Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM

Efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics in hypertensive patients with diabetes: subgroup analysis based on albuminuria in a systematic review and meta-analysis

In hypertensive patients with diabetes, the effectiveness of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in improving mortality, cardiovascular events, and renal outcomes, compared to other antihypertensive drugs such as calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and diuretics, remains uncertain, particularly in the context of albuminuria. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Japan Medical Abstracts Society databases up to October 2024. A meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials, including 14,163 patients, was performed. RAS inhibitors showed no significant advantage over CCBs or diuretics for all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.08, p = 0.98), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.32-1.31, p = 0.22), stroke (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.00-1.31, p = 0.05), composite cardiovascular events (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.81-1.07, p = 0.45), or end-stage renal disease (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72-1.08, p = 0.21). Subgroup analyses stratified by albuminuria status revealed no significant benefits of RAS inhibitors, regardless of albuminuria presence. The findings emphasize the need for cautious interpretation due to limited sample sizes, wide confidence intervals, and low precision. These results highlight the importance of considering not only RAS inhibitors but also other antihypertensive drugs as the first-line choice for blood pressure control in diabetic patients, with careful attention to side effects and other relevant factors.

Pharmacological Nephroprotection in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus-Clinical Practice Position Statement of the Polish Society of Nephrology

Both chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) are modern epidemics worldwide and have become a severe public health problem. Chronic kidney disease progression in T2D patients is linked to the need for dialysis or kidney transplantation and represents the risk factor predisposing to serious cardiovascular complications. In recent years, important progress has occurred in nephroprotective pharmacotherapy in CKD patients with T2D. In the current position paper, we described a nephroprotective approach in CKD patients with T2D based on the five following pillars: effective antihyperglycemic treatment, SGLT2 inhibitor or semaglutide, antihypertensive therapy, use of RASi (ARB or ACEi), and in selected patients, finerenone, as well as sodium bicarbonate in patients with metabolic acidosis. We thought that the current statement is comprehensive and up-to-date and addresses multiple pathways of nephroprotection in patients with CKD and T2D.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Modulators in Adults with Hypertension: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Although a range of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) modulators are available for blood pressure lowering, the optimal choice within this class remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of RAAS modulators in the adult hypertensive population.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality and the secondary efficacy outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Tolerability outcome was discontinuation due to adverse events. Safety outcomes included the occurrence of cough, dizziness, edema, hyperkalemia, and hypotension. Network meta-analyses were performed utilizing a random-effects model within a frequentist framework.

RESULTS

We finally identified 51 articles from 49 randomized controlled trials. When compared to placebo, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) significantly reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.92) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68-0.93), while none of other RAAS modulators significantly lowered the risk of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. Individual comparisons indicated that MRAs were associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality than the other RAAS modulators (reduction: 16% compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), 14% compared with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and 22% compared with direct renin inhibitors (DRIs)). No difference in discontinuation due to adverse events was found in a comparison of RAAS modulators with placebo. With regard to safety outcomes, ACEIs have a higher risk of cough (OR 4.68; 95% CI 1.61-13.60), ARBs have a higher risk of dizziness (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.06-1.91), hypotension (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.02-4.34), and hyperkalemia (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.17-3.41), and MRAs had a higher risk of hyperkalemia (OR 2.68; 95% CI 1.99-3.62) when compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

MRAs were the only RAAS modulators with a survival benefit in adults with hypertension, although they carried a higher risk of hyperkalemia. Our data challenge current hypertension guidelines which recommend MRAs as fourth-line therapy, and suggest that MRAs should be prescribed earlier and more widely.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO identifier number CRD42023405714.

A network meta-analysis comparative the efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers in hypertension

BACKGROUND

Currently, most studies primarily focus on directly comparing the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), the two major classes of antihypertensive drugs. Moreover, the majority of studies are based on randomized controlled trials and traditional meta-analyses, with few exploring the efficacy and safety comparisons among various members of ACEIs and CCBs.

METHODS

ACEIs and CCB were searched for in randomized controlled trials in CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, China Biology Medicine Disc (Si-noMed), PubMed, EMbase, and Cochrane Library databases. The search can be conducted till November 2022. Stata software (version 16.0) and R 4.1.3 was used for statistical analysis and graphics plotting, applying mvmeta, gemtc, and its packages. Meta-regression analysis was used to explore the inconsistencies of the studies.

RESULTS

In 73 trials involving 33 different drugs, a total of 9176 hypertensive patients were included in the analysis, with 4623 in the intervention group and 4553 in the control group. The results of the analysis showed that, according to the SUCRA ranking, felodipine (MD = -12.34, 95% CI: -17.8 to -6.82) was the drug most likely to be the best intervention for systolic blood pressure, while nitrendipine (MD = -8.01, 95% CI: -11.71 to -4.18) was the drug most likely to be the best intervention for diastolic blood pressure. Regarding adverse drug reactions, nifedipine (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.74) was the drug most likely to be the safest.

CONCLUSION

The research findings indicate that nifedipine is the optimal intervention for reducing systolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients, nitrendipine is the optimal intervention for reducing diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients, and felodipine is the optimal intervention for safety.

Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. Complete 24-hour blood pressure control is the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment and reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes is the ultimate aim. This is an update of the review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of administration-time-related effects of once-daily evening versus conventional morning dosing antihypertensive drug therapy regimens on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, total adverse events, withdrawals from treatment due to adverse effects, and reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register via Cochrane Register of Studies (17 June 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 6, 2022); MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print (1 June 2022); Embase (1 June 2022); ClinicalTrials.gov (2 June 2022); Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBLD) (1978 to 2009); Chinese VIP (2009 to 7 August 2022); Chinese WANFANG DATA (2009 to 4 August 2022); China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (CAJD) (2009 to 6 August 2022); Epistemonikos (3 September 2022) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration-time-related effects of evening with morning dosing monotherapy regimens in people with primary hypertension. We excluded people with known secondary hypertension, shift workers or people with white coat hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two to four review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or with another review author. We performed data synthesis and analyses using Review Manager Web for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, serious adverse events, overall adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, change in 24-hour blood pressure and change in morning blood pressure. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis, fixed-effect meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 RCTs in this updated review, of which two RCTs were excluded from the meta-analyses for lack of data and number of groups not reported. The quantitative analysis included 25 RCTs with 3016 participants with primary hypertension. RCTs used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (six trials), calcium channel blockers (nine trials), angiotensin II receptor blockers (seven trials), diuretics (two trials), α-blockers (one trial), and β-blockers (one trial). Fifteen trials were parallel designed, and 10 trials were cross-over designed. Most participants were white, and only two RCTs were conducted in Asia (China) and one in Africa (South Africa). All trials excluded people with risk factors of myocardial infarction and strokes. Most trials had high risk or unclear risk of bias in at least two of several key criteria, which was most prominent in allocation concealment (selection bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across trials. No RCTs reported on cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. There may be little to no differences in all-cause mortality (after 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.42; RD 0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (after 8 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.57; RD 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence), overall adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; I² = 37%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; I² = 38%; very low-certainty evidence) and withdrawals due to adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks active treatment: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23; I² = 0%; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very limited data and the defects of the trials' designs, this systematic review did not find adequate evidence to determine which time dosing drug therapy regimen has more beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes or adverse events. We have very little confidence in the evidence showing that evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs is no more or less effective than morning administration to lower 24-hour blood pressure. The conclusions should not be assumed to apply to people receiving multiple antihypertensive drug regimens.

The effect of bedtime versus morning dosing of antihypertensive drugs on the cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Antihypertensive drugs are one of the most effective strategies to prevent disability and mortality; however, there have been contradictory findings about the best dosing time for antihypertensive drugs. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the effect of bedtime versus morning dosing of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

We synthesized randomized controlled studies (RCTs) from the Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL until 13 October 2022. The risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022368612.

RESULTS

Five RCTs with 59 200 participants were included. Bedtime dosing was significantly associated with less incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) [RR: 0.80 with 95% CI (0.70-0.91), P = 0.0007] compared with morning dosing; however, there was no statistically significant difference between bedtime and morning dosing, regarding all-cause mortality [RR: 0.77 with 95% CI (0.51-1.16), P = 0.21], cardiovascular mortality [RR: 0.65 with 95% CI (0.35-1.21), P = 0.17], major adverse cardiac events (MACE) [RR: 0.79 with 95% CI (0.56-1.10), P = 0.16], heart failure [RR: 0.68 with 95% CI (0.42-1.09), P = 0.11], cerebrovascular accidents [RR: 0.80 with 95% CI (0.53-1.22), P = 0.30], coronary revascularization [RR: 0.79 with 95% CI (0.50-1.24), P = 0.30}, and angina [RR: 0.91 with 95% CI (0.55-1.50), P = 0.70].

CONCLUSION

Evidence about the comparative efficacy of bedtime versus morning dosing of antihypertensives is still uncertain. However, bedtime dosing significantly reduced MI, which warrants more robust RCTs to validate.

Critical appraisal of recent translational chronopharmacology and chronotherapeutic reviews, meta-analyses, and pragmatic patient trials discloses significant deficiencies of design and conduct and suspect findings

The conduct of molecular and laboratory animal circadian rhythm research has increased exponentially in the past few decades, such that today investigations are being performed by scientists of many diverse disciplines. Knowledge gained from past works is now being explored for translational applications to clinical medicine, often termed "circadian medicine," through the implementation of patient trials. However, these trials are being led, more often than not, by investigators who have little or no formal training and in-depth expertise in the methods of human circadian rhythm research, causing them to be deficient in design and produce dubious findings that have already led to unnecessary medical controversy at the expense of advances in patient care. Evidence of the very significant shortcomings of today's translational circadian medicine research is exemplified in two recent publications in well-read reputable medical journals concerning the chronotherapy of blood pressure (BP) medications: one a review and meta-analysis by Maqsood et al. published in the journal Hypertension in 2023 that pertains to ingestion-time differences in the extent of BP reduction exerted by hypertensive medications and the other a report by Mackenzie et al. in the journal Lancet in 2022 that details the results of the pragmatic TIME study that assessed ingestion-time differences in cardiovascular disease outcomes. Herein, we appraise the inaccurate trial selection, lack of quality assessment, and the numerous other shortcomings that culminated in suspect findings and faulty conclusions of the former, as well as the deficiencies in design and conduct of the latter using as reference the eight items identified in 2021 by a working committee of the International Society for Chronobiology and American Association for Medical Chronobiology and Chronotherapeutics as being necessary for high-quality research of circadian rhythm-dependencies of the therapeutic effects of BP-lowering medications. The TIME study when rated for its quality according to the extent to which its investigational methods satisfy all of the eight recommended items attains a very low overall score of + 1 out of a possible range of -1 to + 7. Moreover, our review of the methods of the currently ongoing pragmatic BedMed trial discloses major deficiencies of the same sort rending a poor quality score of + 0.5. Although the focus of this article is the appraisal of the quality of contemporary circadian medicine hypertension chronotherapy research, it additionally exposes the inadequacies and dubious quality of the critique of such manuscripts submitted for publication to influential journals, in that some peer reviewers might also be deficient in the knowledge required to properly rate their merit.

Mechanisms underlying the blood pressure-lowering effects of empagliflozin, losartan and their combination in people with type 2 diabetes: A secondary analysis of a randomized crossover trial

AIM

To study the effects of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin, the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) losartan, and their combination on blood pressure, while studying the mechanisms potentially involved.

METHODS

A total of 24 people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (age: 66 ± 6 years; body mass index: 31.0 ± 3 kg/m² ; estimated glomerular filtration rate: 90 ml/min/1.73m² ) received a 1-week treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg once daily, losartan 50 mg once daily, their combination, and placebo, in a randomized double-blind crossover design, with 4-week washout periods in between. Blood pressure, arterial stiffness, autonomic nervous system activity and plasma volume, extracellular fluid and serum albumin were assessed.

RESULTS

Versus placebo (139 mmHg), empagliflozin reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 8 mmHg (P = .001), losartan by 12 mmHg (P = .001) and empagliflozin + losartan by 15 mmHg (P < .001). Combination therapy had a larger SBP-lowering effect versus empagliflozin monotherapy (-7 [95% CI -12; -2] mmHg) and numerically larger effects versus losartan monotherapy (-3 [-8; 2] mmHg). Empagliflozin reduced sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity, arterial stiffness and extracellular fluid, while increasing serum albumin. Losartan reduced SNS activity and arterial stiffness. Combination therapy induced volume contraction variables, together with a reduction in SNS activity and arterial stiffness.

CONCLUSION

In people with T2D, SGLT2 inhibition in combination with an ARB had a larger blood pressure-lowering effect versus placebo than either of the drugs alone. Our data further suggest that the mechanisms underlying these blood pressure reductions at least partially differ between these agents.

Bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medications: systematic review and consensus statement: International Society of Hypertension position paper endorsed by World Hypertension League and European Society of Hypertension

Antihypertensive drug therapy is one of the most efficient medical interventions for preventing disability and death globally. Most of the evidence supporting its benefits has been derived from outcome trials with morning dosing of medications. Accumulating evidence suggests an adverse prognosis associated with night-time hypertension, nondipping blood pressure (BP) profile and morning BP surge, with increased incidence of cardiovascular events during the first few morning hours. These observations provide justification for complete 24-h BP control as being the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment. Bedtime administration of antihypertensive drugs has also been proposed as a potentially more effective treatment strategy than morning administration. This Position Paper by the International Society of Hypertension reviewed the published evidence on the clinical relevance of the diurnal variation in BP and the timing of antihypertensive drug treatment, aiming to provide consensus recommendations for clinical practice. Eight published outcome hypertension studies involved bedtime dosing of antihypertensive drugs, and all had major methodological and/or other flaws and a high risk of bias in testing the impact of bedtime compared to morning treatment. Three ongoing, well designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing. Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose.

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Elevated asleep blood pressure and non-dipper 24h patterning best predict risk for heart failure that can be averted by bedtime hypertension chronotherapy: A review of the published literature

Several prospective studies consistently report elevated asleep blood pressure (BP) and blunted sleep-time relative systolic BP (SBP) decline (non-dipping) are jointly the most significant prognostic markers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, including heart failure (HF); therefore, they, rather than office BP measurements (OBPM) and ambulatory awake and 24 h BP means, seemingly are the most worthy therapeutic targets for prevention. Published studies of the 24 h BP pattern in HF are sparse in number and of limited sample size. They report high prevalence of the abnormal non-dipper/riser 24 h SBP patterning. Despite the established clinical relevance of the asleep BP, past as do present hypertension guidelines recommend the diagnosis of hypertension rely on OBPM and, when around-the-clock ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) is conducted to confirm the elevated OBPM, either on the derived 24 h or "daytime" BP means. Additionally, hypertension guidelines do not advise the time-of-day when BP-lowering medications should be ingested, in spite of known ingestion-time differences in their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Between 1976 and 2020, 155 unique trials of ingestion-time differences in the effects of 37 different single and 14 dual-combination hypertension medications, collectively involving 23,972 patients, were published. The vast majority (83.9%) of them found the at-bedtime/evening in comparison to upon-waking/morning treatment schedule resulted in more greatly enhanced: (i) reduction of asleep BP mean without induced sleep-time hypotension; (ii) reduction of the prevalence of the higher CVD risk non-dipper/riser 24 h BP phenotypes; (iii) improvement of kidney function, reduction of cardiac pathology, and with lower incidence of adverse effects. Most notably, no single published randomized trial found significantly better BP-lowering, particularly during sleep, or medical benefits of the most popular upon-waking/morning hypertension treatment-time scheme. Additionally, prospective outcome trials have substantiated that the bedtime relative to the upon-waking, ingestion of BP-lowering medications not only significantly reduces risk of HF but also improves overall CVD event-free survival time.

Circadian variations in blood pressure and their implications for the administration of antihypertensive drugs: is dosing in the evening better than in the morning?

: Blood pressure (BP) follows a circadian rhythm with a physiological decrease during the night. Studies have demonstrated that nocturnal BP as well as its dipping pattern during night-time have a significant prognostic importance for mortality and the occurrence of cardiovascular events. Therefore, hypertension management guidelines recommend to ascertain that patients treated for hypertension have well controlled BP values around the clock. To improve hypertension control during the night and eventually further reduce cardiovascular events, it has been proposed by some to prescribe at least one antihypertensive medication at bedtime. In this review, we have examined the data which could support the benefits of prescribing BP-lowering drugs at bedtime. Our conclusion is that there is no convincing evidence that the administration of BP-lowering drugs in the evening provides any significant advantage in terms of quality of BP control, prevention of target organ damage or reduction of cardiovascular events. Before changing practice for unproven benefits, it would be wise to wait for the results of the ongoing trials that are addressing this issue.

Renal haemodynamic and protective effects of renoactive drugs in type 2 diabetes: Interaction with SGLT2 inhibitors

Diabetic kidney disease remains the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease and a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Large cardiovascular outcome trials and dedicated kidney trials have shown that sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)2 inhibitors reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and attenuate hard renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Underlying mechanisms explaining these renal benefits may be mediated by decreased glomerular hypertension, possibly by vasodilation of the post-glomerular arteriole. People with T2D often receive several different drugs, some of which could also impact the renal vasculature, and could therefore modify both renal efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibition. The most commonly prescribed drugs that could interact with SGLT2 inhibitors on renal haemodynamic function include renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and diuretics. Herein, we review the effects of these drugs on renal haemodynamic function in people with T2D and focus on studies that measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and effective renal plasma flow (ERPF) with gold-standard techniques. In addition, we posit, based on these observations, potential interactions with SGLT2 inhibitors with an emphasis on efficacy and safety.

The effect of taking blood pressure lowering medication at night on cardiovascular disease risk. A systematic review

To investigate the effect of night-time BP-lowering drug treatment on the risk of major CVD and mortality, we systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing night-time versus morning dosing. Two studies were found relevant to the clinical question (the MAPEC and Hygia trials). They were similar in study design and population and were conducted by the same study group. As the Hygia trial had more power with a significantly larger sample size, we did not perform a meta-analysis. Both studies reported a reduction of ~50% in major CVD events and all-cause mortality with night-time dosing and a reduction of 60% in CVD mortality. The results from these studies support the implementation of night-time BP-lowering drug treatment in the prevention of CVD and mortality. However there is an on-going discussion on the validity and methodology of MAPEC and Hygia trials, the interpretation of the results should be cautious. Stronger evidence is needed prior to changing clinical practice. Questions that remain to be answered relate to the generalisability of the results across different populations at different levels of BP related risk and the importance of morning versus evening timing of medication on CVD prevention as determined though a well-designed randomised controlled trial.

Ingestion-time differences in the pharmacodynamics of hypertension medications: Systematic review of human chronopharmacology trials

Pharmacokinetics of hypertension medications is significantly affected by circadian rhythms that influence absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination. Furthermore, their pharmacodynamics is affected by ingestion-time differences in kinetics and circadian rhythms comprising the biological mechanism of the 24 h blood pressure (BP) pattern. However, hypertension guidelines do not recommend the time to treat patients with medications. We conducted a systematic review of published evidence regarding ingestion-time differences of hypertension medications and their combinations on ambulatory BP-lowering, safety, and markers of target organ pathology. Some 153 trials published between 1976 and 2020, totaling 23,869 hypertensive individuals, evaluated 37 different single and 14 dual-fixed combination therapies. The vast (83.7%) majority of the trials report clinically and statistically significant benefits - including enhanced reduction of asleep BP without inducing sleep-time hypotension, reduced prevalence of the higher cardiovascular disease risk BP non-dipping 24 h profile, decreased incidence of adverse effects, improved renal function, and reduced cardiac pathology - when hypertension medications are ingested at-bedtime/evening rather than upon-waking/morning. Non-substantiated treatment-time difference in effects by the small proportion (16.3%) of published trials is likely explained by deficiencies of study design and conduct. Systematic and comprehensive review of the literature published the past 45 years reveals no single study reported significantly better benefit of the still conventional, yet unjustified by medical evidence, upon-waking/morning hypertension treatment schedule.

The Effect of Calcium Channel Blockers on Moderate or Severe Albuminuria in Diabetic, Hypertensive Patients

OBJECTIVES

Inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system are recommended for the management of albuminuria in patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus, but there is little consensus about alternative therapies. Calcium channel blockers are recommended for the management of hypertension, but the data are controversial regarding their role in patients with albuminuria. This review was designed to assess the efficacy of calcium channel blockers compared with inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system in decreasing albuminuria in diabetic, hypertensive patients with nephropathy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for records that compared calcium channel blockers to inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system and reported pre- and postintervention albuminuria measurements. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts for randomized, controlled trials in adults. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to select 29 trials from 855 records. We synthesized the data through a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 2113 trial participants with hypertension and diabetes mellitus who had the equivalent of ≥30 mg/day of urinary albumin excretion. Inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system were more effective than calcium channel blockers in decreasing albuminuria (standardized difference in means -0.442; confidence interval, -0.660 to -0.225; P < .001). This finding was independent of the blood pressure response to treatment. There was no difference between the 2 drug classes regarding markers of renal function.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system are superior to calcium channel blockers for the reduction of albuminuria in nephropathy due to hypertension and diabetes mellitus. The net clinical benefit, however, is small.

Real-world use of ACEI/ARB in diabetic hypertensive patients before the initial diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease: patient characteristics and long-term follow-up outcome

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) as a first-line therapy in diabetic hypertensive patients and for secondary prevention in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (OCAD). However, the effects of using ACEI/ARB before the initial diagnosis of OCAD on major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE) in diabetic hypertensive patients remain unclear. This study investigated whether using ACEI/ARB before the initial diagnosis of OCAD could be associated with improved clinical outcomes in diabetic hypertensive patients.

METHODS

A total of 2501 patients with hypertension and diabetes, who were first diagnosed with OCAD by coronary angiography, were included in the analysis. Of the 2501 patients, 1300 did not used ACEI/ARB before the initial diagnosis of OCAD [the ACEI/ARB(-) group]; 1201 did [the ACEI/ARB(+) group]. Propensity score matching at 1:1 was performed to select 1050 patients from each group. Incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), infarct size in patients with AMI, heart function, and subsequent MACCE during a median of 25.4-month follow-up were determined and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the ACEI/ARB(-) group, the ACEI/ARB(+) group had significantly lower incidence of AMI (22.5% vs. 28.4%, p < 0.05), smaller infarct size in patients with AMI (pTNI: 5.7 vs. 6.8 ng/ml, p < 0.05; pCKMB: 21.7 vs. 28.7 ng/ml, p < 0.05), better heart function (LVEF: 60.0 vs. 58.5%, p < 0.05), and lower incidences of non-fatal stroke (2.4% vs. 4.6%, p < 0.05) and composite MACCE (23.1% vs. 29.7%, p < 0.05). No prior ACEI/ARB therapy was significantly and independently associated with non-fatal stroke and composite MACCE.

CONCLUSIONS

In diabetic hypertensive patients, treatment with ACEI/ARB before the initial diagnosis with OCAD was associated with decreased incidence of AMI, smaller infarct size, improved heart function, and lower incidences of non-fatal stroke and composite MACCE. Trial registration Retrospectively registered.

Access to enantioenriched 4-phosphorylated δ-lactones from β-phosphorylenones and enals via carbene organocatalysis

N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) catalyzed direct access to enantioenriched 4-phosphorylated δ-lactones from β-phosphorylenones and enals has been achieved.

Defluorinative C(sp3 )-P Bond Construction for the Synthesis of Phosphorylation gem-Difluoroalkenes under Catalyst- and Oxidant-Free Conditions

Defluorinative C(sp³ )-P bond formation of α-trifluoromethyl alkenes with phosphine oxides or phosphonates have been achieved under catalyst- and oxidant-free conditions, giving phosphorylation gem-difluoroalkenes as products. α-Trifluoromethyl alkenes bearing various of aryl substituents such as halogen, cyano, ester and heterocyclic groups are available in this transformation. The results of control experiments demonstrated that the mechanism of dehydrogenative/defluorinative cross-coupling reactions was not a radical route, but might be an S_N 2' process involving phosphine oxide anion.

Hypertension control among euvolemic hypertensive hemodialysis patients in Malaysia: a prospective follow-up study

OBJECTIVES

Existing literature does not provide enough information on evaluation of factors associated with pre-dialysis controlled hypertension among euvolemic hemodialysis (HD) patients. We conducted a study to evaluate the rate and factors influencing pre-dialysis controlled hypertension among euvolemic HD patients.

DESIGN

A multicenter prospective follow-up study.

SETTING

Tertiary care teaching hospital and its associated private dialysis centers.

PARTICIPANTS

This study included 145 euvolemic eligible hypertensive patients. Various sociodemographic, clinical factors and drugs were investigated and analyzed by using appropriate statistical methods to determine the factors influencing hypertension control among the study participants.

RESULTS

On baseline visit, the mean pre-dialysis systolic and diastolic BP (mmHg) of study participants was 161.2 ± 24. and 79.21 ± 11.8 retrospectively, and 30 (20.6%) patients were on pre-dialysis goal BP. At the end of the 6-months follow-up, the mean pre-dialysis systolic BP and diastolic BP (mmHg) of the patients was 154.6 ± 18.3 and 79.2 ± 11.8 respectively, and 42 (28.9%) were on pre-dialysis goal BP. In multivariate analysis, the use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) was the only variable which had statistically significant association with pre-dialysis controlled hypertension at baseline (OR = 7.530, p-value = 0.001) and final (OR = 8.988, p-value < 0.001) visits.

CONCLUSIONS

In present study, the positive association observed between CCBs and controlled hypertension suggests that CCBs are effective antihypertensive drugs in the management of hypertension among euvolemic HD patients.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

This study involved a group of patients from tertiary-level teaching hospital and its associated private dialysis centers of Malaysia.To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to assess the factors influencing pre-dialysis controlled hypertension in a cohort of 145 euvolemic HD patients in a Malaysian setting.For determining the factors influencing hypertenion control multivariate analysis was conducted.Being a prospective follow-up study, the findings of the present study need to be interpreted with caution since it is limited to only 6 months follow up.Nevertheless, a multicenter study with a large sample size and longer follow up time is needed to confirm the findings of the current study.

Effects of Long- and Intermediate-Acting Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 18 Prospective, Randomized, Actively Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are a heterogeneous group of antihypertensive drugs. Long-acting dihydropyridine agent amlodipine is widely used for monotherapy and combination therapy for hypertension in clinical practice, while intermediate-acting dihydropyridine agents have shown inconsistent results in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A meta-analysis of 18 RCTs enrolling a total of 80,483 patients with hypertension followed for a mean of 51.4 months was performed. Amlodipine therapy was associated with 25% higher risk of heart failure (relative risk [RR]: 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, P = .019) but 17% lower risk of stroke (RR: 0.83, [95% CI, 0.72-0.97], P = .009) without statistically significant effect on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared to major alternative antihypertensive therapy (MAAT), including β-blocker, diuretic, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or angiotensin-receptor blocker. Intermediate-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker therapy was associated with 25% higher risk of heart failure (RR: 1.25, [95% CI, 1.06-1.47], 0.005, P = .005) and 26% higher risk of AMI (RR: 1.26, [95% CI, 1.05-1.51], 0.019, P = .019) compared to MAAT. Results of the subgroup analysis suggested that the intermediate-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker was associated with higher risk of heart failure (RR: 1.30, [95% CI, 1.08-1.56], P = .005) and AMI (RR: 1.50, [95% CI, 1.01-2.22], P = .043) compared to renin-angiotensin system blockers and a trend toward higher risk of AMI (RR: 1.17, [95% CI, 0.99-1.38], P = .064) compared to conventional therapy, including β-blockers and diuretics. Meta-regression analyses suggested that long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker is associated with lower risk of AMI ( B: -0.327, [95% CI, -0.530 to -0.123], P = .002) with a trend toward lower risk of stroke ( B: -0.203, [95% CI, -0.410 to 0.003] P = .054).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that Amlodipine offers greater protection against major complications of hypertension compared to intermediate-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.

Drug treatment of hypertension in older patients with diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is more prevalent in the elderly (age>65 years) diabetic population than in the general population and shows an increasing prevalence with advancing age. Both diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension are independent risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) related morbidity and mortality. Optimal BP targets were not identified in elderly patients with DM and hypertension.

AREAS COVERED

In this review article, the authors briefly discuss the pathophysiology of hypertension in elderly diabetics, present evidence with various antihypertensive drug classes supporting the treatment of hypertension to reduce CV events in older diabetics, and then discuss the optimal target BP goals in these patients.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinicians should have a BP goal of less than 130/80 mm in all elderly patients with hypertension and DM, especially in those with high CV-risk. When medications are required for optimal BP control in addition to lifestyle measures, either thiazide diuretics, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or calcium channel blockers should be considered as initial therapy. Combinations of medications are usually required in these patients because BP control is more difficult to achieve in diabetics than those without DM.

The new angiotensin II receptor blocker Edarbi® as part of the pathogenetic treatment of arterial hypertension in patients with metabolic disorders

Relevance. Recently, the proportion of angiotensin receptor blockers has significantly increased among prescribed antihypertensive drugs. High organoprotective properties, additional metabolic effects and tolerability comparable to placebo make them the drugs of choice, especially in patients with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension having low adherence to antihypertensive therapy, but already burdened by additional metabolic risk factors. Purpose of the study - study of the antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil (Edarbi®), its effect on cardiometabolic risk factors and damage of target organs in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Materials and methods. The study included 32 patients (mean age 47.32±8.4 years), 19 men and 13 women with stage 2 hypertension. All patients were evaluated for clinical blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, creatinine, glucose level in a carbohydrate tolerance test, 24-hour blood pressure monitoring, central aortic systolic pressure, сarotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and intima-media thickness was determined initially and after 6 months of therapy. Results. During taking Edarbi® 82% of patients with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension and metabolic syndrome reached the target level of BP, which was accompanied by a significant improvement in diastolic function of the left ventricle in 56% of patients. Already in the first 6 months the treatment reduced arterial stiffness and improved metabolic control

Effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on outcome incidence in hypertension: 10 - Should blood pressure management differ in hypertensive patients with and without diabetes mellitus? Overview and meta-analyses of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of hypertension, and cardiovascular and renal disease, and it has been recommended that management of hypertension should be more aggressive in presence than in absence of diabetes mellitus, but the matter is controversial at present.

OBJECTIVES

Meta-analysing all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effects on cardiovascular and renal outcomes of blood pressure BP lowering to different systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) levels or by different drug classes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

The database consisted of 72 BP-lowering RCTs (260 210 patients) and 50 head-to-head drug comparison RCTs (247 006). Among these two sets, RCTs or RCT subgroups separately reporting data from patients with and without diabetes mellitus were identified, and stratified by in-treatment achieved SBP and DBP, by drug class compared with placebo, and drug class compared with all other classes. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals, and absolute risk reductions of six fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause death, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were calculated (random-effects model) separately for diabetes mellitus and no diabetes mellitus, and compared by interaction analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 41 RCTs providing data on 61 772 patients with diabetes mellitus and 40 RCTs providing data on 191 353 patients without diabetes mellitus. For achieved SBP at least 140 mmHg, relative and absolute reductions of most cardiovascular outcomes were significantly greater in diabetes mellitus than no diabetes mellitus, whereas for achieved SBP below 130 mmHg, the difference disappeared or reversed (greater outcome reduction in no diabetes mellitus). Significant ESRD reduction was found only in diabetes mellitus, but it was greatest when achieved SBP was at least 140 mmHg, and no further effect was found at SBP below 140 mmHg. All antihypertensive drug classes reduced cardiovascular risk vs. placebo in diabetes mellitus and no diabetes mellitus, but angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were the only class more effective in diabetes mellitus than in no diabetes mellitus. When compared to other classes, renin-angiotensin system blockers were equally effective in cardiovascular prevention in no diabetes mellitus, but moderately, though significantly, more effective in diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION

BP-lowering treatment significantly and importantly reduces cardiovascular risk both in diabetes mellitus and no diabetes mellitus, but evidence for reduced ESRD risk is available only in diabetes. Contrary to past recommendations, in diabetes mellitus there is little or no further benefit in lowering SBP below 130 mmHg, whereas continuing benefit is seen in no diabetes mellitus also at SBP below 130 mmHg. Although all BP-lowering drugs can beneficially be prescribed in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus, the current recommendation to initiate or include a renin-angiotensin system blocker is supported by the evidence here presented.

Pakistan's Recommendations for Optimal Management of diabetes from Primary to Tertiary care level (PROMPT)

Pakistan is a developing country with limited resources and diverse socio-economic standards. Pakistan has high prevalence of diabetes and its complications, which is a great challenge to the existing health care system. National action plans for control of diabetes have been developed and initiatives have been taken but not at an ideal pace. First National Practice Guidelines for Pakistan were published in 1999. It was very helpful in standardizing the management of Type-2 diabetes. In view of important developments in the field of diabetes during the recent years, it was felt that 1999 National Clinical Practice Guidelines edited, should be revised. Also with rapidly increasing number of diabetic patients and the escalating burden on health economy, it is essential to develop a primary to secondary / tertiary care referral system. These guidelines are developed after an extensive research and cover many aspects of diabetes management. This special communication is an extract of a PROMPT document that has already been published as a Supplement in Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences in 2017. We hope that these guidelines will help in improving the diabetes care in Pakistan.

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 reduction in diabetes: lessons from ACCORD, SPRINT and EMPA-REG OUTCOME

In patients with diabetes mellitus, the presence of hypertension substantially increases the risk of cardiovascular events, and reductions in blood pressure (BP) can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Following evidence from trials randomizing patients to diastolic BP levels, previous guidelines recommended an office BP target of <130/80 mmHg in individuals with diabetes mellitus. However, the evidence for this systolic BP (SBP) target was derived from observational studies. When the results of the ACCORD-BP study showed that those individuals with diabetes mellitus and a target BP of <120 mmHg had a cardiovascular risk that is similar to those with <140 mmHg, all guidelines returned to a recommended SBP of <140 mmHg. However, the ACCORD-BP trial was limited by the low number of cardiovascular events observed, whereas the mean SBP in the 'conventional' arm was 133 mmHg. The SPRINT study, showing cardiovascular benefits in hypertensive patients without diabetes mellitus randomized to SBP <120 mmHg versus those randomized to <140 mmHg, came in contrast with the ACCORD-BP, but a detailed evaluation reveals many similarities between the two trials. Finally, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study, with impressive cardiovascular mortality reduction with empagliflozin, suggested that reduction of SBP to around 130 mmHg is safe and might explain part of these beneficial results. In this Review, we evaluate the implications of the ACCORD-BP, SPRINT and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials and previous studies for the optimal BP target in diabetes mellitus.

Amlodipine in hypertension: a first-line agent with efficacy for improving blood pressure and patient outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Hypertension is well established as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Although there is undeniable evidence to support the beneficial effects of antihypertensive therapy on morbidity and mortality, adequate blood pressure management still remains suboptimal. Research into the treatment of hypertension has produced a multitude of drug classes with different efficacy profiles. These agents include β-blockers, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers. One of the oldest groups of antihypertensives, the calcium channel blockers are a heterogeneous group of medications.

METHODS

This review paper will focus on amlodipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, which has been widely used for 2 decades.

RESULTS

Amlodipine has good efficacy and safety, in addition to strong evidence from large randomised controlled trials for cardiovascular event reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Amlodipine should be considered a first-line antihypertensive agent.

Association between renin and atherosclerotic burden in subjects with and without type 2 diabetes

Background

Activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) has been proposed to contribute to development of vascular complications in type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim of the present study was to determine if plasma renin levels are associated with the severity of vascular changes in subjects with and without T2D.

Methods

Renin was analyzed by the Proximity Extension Assay in subjects with (n = 985) and without (n = 515) T2D participating in the SUMMIT (SUrrogate markers for Micro- and Macro-vascular hard endpoints for Innovative diabetes Tools) study and in 205 carotid endarterectomy patients. Vascular changes were assessed by determining ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), carotid plaque area, pulse wave velocity (PWV) and the reactivity hyperemia index (RHI).

Results

Plasma renin was elevated in subjects with T2D and demonstrated risk factor-independent association with prevalent cardiovascular disease both in subjects with and without T2D. Renin levels increased with age, body mass index, HbA1c and correlated inversely with HDL. Subjects with T2D had more severe carotid disease, increased arterial stiffness, and impaired endothelial function. Risk factor-independent associations between renin and APBI, bulb IMT, carotid plaque area were observed in both T2D and non-T2D subjects. These associations were independent of treatment with RAAS inhibitors. Only weak associations existed between plasma renin and the expression of pro-inflammatory and fibrous components in plaques from 205 endarterectomy patients.

Conclusions

Our findings provide clinical evidence for associations between systemic RAAS activation and atherosclerotic burden and suggest that this association is of particular importance in T2D.

Classes of antihypertensive agents and mortality in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes-Network meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of antihypertensive drug classes in mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinical Trials and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized trials comparing thiazides, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), alone or in combination for hypertension treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes. Outcomes were overall and cardiovascular mortality. Network meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled effect estimate.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies, comprising 49,418 participants, 5647 total and 1306 cardiovascular deaths were included. No differences in total or cardiovascular mortality were observed with isolated antihypertensive drug classes compared to each other or placebo. The ACEi and CCB combination showed evidence of reduction in cardiovascular mortality comparing to placebo [median HR, 95% credibility intervals: 0.16, 0.01-0.82], betablockers (0.20, 0.02-0.98), CCBs (0.21, 0.02-0.97) and ARBs (0.18, 0.02-0.91). In included trials, this combination was the treatment that most consistently achieved both lower systolic and diastolic end of study blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no benefit of a single antihypertensive class in reduction of mortality in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Reduction of cardiovascular mortality observed in patients treated with ACEi and CCB combination may be related to lower blood pressure levels.

Hypertension Management in the Diabetes Patient

Approximately 11 million of the 17 million US citizens with type 2 diabetes mellitus also have hypertension. The development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes is frequently associated with hypertension, and both may present several years after the onset of diabetes. In type 2 diabetes, hypertension may precede the development of diabetes by several years. Differences that exist between type 1 and type 2 diabetes and the development of hypertension may indicate differences in the concomitant disease processes, yet the inevitable development of both diseases contributes to significant increases in risk of cardiovascular disease.The pharmacist must be familiar with blood pressure treatment goals in the hypertensive-diabetic patient and appropriate pharmacotherapeutic management. This article outlines treatment goals in the patient with diabetes and concurrent hypertension, reviews trials assessing pharmacologic treatments, and provides a summary of monitoring parameters to guide the pharmacist in the management of this population.

A Systematic Review on the Efficacy of Amlodipine in the Treatment of Patients With Hypertension With Concomitant Diabetes Mellitus and/or Renal Dysfunction, When Compared With Other Classes of Antihypertensive Medication

The long-term cardiovascular (CV) effects of calcium channel blockers, with special focus on amlodipine, were compared with other classes of antihypertensive medications in high-risk hypertensive patient subgroups. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was undertaken of 38 unique randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group trials comparing amlodipine/calcium channel blockers with diuretics, β-blockers, α-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin II receptor blockers, with ≥6-month follow-up, and which had included assessment of blood pressure (BP) and CV events [all-cause death, CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, congestive heart failure (CHF), or major CV events (MACE: MI, CHF, stroke, and CV death)], in hypertensive patients (baseline systolic/diastolic BP ≥140/≥90 mm Hg) with either concomitant diabetes and/or renal dysfunction. In hypertensive patients with diabetes, no difference was found for amlodipine versus comparators with respect to all-cause death, CV death, MACE, and MI; a decrease in stroke risk, and an increase in CHF risk, was seen. In hypertensive patients with renal dysfunction, no difference was found for amlodipine versus comparators with respect to all-cause death, CV death, MACE, MI, and CHF; a decrease in stroke risk was seen. Amlodipine was found to be at least as efficacious as all the other classes of antihypertensive agents in reducing systolic and diastolic BP. Long-term control of BP is critical for avoiding complications of hypertension in high-risk patients, particularly CV and cerebrovascular events such as stroke. This analysis has provided evidence that amlodipine is an appealing therapeutic option in the long-term management of hypertension in both diabetic and renal dysfunction patients.

Managing hypertension in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Hypertension is a common problem in the diabetic population with estimates suggesting a prevalence exceeding 60%. Comorbid hypertension and diabetes mellitus are associated with high rates of macrovascular and microvascular complications. These two pathologies share overlapping risk factors, importantly central obesity. Treatment of hypertension is unequivocally beneficial and improves all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, and microvascular outcomes including nephropathy and retinopathy. Although controversial, current guidelines recommend a target blood pressure in the diabetic population of <140/90 mmHg, which is a similar target to that proposed for individuals without diabetes. Management of blood pressure in patients with diabetes includes both lifestyle modifications and pharmacological therapies. This article reviews the evidence for management of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and provides a recommended treatment strategy based on the available data.

Effect of calcium channels blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system on renal outcomes and mortality in patients suffering from chronic kidney disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The renoprotective effect of inhibitors of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) has been identified through placebo-controlled trials. However, the effect of calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) on renal system is still controversial. Our current meta-analysis includes available evidences to compare the effect of dihydropyridine CCBs and ACEIs or ARBs on renal outcomes and mortality. We also further investigate whether CCBs can be used in combination with inhibitors of RAS to improve the prognosis of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic databases were searched up to July 2012, for clinical randomized controlled trials, assessing the effect of dihydropyridine CCBs on the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and all-cause mortality in contrast to ACEIs or ARBs. Eight clinical trials were included containing 25,647 participants. ESRD showed significantly higher frequency with CCBs therapy compared with ACEIs or ARBs therapy, though blood pressure was decreased similarly in both groups in every trial (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.48; p = 0.01). In contrast, there was no significant difference in the incidence of all-cause mortality between these two groups, though ACEIs or ARBs exhibited better renoprotective effect compared to CCBs (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03; p = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

CCBs did not increase all-cause mortality incidence in patients with CKD though they displayed weaker renoprotective, compared to ACEIs or ARBs therapy. Our results suggest the combination of a CCB and an ACEI or ARB should be a preferable antihypertensive therapy in patients with CKD, considering their higher effect in decreasing blood pressure and fewer adverse metabolic problems caused.