Hypertension in African Americans Aged 60 to 79 Years: Statement From the International Society of Hypertension in Blacks

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/111078/1/jch12511.pd

Prediction of cardiovascular outcomes with machine learning techniques: application to the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) study.

Background: Data derived from the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) study were analyzed in an effort to employ machine learning methods to predict the composite endpoint described in the original study. Methods: We identified 573 CORAL subjects with complete baseline data and the presence or absence of a composite endpoint for the study. These data were subjected to several models including a generalized linear (logistic-linear) model, support vector machine, decision tree, feed-forward neural network, and random forest, in an effort to attempt to predict the composite endpoint. The subjects were arbitrarily divided into training and testing subsets according to an 80%:20% distribution with various seeds. Prediction models were optimized within the CARET package of R. Results: The best performance of the different machine learning techniques was that of the random forest method which yielded a receiver operator curve (ROC) area of 68.1%±4.2% (mean ± SD) on the testing subset with ten different seed values used to separate training and testing subsets. The four most important variables in the random forest method were SBP, serum creatinine, glycosylated hemoglobin, and DBP. Each of these variables was also important in at least some of the other methods. The treatment assignment group was not consistently an important determinant in any of the models. Conclusion: Prediction of a composite cardiovascular outcome was difficult in the CORAL population, even when employing machine learning methods. Assignment to either the stenting or best medical therapy group did not serve as an important predictor of composite outcome. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00081731

Calcium Channel Blockers, More than Diuretics, Enhance Vascular Protective Effects of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Salt-Loaded Hypertensive Rats

The combination therapy of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or with a diuretic is favorably recommended for the treatment of hypertension. However, the difference between these two combination therapies is unclear. The present work was undertaken to examine the possible difference between the two combination therapies in vascular protection. Salt-loaded stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRSP) were divided into 6 groups, and they were orally administered (1) vehicle, (2) olmesartan, an ARB, (3) azelnidipine, a CCB, (4) hydrochlorothiazide, a diuretic, (5) olmesartan combined with azelnidipine, or (6) olmesartan combined with hydrochlorothiazide. Olmesartan combined with either azelnidipine or hydrochlorothiazide ameliorated vascular endothelial dysfunction and remodeling in SHRSP more than did monotherapy with either agent. However, despite a comparable blood pressure lowering effect between the two treatments, azelnidipine enhanced the amelioration of vascular endothelial dysfunction and remodeling by olmesartan to a greater extent than did hydrochlorothiazide in salt-loaded SHRSP. The increased enhancement by azelnidipine of olmesartan-induced vascular protection than by hydrochlorothiazide was associated with a greater amelioration of vascular nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase activation, superoxide, mitogen-activated protein kinase activation, and with a greater activation of the Akt/endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) pathway. These results provided the first evidence that a CCB potentiates the vascular protective effects of an ARB in salt-sensitive hypertension, compared with a diuretic, and provided a novel rationale explaining the benefit of the combination therapy with an ARB and a CCB

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure control with triple-therapy amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with moderate to severe hypertension

To determine the effectiveness and safety of once-daily combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide for reducing ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, a multicenter, double-blind study was performed (N=2271) that included ABP monitoring in a 283-patient subset. After a single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25 mg), valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (320/25 mg), amlodipine/valsartan (10/320 mg) or amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (10/25 mg) each morning for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). Statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions from baseline in all these parameters occurred in all treatment groups (P<0.0001, all comparisons versus baseline). At week 8, least squares mean reductions from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were 30.3/19.7, 31.2/20.5 and 28.0/17.8 mm Hg, respectively, with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide; corresponding reductions with dual therapies ranged from 18.8–24.1/11.7–15.5, 19.0–25.1/12.0–16.0 and 18.3–22.6/11.1–14.3 mm Hg (P⩽0.01, all comparisons of triple versus dual therapy). Treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide maintained full 24-h effectiveness, including during the morning hours; all hourly mean ambulatory SBP and mean ambulatory DBP measurements were ⩽130/85 mm Hg at end point. Amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy was well tolerated. Once-daily treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25 mg) reduces ABP to a significantly greater extent than component-based dual therapy and maintains its effectiveness over the entire 24-h dosing period

Preferential benefits of nifedipine GITS in systolic hypertension and in combination with RAS blockade: further analysis of the ‘ACTION' database in patients with angina

A retrospective analysis of the database from A Coronary Disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine (ACTION) evaluated the effectiveness of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) (i) in combination with renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers and (ii) in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, treatment groups were compared by the log-rank test without adjustment for covariates and hazard ratios with 95% CIs were obtained using Cox proportional hazards models. Of 7665 randomized patients, 1732 patients were receiving RAS blockade at baseline, the addition of nifedipine GITS significantly reduced any cardiovascular (CV) event (−20% P<0.05), the composite of death, any CV event and revascularization (−16% P<0.05) and coronary angiography (−22% P<0.01). These benefits were achieved with relatively small differences in systolic (3.2 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (BP) (2.3 mm Hg). In 2303 patients (30.0%) who had ISH at baseline (1145 nifedipine GITS and 1158 placebo), nifedipine significantly reduced the primary efficacy end point (−18% P<0.03), any CV event (−22% P<0.01) and new heart failure (−40% P<0.01). The benefits were associated with between-group differences in achieved BP of 4.7 and 3.3 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively. In summary, the lowest CV event rates were seen in those receiving (i) the combination of RAS blockade and nifedipine GITS and (ii) in those specifically treated for ISH

Efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine combination therapy in reducing ambulatory blood pressure in moderate-to-severe hypertensive patients not controlled by amlodipine alone

Efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine combination therapy in reducing ambulatory blood pressure in moderate-to-severe hypertensive patients not controlled by amlodipine alon

Long-term efficacy of a combination of amlodipine and olmesartan medoxomil±hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension stratified by age, race and diabetes status: a substudy of the COACH trial

A prespecified subgroup analysis of a 44-week open-label extension study is presented. The efficacy and safety of the combination of amlodipine (AML)+ olmesartan medoxomil (OM), with and without the addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were investigated in patients aged ⩾65 and <65 years, Blacks and non-Blacks and patients with and without type 2 diabetes. After an 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled portion of the study, patients initiated therapy on AML 5+OM 40 mg per day, were uptitrated stepwise to AML 10+OM 40 mg per day, with the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg, and 25 mg if blood pressure (BP) goal was not achieved (<140/90 or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes). Endpoints included the change from baseline in mean seated systolic BP, mean seated diastolic BP and achievement of BP goal. BP decreased from baseline for all treatments in each prespecified subgroup. By the end of the study, BP goal was achieved in 61.0% of patients aged ⩾65 years, 68.1% of patients aged <65 years, 63.3% of Blacks, 67.8% of non-Blacks, 26.9% of patients with diabetes and 72.9% of patients without diabetes. The combination of AML+OM±HCTZ was efficacious, safe and well tolerated by these subgroups