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

Antihypertensive therapy, new-onset diabetes, and cardiovascular disease

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a worldwide epidemic with considerable health and economic consequences. Diabetes is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in diabetic patients, and decreasing the incidence of diabetes may potentially reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease. This article discusses the clinical trial evidence for modalities associated with a reduction in the risk of new-onset diabetes, with a focus on the role of antihypertensive agents that block the renin–angiotensin system. Lifestyle interventions and the use of antidiabetic, anti-obesity, and lipid-lowering drugs are also reviewed. An unresolved question is whether decreasing the incidence of new-onset diabetes with non-pharmacologic or pharmacologic intervention will also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. A large ongoing study is investigating whether the treatment with an oral antidiabetic drug or an angiotensin-receptor blocker will reduce the incidence of new-onset diabetes and cardiovascular disease in patients at high risk for developing diabetes

Effects of the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce major cardiovascular events, but are not tolerated by about 20% of patients. We therefore assessed whether the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan would be effective in patients intolerant to ACE inhibitors with cardiovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damage. METHODS: After a 3-week run-in period, 5926 patients, many of whom were receiving concomitant proven therapies, were randomised to receive telmisartan 80 mg/day (n=2954) or placebo (n=2972) by use of a central automated randomisation system. Randomisation was stratified by hospital. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101. FINDINGS: The median duration of follow-up was 56 (IQR 51-64) months. All randomised patients were included in the efficacy analyses. Mean blood pressure was lower in the telmisartan group than in the placebo group throughout the study (weighted mean difference between groups 4.0/2.2 [SD 19.6/12.0] mm Hg). 465 (15.7%) patients experienced the primary outcome in the telmisartan group compared with 504 (17.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.05, p=0.216). One of the secondary outcomes-a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke-occurred in 384 (13.0%) patients on telmisartan compared with 440 (14.8%) on placebo (0.87, 0.76-1.00, p=0.048 unadjusted; p=0.068 after adjustment for multiplicity of comparisons and overlap with primary outcome). 894 (30.3%) patients receiving telmisartan were hospitalised for a cardiovascular reason, compared with 980 (33.0%) on placebo (relative risk 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99; p=0.025). Fewer patients permanently discontinued study medication in the telmisartan group than in the placebo group (639 [21.6%] vs 705 [23.8%]; p=0.055); the most common reason for permanent discontinuation was hypotensive symptoms (29 [0.98%] in the telmisartan group vs 16 [0.54%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Telmisartan was well tolerated in patients unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors. Although the drug had no significant effect on the primary outcome of this study, which included hospitalisations for heart failure, it modestly reduced the risk of the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim