Treatment of hypertension in the prevention and management of ischemic heart disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Epidemiology and Prevention

Global health implications of preanesthesia medical examination for ophthalmic surgery

BACKGROUND

Preanesthesia medical examination is a common procedure performed before ophthalmic surgery. The frequency and characteristics of new medical issues and unstable medical conditions revealed by ophthalmic preanesthesia medical examination are unknown. We conducted a prospective observational study to estimate the proportion of patients with new medical issues and unstable medical conditions discovered during ophthalmic preanesthesia medical examination. Secondary aims were to characterize abnormal findings and assess surgical delay and adverse perioperative events, in relation to findings.

METHODS

Patients having preanesthesia medical examination, before ophthalmic surgery, were enrolled over a period of 2 years. A review was conducted of historical, physical examination, and test findings from the preanesthesia medical examination.

RESULTS

From review of medical records of 530 patients, 100 patients (19%; 95% CI, 16-23%) were reported by providers to have abnormal conditions requiring further medical evaluation. Of these, 12 (12%) had surgery delayed. Retrospective review of examination results identified an additional 114 patients with abnormal findings for a total of 214 (40%; 95% CI, 36-45%) patients. Among the 214 patients, primary findings were cardiovascular (139, 26%), endocrine (26, 5%), and renal (24, 5%). Complications occurred in 49 (9%; 95% CI, 7-12%) patients within 1 month of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Ophthalmic preanesthesia medical examination frequently detects new medical issues or unstable existing conditions, which do not typically alter conduct of perioperative procedures or outcomes. However, these conditions are relevant to long-term patient health and should be conveyed to primary care physicians for further evaluation.

Treatment of hypertension in obese patients

Obesity is a global pandemic and with its rise, its associated co-morbidities are increasing in prevalence, particularly uncontrolled hypertension. Lifestyle changes should be an anchor for the management of obesity-related hypertension; however, they are difficult to sustain. Drug therapy is often necessary to achieve blood pressure control. Diuretics, inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system, and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are often used as first trio, with subsequent additions of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and/or dual alpha/beta blocking agents. While a number of agents are currently available, 50 % of hypertensive patients remain uncontrolled. A number of novel drug and invasive therapies are in development and hold significant potential for the effective management of obesity-related hypertension.

Rationale for establishing a mechanism to increase reimbursement to hypertension specialists

Hypertension is an important public health problem both in the United States and worldwide, contributing to many forms of cardiovascular and renal diseases. Although great strides have been made in the proportion of the US population that achieves recommended blood pressure targets, many Americans still have undertreated and uncontrolled blood pressure that increases the risk of expensive strokes, heart attacks, heart failure, and dialysis. Because hypertension is a common but heterogeneous and sometimes complex condition, the American Society of Hypertension (ASH) has, since 1999, designated physicians as "ASH Hypertension Specialists." Such Hypertension Specialists (as defined by ASH's Specialist Program) are fully licensed physicians with a primary board certification who are competent in all aspects of the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, as evidenced by passing a specific examination on these topics offered by ASH's Specialist Program. These physicians have a proven track record of controlling blood pressure in "resistant hypertensive" patients, the general population whom they serve, and educating other physicians to help them achieve higher blood pressure control rates among their patient populations. This report sets out a rationale for increased reimbursement for care of hypertensive patients by ASH-Designated Hypertension Specialists.

Dietary patterns and their association with cardiovascular risk factors in a population undergoing lifestyle changes: The Strong Heart Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are disproportionately high in American Indians (AI), and changes in lifestyle may be responsible. It is not known whether diverse dietary patterns exist in this population and whether the patterns are associated with CVD risk factors. This article describes the relationships between dietary patterns and CVD risk factors in this high-risk population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Nutrition data were collected via food frequency questionnaire from 3438 Strong Heart Study (SHS) participants, ≥ age 15 y. All participants were members of 94 extended families. The final sample consisted of 3172 men and women. Diet patterns were ascertained using factor analysis with the principal component factoring method. We derived four predominant dietary patterns: Western, traditional AI/Mexican, healthy, and unhealthy. Participants following the Western pattern had higher LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) (p < 0.001), slightly higher systolic blood pressure (BP) (p < 0.001), lower HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) (p < 0.001), and slightly lower homeostasis model assessment estimates of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) in the lowest vs. highest deciles of adherence to this pattern (p < 0.001). The traditional diet was associated with higher HDL-C (p < 0.001), but higher body mass index (BMI) (p < 0.001) and HOMA-IR (p < 0.001). Followers of the healthy pattern had lower systolic BP, LDL-C, BMI, and HOMA-IR in increasing deciles (p < 0.001). The unhealthy pattern was associated with higher LDL-C.

CONCLUSIONS

Dietary patterns reflect the changing lifestyle of AI and several of the patterns are associated with CVD risk factors. Evolving methods of food preparation have made the traditional pattern less healthy.

Mortality implications of angina and blood pressure in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease: New data from extended follow-up of the International Verapamil/Trandolapril Study (INVEST)

BACKGROUND

Angina and hypertension are common in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD); however, the effect on mortality is unclear. We conducted this prespecified analysis of the International Verapamil/Trandolapril Study (INVEST) to assess relationships between angina, blood pressure (BP), and mortality among elderly, hypertensive CAD patients.

HYPOTHESIS

Angina and elevated BP will be associated with higher mortality.

METHODS

Extended follow-up was performed using the National Death Index for INVEST patients in the United States (n = 16 951). Based on angina history at enrollment and during follow-up visits, patients were divided into groups: persistent angina (n = 7184), new-onset angina (n = 899), resolved angina (n = 4070), and never angina (n = 4798). Blood pressure was evaluated at baseline, during drug titration, and during follow-up on-treatment. On-treatment systolic BP was classified as tightly controlled (<130 mm Hg), controlled (130-139 mm Hg), or uncontrolled (≥140 mm Hg). A Cox proportional hazards model was created adjusting for age, heart failure, diabetes, renal impairment, myocardial infarction, stroke, and smoking. The angina groups and BP control groups were compared using the never-angina group as the reference.

RESULTS

Only in the persistent-angina group was a significant association with mortality observed, with an apparent protective effect (hazard ratio: 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.89, P < 0.0001). Uncontrolled BP was associated with increased mortality risk (hazard ratio: 1.29, 95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.40, P < 0.0001), as were several other known cardiovascular risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

In hypertensive CAD patients, persistent angina was associated with lower mortality. The observed effect was small compared with other cardiovascular risk factors, such as BP, which were associated with increased mortality.

Factors associated with blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with coronary heart disease: evidence from the Chinese Cholesterol Education Program

Blood pressure (BP) remains poorly controlled among hypertensive patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in China. Improvement of its management will require an understanding of the patient characteristics and treatment factors associated with uncontrolled hypertension. A cross-sectional survey of 3,279 patients from 52 centers in China was performed to examine potential barriers to adequate blood pressure control of hypertensive patients with CHD. Uncontrolled hypertension was defined as blood pressure ≥130/or 80 mmHg. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with poor blood pressure control. Mean age of the patients was 65 years, 40% were women, and mean BMI was 25 kg/m². Mean systolic blood pressure was 136±18 mmHg and mean diastolic blood pressure was 80±11 mmHg. Only 18% of patients had a mean blood pressure <130/80 mmHg during the study period. Multivariate analysis revealed several independent factors of poor blood pressure control: body mass index ≥23 kg/m², the presence of stable angina pectoris (SAP), family history of diabetes, and use of calcium channel blockers (CCB). Further analysis showed that non-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist was significantly correlated with low BP control rate. Some of these may be amenable to modification. The results of our study suggest that overweight, the presence of SAP and family history of diabetes are important factors for tight BP control in primary care. In addition, non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers appear less effective than other therapies in control of blood pressure and should not be the first choice among hypertensive patients with CHD. Further identification of patients at risk of poor BP control can lead to targeted interventions to improve management.

Treating hypertension in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: hitting the fairway and avoiding the rough

Hypertension is a major risk factor in the development of heart failure (HF), yet current guidelines do not specify a target blood pressure (BP) for patients with established systolic or diastolic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. While no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted to specify the optimal blood pressure in these patients, numerous trials have demonstrated the benefits of certain classes of medications and treatment strategies in patients with HF. Important factors to consider in treating hypertension in patients with HF include the type of HF (reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction), the etiology (ischemic vs. nonischemic), the severity of symptoms if any, the baseline blood pressure, as well as a wide variety of patient-specific factors. This paper reviews current evidence to address the question, "What should be the blood pressure goal in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction?" We suggest a target blood pressure of 120-140/70-90 mm Hg in most cases, with lower pressures generally preferable if tolerated.

Assessment of drug-induced increases in blood pressure during drug development: report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium

This White Paper, prepared by members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, discusses several important issues regarding the evaluation of blood pressure (BP) responses to drugs being developed for indications not of a direct cardiovascular (CV) nature. A wide range of drugs are associated with off-target BP increases, and both scientific attention and regulatory attention to this topic are increasing. The article provides a detailed summary of scientific discussions at a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium-sponsored Think Tank held on July 18, 2012, with the intention of moving toward consensus on how to most informatively collect and analyze BP data throughout clinical drug development to prospectively identify unacceptable CV risk and evaluate the benefit-risk relationship. The overall focus in on non-CV drugs, although many of the points also pertain to CV drugs. Brief consideration of how clinical assessment can be informed by nonclinical investigation is also outlined. These discussions present current thinking and suggestions for furthering our knowledge and understanding of off-target drug-induced BP increases and do not represent regulatory guidance.

The evolution of a Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendation: the impact of resistance training on resting blood pressure in adults as an example

Ever since the first set of hypertension recommendations which were generated from the Canadian Hypertension Education Program, lifestyle and health behaviour have been a key focus. An initial recommendation focused on the benefits of aerobic exercise to reduce resting blood pressure (BP). However, until the 2013 edition, resistance exercise (RT) was not included. The current article describes a meta-analysis that was conducted which helped inform the creation of the newly introduced recommendation. Literature searches were conducted in 4 electronic databases. Inclusion criteria included: (1) randomized controlled trials with 4-week minimum, RT-alone intervention arms; (2) BP-lowering as the primary outcome; (3) human, adult participants; and (4) reporting control data, baseline, and postintervention resting systolic BP and diastolic BP. Nine studies (11 intervention groups, 452 participants) were identified. The analyses indicated that diastolic BP was significantly reduced (-2.2 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -3.9 to -0.5) in those randomized to RT compared with control participants. In contrast, no statistically significant change in systolic BP (-1.0 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -3.4 to 1.4) was observed. None of the studies found RT to increase BP and no adverse effects of RT were explicitly reported. Results suggest that participation in RT is not harmful and does not increase BP. However, more evidence is needed before recommending RT as a specific BP-lowering therapy.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of fixed dose antihypertensive drugs]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of different fixed-dose combinations of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers and calcium channel blockers, to use it as a guide to assist the rational prescribing in antihypertensive therapy.

METHODS

The efficacy of each drug was obtained from intervention studies randomized, double-blind, made with these combinations and a utility-cost modeling from the model proposed and used by NICE. The perspective of our analysis is the National Health System and the time horizon is long enough to achieve therapeutic goals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per mmHg reduction in BP, percentage of reduction necessary to achieve the therapeutic goals for hypertension control and cost, and finally quantity and quality of life gained with these treatments in patients with hypertension, diabetes.

RESULTS

We studied three fixed-dose combinations: amlodipine/olmesartán, amlodipine/valsartan and manidipine/delapril. The cost per mmHg systolic BP ranged from 24.93 to 12.34 €/mmHg, and diastolic BP ranged from 34.24 to 18.76 €/mmHg, depending on the drug used. For an initial value of 165mmHg systolic BP the most efficient treatment to achieve the therapeutic goal of hypertension control (<140mmHg) is manidipine/delapril with a cost of 67.76 €. The use of these drugs to control diabetic and hypertensive patients resulted in all cases being cost-effective (more effective and lower cost compared to "no treatment"). Manidipine/delapril showed the best relation cost-utility (1,970 €/QALY (quality-adjusted life year)) followed by amlodipine/olmesartan and amlodipine/valsartan (2,087 and 2,237 €/QALY, respectively).

50 years of thiazides: should thiazide diuretics be considered third-line hypertension treatment?

The purpose of this report is to review available and emerging antihypertensive treatment options in light of current guidelines and evidence from large clinical trials. The published literature was reviewed for evidence regarding first-line options for antihypertensive agents, including thiazide-type diuretics, as monotherapy or as part of combination therapy. Current guidelines recommend using thiazide-type diuretics as first-line therapy alone or in combination with another agent. Other commonly used antihypertensive agents include calcium channel blockers, β-adrenergic receptor blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and the direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren. These agents are associated with varying degrees of evidence that they may provide protection from cardiovascular or renal disease beyond that associated with blood pressure reduction. Thiazide diuretics are inexpensive and effective but may not be preferable to other classes of antihypertensives that reduce blood pressure to a similar extent with a better safety profile and superior reductions in cardiovascular event rates. However, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and direct renin inhibitors also show promise as initial monotherapy or as part of a combination therapy regimen. In patients requiring additional blood pressure reduction, add-on therapy with a diuretic could provide additional blood pressure-lowering efficacy.

Hypertension management in the high cardiovascular risk population

The incidence of hypertension is increasing every year. Blood pressure (BP) control is an important therapeutic goal for the slowing of progression as well as for the prevention of Cardiovascular disease. The management of hypertension in the high cardiovascular risk population remains a real challenge as the population continues to age, the incidence of diabetes increases, and more and more people survive acute myocardial infarction. We will review hypertension management in the high cardiovascular risk population: patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and heart failure (HF) as well as in diabetic patients.

A patient-centric goal in time to blood pressure control from drug therapy initiation

A time frame in which newly diagnosed hypertensive patients attain blood pressure (BP) goal would guide patients through uncertainty associated with initiating drug therapy for hypertension control. This study estimates time to BP goal resulting from drug therapy initiation among real-world hypertensive patients and identifies factors associated with variations in time to BP goal. The study uses a historical cohort design. Hypertensive patients who had initiated antihypertensive drug therapy between July 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003, were followed up to 12 months until the end of 2004. Electronic medical records from a medical group were linked with pharmacy claims, as well as with medical claims. Survival analyses were used to compare lengths of time needed to reach BP goals. A total of 223 patients from a real world practice setting had initiated antihypertensive drug therapy. The patients took 3.25 months (95% CI: 2.49-4.82) to reach BP goal. The patient-centric time to BP goal was 7.1 weeks longer than those reported in controlled experimental settings. This finding highlights the gap between results of controlled clinical trials and their application to clinical practice, and informs healthcare practitioners of the importance of setting a patient-centric goal in pharmacological treatment of hypertension.

Methods of blood pressure measurement in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

Minimal clinical research has investigated the significance of different blood pressure monitoring techniques in the ICU and whether systolic vs. mean blood pressures should be targeted in therapeutic protocols and in defining clinical study cohorts. The objectives of this study are to compare real-world invasive arterial blood pressure with noninvasive blood pressure, and to determine if differences between the two techniques have clinical implications.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective study comparing invasive arterial blood pressure and noninvasive blood pressure measurements using a large ICU database. We performed pairwise comparison between concurrent measures of invasive arterial blood pressure and noninvasive blood pressure. We studied the association of systolic and mean invasive arterial blood pressure and noninvasive blood pressure with acute kidney injury, and with ICU mortality.

SETTING

Adult intensive care units at a tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to intensive care units between 2001 and 2007.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Pairwise analysis of 27,022 simultaneously measured invasive arterial blood pressure/noninvasive blood pressure pairs indicated that noninvasive blood pressure overestimated systolic invasive arterial blood pressure during hypotension. Analysis of acute kidney injury and ICU mortality involved 1,633 and 4,957 patients, respectively. Our results indicated that hypotensive systolic noninvasive blood pressure readings were associated with a higher acute kidney injury prevalence (p = 0.008) and ICU mortality (p < 0.001) than systolic invasive arterial blood pressure in the same range (≤70 mm Hg). Noninvasive blood pressure and invasive arterial blood pressure mean arterial pressures showed better agreement; acute kidney injury prevalence (p = 0.28) and ICU mortality (p = 0.76) associated with hypotensive mean arterial pressure readings (≤60 mm Hg) were independent of measurement technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically significant discrepancies exist between invasive and noninvasive systolic blood pressure measurements during hypotension. Mean blood pressure from both techniques may be interpreted in a consistent manner in assessing patients' prognosis. Our results suggest that mean rather than systolic blood pressure is the preferred metric in the ICU to guide therapy.

Managing cardiovascular risk in people with chronic kidney disease: a review of the evidence from randomized controlled trials

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and morbidity in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) making measures to modify cardiovascular risk a clinical priority. The relationship between risk factors and cardiovascular outcomes is often substantially different in people with CKD compared with the general population, leading to uncertainty around pathophysiological mechanisms and the validity of generalizations from the general population. Furthermore, published reports of subgroup analyses from clinical trials have suggested that a range of interventions may have different effects in people with kidney disease compared with those with normal kidney function. There is a relative scarcity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in CKD populations, and most such trials are small and underpowered. As a result, evidence to support cardiovascular risk modification measures for people with CKD is largely derived from small trials and post hoc analyses of RCTs conducted in the general population. In this review, we examine the available RCT evidence on interventions aimed at preventing cardiovascular events in people with kidney disease to identify beneficial treatments as well as current gaps in knowledge that should be a priority for future research.

Roles played by 20-HETE, angiotensin II and endothelin in mediating the hypertension in aging female spontaneously hypertensive rats

Prevalence of hypertension (HT) increases in women after menopause, and there is evidence that HT is not as well controlled in postmenopausal women as men. The reasons for this are not clear but may be related to the lack of adequate blockade of the systems contributing to HT in women. This study aimed to determine the roles of three of the systems known to contribute to HT in animal studies: angiotensin II (ANG II; enalapril inhibitor), eicosanoids [1-aminobenzotriazole (1-ABT) inhibitor], and endothelin (ET(A) receptor antagonist), on blood pressure (BP) in three groups of female spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR), aged 18 mos (postmenopausal rat, PMR). After baseline telemetry BP, three drug periods were performed for 5 days each: single blockade (ABT or enalapril), double blockade (ABT+enalapril or enalapril+ABT), and triple blockade (all 3 drugs). Controls received no treatment until the third period when they received ET(A) receptor antagonist alone. Single drug blockade reduced BP in PMR to similar levels. Double blockade reduced mean arterial pressure more in ABT+enalapril rats than in the other group (enalapril+ABT). Triple drug blockade reduced BP to similar levels in both groups, but the BP remained ∼110 mmHg. The data suggest that these three systems, ANG II, eicosanoids, and endothelin, contribute together and independently to BP control in old female SHR. However, other systems also contribute to the HT since the BP was not normalized, supporting the notion that HT in postmenopausal women may require complex multidrug therapy to be better controlled and that may require the development of additional drugs.

Olmesartan medoxomil-based antihypertensive therapy evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: efficacy in high-risk patient subgroups

Hypertension affects approximately 26% of the world's adult population and is a recognized major risk factor for morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and renal diseases. However, despite the availability of a range of effective antihypertensive agents and a growing awareness of the consequences of high blood pressure (BP), the treatment and control of hypertension remains suboptimal. A number of patient subgroups are categorized as 'high risk' and may have hypertension that is more difficult to treat, including obese individuals, patients with stage 2 hypertension, those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), patients with coronary artery disease or a history of stroke, and Black patients. As the benefits of lowering BP in patients with hypertension are unequivocal, particularly in high-risk patients, treating high-risk patients with hypertension to BP goals and maintaining 24-hour BP control is important to help reduce cardiovascular risk and improve outcomes. Although the BP goals recommended in current consensus guidelines for the management of patients with hypertension are based on cuff BP measurements, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) provides a valuable diagnostic tool and allows a more accurate assessment of BP levels throughout the 24-hour dosing period. ABPM is a better predictor of prognosis than office BP measurement and is also useful for assessing whether antihypertensive therapy remains effective in the critical last few hours of the dosing period, which usually coincides with the morning BP surge associated with arousal and arising. ABPM has been adopted by new evidence-based guidelines in the United Kingdom to confirm a suspected diagnosis of hypertension, which is an indication of the growing importance of ABPM in the management of hypertension. This review provides an overview of the efficacy and safety of antihypertensive therapy based on olmesartan medoxomil ± hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil in high-risk patient populations enrolled in studies that reported ambulatory BP endpoints. The studies identified in this review showed that a titrate-to-BP goal strategy using olmesartan medoxomil- or amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil-based antihypertensive therapy was an effective and well-tolerated approach for maintaining BP control throughout the full 24-hour dosing period in high-risk patients with difficult-to-treat hypertension.

Serum calcium level in hypertension

BACKGROUND

The alterations in extracellular calcium level may influence intracellular calcium level and possibly play a role in the pathogenesis of essential hypertension.

AIM

The purpose was to find out the association between serum calcium levels and hypertension; and to compare the serum calcium levels between normotensive controls, hypertensive subjects on calcium channel blockers, and hypertensive subjects on antihypertensive medication other than calcium channel blockers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty one individuals including normotensives (n = 12) and hypertensives (n = 19) were enrolled for the study and their blood pressure recorded. Hypertensive group was sub divided into two: hypertensives on calcium channel blockers and hypertensives on antihypertensive medication other than calcium channel blockers. Serum calcium levels were measured by Accucare Calcium Arsenazo III kit. Differences between the groups were analyzed using ANOVA.

RESULTS

No significant difference in serum calcium level was found between normotensive and hypertensive groups; and no correlation was found between calcium levels and the blood pressure. Also the difference in serum calcium levels in hypertensive group on calcium channel blockers and those on antihypertensive other than calcium channel blockers was insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum calcium levels are tightly regulated. Subtle changes in serum levels do not affect blood pressure.

Olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in participants with hypertension and diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or chronic cardiovascular disease: a subanalysis of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group TRINITY study

BACKGROUND

Patients with hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) usually require two or more antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals.

METHODS

The efficacy/safety of olmesartan (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg versus the component dual-combinations (OM 40/AML 10 mg, OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg) was evaluated in participants with diabetes, CKD, or chronic CVD in the Triple Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Hypertensive Patients Study (TRINITY). The primary efficacy end point was least squares (LS) mean reduction from baseline in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) at week 12. Secondary end points included LS mean reduction in SeSBP and proportion of participants achieving BP goal (<130/80 mm Hg) at week 12 (double-blind randomized period), and LS mean reduction in SeBP and BP goal achievement at week 52/early termination (open-label period).

RESULTS

At week 12, OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg resulted in significantly greater SeBP reductions in participants with diabetes (-37.9/22.0 mm Hg vs -28.0/17.6 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, -26.4/14.7 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and -27.6/14.8 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg), CKD (-44.3/25.5 mm Hg vs -39.5/23.8 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, -25.3/17.0 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and -33.4/20.6 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg), and chronic CVD (-37.8/20.6 mm Hg vs -31.7/18.2 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, -30.9/17.1 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and -27.5/16.1 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg) (P<0.05 for all subgroups vs dual-component treatments). BP goal achievement was greater for participants receiving triple-combination treatment compared with the dual-combination treatments, and was achieved in 41.1%, 55.0%, and 38.9% of participants with diabetes, CKD, and chronic CVD on OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. At week 52, there was sustained BP lowering with the OM/AML/HCTZ regimen. Overall, the triple combination was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with diabetes, CKD, or chronic CVD, short-term (12 weeks) and long-term treatment with OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg was well tolerated, lowered BP more effectively, and enabled more participants to reach BP goal than the corresponding 2-component regimens. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: NCT00649389.

What is the prevalence of resistant hypertension in the United States?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Resistant hypertension, defined as blood pressure uncontrolled on three, or controlled with at least four, antihypertensive agents (including a diuretic), is associated with higher risk of secondary hypertension, cardiovascular and renal events, and increased healthcare expenditures. Until recently, however, the prevalence of resistant hypertension in the United States (US) was based on clinical trial registries or pharmacy databases.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent analyses of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, drawn from representative samples of the adult, noninstitutionalized, civilian population, have estimated the prevalence of resistant hypertension at 8.9  ±  0.6% of the US hypertensive population in 2003-2008. A time-sequence comparison of NHANES data from 1998 through 2008 suggests that, unlike hypertension, resistant hypertension is becoming more prevalent (e.g., 20.7% in 2005-2008), due to aging and increased obesity in the general population. Resistant hypertension was more frequent in people who were older, obese, male, African American or nonblack Hispanic.

SUMMARY

In coming years, even if the prevalence of hypertension remains stable, resistant hypertension is likely to increase, especially as the proportion of treated hypertension increases. Because of increased use of healthcare resources, resistant hypertensive patients should be identified early, and greater efforts made to control their blood pressures.

What should the blood pressure goal be in patients with hypertension who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease?

Epidemiologic and clinical trial data suggest that blood pressure in patients with hypertension who are at high risk for cardiovascular events because of coronary artery disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, stroke, or heart failure should be reduced to < 140/90 mm Hg in patients aged < 80 years, and that systolic blood pressure should be reduced to 140 to 145 mm Hg, if tolerated, in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Studies on patients with coronary artery disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, stroke, and heart failure are discussed, supporting a blood pressure goal of < 140/90 mm Hg in patients aged < 80 years who are at high risk for cardiovascular events.

Catheter-based renal denervation for resistant hypertension: rationale and design of the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Trial

Hypertension represents a significant global public health concern, contributing to vascular and renal morbidity, cardiovascular mortality, and economic burden. The opportunity to influence clinical outcomes through hypertension management is therefore paramount. Despite adherence to multiple available medical therapies, a significant proportion of patients have persistent blood pressure elevation, a condition termed resistant hypertension. Recent recognition of the importance of the renal sympathetic and somatic nerves in modulating blood pressure and the development of a novel procedure that selectively removes these contributors to resistant hypertension represents an opportunity to provide clinically meaningful benefit across wide and varied patient populations. Early clinical evaluation with catheter-based, selective renal sympathetic denervation in patients with resistant hypertension has mechanistically correlated sympathetic efferent denervation with decreased renal norepinephrine spillover and renin activity, increased renal plasma flow, and has demonstrated clinically significant, sustained reductions in blood pressure. The SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Trial is a pivotal study designed as a prospective, randomized, masked procedure, single-blind trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of catheter-based bilateral renal denervation for the treatment of uncontrolled hypertension despite compliance with at least 3 antihypertensive medications of different classes (at least one of which is a diuretic) at maximal tolerable doses. The primary effectiveness endpoint is measured as the change in office-based systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months. This manuscript describes the design and methodology of a regulatory trial of selective renal denervation for the treatment of hypertension among patients who have failed pharmacologic therapy.

The changing face of chronic illness management in primary care: a qualitative study of underlying influences and unintended outcomes

PURPOSE

Recently, there has been dramatic increase in the diagnosis and pharmaceutical management of common chronic illnesses. Using qualitative data collected in primary care clinics, we assessed how these trends play out in clinical care.

METHODS

This qualitative study focused on management of type 2 diabetes and hypertension in 44 primary care clinics in Michigan and was based on interviews with 58 clinicians and 70 of their patients, and observations of 107 clinical consultations. We assessed clinicians' treatment strategies and discussions of factors influencing treatment decisions, and patients' understandings and experiences in managing these illnesses.

RESULTS

Clinicians focused on helping patients achieve test results recommended by national guidelines, and most reported combining 2 or more medications per condition to reach targets. Medication selection and management was the central focus of the consultations we observed. Polypharmacy was common among patients, with more than one-half taking 5 or more medications. Patient interviews indicated that heavy reliance on pharmaceuticals presents challenges to patient well-being, including financial costs and experiences of adverse health effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors promoting heavy use of pharmaceuticals include lower diagnostic and treatment thresholds, clinician-auditing and reward systems, and the prescribing cascade, whereby more medications are prescribed to control the effects of already-prescribed medications. We present a conceptual model, the inverse benefit law, to provide insight into the impact of pharmaceutical marketing efforts on the observed trends. We make recommendations about limiting the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on clinical practice, toward improving the well-being of patients with chronic illness.

Hypertensive goals in patients with coronary artery disease

There are many prospective clinical trials that have examined cardiovascular outcomes over the past 2 decades. Trials completed within the last 5 years clearly indicate that overall cardiovascular risk is reduced by blood pressure lowering to levels below 140/90 mm Hg. Greater cardiovascular risk reduction is not seen, however, by driving blood pressure to levels well below 130/80 mm Hg. This is true across the spectrum of cardio-renal risk with few exceptions, stroke prevention possibly being one. Further there should be an awareness that outcome studies performed within the last decade will not have the same risk reduction of a given class of antihypertensive drug previously tested. This is primarily due to an improved standard of care that was not present in trials of a decade ago and thus, more recent trials have lower cardiovascular risk at baseline. Lastly, new guidelines will most likely change the goal blood pressure to <140/90 mm Hg as all data support this level. Lastly, the caution of lowering diastolic blood pressure below 60 mm Hg especially in the elderly must be avoided to minimize reductions in coronary perfusion.

Regulation of mouse-renin gene by apurinic/apyrimidinic-endonuclease 1 (APE1/Ref-1) via recruitment of histone deacetylase 1 corepressor complex

OBJECTIVES

Apurinic/apyrimidinic-endonuclease 1 (APE1) heterozygous mice have chronically elevated blood pressure. Renin of the renin-angiotensin (ANG) system for blood pressure maintenance regulates production of ANG II, a vasoactive hormone. Renin expression and secretion from kidney juxtaglomerular cells are regulated by intracellular calcium. Our objective in this study is to investigate APE1's regulatory role in renin expression.

METHODS

Effect of APE1 on calcium-mediated modulation of renin expression was examined by real-time reverse transcriptase-PCR, Western analysis and renin promoter-dependent luciferase activity in APE1-knockdown, APE1-overexpressing or control mouse kidney As4.1 cells. Furthermore, coimmunoprecipitation and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays were utilized to examine the association of APE1 with histone deacetylase (HDAC)1 corepressor complex and their recruitment to renin enhancer. Finally, kidney renin mRNA level and plasma-renin activity were measured in wild-type and APE1-heterozygous mice.

RESULTS

Here we show that APE1 is involved in calcium-mediated repression of renin gene. Our results further indicate that APE1 is a component of HDAC1 corepressor complex bound to renin-enhancer region. Increase in intracellular calcium ion concentration enhances the association of APE1 with HDAC1 corepressor complex and their recruitment to the enhancer region. Furthermore, APE1's N-terminal region is critical for formation and recruitment of the enhancer-bound corepressor complex. Increased renin expression in kidneys and higher plasma-renin activity in APE1 heterozygous mice further supports APE1's corepressor role in vivo.

CONCLUSION

This study uncovers APE1's function as a novel negative regulator of renin expression, and thereby in blood pressure maintenance.

Living with chronic kidney disease: related issues and treatment

Chronic kidney disease is becoming a major health concern in patients with diabetes and hypertension. Patients often present with no symptoms, and practitioners must understand and utilize the proper treatment and health promotion activities to identify, prevent, and reverse the serious implications of this disease.

Triple-Combination therapy with olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide in black and non-black study participants with hypertension: the TRINITY randomized, double-blind, 12-week, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND

Although awareness of hypertension in Black patients has increased, blood pressure (BP) is frequently inadequately controlled.

OBJECTIVE

This prespecified subgroup analysis of the TRINITY study evaluated the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg triple-combination treatment compared with the component dual-combination treatments in Black and non-Black study participants.

STUDY DESIGN

TRINITY was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group evaluation. The first patient was enrolled in May 2008 and the last patient completed the study in February 2009. The study consisted of a 3-week washout period for participants receiving antihypertensive therapy and a 12-week double-blind treatment period. For the treatment phase, all study participants were stratified by age, race, and diabetes mellitus status and randomized to a treatment sequence that led to their final treatment assignment, which they received from weeks 4 to 12 (OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg). In the first 2 weeks of the double-blind treatment period, all participants received either dual-combination treatment or placebo. Participants assigned to dual-combination treatment continued treatment until week 4, and participants receiving placebo were switched at week 2 to receive one of the dual-combination treatments until week 4. At week 4, participants either continued dual-combination treatment or randomly received triple-combination treatment until week 12.

SETTING

317 clinical sites in the USA and Puerto Rico were included in the study.

PATIENTS

Study participants eligible for randomization (N = 2492) were ≥18 years of age with mean seated blood pressure (SeBP) ≥140/100 mmHg or ≥160/90 mmHg (off antihypertensive medication).

INTERVENTION

The intervention was with dual- or triple-combination antihypertensive treatment: OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary efficacy variable was the change in least squares (LS) mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from baseline to week 12. Secondary efficacy variables included the LS mean change in seated systolic BP (SeSBP), percentage of study participants reaching BP goal, and safety parameters.

RESULTS

In both Black and non-Black participants, triple-combination treatment resulted in significant and similar mean reductions in SeDBP and SeSBP (p ≤ 0.0001 vs each dual-combination treatment) with a greater proportion of participants reaching BP goal compared with dual-combination treatments, regardless of race. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and no new safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSION

Triple-combination treatment provided greater BP reductions than dual-combination treatments regardless of race.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00649389.

[Arterial hypertension in patients with coronary artery disease]

Arterial hypertension is the most important risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). There is a high coincidence of both diseases, whereby both impair coronary microcirculatory function synergistically, which can be measured functionally by decreased coronary flow reserve. This dysfunction leads to permanent damage to the left ventricular myocardium. Lifestyle changes play a central role in the primary and secondary prevention of CAD. Additionally, there are well-established options for antihypertensive drug therapy, which should be combined with aspirin and statins. Pharmacological treatment should follow distinctive blood pressure goals in relation to the severity of CAD. Particular attention is paid in this context to the relation between diastolic blood pressure values and cardiovascular endpoints, which displays a j-shaped curve with the lowest risk at levels between 70 and 90 mmHg.

Prevalence of traditional modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with control subjects from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis

OBJECTIVE

Despite the recognized risk of accelerated atherosclerosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), little is known about cardiovascular risk management in contemporary cohorts of these patients. We tested the hypotheses that major modifiable cardiovascular risk factors were more frequent and rates of treatment, detection, and control were lower in patients with RA than in non-RA controls.

METHODS

The prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, elevated body mass index, smoking, moderate-high 10-year cardiovascular risk and the rates of underdiagnosis, therapeutic treatment, and recommended management were compared in 197 RA patients and 274 frequency-matched control subjects, and their associations with clinical characteristics were examined.

RESULTS

Eighty percent of RA patients and 81% of control subjects had at least 1 modifiable traditional cardiovascular risk factor. Hypertension was more prevalent in the RA group (57%) than in controls [42%, P = 0.001]. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of diabetes, elevated body mass index, smoking, intermediate-high 10-year coronary heart disease risk, or elevated LDL in patients with RA versus controls. Rates of newly identified diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were similar in RA patients versus controls. Rates of therapeutic interventions were low in both groups but their use was associated with well-controlled blood pressure (OR = 4.55, 95% CI: 1.70, 12.19) and lipid levels (OR = 9.90, 95% CI: 3.30, 29.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertension is more common in RA than in controls. Other traditional cardiovascular risk factors are highly prevalent, underdiagnosed, and poorly controlled in patients with RA, as well as controls.

The SHAPE guideline: ahead of its time or just in time?

In 2006, a grass roots movement called SHAPE (Screening for Heart Attack Prevention and Education) published a novel practice guideline for cardiovascular screening in the asymptomatic at-risk population. It suggested the use of noninvasive tests for subclinical atherosclerosis in cardiovascular risk assessment to target intensified preventive care to those at highest risk. The SHAPE guideline received much attention but not as much support from the "official" medical societies. However, subsequent studies published since 2006 have now provided strong supportive evidence for the strategy spearheaded by the SHAPE guideline. Indeed, the latest guidelines issued jointly by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have elevated recommendation levels for noninvasive imaging of subclinical atherosclerosis. This change is widely viewed as a significant step toward the SHAPE guidelines. The background for SHAPE and the evidence behind the recommendation to use coronary artery calcium score measured by computed tomography, carotid intima-media thickness and plaque measured by ultrasound, and ankle-brachial index in cardiovascular risk assessment is reviewed in this article.

Controversies in blood pressure goal guidelines and masked hypertension

In uncomplicated hypertension, <140/90 mmHg is the treatment goal for individuals aged 18-79 and between 140 mmHg and 150 mmHg in those 80 years of age. Inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, as well as calcium channel blockers, are universally accepted as first-line therapy in uncomplicated hypertension, but controversy exists over the role of thiazide diuretics and beta blockers. Because at similar blood pressure (BP) levels, African Americans have more target organ damage than whites, a lower goal of <135/85 mmHg is recommended. In patients with coronary artery disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease, <130/80 mmHg is recommended. Masked hypertension, defined as normal clinic BP with a high average self-monitored or ambulatory BP, is prevalent in those with chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and obstructive sleep apnea. Masked hypertension is associated with worse outcome. Ambulatory BP monitoring for those at risk for masked hypertension needs to be incorporated into guidelines.

Blood pressure treatment target in patients with diabetes mellitus--current evidence

Hypertension is a very common cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor in diabetes, affecting more than half of diabetic patients. Major guidelines on the management of hypertension recommend to start antihypertensive drugs in all diabetic patients with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) 140 mmHg or more and/or a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 90 mmHg or more, and to adjust the treatment strategy in order to lower their BP below these values. The present body of evidence suggests that in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus/impaired fasting glucose/impaired glucose tolerance, a SBP treatment goal of 130 to 135 mmHg is acceptable. Aiming at SBP levels of 130 mmHg decreases stroke risk, but the risk of serious adverse events may increase with very low BP levels. The results regarding the attained DBP level is somewhat complex, since middle-aged people with diastolic hypertension and pre-existing CVD may have increased CVD mortality if their DBP is lowered drastically to a very low level. With the currently available very limited trial data on low attained BP level, it is not possible to set a specific treatment target regarding BP levels for diabetic hypertensive patients, but it is important to use a personalized approach in their antihypertensive treatment.

Blood pressure effects of high-dose amlodipine-benazepril combination in Black and White hypertensive patients not controlled on monotherapy

Background

Black hypertensive patients are more resistant to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor monotherapy than White patients. This resistance can be overcome with the combination of ACE inhibitors with diuretics or calcium-channel blockers (CCBs).

Objectives

The objective of this clinical investigation was to evaluate the antihypertensive effectiveness of monotherapy with the ACE inhibitor benazepril or the CCB amlodipine and their combination in Black and White hypertensive patients in two separate studies.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of data from two separate studies, pooled because of their similarities, to increase the sample size. Outpatient Black and White hypertensive patients were selected for these studies. In study H2303, 201 patients of both sexes and races, whose mean seated diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with benazepril 40mg/day, were randomized into two groups. Group 1 received benazepril 40mg/day and group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 5/40mg/day, which was uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day at week 4 of the study. In study H2304, 812 similar patients, whose MSDBP was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with amlodipine 10 mg/day, were randomized into three groups. Group 1 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day, uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day after 2 weeks. Group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day. Group 3 received amlodipine 10 mg/day. All three groups were followed up for 6 additional weeks.

Results

This report presents the results of post hoc analysis of pooled data from two separate but similar studies. Combination therapy resulted in greater lowering of MSDBP and mean seated systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) than monotherapy with either benazepril or amlodipine (p< 0.001). With respect to combination therapy, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day resulted in greater blood pressure (BP) reductions in White patients than in Black patients (p<0.004). In contrast, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day resulted in similar BP reductions in both Black and White hypertensive patients. There were no serious clinical or metabolic side effects noted, with the exception of pedal edema, which was more common with amlodipine monotherapy.

Conclusion

This study showed that combination therapy with amlodipine/benazepril is more effective in BP lowering than monotherapy with the component drugs. Black hypertensive patients are responsive to the combination of amlodipine/benazepril; however, they require higher dose combinations for BP reductions similar to those achieved in White hypertensive patients.

Inclusion of stroke in cardiovascular risk prediction instruments: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Current US guideline statements regarding primary and secondary cardiovascular risk prediction and prevention use absolute risk estimates to identify patients who are at high risk for vascular disease events and who may benefit from specific preventive interventions. These guidelines do not explicitly include patients with stroke, however. This statement provides an overview of evidence and arguments supporting (1) the inclusion of patients with stroke, and atherosclerotic stroke in particular, among those considered to be at high absolute risk of cardiovascular disease and (2) the inclusion of stroke as part of the outcome cluster in risk prediction instruments for vascular disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Writing group members were nominated by the committee co-chairs on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council's Scientific Statements Oversight Committee and the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee. The writers used systematic literature reviews (covering the period from January 1980 to March 2010), reference to previously published guidelines, personal files, and expert opinion to summarize existing evidence, indicate gaps in current knowledge, and, when appropriate, formulate recommendations using standard AHA criteria. All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on the recommendations and approved the final version of this document. The guideline underwent extensive AHA internal peer review, Stroke Council leadership review, and Scientific Statements Oversight Committee review before consideration and approval by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. There are several reasons to consider stroke patients, and particularly patients with atherosclerotic stroke, among the groups of patients at high absolute risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease. First, evidence suggests that patients with ischemic stroke are at high absolute risk of fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction or sudden death, approximating the ≥20% absolute risk over 10 years that has been used in some guidelines to define coronary risk equivalents. Second, inclusion of atherosclerotic stroke would be consistent with the reasons for inclusion of diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and other atherosclerotic disorders despite an absence of uniformity of evidence of elevated risks across all populations or patients. Third, the large-vessel atherosclerotic subtype of ischemic stroke shares pathophysiological mechanisms with these other disorders. Inclusion of stroke as a high-risk condition could result in an expansion of ≈10% in the number of patients considered to be at high risk. However, because of the heterogeneity of stroke, it is uncertain whether other stroke subtypes, including hemorrhagic and nonatherosclerotic ischemic stroke subtypes, should be considered to be at the same high levels of risk, and further research is needed. Inclusion of stroke with myocardial infarction and sudden death among the outcome cluster of cardiovascular events in risk prediction instruments, moreover, is appropriate because of the impact of stroke on morbidity and mortality, the similarity of many approaches to prevention of stroke and these other forms of vascular disease, and the importance of stroke relative to coronary disease in some subpopulations. Non-US guidelines often include stroke patients among others at high cardiovascular risk and include stroke as a relevant outcome along with cardiac end points.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with atherosclerotic stroke should be included among those deemed to be at high risk (≥20% over 10 years) of further atherosclerotic coronary events. Inclusion of nonatherosclerotic stroke subtypes remains less certain. For the purposes of primary prevention, ischemic stroke should be included among cardiovascular disease outcomes in absolute risk assessment algorithms. The inclusion of atherosclerotic ischemic stroke as a high-risk condition and the inclusion of ischemic stroke more broadly as an outcome will likely have important implications for prevention of cardiovascular disease, because the number of patients considered to be at high risk would grow substantially.