Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists and their combinations in the treatment of hypertension

No abstract available.http://www.safpj.co.z

Economic evaluation of ASCOT-BPLA: Antihypertensive treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen is cost-effective compared to an atenolol-based regimen

Copyright © 2010 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Cardiovascular Society. Internal or personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material must be obtained from the Publisher.Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of an amlodipine-based strategy and an atenolol-based strategy in the treatment of hypertension in the UK and Sweden. Design: A prospective, randomised trial complemented with a Markov model to assess long-term costs and health effects. Setting: Primary care. Patients: Patients with moderate hypertension and three or more additional risk factors. Interventions: Amlodipine 5–10 mg with perindopril 4–8 mg added as needed or atenolol 50–100 mg with bendroflumethiazide 1.25–2.5 mg and potassium added as needed Main outcome measures: Cost per cardiovascular event and procedure avoided, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: In the UK, the cost to avoid one cardiovascular event or procedure would be €18 965, and the cost to gain one quality-adjusted life-year would be €21 875. The corresponding figures for Sweden were €13 210 and €16 856. Conclusions: Compared with the thresholds applied by NICE and in the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare’s Guidelines for Cardiac Care, an amlodipine-based regimen is cost effective for the treatment of hypertension compared with an atenolol-based regimen in the population studied.The study was supported by the principal funding source, Pfizer, New York, USA

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

Legacy benefits of blood pressure treatment on cardiovascular events are primarily mediated by improved blood pressure variability: the ASCOT trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) is an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The long-term effect of a period of blood pressure (BP) control, but with differential BPV, is uncertain. Morbidity and mortality follow-up of UK participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm has been extended for up to 21 years to determine the CV impact of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) control and BPV during the trial, and amongst those allocated to amlodipine- and atenolol-based treatment. METHODS: Eight thousand five hundred and eighty hypertensive participants (4305 assigned to amlodipine ± perindopril-based and 4275 to atenolol ± diuretic-based treatment during the in-trial period (median 5.5 years) were followed for up to 21 years (median 17.4 years), using linked hospital and mortality records. A subgroup of participants (n = 2156) was followed up 6 years after the trial closure with a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit. In-trial mean SBP and standard deviation of visit-to-visit SBP as a measure of BPV, were measured using >100 000 BP measurements. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk [hazard ratios (HRs)], associated with (i) mean with SBP and BPV during the in-trial period, for the CV endpoints occurring after the end of the trial and (ii) randomly assigned treatment to events following randomization, for the first occurrence of pre-specified CV outcomes. RESULTS: Using BP data from the in-trial period, in the post-trial period, although mean SBP was a predictor of CV outcomes {HR per 10 mmHg, 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.17], P < .001}, systolic BPV independent of mean SBP was a strong predictor of CV events [HR per 5 mmHg 1.22 (95% CI 1.18-1.26), P < .001] and predicted events even in participants with well-controlled BP. During 21-year follow-up, those on amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based in-trial treatment had significantly reduced risk of stroke [HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.93), P = .003], total CV events [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), P = .008], total coronary events [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99), P = .024], and atrial fibrillation [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.83-0.99), P = .030], with weaker evidence of a difference in CV mortality [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), P = .073]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure, and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Systolic BPV is a strong predictor of CV outcome, even in those with controlled SBP. The long-term benefits of amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment in reducing CV events appear to be primarily mediated by an effect on systolic BPV during the trial period

The combination of amlodipine and angiotensin receptor blocker or diuretics in high-risk hypertensive patients: rationale, design and baseline characteristics

The Chinese Hypertension Intervention Efficacy Study (CHIEF) is a multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the effects of amlodipine+angiotensin II receptor blocker and amlodipine+diuretics on the incidence of cardiovascular events, represented as a composite of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death events in high-risk Chinese hypertensive patients. The study also evaluates the long-term effects of lipid-lowering treatment and lifestyle modification. From October 2007 to October 2008, 13 542 patients were enrolled into the study in 180 centres in China. Patients will be followed up for 4 years. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the two blood pressure arms

Association between adherence to calcium-channel blocker and statin medications and likelihood of cardiovascular events among US managed care enrollees

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prior studies have found that patients taking single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) have greater likelihood of adherence at 6 months than those taking 2-pill calcium-channel blocker and statin combinations (CCB/statin). This study examines whether this adherence benefit results in fewer cardiovascular (CV) events.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data from the IMS LifeLink: US Health Plan Claims database, identifying adults already taking CCB or statin (but not both) who had an index event of either initiating treatment with SPAA or adding CCB to statin (or vice versa) between April 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005. Inclusion criteria included age 18+ years, continuously enrolled for minimum of 6 months prior and 18 months following treatment initiation, >1 diagnosis of hypertension, and no prescription claims for SPAA or added CCB or statin for 6 months prior. Exclusion criteria included >1 claim with missing or invalid days supplied, age 65+ years and not enrolled in Medicare Advantage, or history of prior CV events, cancer diagnosis, or chronic renal failure. The primary outcome measure was the rate of CV events (myocardial infarction, heart failure, angina, other ischemic heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, or revascularization procedure) from 6 to 18 months following index date, analyzed at three levels: 1) all adherent vs. non-adherent patients, 2) SPAA vs. dual-pill patients (regardless of adherence level), and 3) adherent SPAA, adherent dual-pill, and non-adherent SPAA patients vs. non-adherent dual-pill patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 1,537 SPAA patients, 56.5% were adherent at 6 months, compared with 21.4% of the 17,910 CCB/statin patients (p < 0.001). Logistic regression found SPAA patients more likely to be adherent (OR = 4.7, p < 0.001) than CCB/statin patients. In Cox proportional hazards models, being adherent to either regimen was associated with significantly lower risk of CV event (HR = 0.77, p = 0.003). A similar effect was seen for SPAA vs. CCB/statin patients (HR = 0.68, p = 0.02). In a combined model, the risk of CV events was significantly lower for adherent CCB/statin patients (HR = 0.79, p = 0.01) and adherent SPAA patients (HR = 0.61, p = 0.03) compared to non-adherent CCB/statin patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients receiving SPAA rather than a 2-pill CCB/statin regimen are more likely to be adherent. In turn, adherence to CCB and statin medications is associated with lower risk of CV events in primary prevention patients.</p

Cognitive function in a randomized trial of evolocumab

Inga Stuķēna as well as a complete list of investigators is provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org. https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa1701131/suppl_file/nejmoa1701131_appendix.pdf Funding Information: (Funded by Amgen; EBBINGHAUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02207634.) Supported by Amgen. We thank Sarah T. Farias, Ph.D., at UC Davis Health for providing the English-language and translated versions of the Everyday Cognition (ECog) tool. Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Medical Society.BACKGROUND: Findings from clinical trials of proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors have led to concern that these drugs or the low levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol that result from their use are associated with cognitive deficits. METHODS: In a subgroup of patients from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of evolocumab added to statin therapy, we prospectively assessed cognitive function using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. The primary end point was the score on the spatial working memory strategy index of executive function (scores range from 4 to 28, with lower scores indicating a more efficient use of strategy and planning). Secondary end points were the scores for working memory (scores range from 0 to 279, with lower scores indicating fewer errors), episodic memory (scores range from 0 to 70, with lower scores indicating fewer errors), and psychomotor speed (scores range from 100 to 5100 msec, with faster times representing better performance). Assessments of cognitive function were performed at baseline, week 24, yearly, and at the end of the trial. The primary analysis was a noninferiority comparison of the mean change from baseline in the score on the spatial working memory strategy index of executive function between the patients who received evolocumab and those who received placebo; the noninferiority margin was set at 20% of the standard deviation of the score in the placebo group. RESULTS: A total of 1204 patients were followed for a median of 19 months; the mean (±SD) change from baseline over time in the raw score for the spatial working memory strategy index of executive function (primary end point) was −0.21±2.62 in the evolocumab group and −0.29±2.81 in the placebo group (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.85 for superiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the secondary end points of scores for working memory (change in raw score, −0.52 in the evolocumab group and −0.93 in the placebo group), episodic memory (change in raw score, −1.53 and −1.53, respectively), or psychomotor speed (change in raw score, 5.2 msec and 0.9 msec, respectively). In an exploratory analysis, there were no associations between LDL cholesterol levels and cognitive changes. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial involving patients who received either evolocumab or placebo in addition to statin therapy, no significant between-group difference in cognitive function was observed over a median of 19 months.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Effect of atorvastatin on C-reactive protein and benefits for cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: analyses from the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Trial

CARDS was partially funded by Diabetes UK and the National Health Service Research and Development Forum (England)