ASCORE: an up-to-date cardiovascular risk score for hypertensive patients reflecting contemporary clinical practice developed using the (ASCOT-BPLA) trial data.

A number of risk scores already exist to predict cardiovascular (CV) events. However, scores developed with data collected some time ago might not accurately predict the CV risk of contemporary hypertensive patients that benefit from more modern treatments and management. Using data from the randomised clinical trial Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-BPLA, with 15 955 hypertensive patients without previous CV disease receiving contemporary preventive CV management, we developed a new risk score predicting the 5-year risk of a first CV event (CV death, myocardial infarction or stroke). Cox proportional hazard models were used to develop a risk equation from baseline predictors. The final risk model (ASCORE) included age, sex, smoking, diabetes, previous blood pressure (BP) treatment, systolic BP, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, fasting glucose and creatinine baseline variables. A simplified model (ASCORE-S) excluding laboratory variables was also derived. Both models showed very good internal validity. User-friendly integer score tables are reported for both models. Applying the latest Framingham risk score to our data significantly overpredicted the observed 5-year risk of the composite CV outcome. We conclude that risk scores derived using older databases (such as Framingham) may overestimate the CV risk of patients receiving current BP treatments; therefore, 'updated' risk scores are needed for current patients

Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke

Background Recurrent stroke is a frequent, disabling event after ischemic stroke. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two antiplatelet regimens — aspirin plus extendedrelease dipyridamole (ASA–ERDP) versus clopidogrel. Methods In this double-blind, 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive 25 mg of aspirin plus 200 mg of extended-release dipyridamole twice daily or to receive 75 mg of clopidogrel daily. The primary outcome was first recurrence of stroke. The secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes. Sequential statistical testing of noninferiority (margin of 1.075), followed by superiority testing, was planned. Results A total of 20,332 patients were followed for a mean of 2.5 years. Recurrent stroke occurred in 916 patients (9.0%) receiving ASA–ERDP and in 898 patients (8.8%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11). The secondary outcome occurred in 1333 patients (13.1%) in each group (hazard ratio for ASA–ERDP, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07). There were more major hemorrhagic events among ASA–ERDP recipients (419 [4.1%]) than among clopidogrel recipients (365 [3.6%]) (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.32), including intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.83). The net risk of recurrent stroke or major hemorrhagic event was similar in the two groups (1194 ASA–ERDP recipients [11.7%], vs. 1156 clopidogrel recipients [11.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11). Conclusions The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for noninferiority but showed similar rates of recurrent stroke with ASA–ERDP and with clopidogrel. There is no evidence that either of the two treatments was superior to the other in the prevention of recurrent stroke. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.

Why pharmacokinetic differences among oral triptans have little clinical importance: a comment

Triptans, selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, are specific drugs for the acute treatment of migraine that have the same mechanism of action. Here, it is discussed why the differences among kinetic parameters of oral triptans have proved not to be very important in clinical practice. There are three main reasons: (1) the differences among the kinetic parameters of oral triptans are smaller than what appears from their average values; (2) there is a large inter-subject, gender-dependent, and intra-subject (outside/during the attack) variability of kinetic parameters related to the rate and extent of absorption, i.e., those which are considered as critical for the response; (3) no dose-concentration–response curves have been defined and it is, therefore, impossible both to compare the kinetics of triptans, and to verify the objective importance of kinetic differences; (4) the importance of kinetic differences is outweighed by non-kinetic factors of variability of response to triptans. If no oral formulations are found that can allow more predictable pharmacokinetics, the same problems will probably also arise with new classes of drugs for the acute treatment of migraine

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

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

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or rizatriptan by preference questionnaire. 148 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At the end of the study, patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain-free and pain relief episodes at 2 h, and recurrent and sustained pain-free episodes within 48 h. 104 of the 125 patients (83%, intention-to-treat population) expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (2.9 ± 1.3) and rizatriptan (3.2 ± 1.1). The rates of pain-free (33% frovatriptan vs. 39% rizatriptan) and pain relief (55 vs. 62%) episodes at 2 h were not significantly different between the two treatments. The rate of recurrent episodes was significantly (p < 0.001) lower under frovatriptan (21 vs. 43% rizatriptan). No significant differences were observed in sustained pain-free episodes (26% frovatriptan vs. 22% rizatriptan). The number of patients with adverse events was not significantly different between rizatriptan (34) and frovatriptan (25, p = NS). The results suggest that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy to rizatriptan, but a more prolonged duration of action

Prevention and Intervention Studies with Telmisartan, Ramipril and Their Combination in Different Rat Stroke Models

The effects of AT1 receptor blocker, telmisartan, and the ACE inhibitor, ramipril, were tested head-to head and in combination on stroke prevention in hypertensive rats and on potential neuroprotection in acute cerebral ischemia in normotensive rats. Normotensive Wistar rats were treated s.c. 5 days prior to middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) for 90 min with reperfusion. Groups (n = 10 each): (1) sham, (2) vehicle (V; 0,9% NaCl), (3) T (0,5 mg/kg once daily), (4) R (0,01 mg/kg twice daily), (5) R (0,1 mg/kg twice daily) or (6) T (0,5 mg/kg once daily) plus R (0,01 mg/kg twice daily). Twenty-four and 48 h after MCAO, neurological outcome (NO) was determined. Forty-eight h after MCAO, infarct volume by MRI, neuronal survival, inflammation factors and neurotrophin receptor (TrkB) were analysed.Stroke incidence was reduced, survival was prolonged and neurological outcome was improved in all treated SHR-SP with no differences between treated groups. In the acute intervention study, T and T+R, but not R alone, improved NO, reduced infarct volume, inflammation (TNFα), and induced TrkB receptor and neuronal survival in comparison to V.T, R or T+R had similar beneficial effects on stroke incidence and NO in hypertensive rats, confirming BP reduction as determinant factor in stroke prevention. In contrast, T and T+R provided superior neuroprotection in comparison to R alone in normotensive rats with induced cerebral ischemia

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to evaluate patients’ satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or almotriptan by preference questionnaire. One hundred and thirty three subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg, treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At study end patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain free and pain relief episodes at 2 and 4 h, and recurrent and sustained pain free episodes within 48 h. Of the 133 patients (86%, intention-to-treat population) 114 of them expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (3.1 ± 1.3) and almotriptan (3.4 ± 1.3). The rates of pain free (30% frovatriptan vs. 32% almotriptan) and pain relief (54% vs. 56%) episodes at 2 h did not significantly differ between treatments. This was the case also at 4 h (pain free: 56% vs. 59%; pain relief: 75% vs. 72%). Recurrent episodes were significantly (P < 0.05) less frequent under frovatriptan (30% vs. 44%), also for the attacks treated within 30 min. No significant differences were observed in sustained pain free episodes (21% vs. 18%). The tolerability profile was similar between the two drugs. In conclusion, our study suggests that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy of almotriptan in the short-term, while some advantages are observed during long-term treatment