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

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

The effect of high-dose angiotensin II receptor blockade beyond maximal recommended doses in reducing urinary protein excretion

The optimal doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for maximal reduction in urinary protein excretion are not known. Moreover, beneficial effects from ARBs, such as tissue protection owing to a more complete blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), may be independent of blood pressure-lowering by ARBs. In this investigation, we evaluated whether increasing the dose of candesartan cilexetil, in subjects already on the maximally-recommended FDA doses of 32 mg, would induce a further reduction in 24-hour urinary protein excretion in patients with heavy proteinuria (urinary protein excretion >1.5 g/day; mean 4.4±2 g/day). Ten patients were started on 16 or 32 mg of candesartan cilexetil daily. After 1—2 months of therapy, the dose was titrated upwards to 96 mg. In all subjects, there were further reductions in 24-hour urinary protein excretion when the dose was increased beyond the recommended 32 mg maximal dose. Increasing the dose of candesartan cilexetil to 96 mg was safe, as most subjects showed no changes in serum potassium and, as expected, only a slight increase (0.5—0.7 mg/dl) in serum creatinine. These data warrant further investigation, since some subjects may require higher doses of candesartan to achieve optimal regression of proteinuria

Office and ambulatory blood pressure-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs. hydrochlorothiazide-based therapy in obese, hypertensive patients

The authors evaluated the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs. amlodipine/HCTZ in a 16-week, double-blind, randomized, forced-titration study and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) substudy involving centrally obese hypertensive patients 40 years and older. Patients were started on valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy, force-titrated at week 4 to valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg and HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. The HCTZ group initiated amlodipine 5 mg at week 8 and 10 mg at week 12. A subset of patients had 24-hour ABPM at baseline and weeks 8 and 16. At week 16 in the intent-to-treat population (n=401), valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/HCTZ lowered office systolic BP (-30.6 vs. -28.3 mm Hg; P=.14). In the ABPM subgroup (n=111), valsartan/HCTZ was more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in reducing 24-hour systolic BP (-20.6 vs. -14.5 mm Hg; P=.011). In obese hypertensive patients, valsartan/HCTZ reduced office BP similar to amlodipine/HCTZ but lowered 24-hour systolic BP more

Application of non-invasive central aortic pressure assessment in clinical trials: clinical experience and value

Pressure measured with a cuff and sphygmomanometer in the brachial artery is accepted as an important predictor of future cardiovascular (CV) events. However, recent clinical evidence suggests that central aortic pressure (CAP) provides additional information for assessing CV risk than brachial blood pressure (BrBP). Central hemodynamics can now be non-invasively assessed with a number of devices, however, the methodology employed to measure CAP, in order to better identify the patients at higher CV risk in clinical practice, is still controversial. The purpose of this article is to review the technology behind the non-invasive measurement of CAP via the effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs on CAP and the data supporting the predictive value of assessing CAP on clinical outcomes, and to foster the transfer of methodological knowledge from clinical trials into routine clinical practice

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on central hemodynamics in the elderly with systolic hypertension novelty and significance

Effective treatment of systolic hypertension in elderly patients remains a major therapeutic challenge. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, was conducted to determine its effects versus olmesartan (angiotensin receptor blocker) on central aortic pressures, in elderly patients (aged ≥60 years) with systolic hypertension and pulse pressure >60 mm Hg, indicative of arterial stiffness. Patients (n=454; mean age, 67.7 years; mean seated systolic blood pressure, 158.6 mm Hg; mean seated pulse pressure, 69.7 mm Hg) were randomized to receive once-daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg, force titrated to double the initial doses after 4 weeks, before primary assessment at 12 weeks. The study extended double-blind treatment for 12 to 52 weeks, during which amlodipine (2.5–5 mg) and subsequently hydrochlorothiazide (6.25–25 mg) were added-on for patients not achieving blood pressure target (<140/90). At week 12, sacubitril/valsartan reduced central aortic systolic pressure (primary assessment) greater than olmesartan by −3.7 mm Hg (P=0.010), further corroborated by secondary assessments at week 12 (central aortic pulse pressure, −2.4 mm Hg, P<0.012; mean 24-hour ambulatory brachial systolic blood pressure and central aortic systolic pressure, −4.1 mm Hg and −3.6 mm Hg, respectively, both P<0.001). Differences in 24-hour ambulatory pressures were pronounced during sleep. After 52 weeks, blood pressure parameters were similar between treatments (P<0.002); however, more patients required add-on antihypertensive therapy with olmesartan (47%) versus sacubitril/valsartan (32%; P<0.002). Both treatments were equally well tolerated. The PARAMETER study (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Measuring Arterial Stiffness in the Elderly), for the first time, demonstrated superiority of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in reducing clinic and ambulatory central aortic and brachial pressures in elderly patients with systolic hypertension and stiff arteries

Rationale and study design of the Prospective comparison of Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitor with Angiotensin receptor blocker MEasuring arterial sTiffness in the eldERly (PARAMETER) study

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension in elderly people is characterised by elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) and increased pulse pressure (PP), which indicate large artery ageing and stiffness. LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is being developed to treat hypertension and heart failure. The Prospective comparison of Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitor with Angiotensin receptor blocker MEasuring arterial sTiffness in the eldERly (PARAMETER) study will assess the efficacy of LCZ696 versus olmesartan on aortic stiffness and central aortic haemodynamics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this 52-week multicentre study, patients with hypertension aged ≥60 years with a mean sitting (ms) SBP ≥150 to <180 and a PP>60 mm Hg will be randomised to once daily LCZ696 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg for 4 weeks, followed by a forced-titration to double the initial doses for the next 8 weeks. At 12–24 weeks, if the BP target has not been attained (msSBP <140  and ms diastolic BP <90 mm Hg), amlodipine (2.5–5 mg) and subsequently hydrochlorothiazide (6.25–25 mg) can be added. The primary and secondary endpoints are changes from baseline in central aortic systolic pressure (CASP) and central aortic PP (CAPP) at week 12, respectively. Other secondary endpoints are the changes in CASP and CAPP at week 52. A sample size of 432 randomised patients is estimated to ensure a power of 90% to assess the superiority of LCZ696 over olmesartan at week 12 in the change from baseline of mean CASP, assuming an SD of 19 mm Hg, the difference of 6.5 mm Hg and a 15% dropout rate. The primary variable will be analysed using a two-way analysis of covariance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was initiated in December 2012 and final results are expected in 2015. The results of this study will impact the design of future phase III studies assessing cardiovascular protection. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: EUDract number 2012-002899-14 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01692301