The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report

"The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure" provides a new guideline for hypertension prevention and management. The following are the key messages(1) In persons older than 50 years, systolic blood pressure (BP) of more than 140 mm Hg is a much more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; (2) The risk of CVD, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, doubles with each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; individuals who are normotensive at 55 years of age have a 90% lifetime risk for developing hypertension; (3) Individuals with a systolic BP of 120 to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 80 to 89 mm Hg should be considered as prehypertensive and require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent CVD; (4) Thiazide-type diuretics should be used in drug treatment for most patients with uncomplicated hypertension, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes. Certain high-risk conditions are compelling indications for the initial use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers); (5) Most patients with hypertension will require 2 or more antihypertensive medications to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease); (6) If BP is more than 20/10 mm Hg above goal BP, consideration should be given to initiating therapy with 2 agents, 1 of which usually should be a thiazide-type diuretic; and (7) The most effective therapy prescribed by the most careful clinician will control hypertension only if patients are motivated. Motivation improves when patients have positive experiences with and trust in the clinician. Empathy builds trust and is a potent motivator. Finally, in presenting these guidelines, the committee recognizes that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.

Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure

The National High Blood Pressure Education Program presents the complete Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Like its predecessors, the purpose is to provide an evidence-based approach to the prevention and management of hypertension. The key messages of this report are these: in those older than age 50, systolic blood pressure (BP) of greater than 140 mm Hg is a more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, CVD risk doubles for each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; those who are normotensive at 55 years of age will have a 90% lifetime risk of developing hypertension; prehypertensive individuals (systolic BP 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic BP 80-89 mm Hg) require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent the progressive rise in blood pressure and CVD; for uncomplicated hypertension, thiazide diuretic should be used in drug treatment for most, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes; this report delineates specific high-risk conditions that are compelling indications for the use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers); two or more antihypertensive medications will be required to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg) for patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; for patients whose BP is more than 20 mm Hg above the systolic BP goal or more than 10 mm Hg above the diastolic BP goal, initiation of therapy using two agents, one of which usually will be a thiazide diuretic, should be considered; regardless of therapy or care, hypertension will be controlled only if patients are motivated to stay on their treatment plan. Positive experiences, trust in the clinician, and empathy improve patient motivation and satisfaction. This report serves as a guide, and the committee continues to recognize that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.

Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

To assess potentially elevated cardiovascular risk related to new antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes, regulatory agencies require a comprehensive evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile of new antidiabetic therapies. We assessed cardiovascular outcomes with alogliptin, a new inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4), as compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and either an acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina requiring hospitalization within the previous 15 to 90 days to receive alogliptin or placebo in addition to existing antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular drug therapy. The study design was a double-blind, noninferiority trial with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio for the primary end point of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 5380 patients underwent randomization and were followed for up to 40 months (median, 18 months). A primary end-point event occurred in 305 patients assigned to alogliptin (11.3%) and in 316 patients assigned to placebo (11.8%) (hazard ratio, 0.96; upper boundary of the one-sided repeated confidence interval, 1.16; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Glycated hemoglobin levels were significantly lower with alogliptin than with placebo (mean difference, -0.36 percentage points; P<0.001). Incidences of hypoglycemia, cancer, pancreatitis, and initiation of dialysis were similar with alogliptin and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were not increased with the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin as compared with placebo. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708.).

A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension

BACKGROUND

Prior unblinded studies have suggested that catheter-based renal-artery denervation reduces blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension.

METHODS

We designed a prospective, single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. Patients with severe resistant hypertension were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo renal denervation or a sham procedure. Before randomization, patients were receiving a stable antihypertensive regimen involving maximally tolerated doses of at least three drugs, including a diuretic. The primary efficacy end point was the change in office systolic blood pressure at 6 months; a secondary efficacy end point was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, end-stage renal disease, embolic events resulting in end-organ damage, renovascular complications, or hypertensive crisis at 1 month or new renal-artery stenosis of more than 70% at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 535 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) change in systolic blood pressure at 6 months was -14.13±23.93 mm Hg in the denervation group as compared with -11.74±25.94 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group (P<0.001 for both comparisons of the change from baseline), for a difference of -2.39 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.89 to 2.12; P=0.26 for superiority with a margin of 5 mm Hg). The change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was -6.75±15.11 mm Hg in the denervation group and -4.79±17.25 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group, for a difference of -1.96 mm Hg (95% CI, -4.97 to 1.06; P=0.98 for superiority with a margin of 2 mm Hg). There were no significant differences in safety between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This blinded trial did not show a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension 6 months after renal-artery denervation as compared with a sham control. (Funded by Medtronic; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01418261.).

Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

The optimal combination drug therapy for hypertension is not established, although current U.S. guidelines recommend inclusion of a diuretic. We hypothesized that treatment with the combination of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker would be more effective in reducing the rate of cardiovascular events than treatment with an ACE inhibitor plus a thiazide diuretic.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 11,506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events to receive treatment with either benazepril plus amlodipine or benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac arrest, and coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The trial was terminated early after a mean follow-up of 36 months, when the boundary of the prespecified stopping rule was exceeded. Mean blood pressures after dose adjustment were 131.6/73.3 mm Hg in the benazepril-amlodipine group and 132.5/74.4 mm Hg in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group. There were 552 primary-outcome events in the benazepril-amlodipine group (9.6%) and 679 in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group (11.8%), representing an absolute risk reduction with benazepril-amlodipine therapy of 2.2% and a relative risk reduction of 19.6% (hazard ratio, 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.90; P<0.001). For the secondary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke, the hazard ratio was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.92; P=0.002). Rates of adverse events were consistent with those observed from clinical experience with the study drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The benazepril-amlodipine combination was superior to the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide combination in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension who were at high risk for such events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00170950.)

Effect of Finerenone on Chronic Kidney Disease Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Finerenone, a nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, reduced albuminuria in short-term trials involving patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes. However, its long-term effects on kidney and cardiovascular outcomes are unknown.

METHODS

In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 5734 patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes in a 1:1 ratio to receive finerenone or placebo. Eligible patients had a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of 30 to less than 300, an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25 to less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m² of body-surface area, and diabetic retinopathy, or they had a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 300 to 5000 and an eGFR of 25 to less than 75 ml per minute per 1.73 m². All the patients were treated with renin-angiotensin system blockade that had been adjusted before randomization to the maximum dose on the manufacturer's label that did not cause unacceptable side effects. The primary composite outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was kidney failure, a sustained decrease of at least 40% in the eGFR from baseline, or death from renal causes. The key secondary composite outcome, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 504 of 2833 patients (17.8%) in the finerenone group and 600 of 2841 patients (21.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.93; P = 0.001). A key secondary outcome event occurred in 367 patients (13.0%) and 420 patients (14.8%) in the respective groups (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03). Overall, the frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. The incidence of hyperkalemia-related discontinuation of the trial regimen was higher with finerenone than with placebo (2.3% and 0.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes, treatment with finerenone resulted in lower risks of CKD progression and cardiovascular events than placebo. (Funded by Bayer; FIDELIO-DKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02540993.).

Prevalence of abnormal serum vitamin D, PTH, calcium, and phosphorus in patients with chronic kidney disease: results of the study to evaluate early kidney disease

Abnormalities of mineral metabolism occur early in chronic kidney disease. Quantification of the prevalence of these abnormalities has not been described using current assays nor in large unselected populations. This outpatient cohort cross-sectional study was conducted in 153 centers, (71% primary care practices). Blood for parathyroid hormone (PTH), vitamin D metabolites, creatinine, calcium (Ca), and phosphorus (P) were drawn between June and October 2004. Low 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25 OH2 D3) was defined as <22 pg/ml. The 1814 patients had a mean age of 71.1 years old; 48% had diabetes mellitus (DM). Low 1,25 OH2 D3 was evident at all estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels: 13% in those with eGFR >80 ml/min, >60% in those with eGFR <30 ml/min. High PTH (>65pm/dl) occurred in 12% with eGFR >80 ml/min. Serum Ca and P were normal until eGFR was <40 ml/min. Significant differences in the mean and median values of 1,25 OH2 D3, PTH, but not 25(OH)D3 levels, were seen across deciles of eGFR (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that DM, increased urinary albumin/creatinine ratio and lower eGFR predicted lower values of 1,25 OH2 D3. A high prevalence of mineral metabolite abnormalities occurs in a large unreferred US cohort. Low 1,25 OH2 D3 and elevated PTH are common at higher eGFR than previously described. As bone, cardiovascular disease, and mineral metabolite are correlated; further studies are necessary to determine the importance of these findings relative to outcomes.

Preserving renal function in adults with hypertension and diabetes: a consensus approach. National Kidney Foundation Hypertension and Diabetes Executive Committees Working Group

Over 11 million Americans have both diabetes and hypertension-comorbid diseases that strongly predispose people to both renal as well as cardiovascular (CV) injury. Hypertension substantially contributes to CV morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. Diabetes is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease in the United States. Furthermore, hypertension and diabetes are particularly prevalent in certain populations, such as African-Americans and Native Americans. Since the 1994 Working Group Report on Hypertension and Diabetes, a large body of clinical trial data has affirmed the original blood pressure goal of less than 130/85 mmHg recommended to preserve renal function and reduce CV events in people with hypertension and diabetes. Data that are more recent have emerged, however, to support an even lower diastolic blood pressure goal, ie, 80 mmHg, in order to optimally preserve renal function and reduce CV events in people with diabetic nephropathy. A review of clinical trials indicates that more than 65% of people with diabetes and hypertension will require two or more different antihypertensive medications to achieve the new suggested target blood pressure of 130/80 mmHg. The purpose of this report is to update the previous recommendations with a focus on level of blood pressure control, proteinuria reduction, and therapeutic approaches to achieve these goals. We provide an evidence-based approach, integrating data from the major clinical trials that were designed as randomized prospective, long-term studies that had as a primary endpoint either progression of diabetic nephropathy or reduction in CV events. This report also addresses socioeconomic and cultural barriers that hinder achievement of blood pressure goals. Lastly, the report discusses approaches to resolve cultural barriers, both physician- and patient-derived, that interfere with achievement of lower blood pressure goals.

A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Despite evidence of efficacy of antihypertensive agents in treating hypertensive patients, safety and efficacy of antihypertensive agents for coronary artery disease (CAD) have been discerned only from subgroup analyses in large trials.

OBJECTIVE

To compare mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with hypertension and CAD treated with a calcium antagonist strategy (CAS) or a non-calcium antagonist strategy (NCAS).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, open label, blinded end point study of 22 576 hypertensive CAD patients aged 50 years or older, which was conducted September 1997 to February 2003 at 862 sites in 14 countries.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to either CAS (verapamil sustained release) or NCAS (atenolol). Strategies specified dose and additional drug regimens. Trandolapril and/or hydrochlorothiazide was administered to achieve blood pressure goals according to guidelines from the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI) of less than 140 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 90 mm Hg (diastolic); and less than 130 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 85 mm Hg (diastolic) if diabetes or renal impairment was present. Trandolapril was also recommended for patients with heart failure, diabetes, or renal impairment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: first occurrence of death (all cause), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; other: cardiovascular death, angina, adverse experiences, hospitalizations, and blood pressure control at 24 months.

RESULTS

At 24 months, in the CAS group, 6391 patients (81.5%) were taking verapamil sustained release; 4934 (62.9%) were taking trandolapril; and 3430 (43.7%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide. In the NCAS group, 6083 patients (77.5%) were taking atenolol; 4733 (60.3%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide; and 4113 (52.4%) were taking trandolapril. After a follow-up of 61 835 patient-years (mean, 2.7 years per patient), 2269 patients had a primary outcome event with no statistically significant difference between treatment strategies (9.93% in CAS and 10.17% in NCAS; relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.06). Two-year blood pressure control was similar between groups. The JNC VI blood pressure goals were achieved by 65.0% (systolic) and 88.5% (diastolic) of CAS and 64.0% (systolic) and 88.1% (diastolic) of NCAS patients. A total of 71.7% of CAS and 70.7% of NCAS patients achieved a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg.

CONCLUSION

The verapamil-trandolapril-based strategy was as clinically effective as the atenolol-hydrochlorothiazide-based strategy in hypertensive CAD patients.

Bardoxolone methyl in type 2 diabetes and stage 4 chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Although inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system can slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease, the residual risk is high. Whether nuclear 1 factor (erythroid-derived 2)-related factor 2 activators further reduce this risk is unknown.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 2185 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stage 4 chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR], 15 to <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area) to bardoxolone methyl, at a daily dose of 20 mg, or placebo. The primary composite outcome was end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death from cardiovascular causes.

RESULTS

The sponsor and the steering committee terminated the trial on the recommendation of the independent data and safety monitoring committee; the median follow-up was 9 months. A total of 69 of 1088 patients (6%) randomly assigned to bardoxolone methyl and 69 of 1097 (6%) randomly assigned to placebo had a primary composite outcome (hazard ratio in the bardoxolone methyl group vs. the placebo group, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.37; P=0.92). In the bardoxolone methyl group, ESRD developed in 43 patients, and 27 patients died from cardiovascular causes; in the placebo group, ESRD developed in 51 patients, and 19 patients died from cardiovascular causes. A total of 96 patients in the bardoxolone methyl group were hospitalized for heart failure or died from heart failure, as compared with 55 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.55; P<0.001). Estimated GFR, blood pressure, and the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio increased significantly and body weight decreased significantly in the bardoxolone methyl group, as compared with the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stage 4 chronic kidney disease, bardoxolone methyl did not reduce the risk of ESRD or death from cardiovascular causes. A higher rate of cardiovascular events with bardoxolone methyl than with placebo prompted termination of the trial. (Funded by Reata Pharmaceuticals; BEACON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01351675.).

Diabetic kidney disease: a report from an ADA Consensus Conference

The incidence and prevalence of diabetes mellitus have grown significantly throughout the world, due primarily to the increase in type 2 diabetes. This overall increase in the number of people with diabetes has had a major impact on development of diabetic kidney disease (DKD), one of the most frequent complications of both types of diabetes. DKD is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), accounting for approximately 50% of cases in the developed world. Although incidence rates for ESRD attributable to DKD have recently stabilized, these rates continue to rise in high-risk groups such as middle-aged African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics. The costs of care for people with DKD are extraordinarily high. In the Medicare population alone, DKD-related expenditures among this mostly older group were nearly $25 billion in 2011. Due to the high human and societal costs, the Consensus Conference on Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes was convened by the American Diabetes Association in collaboration with the American Society of Nephrology and the National Kidney Foundation to appraise issues regarding patient management, highlighting current practices and new directions. Major topic areas in DKD included 1) identification and monitoring, 2) cardiovascular disease and management of dyslipidemia, 3) hypertension and use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade and mineralocorticoid receptor blockade, 4) glycemia measurement, hypoglycemia, and drug therapies, 5) nutrition and general care in advanced-stage chronic kidney disease, 6) children and adolescents, and 7) multidisciplinary approaches and medical home models for health care delivery. This current state summary and research recommendations are designed to guide advances in care and the generation of new knowledge that will meaningfully improve life for people with DKD.

Cardiovascular Events with Finerenone in Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Finerenone, a selective nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, has favorable effects on cardiorenal outcomes in patients with predominantly stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) with severely elevated albuminuria and type 2 diabetes. The use of finerenone in patients with type 2 diabetes and a wider range of CKD is unclear.

METHODS

In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes to receive finerenone or placebo. Eligible patients had a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of 30 to less than 300 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25 to 90 ml per minute per 1.73 m² of body-surface area (stage 2 to 4 CKD) or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 300 to 5000 and an eGFR of at least 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m² (stage 1 or 2 CKD). Patients were treated with renin-angiotensin system blockade that had been adjusted before randomization to the maximum dose on the manufacturer's label that did not cause unacceptable side effects. The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. The first secondary outcome was a composite of kidney failure, a sustained decrease from baseline of at least 40% in the eGFR, or death from renal causes. Safety was assessed as investigator-reported adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 7437 patients underwent randomization. Among the patients included in the analysis, during a median follow-up of 3.4 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 458 of 3686 patients (12.4%) in the finerenone group and in 519 of 3666 (14.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.98; P = 0.03), with the benefit driven primarily by a lower incidence of hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.90). The secondary composite outcome occurred in 350 patients (9.5%) in the finerenone group and in 395 (10.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.01). The overall frequency of adverse events did not differ substantially between groups. The incidence of hyperkalemia-related discontinuation of the trial regimen was higher with finerenone (1.2%) than with placebo (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with type 2 diabetes and stage 2 to 4 CKD with moderately elevated albuminuria or stage 1 or 2 CKD with severely elevated albuminuria, finerenone therapy improved cardiovascular outcomes as compared with placebo. (Funded by Bayer; FIGARO-DKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02545049.).

Effect of ramipril vs amlodipine on renal outcomes in hypertensive nephrosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Incidence of end-stage renal disease due to hypertension has increased in recent decades, but the optimal strategy for treatment of hypertension to prevent renal failure is unknown, especially among African Americans.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ramipril), a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), and a beta-blocker (metoprolol) on hypertensive renal disease progression.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, 3 x 2 factorial trial conducted in 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) enrolled between February 1995 and September 1998. This report compares the ramipril and amlodipine groups following discontinuation of the amlodipine intervention in September 2000.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, 5 to 10 mg/d (n = 217), ramipril, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 436), or metoprolol, 50 to 200 mg/d (n = 441), with other agents added to achieve 1 of 2 blood pressure goals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the rate of change in GFR; the main secondary outcome was a composite index of the clinical end points of reduction in GFR of more than 50% or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m(2), end-stage renal disease, or death.

RESULTS

Among participants with a urinary protein to creatinine ratio of >0.22 (corresponding approximately to proteinuria of more than 300 mg/d), the ramipril group had a 36% (2.02 [SE, 0.74] mL/min per 1.73 m(2)/y) slower mean decline in GFR over 3 years (P =.006) and a 48% reduced risk of the clinical end points vs the amlodipine group (95% confidence interval [CI], 20%-66%). In the entire cohort, there was no significant difference in mean GFR decline from baseline to 3 years between treatment groups (P =.38). However, compared with the amlodipine group, after adjustment for baseline covariates the ramipril group had a 38% reduced risk of clinical end points (95% CI, 13%-56%), a 36% slower mean decline in GFR after 3 months (P =.002), and less proteinuria (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Ramipril, compared with amlodipine, retards renal disease progression in patients with hypertensive renal disease and proteinuria and may offer benefit to patients without proteinuria.

Resistant Hypertension: Detection, Evaluation, and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as above-goal elevated blood pressure (BP) in a patient despite the concurrent use of 3 antihypertensive drug classes, commonly including a long-acting calcium channel blocker, a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a diuretic. The antihypertensive drugs should be administered at maximum or maximally tolerated daily doses. RH also includes patients whose BP achieves target values on ≥4 antihypertensive medications. The diagnosis of RH requires assurance of antihypertensive medication adherence and exclusion of the "white-coat effect" (office BP above goal but out-of-office BP at or below target). The importance of RH is underscored by the associated risk of adverse outcomes compared with non-RH. This article is an updated American Heart Association scientific statement on the detection, evaluation, and management of RH. Once antihypertensive medication adherence is confirmed and out-of-office BP recordings exclude a white-coat effect, evaluation includes identification of contributing lifestyle issues, detection of drugs interfering with antihypertensive medication effectiveness, screening for secondary hypertension, and assessment of target organ damage. Management of RH includes maximization of lifestyle interventions, use of long-acting thiazide-like diuretics (chlorthalidone or indapamide), addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (spironolactone or eplerenone), and, if BP remains elevated, stepwise addition of antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action to lower BP. If BP remains uncontrolled, referral to a hypertension specialist is advised.

Hypertension

Systemic arterial hypertension is the most important modifiable risk factor for all-cause morbidity and mortality worldwide and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Fewer than half of those with hypertension are aware of their condition, and many others are aware but not treated or inadequately treated, although successful treatment of hypertension reduces the global burden of disease and mortality. The aetiology of hypertension involves the complex interplay of environmental and pathophysiological factors that affect multiple systems, as well as genetic predisposition. The evaluation of patients with hypertension includes accurate standardized blood pressure (BP) measurement, assessment of the patients' predicted risk of atherosclerotic CVD and evidence of target-organ damage, and detection of secondary causes of hypertension and presence of comorbidities (such as CVD and kidney disease). Lifestyle changes, including dietary modifications and increased physical activity, are effective in lowering BP and preventing hypertension and its CVD sequelae. Pharmacological therapy is very effective in lowering BP and in preventing CVD outcomes in most patients; first-line antihypertensive medications include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers and thiazide diuretics.

Heart failure and mortality outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes taking alogliptin versus placebo in EXAMINE: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

The EXAMINE trial showed non-inferiority of the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin to placebo on major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes. Concerns about excessive rates of in-hospital heart failure in another DPP-4 inhibitor trial have been reported. We therefore assessed hospital admission for heart failure in the EXAMINE trial.

METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes and an acute coronary syndrome event in the previous 15-90 days were randomly assigned alogliptin or placebo plus standard treatment for diabetes and cardiovascular disease prevention. The prespecified exploratory extended MACE endpoint was all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, urgent revascularisation due to unstable angina, and hospital admission for heart failure. The post-hoc analyses were of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure, assessed by history of heart failure and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration at baseline. We also assessed changes in N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-pro-BNP) from baseline to 6 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00968708.

FINDINGS

5380 patients were assigned to alogliptin (n=2701) or placebo (n=2679) and followed up for a median of 533 days (IQR 280-751). The exploratory extended MACE endpoint was seen in 433 (16·0%) patients assigned to alogliptin and in 441 (16·5%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·86-1·12). Hospital admission for heart failure was the first event in 85 (3·1%) patients taking alogliptin compared with 79 (2·9%) taking placebo (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·79-1·46). Alogliptin had no effect on composite events of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure in the post hoc analysis (HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·82-1·21) and results did not differ by baseline BNP concentration. NT-pro-BNP concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes, alogliptin did not increase the risk of heart failure outcomes.

FUNDING

Takeda Development Center Americas.

Metabolic effects of carvedilol vs metoprolol in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Beta-blockers have been shown to decrease cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); however, some components of the metabolic syndrome are worsened by some beta-blockers.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of beta-blockers with different pharmacological profiles on glycemic and metabolic control in participants with DM and hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade, in the context of cardiovascular risk factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial (The Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives [GEMINI]) conducted between June 1, 2001, and April 6, 2004, at 205 US sites that compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate on glycemic control. The 1235 participants were aged 36 to 85 years with hypertension (>130/80 mm Hg) and type 2 DM (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 6.5%-8.5%) and were receiving RAS blockers. Participants were followed up for 35 weeks.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive a 6.25- to 25-mg dose of carvedilol (n = 498) or 50- to 200-mg dose of metoprolol tartrate (n = 737), each twice daily. Open-label hydrochlorothiazide and a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist were added, if needed, to achieve blood pressure target.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Difference between groups in mean change from baseline HbA1c following 5 months of maintenance therapy. Additional prespecified comparisons included change from baseline HbA1c in individual treatment groups, treatment effect on insulin sensitivity, and microalbuminuria.

RESULTS

The 2 groups differed in mean change in HbA1c from baseline (0.13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22% to -0.04%; P = .004; modified intention-to-treat analysis). The mean (SD) HbA1c increased with metoprolol (0.15% [0.04%]; P<.001) but not carvedilol (0.02% [0.04%]; P = .65). Insulin sensitivity improved with carvedilol (-9.1%; P = .004) but not metoprolol (-2.0%; P = .48); the between-group difference was -7.2% (95% CI, -13.8% to -0.2%; P = .004). Blood pressure was similar between groups. Progression to microalbuminuria was less frequent with carvedilol than with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Both beta-blockers were well tolerated; use of carvedilol in the presence of RAS blockade did not affect glycemic control and improved some components of the metabolic syndrome relative to metoprolol in participants with DM and hypertension. The effects of the 2 beta-blockers on clinical outcomes need to be compared in long-term clinical trials.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-associated elevations in serum creatinine: is this a cause for concern?

BACKGROUND

Reducing the actions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) slows nephropathy progression in patients with or without diabetes. Post hoc analyses of many ACEI-based clinical trials demonstrate the greatest slowing of renal disease progression in patients with the greatest degree of renal insufficiency at study initiation. However, many physicians fail to use ACEIs or angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with renal insufficiency for fear that either serum creatinine or potassium levels will rise.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if limited initial reduction in either glomerular filtration rate (GFR) or elevation in serum creatinine levels, associated with ACEI or angiotensin receptor blocker use, results in long-term protection against decline in renal function in patients with renal insufficiency.

METHODS

We reviewed 12 randomized clinical trials that evaluated renal disease progression among patients with preexisting renal insufficiency. Six of these studies were multicenter, double-blinded, and placebo controlled, with the remainder being smaller randomized studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up on renal function. These investigations evaluated patients with and without diabetes or systolic heart failure. Average duration of follow-up for all studies was 3 years. Trials were examined in the context of changes in either serum creatinine levels or GFR in the group randomized to an ACEI (N = 1,102). Sixty-four percent of these individuals (705/1,102) had renal function data at both less than 6 months and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Most trials demonstrated that patients with preexisting renal insufficiency manifested an acute fall in GFR, a rise in serum creatinine, or both. Those randomized to an ACEI with a serum creatinine level of 124 pmol/L or greater (> or =1.4 mg/dL) demonstrated a 55% to 75% risk reduction in renal disease progression compared with those with normal renal function randomized to an ACEI. An inverse correlation was observed between the amount of renal function loss at baseline and the subsequent rate of annual decline in renal function following randomization to an antihypertensive regimen that contained an ACEI.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong association exists between acute increases in serum creatinine of up to 30% that stabilize within the first 2 months of ACEI therapy and long-term preservation of renal function. This relationship holds for persons with creatinine values of greater than 124 pmol/L (>1.4 mg/dL). Thus, withdrawal of an ACEI in such patients should occur only when the rise in creatinine exceeds 30% above baseline within the first 2 months of ACEI initiation, or hyperkalemia develops, ie, serum potassium level of 5.6 mmol/L or greater.

Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in people with diabetes mellitus: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association

The American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) have each published guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention: The ADA has issued separate recommendations for each of the cardiovascular risk factors in patients with diabetes, and the AHA has shaped primary and secondary guidelines that extend to patients with diabetes. This statement will attempt to harmonize the recommendations of both organizations where possible but will recognize areas in which AHA and ADA recommendations differ.

Intensive blood-pressure control in hypertensive chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

In observational studies, the relationship between blood pressure and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is direct and progressive. The burden of hypertension-related chronic kidney disease and ESRD is especially high among black patients. Yet few trials have tested whether intensive blood-pressure control retards the progression of chronic kidney disease among black patients.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1094 black patients with hypertensive chronic kidney disease to receive either intensive or standard blood-pressure control. After completing the trial phase, patients were invited to enroll in a cohort phase in which the blood-pressure target was less than 130/80 mm Hg. The primary clinical outcome in the cohort phase was the progression of chronic kidney disease, which was defined as a doubling of the serum creatinine level, a diagnosis of ESRD, or death. Follow-up ranged from 8.8 to 12.2 years.

RESULTS

During the trial phase, the mean blood pressure was 130/78 mm Hg in the intensive-control group and 141/86 mm Hg in the standard-control group. During the cohort phase, corresponding mean blood pressures were 131/78 mm Hg and 134/78 mm Hg. In both phases, there was no significant between-group difference in the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio in the intensive-control group, 0.91; P=0.27). However, the effects differed according to the baseline level of proteinuria (P=0.02 for interaction), with a potential benefit in patients with a protein-to-creatinine ratio of more than 0.22 (hazard ratio, 0.73; P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In overall analyses, intensive blood-pressure control had no effect on kidney disease progression. However, there may be differential effects of intensive blood-pressure control in patients with and those without baseline proteinuria. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and others.)

Cardiovascular and kidney outcomes with finerenone in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: the FIDELITY pooled analysis

AIMS

The complementary studies FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) examined cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in different, overlapping stages of CKD. The purpose of the FIDELITY analysis was to perform an individual patient-level prespecified pooled efficacy and safety analysis across a broad spectrum of CKD to provide more robust estimates of safety and efficacy of finerenone compared with placebo.

METHODS AND RESULTS

For this prespecified analysis, two phase III, multicentre, double-blind trials involving patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes, randomized 1:1 to finerenone or placebo, were combined. Main time-to-event efficacy outcomes were a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, and a composite of kidney failure, a sustained ≥57% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline over ≥4 weeks, or renal death. Among 13 026 patients with a median follow-up of 3.0 years (interquartile range 2.3-3.8 years), the composite cardiovascular outcome occurred in 825 (12.7%) patients receiving finerenone and 939 (14.4%) receiving placebo [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-0.95; P = 0.0018]. The composite kidney outcome occurred in 360 (5.5%) patients receiving finerenone and 465 (7.1%) receiving placebo (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88; P = 0.0002). Overall safety outcomes were generally similar between treatment arms. Hyperkalaemia leading to permanent treatment discontinuation occurred more frequently in patients receiving finerenone (1.7%) than placebo (0.6%).

CONCLUSION

Finerenone reduced the risk of clinically important cardiovascular and kidney outcomes vs. placebo across the spectrum of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

KEY QUESTION

Does finerenone, a novel selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, added to maximum tolerated renin-angiotensin system inhibition reduce cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression over a broad range of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes?

KEY FINDING

In a prespecified, pooled individual-level analysis from two randomized trials, we found reductions both in cardiovascular events and kidney failure outcomes with finerenone. Because 40% of the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of >60 mL/min/1.73m2 they were identified solely on the basis of albuminuria.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Finerenone reduces the risk of clinical cardiovascular outcomes and kidney disease progression in a broad range of patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes. Screening for albuminuria to identify at-risk patients among patients with type 2 diabetes facilitates reduction of both cardiovascular and kidney disease burden.

Patiromer in patients with kidney disease and hyperkalemia receiving RAAS inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Hyperkalemia increases the risk of death and limits the use of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in high-risk patients. We assessed the safety and efficacy of patiromer, a nonabsorbed potassium binder, in a multicenter, prospective trial.

METHODS

Patients with chronic kidney disease who were receiving RAAS inhibitors and who had serum potassium levels of 5.1 to less than 6.5 mmol per liter received patiromer (at an initial dose of 4.2 g or 8.4 g twice a day) for 4 weeks (initial treatment phase); the primary efficacy end point was the mean change in the serum potassium level from baseline to week 4. Eligible patients at the end of week 4 (those with a baseline potassium level of 5.5 to <6.5 mmol per liter in whom the level decreased to 3.8 to <5.1 mmol per liter) entered an 8-week randomized withdrawal phase in which they were randomly assigned to continue patiromer or switch to placebo; the primary efficacy end point was the between-group difference in the median change in the serum potassium level over the first 4 weeks of that phase.

RESULTS

In the initial treatment phase, among 237 patients receiving patiromer who had at least one potassium measurement at a scheduled visit after day 3, the mean (±SE) change in the serum potassium level was -1.01±0.03 mmol per liter (P<0.001). At week 4, 76% (95% confidence interval, 70 to 81) of the patients had reached the target potassium level (3.8 to <5.1 mmol per liter). Subsequently, 107 patients were randomly assigned to patiromer (55 patients) or placebo (52 patients) for the randomized withdrawal phase. The median increase in the potassium level from baseline of that phase was greater with placebo than with patiromer (P<0.001); a recurrence of hyperkalemia (potassium level, ≥5.5 mmol per liter) occurred in 60% of the patients in the placebo group as compared with 15% in the patiromer group through week 8 (P<0.001). Mild-to-moderate constipation was the most common adverse event (in 11% of the patients); hypokalemia occurred in 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic kidney disease who were receiving RAAS inhibitors and who had hyperkalemia, patiromer treatment was associated with a decrease in serum potassium levels and, as compared with placebo, a reduction in the recurrence of hyperkalemia. (Funded by Relypsa; OPAL-HK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01810939.).