Significance of initial blood pressure and comorbidity for the efficacy of a fixed combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker and hydrochlorothiazide in clinical practice

Roland E Schmieder1, Markus Schwertfeger2, Peter Bramlage31Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Hospital of Erlangen; Germany; 2Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Berlin, Germany; 3Institute of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Epidemiology, Mahlow, GermanyBackground: Two-thirds of all patients with arterial hypertension need drug combinations to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. Fixed combinations have high efficacy and result in high patient compliance. 300 mg irbesartan plus 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has been investigated only in clinical trials but not in daily practice.Methods: A multicenter, noninterventional, noncontrolled observational study with 8123 patients seen by 1604 physicians in daily practice. BP reduction (office measurements), co-morbid disease and tolerability were documented over a 6-month observational period.Results: At mean baseline BP of 161 ± 15/94 ± 10 mmHg, administering of fixed combination resulted in a substantial BP reduction averaging 28 ± 15/14 ± 10 mmHg (P < 0.001). Decrease of systolic BP ran parallel with increasing systolic baseline BP (Spearman’s Rho –0.731; P < 0.0001; diastolic BP vs diastolic baseline BP Rho 0.740; P < 0.0001), independent from patient characteristics (age, obesity, diabetes or nephropathy) but enhanced with short history of hypertension (P < 0.0001 vs long history), prior beta blockers (P = 0.001 vs prior angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]), prior calcium channel blockers (P = 0.046 vs prior ARBs) and no prior medication (P = 0.012 vs prior ARBs). High compliance (>98%) and low incidence of adverse events (0.66%) were documented.Conclusions: The fixed combination of 300 mg irbesartan with 25 mg HCTZ was efficacious and tolerable in an unselected patient population in primary care.Keywords: hypertension, combination therapy, obesity, irbesartan, noninterventional study, diuretic

Renal protection in diabetes: lessons from ONTARGET®

Hypertension is an important independent risk factor for renal disease. If hypertension and chronic renal disease co-exist, as is common in patients with diabetes mellitus, the risk of cardiovascular disease is heightened. The importance of rigorous blood pressure control is recognized in current guidelines, with a recommended target of office blood pressure of < 130/80 mmHg; although ambulatory blood pressure may be more appropriate in order to identify the 24-hour hypertensive burden. Even lower blood pressure may further reduce the progression of chronic kidney disease, but the incidence of cardiovascular events may increase. Albuminuria not only indicates renal damage, but is also a powerful predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality at least in patients with high cardiovascular risk and potentially pre-existing vascular damage. Management of the multiple factors for renal and cardiovascular disease is mandatory in the diabetic patient. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays a pivotal role in the progression of renal disease, as well as in hypertension and target-organ damage. The use of agents that target the RAS confer renoprotection in addition to antihypertensive activity. There is extensive evidence of the renoprotective effect of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and specifically telmisartan. In addition to providing 24-hour blood pressure control, clinical studies in patients with diabetes show that telmisartan improves renal endothelial function, prevents progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria, slows the decline in glomerular filtration rate and reduces proteinuria in overt nephropathy. These effects cannot be solely attributed to blood pressure control. In contrast to other members of the ARB class, the renoprotective effect of telmisartan is not confined to the management of diabetic nephropathy; slowing the progression of albuminuria has been demonstrated in the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET®), which included diabetic and non-diabetic patients at high risk of cardiovascular events

Achievement of recommended glucose and blood pressure targets in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension in clinical practice -- study rationale and protocol of DIALOGUE

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes have 2–4 times greater risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than those without, and this is even further aggravated if they also suffer from hypertension. Unfortunately, less than one third of hypertensive diabetic patients meet blood pressure targets, and more than half fail to achieve target HbA1c values. Thus, appropriate blood pressure and glucose control are of utmost importance. Since treatment sometimes fails in clinical practice while clinical trials generally suggest good efficacy, data from daily clinical practice, especially with regard to the use of newly developed anti-diabetic and anti-hypertensive compounds in unselected patient populations, are essential. The DIALOGUE registry aims to close this important gap by evaluating different treatment approaches in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients with respect to their effectiveness and tolerability and their impact on outcomes. In addition, DIALOGUE is the first registry to determine treatment success based on the new individualized treatment targets recommended by the ADA and the EASD. METHODS: DIALOGUE is a prospective observational German multicentre registry and will enrol 10,000 patients with both diabetes and hypertension in up to 700 sites. After a baseline visit, further documentations are scheduled at 6, 12 and 24 months. There are two co-primary objectives referring to the most recent guidelines for the treatment of diabetes and hypertension: 1) individual HbA1c goal achievement with respect to anti-diabetic pharmacotherapy and 2) individual blood pressure goal achievement with different antihypertensive treatments. Among the secondary objectives the rate of major cardio-vascular and cerebro-vascular events (MACCE) and the rate of hospitalizations are the most important. CONCLUSION: The registry will be able to gain insights into the reasons for the obvious gap between the demonstrated efficacy and safety of anti-diabetic and anti-hypertensive drugs in clinical trials and their real world balance of effectiveness and safety

Executive summary of the joint position paper on renal denervation of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH)

No abstract available

Hypertension and sudden death disparate effects of calcium entry blocker and diuretic therapy on cardiac dysrhythmias

This study was designed to evaluate the impact of antihypertensive therapy on cardiac dysrhythmias in 13 hypertensive patients who received calcium entry blockers and in 10 hypertensive patients who received hydrochlorothiazide. Mean arterial pressure fell to a similar extent in both treatment groups; however, left ventricular mass index decreased (from 102±4 to 95±2 g/m2) only in patients receiving calcium entry blockers, but not in those taking hydrochlorothiazide. The prevalence of premature ventricular contractions decreased 74% from 21 14/h to 5.7 ± 6/h in the calcium entry blocker group, but did not change in the hydrochlorothiazide group (15± 17/h to 16± 13/h). Couplets, multiform contractions, ventricular tachycardia, and supraventricular tachycardia were completely abolished after calcium entry blocker therapy, whereas the prevalence of these arrhythmias remained unchanged during treatment with hydrochlorothiazide. We conclude that antihypertensive therapy with calcium entry blockers (but not with thiazide diuretics) reduces left ventricular mass and the prevalence and severity of ventricular dysrhythmias. Whether this reduction will improve the ominous prognosis of left ventricular hypertrophy and diminish the risk of sudden death remains unknown

The effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared to olmesartan on cardiovascular remodelling in subjects with essential hypertension: the results of a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study

Aims: Progressive aortic stiffening eventually leads to left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and heart failure if left untreated. Anti-hypertensive agents have been shown to reverse this to some extent. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a dual-action angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), and neprilysin inhibitor, on arterial stiffness and LV remodelling have not been investigated. Methods and results: This was a randomized, multi-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel group, study to compare the effects on cardiovascular remodelling of sacubitril/valsartan with those of olmesartan in patients with hypertension and elevated pulse pressure. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were used to assess LV mass and local aortic distensibility, at baseline and at 12 and 52 weeks after initiation of treatment. Central pulse and systolic pressure were determined using a SphymoCor® XCEL device at each time point. A total of 114 patients were included, with 57 in each treatment group. The mean age was 59.8 years, and 67.5% were male. Demographic characteristics did not vary between the two sets of patients. Left ventricular mass index decreased to a greater extent in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to the olmesartan group from baseline to 12 weeks (−6.36 vs. −2.32 g/m2; P = 0.039) and from baseline to 52 weeks (−6.83 vs. −3.55 g/m2; P = 0.029). These differences remained significant after adjustment for systolic blood pressure (SBP) at follow-up (P = 0.036 and 0.019 at 12 and 52 weeks, respectively) and similar signals (though formally non-significant) were observed after adjusting for changes in SBP (P = 0.0612 and P = 0.0529, respectively). There were no significant differences in local distensibility changes from baseline to 12 or 52 weeks between the two groups; however, there was a larger reduction in central pulse pressure for the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to the olmesartan group (P = 0.010). Conclusion: Since LV mass change correlates with cardiovascular prognosis, the greater reductions in LV mass indicate valuable advantages of sacubitril/valsartan compared to olmesartan. The finding that LV mass index decrease might be to some extent independent of SBP suggests that the effect of the dual-acting agent may go beyond those due to its BP-lowering ability