Prior Medications and the Cardiovascular Benefits From Combination Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibition Plus Calcium Channel Blockade Among High‐Risk Hypertensive Patients

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142520/1/jah32856_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142520/2/jah32856.pd

Serial assessment of the electrocardiographic strain pattern for prediction of new‐onset heart failure during antihypertensive treatment: the LIFE study

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106144/1/ejhfhfq224.pd

Felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet: A valuable option to initiate antihypertensive therapy?

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of a calcium antagonist/β-blocker fixed combination tablet used as first-line antihypertesnive therapy in comparison with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and placebo. Patients with uncomplicated essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 110 mm Hg at the end of a 4-week run-in period) were randomly allocated to a double-blind, 12-week treatment with either a combination tablet of felodipine and metoprolol (Logimax), 5/50 mg daily (n = 321), enalapril, 10 mg daily (n = 321), or placebo (n = 304), with the possibility of doubling the dose after 4 or 8 weeks of treatment if needed (diastolic blood pressure remaining >90 mm Hg). The combined felodipine-metoprolol treatment controlled blood pressure (diastolic ≤90 mm Hg 24 h after dose) in 72% of patients after 12 weeks, as compared with 49% for enalapril and 30% for placebo. A dose adjustment was required in 38% of patients receiving the combination, in 63% of patients allocated to placebo, and 61% of enalapril-treated patients. The overall incidence of adverse events was 54.5% during felodipine-metoprolol treatment; the corresponding values for enalapril and placebo were 51.7% and 47.4%, respectively. Withdrawal of treatment due to adverse events occurred in 18 patients treated with the combination, in 10 patients on enalapril, and 12 patients on placebo. No significant change in patients' well-being was observed in either of the three study groups. These results show that a fixed combination tablet of felodipine and metoprolol allows to normalize blood pressure in a substantially larger fraction of patients than enalapril given alone. This improved efficacy is obtained without impairing the tolerability. The fixed-dose combination of felodipine and metoprolol, therefore, may become a valuable option to initiate antihypertensive treatment. Am J Hypertens 1999;12:915-920 © 1999 American Journal of Hypertension, Lt

Amlodipine+Benazepril is Superior to Hydrochlorothiazide+Benazepril Irrespective of Baseline Pulse Pressure: Subanalysis of the ACCOMPLISH Trial

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110751/1/jch12460.pd

Felodipine-Metoprolol Combination Tablet: Maintained Health-Related Quality of Life in the Presence of Substantial Blood Pressure Reduction

Background: Most treated hypertensive patients do not achieve adequate blood pressure (BP) control. Initiating therapy with two drugs has been suggested when BP is >20/10 mm Hg above goal. To ensure patients' compliance, such treatment needs to be well tolerated and must not compromise health-related quality of life (HRQL). The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects on HRQL of initiating treatment with felodipine + metoprolol (F+M) fixed combination tablets, or enalapril (E), or placebo (P). Methods: A total of 947 patients of both sexes with primary hypertension (diastolic BP 95 to 110 mm Hg), aged 20 to 70 years, participated in this randomized, double-blind, parallel group, 12-week, multicenter trial. Treatment was initiated with F+M 5 + 50 mg, or E 10 mg, or P. Doses were doubled after 4 or 8 weeks if diastolic BP was >90 mm Hg. The HRQL was measured at baseline and at the last visit using two validated questionnaires: the Psychological General Well-being Index (PGWB) and the Subjective Symptom Assessment Profile (SSA-P). Office BP was measured at trough, that is, 24 h after the previous dose. Results: The HRQL was high at baseline and generally well maintained during the study. For example, the mean (SD) PGWB total score was 104 (16) at baseline and 105 (16) at 12 weeks in all three treatment groups. The BP reductions after F+M (18/14 mm Hg) and E (12/9 mm Hg) were significantly greater than after P (7/7 mm Hg), and the reduction after F+M was significantly greater than after E. Conclusions: The HRQL is maintained in the presence of substantial BP reduction during antihypertensive treatment with F+M fixed combination tablets. Am J Hypertens 2005;18:1313-1319 © 2005 American Journal of Hypertension, Lt

Cardiovascular risk reduction in hypertensive black patients with left ventricular hypertrophy The life study

AbstractObjectivesWe report on a subanalysis of the effects of losartan and atenolol on cardiovascular events in black patients in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study.BackgroundThe LIFE study compared losartan-based to atenolol-based therapy in 9,193 hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Overall, the risk of the primary composite end point (cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction) was reduced by 13% (p = 0.021) with losartan, with similar blood pressure (BP) reduction in both treatment groups. There was a suggestion of interaction between ethnic background and treatment (p = 0.057).MethodsExploratory analyses were performed that placed LIFE study patients into black (n = 533) and non-black (n = 8,660) categories, overall, and in the U.S. (African American [n = 523]; non-black [n = 1,184]).ResultsA significant interaction existed between the dichotomized groups (black/non-black) and treatment (p = 0.005); a test for qualitative interaction was also significant (p = 0.016). The hazard ratio (losartan relative to atenolol) for the primary end point favored atenolol in black patients (1.666 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.043 to 2.661]; p = 0.033) and favored losartan in non-blacks (0.829 [95% CI 0.733 to 0.938]; p = 0.003). In black patients, BP reduction was similar in both groups, and regression of electrocardiographic-LVH was greater with losartan.ConclusionsResults of the subanalysis are sufficient to generate the hypothesis that black patients with hypertension and LVH might not respond as favorably to losartan-based treatment as non-black patients with respect to cardiovascular outcomes, and do not support a recommendation for losartan as a first-line treatment for this purpose. The subanalysis is limited by the relatively small number of events

Amlodipine versus angiotensin II receptor blocker; control of blood pressure evaluation trial in diabetics (ADVANCED-J)

BACKGROUND: The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases. The U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study has shown that blood pressure control as well as blood glucose control is efficient for prevention of complications in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. However, some reports have shown that it is difficult to control the blood pressure and the concomitant use of a plurality of drugs is needed in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. In recent years renin-angiotensin system depressants are increasingly used for the blood pressure control in diabetic patients. Particularly in Japan, angiotensin II (A II) antagonists are increasingly used. However, there is no definite evidence of the point of which is efficient for the control, the increase in dose of A II antagonist or the concomitant use of another drug, in hypertensive patients whose blood pressure levels are inadequately controlled with A II antagonist. METHODS/DESIGN: Hypertensive patients of age 20 years or over with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have been treated by the single use of AII antagonist at usual doses for at least 8 weeks or patients who have been treated by the concomitant use of AII antagonist and an antihypertensive drug other than calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors at usual doses for at least 8 weeks are included. DISCUSSION: We designed a multi-center, prospective, randomized, open label, blinded-endpoint trial, ADVANCED-J, to compare the increases in dose of A II antagonist and the concomitant use of a Ca-channel blocker (amlodipine) and A II antagonist in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus, whose blood pressure levels were inadequately controlled with A II antagonist. This study is different from the usual previous studies in that home blood pressures are assessed as indicators of evaluation of blood pressure. The ADVANCED-J study may have much influence on selection of antihypertensive drugs for treatment in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. It is expected to give an important hint for considering the validity of selection of antihypertensive drugs from the aspects not only of the antihypertensive effect but medical cost-effectiveness

Valsartan in a Japanese population with hypertension and other cardiovascular disease (Jikei Heart Study): a randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint morbidity-mortality study. Lancet 369

Summary Background Drugs that inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system benefi t patients at risk for or with existing cardiovascular disease. However, evidence for this eff ect in Asian populations is scarce. We aimed to investigate whether addition of an angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan, to conventional cardiovascular treatment was eff ective in Japanese patients with cardiovascular disease

The relevance of tissue angiotensin-converting enzyme: manifestations in mechanistic and endpoint data

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) is primarily localized (>90%) in various tissues and organs, most notably on the endothelium but also within parenchyma and inflammatory cells. Tissue ACE is now recognized as a key factor in cardiovascular and renal diseases. Endothelial dysfunction, in response to a number of risk factors or injury such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesteremia, and cigarette smoking, disrupts the balance of vasodilation and vasoconstriction, vascular smooth muscle cell growth, the inflammatory and oxidative state of the vessel wall, and is associated with activation of tissue ACE. Pathologic activation of local ACE can have deleterious effects on the heart, vasculature, and the kidneys. The imbalance resulting from increased local formation of angiotensin II and increased bradykinin degradation favors cardiovascular disease. Indeed, ACE inhibitors effectively reduce high blood pressure and exert cardio- and renoprotective actions. Recent evidence suggests that a principal target of ACE inhibitor action is at the tissue sites. Pharmacokinetic properties of various ACE inhibitors indicate that there are differences in their binding characteristics for tissue ACE. Clinical studies comparing the effects of antihypertensives (especially ACE inhibitors) on endothelial function suggest differences. More comparative experimental and clinical studies should address the significance of these drug differences and their impact on clinical events

Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised controlled trials

Background: Statin therapy has been shown to reduce major vascular events and vascular mortality in a wide range of individuals, but there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety among older people. We undertook a meta-analysis of data from all large statin trials to compare the effects of statin therapy at different ages. Methods: In this meta-analysis, randomised trials of statin therapy were eligible if they aimed to recruit at least 1000 participants with a scheduled treatment duration of at least 2 years. We analysed individual participant data from 22 trials (n=134 537) and detailed summary data from one trial (n=12 705) of statin therapy versus control, plus individual participant data from five trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (n=39 612). We subdivided participants into six age groups (55 years or younger, 56–60 years, 61–65 years, 66–70 years, 71–75 years, and older than 75 years). We estimated effects on major vascular events (ie, major coronary events, strokes, and coronary revascularisations), cause-specific mortality, and cancer incidence as the rate ratio (RR) per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. We compared proportional risk reductions in different age subgroups by use of standard χ2 tests for heterogeneity when there were two groups, or trend when there were more than two groups. Findings: 14 483 (8%) of 186 854 participants in the 28 trials were older than 75 years at randomisation, and the median follow-up duration was 4·9 years. Overall, statin therapy or a more intensive statin regimen produced a 21% (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77–0·81) proportional reduction in major vascular events per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. We observed a significant reduction in major vascular events in all age groups. Although proportional reductions in major vascular events diminished slightly with age, this trend was not statistically significant (ptrend=0·06). Overall, statin or more intensive therapy yielded a 24% (RR 0·76, 95% CI 0·73–0·79) proportional reduction in major coronary events per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, and with increasing age, we observed a trend towards smaller proportional risk reductions in major coronary events (ptrend=0·009). We observed a 25% (RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·73–0·78) proportional reduction in the risk of coronary revascularisation procedures with statin therapy or a more intensive statin regimen per 1·0 mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol, which did not differ significantly across age groups (ptrend=0·6). Similarly, the proportional reductions in stroke of any type (RR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·89) did not differ significantly across age groups (ptrend=0·7). After exclusion of four trials which enrolled only patients with heart failure or undergoing renal dialysis (among whom statin therapy has not been shown to be effective), the trend to smaller proportional risk reductions with increasing age persisted for major coronary events (ptrend=0·01), and remained non-significant for major vascular events (ptrend=0·3). The proportional reduction in major vascular events was similar, irrespective of age, among patients with pre-existing vascular disease (ptrend=0·2), but appeared smaller among older than among younger individuals not known to have vascular disease (ptrend=0·05). We found a 12% (RR 0·88, 95% CI 0·85–0·91) proportional reduction in vascular mortality per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, with a trend towards smaller proportional reductions with older age (ptrend=0·004), but this trend did not persist after exclusion of the heart failure or dialysis trials (ptrend=0·2). Statin therapy had no effect at any age on non-vascular mortality, cancer death, or cancer incidence. Interpretation: Statin therapy produces significant reductions in major vascular events irrespective of age, but there is less direct evidence of benefit among patients older than 75 years who do not already have evidence of occlusive vascular disease. This limitation is now being addressed by further trials. Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation