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

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

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