in patients on high-intensity statins. This study compared the effects of telmisartan and amlodipine on glucose metabolism in hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) patients with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) requiring high-intensity rosuvastatin therapy.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups [telmisartan-statin group (n=48) and amlodipine-statin group (n=51)] as add-on therapy to high-intensity rosuvastatin therapy (20 mg). The primary endpoint was to assess insulin resistance using the homeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR) value at week 24. The secondary endpoint was the change in glucose metabolism indices from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

The HOMA-IR at week 24 (2.4 [interquartile range, 1.8-3.8] versus 2.7 [1.7-3.7]; P = .809) and changes in the HOMA-IR from baseline to week 24 (-7.0 [-29.0 to 21.0] versus -5.5 [-53.3 to 27.3]; P = .539) were not significantly different between 2 groups. However, the fasting glucose level at week 24 was significantly lower in the telmisartan-statin group than in the amlodipine-statin group (107.7 ± 13.4 mg/dL versus 113.3 ± 12.4 mg/dL; P = .039) and significantly decreased in the telmisartan-statin group (-3.2 ± 8.6% versus 3.8 ± 13.2%; P = .003). The proportion of patients with fasting glucose ≥100 mg/dL (71.1% versus 89.6%; P = .047) or new-onset diabetes mellitus (12.5% versus 31.4%, P = .044) at week 24 was also significantly lower in the telmisartan-statin group than in the amlodipine-statin group.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to amlodipine, telmisartan did not decrease the HOMA-IR. However, telmisartan preserved insulin secretion, led to a regression from IFG to euglycemia and prevented new-onset diabetes mellitus in ASCVD patients with IFG requiring high-intensity statins.

Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes-The Novel Treatment Possibilities

Elevated blood pressure and hyperglycaemia frequently coexist and are both components of metabolic syndrome. Enhanced cardiovascular risk is strongly associated with diabetes and the occurrence of hypertension. Both hypertension and type 2 diabetes, if treated inappropriately, lead to serious complications, increasing the mortality of patients and generating much higher costs of health systems. This is why it is of great importance to find the missing link between hypertension and diabetes development and to simultaneously search for drugs influencing these two disorders or even drugs aimed at their pathological bases. Standard antihypertensive therapy mainly focuses on blood pressure reduction, while novel drugs also possess a wide range of pleiotropic modes of actions, such as cardio- and nephroprotective properties or body weight reduction. These properties are especially desirable in a situation when type 2 diabetes coexists with hypertension. This review describes the connections between diabetes and hypertension development and briefly summarises the current knowledge regarding attempts to define targets for the treatment of high blood pressure in diabetic patients. It also describes the standard hypotensive drugs preferred in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as novel drugs, such as finerenone, esaxerenone, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues and sacubitril/valsartan.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers: New-onset diabetes mellitus stratified by statin use

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES

Regardless of statin use, which is known to induce hyperglycaemia, comparative studies on the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are needed. This study evaluated the effects of ACEIs and ARBs on NODM in the clinical setting.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized electronic medical record data from Seoul St. Mary's Hospital and Seoul National University Hospital from 2009 to 2012. Patients who were prescribed ACEIs or ARBs for the first time (irrespective of concomitant statin use) were followed up for 5 years.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A total of 11,703 patients were included, 24.9% (n = 2916) were taking ACEIs and 75.1% (n = 9189) were taking ARBs. Patients on ACEIs had a significantly lower incidence of NODM both with statin use (HR = 0.13, p < 0.001) and without (HR = 0.15, p = 0.009) than patients on ARBs. Age ≥60 years (HR = 1.49, p = 0.010), BMI ≥25 (HR = 1.96, p < 0.010), use of calcium channel blockers (HR = 1.47, p = 0.010), and diuretics (HR = 1.48, p = 0.010) were risk factors for NODM with statin use.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Patients taking ACEIs are less likely to develop NODM than patients taking ARBs, irrespective of statin use. Patients' conditions, including the risk of NODM, should be considered before prescribing ACEIs or ARBs. Future randomized clinical trials are needed to clarify further the relationship between ACEIs and ARBs and their effect on NODM.

Short- and long-term treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium channel blockers for the prevention of diabetic nephropathy progression: A meta-analysis

Treatments with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) may delay the development of albuminuria in patients with early diabetic nephropathy. However, evidence in the literature has not been consistent. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the short- and long-term therapeutic effects of ACE inhibitors and CCBs (when used separately) for preventing the progression of nephropathy in patients with diabetes mellitus. A comprehensive search of various databases was performed from inception until March 2015 for studies in the Chinese and English languages. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of ACE inhibitors with that of CCBs in patients with early diabetic nephropathy were considered. A total of 12 RCTs were included with a total of 947 patients. ACE inhibitors were indicated to be more effective in reducing the albumin excretion rate than CCBs after short-term treatments (<6 months) [mean difference (MD), 32.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 31.62-33.07; P<0.00001]. There was no difference in serum creatinine values after treatment with either drug (MD, 8.7; 95% CI, -21.5-38.91; P=0.57). Data from six studies were used to compare long-term treatment effects (≥1 year). In terms of progression to normoalbuminuria, a marginal difference was obtained between the two drugs with better outcomes with ACE inhibitors [odds ratio (OR), 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00; P=0.05]. There was no statistically significant difference between ACE inhibitors and CCBs regarding the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.82-3.87; P=0.15). In conclusion, the present study indicated that the antiproteinuric efficacy of CCBs may be less than that of ACE inhibitors after short-term treatment in patients with DN. However, both types of drugs are equally effective in reducing the progression of microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria in the long term.

Fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin improves clinical outcomes in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. However, the clinical outcomes of fixed-dose combination (FDC) versus free-equivalent combination (FEC) of amlodipine and atorvastatin in the treatment of concurrent hypertension and dyslipidemia remain unknown. In this study, we included patients with newly diagnosed hypertension and dyslipidemia, without previously established cardiovascular disease, and treated with either FDC or FEC of amlodipine and atorvastatin were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan and follow-up for 5 years. By using 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 1756 patients were enrolled in this study. The composite of major adverse cardiovascular events, including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and coronary revascularization, occurred more frequently in the FEC group than in the FDC group (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42 to 2.5). Although the all-cause mortality did not differ (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.59), the FEC group developed increased MI, stroke, and coronary revascularization (hazard ratio, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.07 to 7.68; hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.74; and hazard ratio, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.26 to 4.69, respectively). Furthermore, as an unexpected result, a higher risk to develop new-onset diabetes mellitus was observed with FEC regimens (hazard ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0). In conclusion, although the all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups, the FDC regimen of amlodipine and atorvastatin improved clinical outcomes when compared to FEC in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension and dyslipidemia.

Metabolic and Cardiovascular Effects of Switching Thiazides to Amlodipine in Hypertensive Patients With and Without Type 2 Diabetes (the Diuretics and Diabetes Control Study)

Background: Different studies have indicated that thiazide diuretics can increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Therefore, in this study, we investigated whether switching from hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to amlodipine resulted in ameliorating different cardiovascular and metabolic measures in hypertensive patients with or without T2D. Methods: This study [Diuretics and Diabetes Control (DiaDiC)] was a 6-week, single-blind, single-center randomized controlled trial. The first 20 normal glucose-tolerant, 20 prediabetic, and 20 T2D consecutive patients were randomized to continue the previous antihypertensive treatment with HCTZ (12.5-25 mg/day) or to switch from HCTZ to amlodipine (2.5-10 mg/day). The primary endpoints were the absolute change in 7-day continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CSGM) glycemia, serum uric acid concentrations, and endothelial function [measured as flow-mediated dilation (FMD)]. Other secondary endpoints were investigated, including changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA₁c), glycemic variability from 7-day CSGM, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Results: Amlodipine treatment was associated with a significant reduction in HbA₁c (P = 0.03) for both 7-day CSGM glycemia (P = 0.01) and glycemic variability (coefficient of variability %: HCTZ +3%, amlodipine -2.8%), and a reduction in uric acid concentrations (P < 0.001), especially in participants with T2D or prediabetes. Following amlodipine treatment, a significant increase in both eGFR (P = 0.01) and FMD (P = 0.02) was also observed. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the replacement of HCTZ with amlodipine has several metabolic and cardiovascular beneficial effects. However, further intervention studies are necessary to confirm the clinical effects of thiazides, especially in diabetic people and in those at risk of diabetes.

The Interaction of a Diabetes Gene Risk Score With 3 Different Antihypertensive Medications for Incident Glucose-level Elevation

BACKGROUND

Elevations of fasting glucose (FG) levels are frequently encountered in people treated with thiazide diuretics. The risk is lower in people treated with ACE inhibitors (ACEi). To determine if genetic factors play a role in FG elevation, we examined the interaction of a diabetes gene risk score (GRS) with the use of 3 different antihypertensive medications.

METHODS

We examined 376 nondiabetic hypertensive individuals with baseline FG <100 mg/dl who were genotyped for 24 genes associated with risk of elevated glucose levels. All participants had ≥1 follow-up FG level over 6 years of follow-up. Participants were randomized to treatment with a thiazide-like diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), or an ACEi (lisinopril). Outcomes were an FG increase of ≥13 or ≥27 mg/dl, the upper 75% and 90% FG increase in the parent cohort from which the present cohort was obtained. Odds ratios were adjusted for factors that increase FG levels.

RESULTS

For every 1 allele increase in GRS, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99, 1.14; P = 0.06) and 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.20; P = 0.08). When results were examined by randomized medications, participants randomized to amlodipine had statistically significant odds for either outcome (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.48; P = 0.01 and OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.62; P = 0.01). No such risk increase was found in participants randomized to the other 2 medications.

CONCLUSIONS

A diabetes GRS predicts FG elevation in people treated with a CCB, but not with an ACEi or diuretic. These findings require confirmation.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

Trial number NCT00000542.

Adverse Metabolic Effects of Diltiazem Treatment During Diabetic Cardiomyopathy

Diabetes is a global epidemic disease, which leads to multiorgan dysfunction, including heart disease. Diabetes results from the limited absorption of glucose into insulin-sensitive tissues. The heart is one of the main organs to utilize glucose as an energy substrate. Glucose uptake into striated muscle is regulated by a family of membrane proteins called glucose transporters (GLUTs). Although calcium channel blockers, including diltiazem, are widely prescribed drugs for cardiovascular diseases, including in patients with diabetes, their pharmacological effects on glucose metabolism are somewhat controversial. We hypothesized that diltiazem treatment will exhibit detrimental effects on whole body glucose homeostasis and glucose transport in the striated muscle of patients with diabetes. Healthy and streptozotocin-treated rats were randomly assigned to receive diltiazem treatment or a placebo for 8 weeks. Blood glucose was significantly increased in the untreated diabetic groups, which worsened after diltiazem treatment. Diabetes decreased protein content of both GLUT4 (the predominate insulin-sensitive glucose transporter) and AS160 (Akt Substrate at 160 kDa, the downstream protein in the signaling cascade that regulates GLUT4 trafficking) in striated muscle of diabetic rats, with a more pronounced alteration after diltiazem treatment. We additionally reported that diabetic rodents displayed marked systolic dysfunction, which was not rescued by diltiazem treatment. In conclusion, diltiazem treatment worsened the effects of diabetes-induced hyperglycemia and diabetes-induced alterations in the regulation of glucose transport in striated muscle.

Are targeted therapies for diabetic cardiomyopathy on the horizon?

Diabetes increases the risk of heart failure approximately 2.5-fold, independent of coronary artery disease and other comorbidities. This process, termed diabetic cardiomyopathy, is characterized by initial impairment of left ventricular (LV) relaxation followed by LV contractile dysfunction. Post-mortem examination reveals that human diastolic dysfunction is closely associated with LV damage, including cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, apoptosis and fibrosis, with impaired coronary microvascular perfusion. The pathophysiological mechanisms underpinning the characteristic features of diabetic cardiomyopathy remain poorly understood, although multiple factors including altered lipid metabolism, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, inflammation, as well as epigenetic changes, are implicated. Despite a recent rise in research interrogating these mechanisms and an increased understanding of the clinical importance of diabetic cardiomyopathy, there remains a lack of specific treatment strategies. How the chronic metabolic disturbances observed in diabetes lead to structural and functional changes remains a pertinent question, and it is hoped that recent advances, particularly in the area of epigenetics, among others, may provide some answers. This review hence explores the temporal onset of the pathological features of diabetic cardiomyopathy, and their relative contribution to the resultant disease phenotype, as well as both current and potential therapeutic options. The emergence of glucose-optimizing agents, namely glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists and sodium/glucose co-transporter (SGLT)2 inhibitors that confer benefits on cardiovascular outcomes, together with novel experimental approaches, highlight a new and exciting era in diabetes research, which is likely to result in major clinical impact.

Blood pressure control in type 2 diabetic patients

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and essential hypertension are common conditions that are frequently present together. Both are considered risk factors for cardiovascular disease and microvascular complications and therefore treatment of both conditions is essential. Many papers were published on blood pressure (BP) targets in diabetic patients, including several works published in the last 2 years. As a result, guidelines differ in their recommendations on BP targets in diabetic patients. The method by which to control hypertension, whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological, is also a matter of debate and has been extensively studied in the literature. In recent years, new medications were introduced for the treatment of DM, some of which also affect BP and the clinician treating hypertensive and diabetic patients should be familiar with these medications and their effect on BP. In this manuscript, we discuss the evidence supporting different BP targets in diabetics and review the various guidelines on this topic. In addition, we discuss the various options available for the treatment of hypertension in diabetics and the recommendations for a specific treatment over the other. Finally we briefly discuss the new diabetic drug classes and their influence on BP.

Drug-Induced Hyperglycaemia and Diabetes

Drug-induced hyperglycaemia and diabetes is a global issue. It may be a serious problem, as it increases the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications, infections, metabolic coma and even death. Drugs may induce hyperglycaemia through a variety of mechanisms, including alterations in insulin secretion and sensitivity, direct cytotoxic effects on pancreatic cells and increases in glucose production. Antihypertensive drugs are not equally implicated in increasing serum glucose levels. Glycaemic adverse events occur more frequently with thiazide diuretics and with certain beta-blocking agents than with calcium-channel blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system. Lipid-modifying agents may also induce hyperglycaemia, and the diabetogenic effect seems to differ between the different types and daily doses of statins. Nicotinic acid may also alter glycaemic control. Among the anti-infectives, severe life-threatening events have been reported with fluoroquinolones, especially when high doses are used. Protease inhibitors and, to a lesser extent, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors have been reported to induce alterations in glucose metabolism. Pentamidine-induced hyperglycaemia seems to be related to direct dysfunction in pancreatic cells. Phenytoin and valproic acid may also induce hyperglycaemia. The mechanisms of second-generation antipsychotic-associated hyperglycaemia, diabetes mellitus and ketoacidosis are complex and are mainly due to insulin resistance. Antidepressant agents with high daily doses seem to be more frequently associated with an increased risk of diabetes. Ketoacidosis may occur in patients receiving beta-adrenergic stimulants, and theophylline may also induce hyperglycaemia. Steroid diabetes is more frequently associated with high doses of glucocorticoids. Some chemotherapeutic agents carry a higher risk of hyperglycaemia, and calcineurin inhibitor-induced hyperglycaemia is mainly due to a decrease in insulin secretion. Hyperglycaemia has been associated with oral contraceptives containing high doses of oestrogen. Growth hormone therapy and somatostatin analogues may also induce hyperglycaemia. Clinicians should be aware of medications that may alter glycaemia. Efforts should be made to identify and closely monitor patients receiving drugs that are known to induce hyperglycaemia.

Primary hypertension is a disease of premature vascular aging associated with neuro-immuno-metabolic abnormalities

There is an increasing amount of data indicating that primary hypertension (PH) is not only a hemodynamic phenomenon but also a complex syndrome involving abnormal fat tissue distribution, over-activity of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), metabolic abnormalities, and activation of the immune system. In children, PH usually presents with a typical phenotype of disturbed body composition, accelerated biological maturity, and subtle immunological and metabolic abnormalities. This stage of the disease is potentially reversible. However, long-lasting over-activity of the SNS and immuno-metabolic alterations usually lead to an irreversible stage of cardiovascular disease. We describe an intermediate phenotype of children with PH, showing that PH is associated with accelerated development, i.e., early premature aging of the immune, metabolic, and vascular systems. The associations and determinants of hypertensive organ damage, the principles of treatment, and the possibility of rejuvenation of the cardiovascular system are discussed.

The glycemic effects of antihypertensive medications

Older antihypertensive medications are believed to be associated with metabolic disturbances, especially raised glucose levels. Owing to this, many physicians shun their use. Newer antihypertensive medications are metabolically neutral or metabolically favorable; therefore, they are looked upon favorably and are chosen as primary medications for the treatment of hypertension. Here we review the literature on the glucose effects of older and newer antihypertensive medications. We also consider what, if any, impact these metabolic effects have on cardiovascular disease outcomes. We show that the diabetogenic effects of thiazide diuretics and beta blockers are small relative to the glucose effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and calcium channel blockers, and that over time, the glucose differences between older and newer medications diminish. Importantly, we show that the diabetogenic effects of older antihypertensive medications do not translate into increased cardiovascular disease risk.

Treating hypertension in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The co-existence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus is very common. Hypertension remarkably increases the cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients. Lowering blood pressure (BP) in these patients is particularly beneficial.

AREAS COVERED

This paper will discuss what the target BP is for diabetic patients and how that target can be reached.

EXPERT OPINION

Previous guidelines recommended lowering BP < 130/80 mmHg in diabetic patients. However, recent studies did not support this target and accordingly most recent guidelines recommend lowering BP to < 140/90 mmHg in diabetic patients. Non-pharmacological approaches are recommended in all patients. If BP levels are above the target despite non-pharmacological treatment, drug therapy should be initiated. Despite the lack of clear evidence, blockers of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) represent the cornerstone of the antihypertensive arsenal; however, in most patients combination therapy is required. Combination of RAAS blocker and a calcium antagonist is the preferred one. In many patients three or four drugs are needed. Treatment should be individualized according to concomitant risk factors and diseases and according hemodynamic and laboratory parameters as well as age. In order to maximally reduce cardiorenal risk, lipid and glycemic control should also be achieved.

Antihypertensive drugs and glucose metabolism

Hypertension plays a major role in the development and progression of micro- and macrovascular disease. Moreover, increased blood pressure often coexists with additional cardiovascular risk factors such as insulin resistance. As a result the need for a comprehensive management of hypertensive patients is critical. However, the various antihypertensive drug categories have different effects on glucose metabolism. Indeed, angiotensin receptor blockers as well as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors have been associated with beneficial effects on glucose homeostasis. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have an overall neutral effect on glucose metabolism. However, some members of the CCBs class such as azelnidipine and manidipine have been shown to have advantageous effects on glucose homeostasis. On the other hand, diuretics and β-blockers have an overall disadvantageous effect on glucose metabolism. Of note, carvedilol as well as nebivolol seem to differentiate themselves from the rest of the β-blockers class, being more attractive options regarding their effect on glucose homeostasis. The adverse effects of some blood pressure lowering drugs on glucose metabolism may, to an extent, compromise their cardiovascular protective role. As a result the effects on glucose homeostasis of the various blood pressure lowering drugs should be taken into account when selecting an antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients which are at high risk for developing diabetes.

ARB-based single-pill platform to guide a practical therapeutic approach to hypertensive patients

Hypertension is a major modifiable risk for the development of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and renal diseases. Thus, effective treatment of high blood pressure is an important strategy for reducing disease burden; however, in spite of the availability of numerous effective therapies only 30-40 % of patients with hypertension achieve the recommended blood pressure goals of <140/90 mmHg. Lack of adherence to therapy and reluctance to intensify therapy are cited frequently to explain the discrepancy between potential and attained outcomes. Adherence is closely related to the tolerability, effectiveness and complexity of therapy. Therapeutic inertia may be influenced by concerns over tolerability, as well as the lack of clear preferences for therapies when managing patients with risk factors and comorbidities. Effective and well-tolerated single pill combination therapies are now available that improve adherence and simplify treatment. The combination of a renin-angiotensin system blocker with a calcium channel blocker and a diuretic improves adherence to therapy. We have devised a practical tool for orienting the application of well-tolerated single pill 2/3 drug fixed dose combination therapies in clinical situations commonly encountered when treating hypertensive patients. This approach employs the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan alone or in combinations with amlodipine and/or hydrochlorothiazide. This platform is based on clinical evidence, guidelines, best practice, and clinical experience where none of these is available. We believe it will increase the percentage of hypertensive patients who achieve blood pressure control when applied as part of an integrative approach that includes regular follow-up and instruction on lifestyle changes.