Prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) designed trials yield the same results as double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with respect to ABPM measurements

Choosing an antihypertensive combination with a more efficient central blood pressure reduction

Not all blood pressure (BP)-lowering agents have the same effect on central BP, but we know that central BP, in itself, is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, antihypertensive agents should ideally also have a central BP-lowering effect. In this paper the authors evaluate the effect of adding a calcium channel blocker to a β-blocker. The results show this combination does not reverse the lesser effect of β-blockers on central BP, and that the combination of valsartan plus amlodipine is more effective in lowering central BP than a combination of amlodipine plus atenolol.

Olmesartan/amlodipine vs olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome: the OLAS study

We studied the effects of treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine and olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide on inflammatory and metabolic parameters (including new-onset diabetes as a secondary endpoint) in non-diabetic hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS). A total of 120 patients with MetS and stage I and II hypertension were randomized to olmesartan 20 mg/amlodipine 5 mg or olmesartan 20 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. If target systolic blood pressure (<140 mm Hg) was not reached, doses were doubled after 13 weeks; doxazosin 4 mg was added after 26 weeks, and doubled after 39 weeks; follow-up ended at 78 weeks. At each visit, blood pressure (BP), fasting plasma glucose, insulin, adiponectin, tumour necrosis factor-α, C-reactive protein (CRP), intercellular adhesion molecule-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, interleukins-1β, -6 and -8, and albuminuria were measured; BP was similarly reduced in both groups; 80% of patients reached target BP. Reductions in albuminuria were also similar (50%). Only olmesartan/amlodipine reduced the insulin resistance index (24%, P<0.01), increased plasma adiponectin (16%, P<0.05) and significantly reduced all of the inflammation markers studied, except CRP, which showed a similar reduction in each group. The risk of new-onset diabetes was significantly lower with olmesartan/amlodipine (P=0.02). Both olmesartan-based combinations were effective, but the amlodipine combination resulted in metabolic and anti-inflammatory effects that may have advantages over the hydrochlorothiazide combination.

Increasing the doses of both diuretics and angiotensin receptor blockers is beneficial in subjects with uncontrolled systolic hypertension

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) control is frequently difficult to achieve in patients with predominantly elevated systolic BP. Consequently, these patients frequently require combination therapy including a thiazide diuretic such as hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and an agent blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Current clinical practice usually limits the daily dose of HCTZ to 25 mg. This often leads to the necessity of using additional antihypertensive agents to control BP in a high proportion of patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of two doses of losartan (LOS)⁄HCTZ combinations in patients with uncontrolled ambulatory systolic hypertension after six weeks of treatment with LOS 100 mg⁄HCTZ 25 mg (LOS100⁄HCTZ25).

METHODS

Following a two- to four-week washout period, subjects with a mean clinic sitting systolic BP of 160 mmHg or higher and a mean ambulatory daytime systolic BP (MDSBP) of 135 mmHg or higher on LOS100⁄HCTZ25 (n=105; 33 women and 72 men) were randomly assigned to receive LOS 150 mg⁄HCTZ 25 mg (group 1; n=53) or LOS 150 mg⁄HCTZ 37.5 mg (LOS150⁄HCTZ37.5, group 2; n=52). The primary end point was the difference in MDSBP reductions.

RESULTS

At the end of the six-week treatment period, the respective additional decreases in MDSBP were 1.2 mmHg (P=0.335) on LOS 150 mg⁄HCTZ 25 mg and 5.6 mmHg (P<0.0001) on LOS150⁄HCTZ37.5 (difference of 4.4 mmHg; P=0.011). Daytime systolic ambulatory BP goal (lower than 130 mmHg) achievement tended to be higher (25% versus 17%; P=0.313) with LOS150⁄HCTZ37.5, while it was significantly higher (65% versus 43%; P=0.024) for mean daytime diastolic BP (lower than 80 mmHg). No deleterious metabolic changes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with uncontrolled systolic ambulatory hypertension receiving LOS100⁄HCTZ25, increasing both HCTZ and LOS dosages simultaneously to LOS150⁄HCTZ37.5 may be an effective strategy that does not affect metabolic parameters.

Low vs. higher-dose dark chocolate and blood pressure in cardiovascular high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Dark chocolate may have blood pressure-lowering properties. We conducted a prospective randomized open-label blinded end-point design trial to study a potential dose dependency of the presumed antihypertensive effect of dark chocolate by directly comparing low vs. higher doses of dark chocolate over the course of 3 months.

METHODS

We enrolled a total of 102 patients with prehypertension/stage 1 hypertension and established cardiovascular end-organ damage or diabetes mellitus. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 or 25 g/day of flavanol-rich dark chocolate for 3 months. The difference in 24-h mean blood pressure between groups was defined as the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Significant reductions in mean ambulatory 24-h blood pressure were observed between baseline and follow-up in both groups (6 g/day: -2.3 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval -4.1 to -0.4; 25 g/day: -1.9 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval -3.6 to -0.2). There were no significant differences in blood pressure changes between groups. In the higher-dose group, a slight increase in body weight was noted (0.8 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 1.6).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that dark chocolate may be associated with a reduction in blood pressure (BP). However, due to the lack of a control group, confounding may be possible and the results should be interpreted with caution.

Design and methods of the Pro-B Type Natriuretic Peptide Outpatient Tailored Chronic Heart Failure Therapy (PROTECT) Study

BACKGROUND

Serial measurements of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) provide prognostic information in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Changes in NT-proBNP concentrations parallel prognosis; however, it remains unclear whether HF care with a goal to maximize medical therapy and also lower NT-proBNP concentrations is superior to standard HF care alone.

AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the hypothesis that an HF strategy guided by NT-proBNP reduces cardiovascular events compared to standard of care HF management.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized single-center trial, subjects with New York Heart Association class II to IV systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction < or =40%) will be enrolled. Both groups will receive standard HF management (with a goal for minimizing HF symptoms and achieving maximal dosages of therapies with proven mortality benefit in HF), whereas one group ("NT-proBNP") will also have treatment adjustments to reduce NT-proBNP concentrations < or =1,000 pg/mL. The primary end point of the trial is total cardiovascular events for a 1-year period; secondary end points will include effects of NT-proBNP-guided care on cardiac structure and function, quality of life, and total costs of care.

RESULTS

Enrollment began in 2006; of the original 300 planned, thus far, 151 subjects have been randomized. Interim analysis in November 2009 indicated significant reduction of events in the NT-proBNP arm. Full results are expected in 2010.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pro-B Type Natriuretic Peptide Outpatient Tailored Chronic Heart Failure Therapy (PROTECT) Study will test the hypothesis that therapy guided by NT-proBNP concentrations will be superior to standard of care HF management (www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00351390).

Administration-Time-Dependent Effects of Doxazosin GITS on Ambulatory Blood Pressure of Hypertensive Subjects

Previous studies have shown that a single nighttime dose of standard doxazosin, an alpha-adrenergic antagonist, reduces blood pressure (BP) throughout the 24 h. We investigated the administration-time-dependent effects of the new doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation. We studied 91 subjects (49 men and 42 women), 56.7+/-11.2 (mean+/-SD) yrs of age with grade 1-2 essential hypertension; 39 patients had been previously untreated, and the remaining 52 had been treated with two antihypertensive medications with inadequate control of their hypertension. The subjects of the two groups, the monotherapy and polytherapy groups, respectively, were randomly assigned to receive the single daily dose of doxazosin GITS (4 mg/day) either upon awakening or at bedtime. BP was measured by ambulatory monitoring every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive hours just before and after 3 months of treatment. After 3 months of doxazosin GITS therapy upon awakening, there was a small and nonstatistically significant reduction in BP (1.8 and 3.2mm Hg in the 24 h mean of systolic and diastolic BP in monotherapy; 2.2 and 1.9mm Hg in polytherapy), mainly because of absence of any effect on nocturnal BP. The 24 h mean BP reduction was larger and statistically significant (6.9 and 5.9 mm for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively, in monotherapy; 5.3 and 4.5 mm Hg in polytherapy) when doxazosin GITS was scheduled at bedtime. This BP-lowering effect was similar during both the day and nighttime hours. Doxazosin GITS ingested daily on awakening failed to provide full 24h therapeutic coverage. Bedtime dosing with doxazosin GITS, however, significantly reduced BP throughout the 24h both when used as a monotherapy and when used in combination with other antihypertensive pharmacotherapy. Knowledge of the chronopharmacology of doxazosin GITS is key to optimizing the efficiency of its BP-lowering effect, and this must be taken into consideration when prescribing this medication to patients.

Administration Time‐Dependent Effects of Valsartan on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Subjects

Previous results have indicated that valsartan administration at bed-time, as opposed to upon wakening, improves the diurnal/nocturnal ratio of blood pressure (BP) toward a normal dipping pattern, without loss of 24 h efficacy. This ratio is characterized by a progressive decrease with aging. Accordingly, we investigated the administration time-dependent antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan, an angiotensin blocking agent, in elderly hypertensive patients. We studied 100 elderly patients with grade 1-2 essential hypertension (34 men and 66 women), 68.2+/-4.9 years of age, randomly assigned to receive valsartan (160 mg/d) as a monotherapy either upon awakening or at bed-time. BP was measured for 48 h by ambulatory monitoring, at 20 min intervals between 07:00 to 23:00 h and at 30 min intervals at night, before and after 3 months of therapy. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to accurately determine the duration of sleep and wake spans to enable the accurate calculation of the diurnal and nocturnal means of BP for each subject. There was a highly significant BP reduction after 3 months of valsartan treatment (p < 0.001). The reduction was slightly larger with bed-time dosing (15.3 and 9.2 mm Hg reduction in the 24 h mean of systolic and diastolic BP, respectively) than with morning dosing (12.3 and 6.3 mm Hg reduction in the 24 h mean of systolic and diastolic BP, respectively). The diurnal/nocturnal ratio, measured as the nocturnal decline of BP relative to the diurnal mean, was unchanged in the group ingesting valsartan upon awakening (-1.0 and -0.3 for systolic and diastolic BP; p > 0.195). This ratio was significantly increased (6.6 and 5.4 for systolic and diastolic BP; p < 0.001) when valsartan was ingested at bed-time. The reduction of the nocturnal mean was doubled in the group ingesting valsartan at bed-time, as compared to the group ingesting it in the morning (p < 0.001). In elderly hypertensive patients, mainly characterized by a diminished nocturnal decline in BP, bed-time valsartan dosing is better than morning dosing since it improves efficacy during the nighttime sleep span, with the potential reduction in cardiovascular risk that has been associated with a normalized diurnal/nocturnal BP ratio.

Ambulatory blood pressure-lowering effects of valsartan and enalapril after a missed dose in previously untreated patients with hypertension: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point trial

BACKGROUND

Approximately 3 days a month, some 15% to 20% of patients with hypertension do not recall having taken their antihypertensive medication. Individuals with this frequency of missed doses may be at increased risk for a cardiovascular event and may have a poorer long-term prognosis.

OBJECTIVE

This study used ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) to compare the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of valsartan and enalapril over the 24 hours after missing 1 dose in previously untreated patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, blinded end-point trial in previously untreated patients (age >18 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension (European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines: systolic BP 140-179 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-109 mm Hg). Patients were randomly assigned to receive 16 weeks of treatment with valsartan 160 mg/d or enalapril 20 mg/d, taken on waking. ABPM was conducted for 48 consecutive hours at baseline and again after 16 weeks of therapy. Patients took a dose of their assigned treatment at the beginning of the final session of ABPM and were instructed to skip the next daily dose.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 148 Spanish patients (84 men, 64 women; mean [SD] age, 45.8 [10.7] years) with previously untreated hypertension. At the end of treatment, there were significant differences between groups during the first 24 hours of ABPM, starting in the final 6 hours of the dosing interval (P < 0.001). There was no significant change in BP reduction between the first and second 24-hour periods of ABPM with valsartan (-2.1/-1.4 mm Hg), whereas enalapril was associated with a significant increase in BP over this period (5.5/3.8 mm Hg; P < 0.001 vs first 24 hours; P = 0.032 vs valsartan).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study in previously untreated patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension, valsartan was associated with a sustained BP-lowering effect beyond the initial 24 hours after dosing, whereas enalapril was not. There was no significant change in the efficacy of valsartan in the 24 hours after a missed dose. At the doses tested, valsartan was more effective than enalapril, both during active treatment and after a missed dose.

Ambulatory blood pressure control with bedtime aspirin administration in subjects with prehypertension

BACKGROUND

Aspirin has been found to prevent angiotensin II-induced hypertension and to induce nitric oxide (NO) release from vascular endothelium. Low-dose aspirin has also been shown to reduce blood pressure (BP) when administered at bedtime, as opposed to upon awakening, in untreated hypertensive patients and high-risk pregnant women. Accordingly, we investigated the effects on ambulatory BP of aspirin administered at different times of the day in prehypertension.

METHODS

We studied 244 subjects with prehypertension, 43.0 +/- 13.0 years of age, randomly divided in three groups: nonpharmacological hygienic-dietary recommendations; the same recommendations and aspirin (100 mg/day) on awakening; or the same recommendations and aspirin at bedtime. BP was measured for 48 consecutive hours before and after 3 months of intervention.

RESULTS

Ambulatory BP was unchanged in subjects randomized to either nonpharmacological intervention or aspirin on awakening. A significant ambulatory BP reduction was, however, observed in the subjects who received aspirin at bedtime (decrease of 6/3 mm Hg in the 24-h mean of systolic (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP), respectively; P < 0.001), without changes in heart rate (HR) from baseline. BP was homogeneously controlled along the 24 h after bedtime aspirin administration (6/4 mm Hg reduction in activity mean of SBP/DBP; 6/3 mm Hg reduction in sleep-time mean, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective trial documents a significant effect on BP of low dose aspirin only when ingested at bedtime by prehypertensive subjects. The timed administration of low-dose aspirin could thus provide a valuable and cost-effective approach for BP control in subjects at elevated risk of developing hypertension.

Dose‐ And Administration Time‐Dependent Effects Of Nifedipine Gits On Ambulatory Blood Pressure In Hypertensive Subjects

Previous chronotherapy studies have shown that the circadian pattern of blood pressure (BP) remains unchanged after either morning or evening dosing of several calcium channel blockers (CCB), including amlodipine, isradipine, verapamil, nitrendipine, and cilnidipine. This trial investigated the antihypertensive efficacy and safety profile of the slow-release, once-a-day nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation administered at different times with reference to the rest-activity cycle of each participant. We studied 80 diurnally active subjects (36 men and 44 women), 52.1+/-10.7 yrs of age, with grade 1-2 essential hypertension, who were randomly assigned to receive nifedipine GITS (30 mg/day) as a monotherapy for eight weeks, either upon awakening in the morning or at bedtime at night. Patients with uncontrolled BP were up-titrated to a higher dose, 60 mg/day nifedipine GITS, for an additional eight weeks. BP was measured by ambulatory monitoring every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive hours before and after therapy with either dose. The BP reduction after eight weeks of therapy with the lower dose of 30 mg/day was slightly, but not significantly, larger with bedtime dosing. The efficacy of 60 mg/day nifedipine GITS in non-responders to the initial 30 mg/day dose was twice as great with bedtime as compared to morning dosing. Moreover, bedtime administration of nifedipine GITS reduced the incidence of edema as an adverse event by 91%, and the total number of all adverse events by 74% as compared to morning dosing (p=0.026). Independent of the time of day of administration, a single daily dose of 30 mg/day of nifedipine GITS provides full 24 h therapeutic coverage. The dose-dependent increased efficacy and the markedly improved safety profile of bedtime as compared to morning administration of nifedipine GITS should be taken into account when prescribing this CCB in the treatment of essential hypertension.

Manidipine in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome: the MARIMBA study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of manidipine versus amlodipine on blood pressure, albuminuria, insulin sensitivity, adiponectin, TNF-alpha and C-reactive protein in nondiabetic subjects with metabolic syndrome (ATP-III definition), including impaired fasting glucose (>5.6 mmol/l) and hypertension.

METHODS

In total, 64 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to manidipine 20 mg versus amlodipine 10 mg (for 12 +/- 2 weeks).

RESULTS

Blood pressure was reduced to a similar extent (p < 0.001) by both treatments. Albuminuria was significantly reduced by manidipine (-37.3%; p = 0.003), but not by amlodipine. C-reactive protein was reduced similarly (p < 0.01) by both treatments. Plasma adiponectin was increased (32.9%; p = 0.011) and plasma TNF-alpha was reduced by manidipine (-37.1%; p = 0.019), but neither was significantly changed by amlodipine. The HOMA insulin resistance index was significantly reduced by manidipine (-21.3%; p = 0.007), but not by amlodipine (-8.3%; p = 0.062). Tolerability with manidipine was superior to that with amlodipine (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

These data support the added value of manidipine in renal and metabolic protection beyond blood pressure reduction in the treatment of hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome.

Antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan vs ramipril over the 24-h dosing period, including the critical early morning hours: a pooled analysis of the PRISMA I and II randomized trials

Cardiovascular risk is subject to circadian variation, with peak morning incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke correlating with the early morning blood pressure (BP) surge (EMBPS). Ideally, antihypertensive therapy should maintain control of BP throughout the 24-h dosing cycle. In two sister studies, Prospective, Randomized Investigation of the Safety and efficacy of Micardis vs Ramipril Using ABPM (ambulatory BP monitoring) (PRISMA) I and II, BP control was compared in patients with essential hypertension (24-h mean baseline ambulatory BP approximately 148/93 mm Hg) randomized to the angiotensin receptor blocker, telmisartan (80 mg; n=802), or the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril (5 or 10 mg; n=811), both dosed in the morning. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) during the final 6 h of the 24-h dosing cycle. The adjusted mean treatment differences in the last 6-h mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were -5.8/-4.2 mm Hg after 8 weeks and -4.1/-3.0 mm Hg after 14 weeks, in favour of telmisartan (P<0.0001 for all four comparisons). Secondary end point results, including the mean 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, day- and night-time BP and 24-h BP load, also significantly favoured telmisartan (P<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated; adverse events, including cough, were less common with telmisartan. These findings suggest that telmisartan is more effective than ramipril throughout the 24-h period and during the EMBPS; this may be attributable to telmisartan's long duration of effect, which is sustained throughout the 24-h dosing period.

Telmisartan versus angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Telmisartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are both effective and widely used antihypertensive drugs targeting renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. The study aimed to estimate the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan in comparison with different ACEIs as monotherapy in the treatment of hypertension. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant studies. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials fulfilling the predefined criteria was performed. A random-effect model was used to account for heterogeneity among trials. Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 5157 patients were ultimately identified out of 721 studies. Telmisartan had a greater diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction than enalapril (weighted mean difference (WMD) 1.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-2.99), ramipril (WMD 3.09, 95% CI 1.94-4.25) and perindopril (WMD 1.48, 95% CI 0.33-2.62). Telmisartan also showed a greater DBP response rate than enalapril (relative risk (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26), ramipril (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11-1.61) and perindopril (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.41). There was no statistical difference in DBP reduction or therapeutic response rate between telmisartan and lisinopril (WMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.05; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80-1.23, respectively). Telmisartan had fewer drug-related adverse events than enalapril (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.74), ramipril (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.75), lisinopril (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.89) and perindopril (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.98). The meta-analysis indicates that telmisartan provides a superior BP control to ACEIs (enalapril, ramipril and perindopril) and has fewer drug-related adverse events and better tolerability in hypertensive patients.

Magnitude of the early morning blood pressure surge in untreated hypertensive patients: a pooled analysis

OBJECTIVES

A post hoc analysis was performed to assess the magnitude of the early morning blood pressure surge (EMBPS), which is associated with peak cardiovascular risk, in untreated hypertensive patients enrolled in two sister studies (Prospective, Randomised Investigation of the Safety and efficacy of MICARDIS vs. ramipril using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring I and II) with identical design.

METHODS

In adults with a mild-to-moderate primary hypertension and no significant comorbidities, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was conducted after a 2- to 4-week placebo run-in period and before treatment initiation. Individual blood pressure measurements at 20-min intervals were analysed.

RESULTS

In 1419 hypertensive patients with normal sleeping times, blood pressure displayed a typical circadian rhythm, with a mean EMBPS of 29/24 mmHg. An EMBPS of >or= 25 mmHg was observed in around 60% of patients. The surge was significantly increased with smoking, alcohol consumption, longer sleep, later waking times, and increased blood pressure variability during waking and sleeping. The magnitude of the EMBPS was significantly reduced in Black vs. White patients. The surge was not affected by gender, body mass index or duration of hypertension. Further analysis showed that ethnicity, alcohol consumption and smoking were all found to have a significant impact on surge around waking and age, sleep duration and sleep blood pressure variability were all found to have an effect on the prewake surge.

CONCLUSIONS

In untreated hypertensive patients, the magnitude of the EMBPS is significant when compared with the 24-h mean and is affected by individual patient characteristics. In light of these findings, physicians should understand the importance of 24-h blood pressure control and the modification of certain lifestyle factors as ways of reducing the EMBPS.

Importance and challenges of studying marketed drugs: what is a phase IV study? Common clinical research designs, registries, and self-reporting systems

The new drug application database submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for drug approval (phases I-III or phases 1-3) is limited both in scope and size. Although randomized controlled trials, the hallmark of phase III trials, are the gold standard for the drug-approval process, they invariably have a number of limitations, including relatively small sample sizes, selective populations, short follow-up, the use of intermediate (surrogate) endpoints (almost always), and limited generalizability. The challenges of monitoring drugs once approved are also numerous. After approval by the Food and Drug Administration, marketed drugs undergo continued scrutiny, and this scrutiny is increasing because of problems that have surfaced with some drugs after their approval. Postmarketing research includes a variety of study designs and the use of registries and self-reporting of drug side effects. Along with this has come great confusion about what postmarketing research is and what a phase IV study is. Among the important strengths of phase IV research are the exposure of a broader range of patients to the drug under study, resulting in more "real-world" information about the drug's safety and efficacy, and consideration of a broader range of clinical endpoints. As a result, phase IV, or postmarketing research, has become an integral part of the drug evaluation process for a wide range of agents. The authors discuss the different types of study designs that are common under the phase IV terminology and provide some examples. They also discuss the use of registries and self-reporting of adverse events using the MedWatch System.

Telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide versus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: the SMOOTH study

Background

The Study of Micardis (telmisartan) in Overweight/Obese patients with Type 2 diabetes and Hypertension (SMOOTH) compared hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) plus telmisartan or valsartan fixed-dose combination therapies on early morning blood pressure (BP), using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

Methods

SMOOTH was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicentre trial. After a 2- to 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients received once-daily telmisartan 80 mg or valsartan 160 mg for 4 weeks, with add-on HCTZ 12.5 mg for 6 weeks (T/HCTZ or V/HCTZ, respectively). At baseline and week 10, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was measured every 20 min and hourly means were calculated. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP; DBP) during the last 6 hours of the 24-hour dosing interval.

Results

In total, 840 patients were randomized. At week 10, T/HCTZ provided significantly greater reductions versus V/HCTZ in the last 6 hours mean ABP (differences in favour of T/HCTZ: SBP 3.9 mm Hg, p < 0.0001; DBP 2.0 mm Hg, p = 0.0007). T/HCTZ also produced significantly greater reductions than V/HCTZ in 24-hour mean ABP (differences in favour of T/HCTZ: SBP 3.0 mm Hg, p = 0.0002; DBP 1.6 mm Hg, p = 0.0006) and during the morning, daytime and night-time periods (p < 0.003). Both treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusion

In high-risk, overweight/obese patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes, T/HCTZ provides significantly greater BP lowering versus V/HCTZ throughout the 24-hour dosing interval, particularly during the hazardous early morning hours.

Race and ethnicity in trials of antihypertensive therapy to prevent cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review

PURPOSE

We wanted to systematically review (1) the participation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials of antihypertensive drug therapy and (2) racial differences in the efficacy of these therapies for the prevention of cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, African Index Medicus, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to December 2005 for randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of antihypertensive drug therapy in preventing myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, or cardiovascular death. MEDLINE was also searched from 2005 through 2006. The 2 authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and quality.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Eight trials reported results by racial subgroup. Trials with black and Hispanic participants (ALLHAT, INVEST, VALUE) found similar primary outcomes, but ALLHAT found a greater magnitude of benefit for blacks on diuretic therapy compared with nonblacks. One trial (PROGRESS) compared Asians with non-Asians, reporting that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (vs placebo) were equally effective for preventing stroke in both groups. In the LIFE trial, post hoc analyses showed different outcomes for blacks and nonblacks, raising questions about the usefulness of angiotensin-receptor blockers as first-line antihypertensive agents in blacks. In 3 studies conducted exclusively in Asians (JMIC-B, FEVER, NICS-EH), calcium channel blockers were effective in preventing cardiovascular outcomes. No trials described cardiovascular outcomes in Native Americans.

CONCLUSIONS

Five trials made interethnic group comparisons; 4 had similar primary outcomes for ethnic minorities and whites. Increased minority participation in future studies is needed to determine optimal prevention therapies, especially in outcome-driven trials comparing multidrug antihypertensive treatment regimens.

Expedited blood pressure control with initial angiotensin II antagonist/diuretic therapy compared with stepped-care therapy in patients with ambulatory systolic hypertension

OBJECTIVES

The present study investigated whether initiating therapy with a combination of losartan (L) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) allows for faster blood pressure (BP) control and fewer medications than the usual stepped-care approach in patients with stage 2 or 3 hypertension and ambulatory systolic hypertension.

METHODS

Patients with a mean daytime systolic ambulatory BP (ABP) of 135 mmHg or higher were randomly assigned to receive L 50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg titrated to L 100 mg plus HCTZ 25 mg versus HCTZ 12.5 mg plus atenolol 50 mg. Amlodipine 5 mg was then added, if needed, to achieve a BP goal of less than 130 mmHg. Treatment titration was based on ABP.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients randomly assigned to L/HCTZ (63.5%) than stepped-care (37.5%; P=0.008) achieved the primary end point (daytime systolic BP of less than 130 mmHg). Initial L/HCTZ induced significantly greater decreases in ABP during each 24 h period after six weeks of therapy. Although reductions in systolic and diastolic ABP were not statistically different at the end of the study, ABP reduction was significantly greater (P<0.001) with the L/HCTZ-based regimen. Twice as many patients in the L/HCTZ group achieved the goal ABP with no more than two drugs (30.0% versus 14.7%; P=0.03). Moreover, tolerability was significantly better (P=0.006) in the L/HCTZ group, with a 40.0% incidence of adverse events, versus 65.6% in the stepped-care group.

CONCLUSION

Initiating antihypertensive therapy with the combination of L/HCTZ in patients with stage 2 or 3 hypertension and ambulatory systolic hypertension reaches a target BP faster in a higher proportion of patients, with fewer adverse events and less need for a third drug regimen than the conventional stepped-care approach.

A review of telmisartan in the treatment of hypertension: blood pressure control in the early morning hours

Measurement of blood pressure in the clinic may provide a false impression of blood pressure control. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) allows the automatic recording of the circadian variation in blood pressure and evaluation of the efficacy of antihypertensive medication throughout the dosing interval. Ambulatory blood pressure provides more effective prediction of cardiovascular risk; blood pressure control at the time of heightened risk in the early morning after waking and before taking the next dose of medication is becoming important in order to improve long-term prognosis. To achieve blood pressure control in the early morning, a long-acting antihypertensive agent is essential. Telmisartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, as well as having a terminal elimination half-life of 24 h, has a large volume of distribution due to its high lipophilicity. The efficacy of telmisartan 80 mg monotherapy has been demonstrated using ABPM, with superior reduction in mean values for the last 6 h of the dosing interval compared with ramipril 10 mg and valsartan 80 mg. In addition, telmisartan 80 mg provides superior blood pressure control after a missed dose compared with valsartan 160mg. When combined with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, telmisartan 40mg and 80mg is more effective than losartan/HCTZ (50/12.5 mg) at the end of the dosing interval. Furthermore, greater reductions in last 6 h mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) are achieved with telmisartan/HCTZ (80/12.5 mg) than with valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) in obese patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Recent data from a large group of patients show that telmisartan 80 mg controls the early morning blood pressure surge more effectively than ramipril 5-10 mg and, thus, may have a greater beneficial effect on long-term cardiovascular risk. This supposition is being tested in the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) programme.

Clinical trial design issues: at least 10 things you should look for in clinical trials

Randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard study design and yield the highest level of scientific credence. However, recognition of the limitations of the randomized controlled trial is important. This review highlights 10 potentially problematic areas one should carefully assess when performing or reading an article reporting the results of a randomized controlled trial, problematic areas that can affect the outcome of the trial and therefore mislead the reader. These areas include ethical issues, eligibility criteria, masking (blinding), randomization, analytic methods, the selection of subjects for the interventional and comparison groups, selection of end points, and the interpretation of the results. Each of these is discussed, and examples of published articles are used to highlight the main points.

Optimal timing for antihypertensive dosing: focus on valsartan

Some specific features of the 24 h blood pressure (BP) pattern are linked to the progressive injury of target tissues and the triggering of cardiac and cerebrovascular events. In particular, many studies show the extent of the nocturnal BP decline relative to the diurnal BP mean (the diurnal/nocturnal ratio, an index of BP dipping) is deterministic of cardiovascular injury and risk. Normalization of the circadian BP pattern is considered to be an important clinical goal of pharmacotherapy because it may slow the advance of renal injury and avert end-stage renal failure. The chronotherapy of hypertension takes into account the epidemiology of the BP pattern, plus potential administration-time determinants of the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of antihypertensive medications, as a means of enhancing beneficial outcomes and/or attenuating or averting adverse effects. Thus, bedtime dosing with nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) is more effective than morning dosing, while also reducing significantly secondary effects. The dose-response curve, therapeutic coverage, and efficacy of doxazosin GITS are all markedly dependent on the circadian time of drug administration. Moreover, valsartan administration at bedtime as opposed to upon wakening results in improved diurnal/nocturnal ratio, a significant increase in the percentage of patients with controlled BP after treatment, and significant reductions in urinary albumin excretion and plasma fibrinogen. Chronotherapy provides a means of individualizing treatment of hypertension according to the circadian BP profile of each patient, and constitutes a new option to optimize BP control and reduce risk.

[Chronotherapy with torasemide in hypertensive patients: increased efficacy and therapeutic coverage with bedtime administration]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Torasemide is a high ceiling loop diuretic frequently used for treatment of heart failure, renal failure and hypertension, according to results mainly based on clinic blood pressure measurements, without proper evaluation of the 24-hour efficacy of the drug. Accordingly, we investigated the time-dependent antihypertensive efficacy of torasemide in hypertensive patients.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We studied 58 patients with grade 1-2 essential hypertension (25 men and 33 women), 48.7 (11.9) years of age, randomly assigned to receive torasemide (5 mg/day) either upon awakening or at bedtime. Blood pressure was measured by ambulatory monitoring for 48 consecutive hours before and after 6 weeks of therapy.

RESULTS

Efficacy of torasemide was significantly higher with bedtime dosing (11.2 and 8.0 mmHg reduction in the 24-hour mean of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively) as compared to the administration of the drug on awakening (6.2 and 3.7 mmHg reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure). The percentage of patients with controlled ambulatory blood pressure after treatment was also higher after bedtime treatment (54% versus 27%). The time-response curves indicate a full 24-hour therapeutic duration only when torasemide was administered before bedtime. With regard to the safety profile, 2 patients presented secondary effects (abdominal pain, diarrhea) in morning dose, and 4 patients taking the drug at bedtime reported nicturia.

CONCLUSIONS

A dose of 5 mg/day torasemide is effective for blood pressure reduction after bedtime administration. The differences in efficacy and therapeutic duration as a function of the circadian time of treatment with torasemide here documented should be taken into account when prescribing this loop diuretic for treatment of patients with essential hypertension.

The prospective, randomized investigation of the safety and efficacy of telmisartan versus ramipril using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (PRISMA I)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily telmisartan and ramipril on blood pressure (BP) reductions during the last 6 h of the dosing interval.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint study using ambulatory BP monitoring, 801 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomly assigned to once-daily treatment with telmisartan 80 mg for 14 weeks or ramipril 5 mg for 8 weeks and then force titrated to ramipril 10 mg for the last 6 weeks. Primary endpoints were the reduction from baseline in the last 6-h mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). Secondary endpoints included changes in 24-h, morning, daytime and night-time mean ambulatory BP and ambulatory BP response rates.

RESULTS

Telmisartan 80 mg produced greater reductions in the last 6-h mean ambulatory SBP and DBP compared with ramipril 5 mg (P < 0.0001) and 10 mg (P < 0.0001), and was superior to ramipril for all secondary ambulatory SBP and DBP endpoints (P < 0.05). Ambulatory BP response rates (24-h mean ambulatory SBP/DBP < 130/80 mmHg or reduction from baseline > or = 10 mmHg) were greater with telmisartan 80 mg (P < 0.01) than with ramipril 5 and 10 mg. Ramipril was associated with a higher incidence of treatment-related cough (5.7 versus 0.5% for telmisartan).

CONCLUSIONS

Telmisartan was significantly more effective than ramipril in reducing BP throughout the 24-h dosing interval and particularly during the last 6 h, a time when patients appear to be at greatest risk of cerebro- and cardiovascular events. Both drugs were well tolerated, although ramipril was associated with a higher incidence of cough.

Efectos de la administración temporalizada de fármacos antihipertensivos en pacientes con hipertensión arterial resistente

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients with resistant hypertension represent an important clinical problem due to their poor control, high prevalence of target organ damage, and the associated increase in cardiovascular risk. Therapeutic strategies in resistant hypertension currently include a sequential change of drugs or the synergic combination of new drugs. Most patients, however, receive all their drugs in a single morning dose. We have evaluated the impact on the circadian pattern of blood pressure (BP) of modifying the time of treatment without increasing the number of prescribed drugs.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We studied 123 patients with resistant hypertension (73 men and 50 women), 59.9 (11.9) years of age, who were receiving 3 antihypertensive drugs in a single morning dose. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups according to the modification in their treatment strategy: a) Changing one of the drugs, but keeping all 3 in the morning. b) The same approach but prescribing one of the drugs to be taken at bedtime. Blood pressure was measured at 20-minute intervals from 07:00 to 23:00 hours and at 30-minute intervals at night for 48 consecutive hours at baseline and after 3 months of treatment with the new therapeutic scheme.

RESULTS

There was a small and non-significant BP reduction when all drugs were still taken on awakening (p > 0.374). On baseline, only 22% of the patients in this group were dippers, and this percentage was further reduced to 15% after 3 months of therapy with all drugs on awakening. The blood pressure reduction was statistically significant (8.6 and 5.9 mmHg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure; p < 0.001) with one drug at bedtime. This effect was markedly larger in the nocturnal mean of blood pressure. Thus, while only 13% of the patients in this group were dippers at baseline, 53% were already dippers after 3 months of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this prospective trial indicate that, in patients with resistant hypertension, time of treatment may be more important for patient control and for the proper modeling of the circadian blood pressure pattern than just changing the drug combination.

Telmisartan/Hydrochlorothiazide in comparison with losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in managing patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

Hypertension is risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and stroke. A critical surge in blood pressure occurs during the early morning hours coincident with increased incidences of myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke and sudden cardiac death. This suggests that, in patients with hypertension, it may be important to maintain the efficacy of antihypertensive medication over the 24-h dosing interval, especially in the risky early morning hours. In order to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacies of fixed-dose combinations of angiotensin II receptor blockers with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, a multicenter, randomized, prospective, open-label, blinded-endpoint study was performed in 805 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension randomized to once-daily treatment with telmisartan 40 mg plus HCTZ (T40/H12.5), losartan 50 mg plus HCTZ (L50/H12.5), or telmisartan 80 mg plus HCTZ (T80/H12.5), with the primary objective of comparing T40/H12.5 with L50/H12.5 and evaluating the additional response of T80/H12.5. Efficacy was assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), clinic seated cuff sphygmomanometry and calculated responder rates after 6 weeks' active treatment. The primary endpoint was reduction from baseline in the last 6-h mean (relative to dosing) diastolic blood pressure (DBP) measured using 24-h ABPM. Compared with the L50/H12.5 group, the mean reductions in the last 6-h mean DBP for the T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 groups were significantly greater: -2.0 mmHg (p=0.0031) and -2.8 mmHg (p=0.0003), respectively. We conclude that T40/H12.5 provided clinically and statistically significantly superior blood pressure reductions compared with L50/H12.5 during the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval, which corresponds to the high-risk early-morning hours, and that T80/H12.5 provided additional blood pressure reductions.

Applications of 24-hour Noninvasive Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

Casual blood pressure (CBP) measurements using a standard sphygmomanometer have traditionally constituted the principal modality for the assessment and management of hypertension. However, CBP measurement has shortcomings. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) provides abundant information on blood pressure (BP), including heart rate, all BP readings for test periods, BP average, BP variability, BP load, load index, distribution pattern of BP, reduction percentage of BP, trough/peak ratio, and summary statistics for overall 24-hour, daytime and nighttime periods. Over the last three decades, ABPM has evolved from a research device to an established and valuable clinical tool for assessment and management of hypertension. This technology has been proven to be useful in terms of the distribution pattern of BP, characterization of BP profiles in normotensive and hypertensive patients, evaluation of patients with mild or labile hypertension, physiologic and psychologic factors for fluctuation of BP, load index study, study of white coat hypertension, etiology of hypertension, prognosis of hypertension, and assessment of antihypertensive management. Nevertheless, the technology remains underused due to lack of insurance reimbursement in most countries. Accordingly, insurance reimbursement is crucial to promote increased utility of ABPM. Clinicians should be familiar with the role of this technology in the care of patients with abnormal BP. This review is an attempt to increase clinicians' understanding of ABPM and the appropriate use of this technology.

Treatment of non-dipper hypertension with bedtime administration of valsartan

BACKGROUND

Previous results have indicated that valsartan administration at bedtime, as opposed to upon wakening, may improve the diurnal: nocturnal ratio of blood pressure without loss in 24-h coverage and efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the administration time-dependent antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan in non-dipper patients.

METHODS

We studied 148 non-dipper patients with grade 1-2 essential hypertension, aged 53.0+/-12.6 years, who were randomly assigned to receive valsartan (160 mg/day) as a monotherapy either on awakening or at bedtime. Blood pressure was measured every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive hours before and after 3 months of treatment. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to accurately calculate the diurnal and nocturnal means of blood pressure on a per subject basis.

RESULTS

The significant blood pressure reduction after 3 months of valsartan (P<0.001) was similar for both treatment times (13.1 and 8.5 mmHg reduction in the 24-h mean of systolic and diastolic blood pressure with morning administration; 14.7 and 10.3 mmHg with bedtime administration; P>0.126 for treatment-time effect). The diurnal: nocturnal ratio of blood pressure was significantly increased only when valsartan was administered before bedtime, which resulted in 75% of the patients in this group reverting to dippers, a significant increase in the percentage of patients with controlled blood pressure over 24 h, and a reduction in urinary albumin excretion.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-dipper hypertensive patients, dosing time with valsartan should be chosen at bedtime, for improved efficacy during the nocturnal resting hours, as well as the potential associated reduction in cardiovascular risk.

Comparison of fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide 40/12.5 mg and 80/12.5 mg and a fixed-dose combination of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide 50/12.5 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertension: pooled analysis of two multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) trials

BACKGROUND

High incidences of cardiovascular events coincide with a surge in blood pressure (BP) that occurs in the early morning hours at the time of arousal. Thus, control of BP at this time of day, using oral fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) as required, is important in reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy in the early morning hours and tolerability of oral FDCs of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (40/12.5 mg [T40/H12.5] and 80/12.5 mg [T80/H12.5]) versus a low-dose FDC of losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (L50/H12.5).

METHODS

Data from 2 similarly designed prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) studies were pooled and analyzed. The studies were conducted at 72 centers across the United States, and 70 centers in Canada, Europe (9 countries), and the Philippines. Adult male and female patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP [DBP], > or =85 mm Hg; seated cuff DBP, 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive T40/H12.5, L50/H12.5, or T80/H12.5, QD (morning) for 6 weeks. Antihypertensive efficacy was assessed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and cuff sphygmomanometry at trough, performed at baseline and on completion of active treatment. The primary end point was the reduction from baseline in mean ambulatory DBP over the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. Secondary end points included other ABPM- and clinic-derived changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP), and control and response rates (SBP response defined as 24-hour mean SBP <130 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP response defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP control defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg). Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, spontaneous reporting, and clinical evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients were enrolled(876 men, 525 women; mean [SD] age, 53.1 [9.9] years) (T40/H12.5, n = 517; L50/H12.5, n = 518; and T80/H12.5, n = 367). With T40/H12.5, the mean reduction in last-6-hour mean ambulatory DBP was 1.8 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-11.3 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001), and with T80/H12.5, the mean reduction was 2.6 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-12.0 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001). Analysis of secondary end points found that greater BP reduction occurred with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5. ABPM SBP control and response rates were similar between the 3 groups, but the ABPM DBP control and response rates were significantly higher with T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (46.6% vs 34.0% [P < 0.002] and 69.4% vs 55.0% [P < 0.001], respectively). Clinic SBP and DBP control and response rates were higher with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (SBP response, 80.4% and 80.8% vs 68.5% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP response, 66.1% and 67.4% vs 54.4% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP control, 56.5% and 56.4% vs 44.1% [both, P < 0.001] ). The 2 most commonly recorded adverse events (AEs) were headache (T40/H12.5, 2.9%; L50/H12.5, 3.3%; and T80/H12.5, 3.0%) and dizziness (1.2%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, respectively). Most AEs were mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pooled analysis of2 PROBE studies in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension suggest that T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 conferred greater DBP and SBP control compared with low-dose L50/H12.5, including during the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. All 3 treatments were well tolerated.

Aspirin Administered at Bedtime, But Not on Awakening, Has an Effect on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Patients

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this research was to investigate in untreated hypertensive patients the effects on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) of aspirin (ASA) administered at different times of the day.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that ASA produces an administration time-dependent inhibition of angiotensin II. Low-dose ASA has also been shown to reduce BP when administered before bedtime, as opposed to upon awakening, in normotensive and hypertensive volunteers, and in pregnant women at high risk for preeclampsia.

METHODS

We studied 328 untreated patients with grade 1 hypertension, 44.0 +/- 12.6 years of age, randomly divided into three groups: nonpharmacological hygienic-dietary recommendations, the same recommendations and ASA (100 mg/day) on awakening, or the same recommendations and ASA before bedtime. Blood pressure was measured every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive h before and after 3 months of intervention.

RESULTS

After three months of nonpharmacological intervention, there was a small and nonsignificant reduction of BP (<0.2 mm Hg; p = 0.648). Blood pressure was slightly elevated after aspirin on awakening (2.6/1.6 mm Hg in the 24-h mean of systolic/diastolic BP; p = 0.002). A significant BP reduction, however, was observed in the patients who received aspirin before bedtime (6.8/4.6 mm Hg in systolic/diastolic BP; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective trial documents a significant administration time-dependent effect of low-dose ASA on BP in untreated hypertensive patients. The timed administration of low-dose ASA could provide a valuable approach, beyond the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, in the added BP control of patients with mild essential hypertension.

Differing administration time-dependent effects of aspirin on blood pressure in dipper and non-dipper hypertensives

Aspirin is a potent antioxidative agent that reduces vascular production of superoxide, prevents angiotensin II-induced hypertension, and induces NO release. Low-dose aspirin administered at bedtime, but not on awakening, has also been shown to reduce blood pressure, possibly enhancing the nocturnal trough in NO production. Because endothelium-dependent vasodilation is blunted through a decrease in NO release in non-dipper compared with dipper patients, we compared the administration time-dependent influence of aspirin on ambulatory blood pressure in dipper and non-dipper hypertensive subjects. We studied 257 patients with mild hypertension (98 men and 159 women), 44.6+/-12.5 years of age, randomly assigned to receive 100 mg per day of aspirin either on awakening or at bedtime. Ambulatory blood pressure was measured for 48 hours at baseline and after 3 months of intervention. Blood pressure was slightly elevated after aspirin on awakening (increase of 1.5/1.0 mm Hg in the 24-hour mean of systolic/diastolic blood pressure; P<0.028). A highly significant blood pressure reduction was observed in patients who received aspirin at bedtime (decrease of 7.2/4.9 mm Hg in systolic/diastolic blood pressure; P<0.001). The reduction in nocturnal blood pressure mean was double in non-dippers (11.0/7.1 mm Hg) compared with dippers (5.5/3.3 mm Hg; P<0.001). This prospective trial corroborates the significant administration time-dependent effect of low-dose aspirin on blood pressure, mainly in non-dipper hypertensive patients. The timed administration of low-dose aspirin could thus provide a valuable approach, beyond prevention of cardiovascular disease, in the blood pressure control of patients with mild hypertension.

High-dose monotherapy vs low-dose combination therapy of calcium channel blockers and angiotensin receptor blockers in mild to moderate hypertension

The objectives of the study were to compare long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) with angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) according to the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) profile in stage 1 and 2 newly diagnosed hypertensives and also to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose monotherapy vs low-dose combination therapy of the two drug categories among the subjects with inadequate blood pressure (BP) control after conventional low-dose monotherapy. We obtained 24-h ABPM readings from 302 subjects with newly diagnosed stage 1 or 2 essential hypertension. The study protocol consisted of initial drug treatment with a low dose of either CCBs or ARBs. Hypertensives who did not achieve BP control were randomized to high-dose monotherapy of either category of drug or low-dose combination therapy. CCBs and ARBs in low-dose monotherapy achieved BP control in 53.8 and 55.3% of the cases, respectively. However, subjects under treatment with CCBs experienced side effects more often and required that treatment be discontinued. Hypertensives who failed to control their BP with low-dose monotherapy did significantly better with low-dose combination treatment (61.6%) than with high-dose CCBs (42.8%) or ARBs (40.5%) monotherapy (P<0.05). In terms of ABPM, low-dose combination therapy exhibited better 24-h BP profile according to trough-to-peak ratio, hypertensive burden and BP variability. In conclusion, low-dose ARBs and CCBs have a comparable effect in subjects with grade 1 and 2 arterial hypertension. In hypertensives who are not controlled by low-dose monotherapy, low-dose combination therapy proves be more efficacious than high-dose monotherapy.

Beauty is in the eye of the examiner: reaching agreement about physical signs and their value

Despite advances in other areas, evidence-based medicine is yet to make substantial inroads on the standard medical physical examination. We have reviewed the evidence about the accuracy and reliability of the physical examination and common clinical signs. The physical examination includes many signs of marginal accuracy and reproducibility. These may not be appreciated by clinicians and could adversely affect decisions about treatment and investigations or the teaching and examination of students and doctors-in-training. We provide a selected summary of the reliability and accuracy as well as important messages of key findings in the physical examination.

Effects of telmisartan 80 mg and valsartan 160 mg on ambulatory blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension

OBJECTIVES

This trial investigated and compared the antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan and valsartan, two angiotensin II receptor blockers, used in monotherapy at their maximum recommended dose in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

We studied 70 subjects (32 men and 38 women) aged 47.6 +/- 12.2 (mean +/- SD) years, with mild to moderate essential hypertension; they were randomly assigned to receive monotherapy with either telmisartan (80 mg) or valsartan (160 mg), in the form of a single daily tablet upon awakening. Blood pressure was measured by ambulatory monitoring every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive hours before and after 3 months of treatment. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to calculate accurately the diurnal and nocturnal means of blood pressure on a per subject basis.

RESULTS

There was a highly significant blood pressure reduction during the 24 h with both drugs. The blood pressure reduction in the 24-h mean was significantly larger for valsartan 160 mg (18.6 and 12.1 mmHg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively) than for telmisartan 80 mg (10.8 and 8.4 mmHg; P < 0.001 between treatment-groups). There was also a highly significant reduction (P < 0.001) of 6.5 mmHg in the 24-h mean of pulse pressure after valsartan administration only. The trough : peak ratio and the smoothness index were slightly higher in systolic, but similar in diastolic blood pressure, for telmisartan as compared to valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a shorter half-life, 160 mg/day valsartan was more effective in lowering blood pressure over 24 h than 80 mg/day telmisartan. Furthermore, valsartan was also more effective in lowering arterial pulse pressure, an observation that may have important therapeutic implications, given the mounting evidence that pulse pressure may be a risk factor for future cardiovascular events.

Telmisartan vs losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension--a randomised ABPM study

The objective of this prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-end point parallel-group, multicentre study was to show that telmisartan 80 mg is not inferior to a fixed-dose combination of losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. The criterion for noninferiority was a treatment difference of < or =3.0 mmHg in the reduction of 24-h mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from the end of the 4-week placebo washout period to the end of the 6-week active treatment period. In the intent-to-treat analysis, the mean reduction in 24-h DBP was 8.3+/-6.7 mmHg among telmisartan-treated patients (n=332) and 10.3+/-6.3 mmHg among losartan/HCTZ-treated patients (n=350). The mean adjusted difference in 24-h DBP between the two treatment groups was 1.9 mmHg, allowing rejection of the a priori null hypothesis of a treatment difference of >3 mmHg. The reduction in mean 24-h systolic blood pressure was 13.2+/-10.2 mmHg with telmisartan and 17.1+/-10.3 mmHg with losartan/HCTZ. Both drugs provided effective control over the 24-h dosing interval. Analyses of morning (0600-1159) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring DBP means and trough cuff DBP confirmed the noninferiority hypothesis of the protocol for telmisartan 80 mg vs losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg. The reductions in office blood pressures measured at trough in patients treated with telmisartan were -16.3/-9.6 and -18.5/-11.1 mmHg in the patients treated with losartan/HCTZ (difference -2.4/-1.2 mmHg). There were no differences between the side-effect profiles of the two treatments.