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

The inclusion of cognition in vascular risk factor clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

People with vascular risk factors are at increased risk for cognitive impairment as well as vascular disease. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether vascular risk factor clinical practice guidelines consider cognition as an outcome or in connection with treatment compliance.

METHODS

Articles from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were assessed by at least two reviewers and were included if: (1) Either hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, or atrial fibrillation was targeted; (2) The guideline was directed at physicians; (3) Adult patients (aged 19 years or older) were targeted; and (4) The guideline was published in English. Of 91 guidelines, most were excluded because they were duplicates, older versions, or focused on single outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 20 clinical practice guidelines that met inclusion criteria, five mentioned cognition. Of these five, four described potential treatment benefits but only two mentioned that cognition may affect compliance. No guidelines adequately described how to screen for cognitive impairment.

CONCLUSION

Despite evidence that links cognitive impairment to vascular risk factors, only a minority of clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of vascular risk factors consider cognition as either an adverse outcome or as a factor to consider in treatment.

Prehypertension: epidemiology, consequences and treatment

The term prehypertension was coined in 1939 in the context of early studies that linked high blood pressure recorded during physical examination for life insurance purposes to subsequent morbidity and mortality. These studies demonstrated that individuals with blood pressure >120/80 mmHg, but <140/90 mmHg--the accepted value for the lower limit of the hypertensive range--had an increased risk of hypertension, cardiovascular disease and early death from cardiovascular causes. The prehypertension classification of blood pressure was later used by the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure to define a group of individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular events because of elevated blood pressure, an increased burden of other risk factors such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and inflammatory markers, and evidence of organ damage for example, microalbuminuria, retinal arteriolar narrowing, increased carotid arterial intima-media thickness, left ventricular hypertrophy and coronary artery disease. Nonpharmacological treatment with lifestyle modifications such as weight loss, dietary modification and increased physical activity is recommended for all patients with prehypertension as these approaches effectively reduce risk of cardiovascular events. Pharmacological therapy is indicated for some patients with prehypertension who have specific comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease and coronary artery disease.

The management and treatment of hypertension

High blood pressure (HBP) is one of the most prevalent conditions seen today by clinicians, affecting an estimated 73 million--or 1 in 3--adult Americans, only one third of whom have achieved control of their hypertension (HBP). Central to the management of this pervasive medical condition are the issues of accurate diagnosis and maintaining control through appropriate treatment. Accurate diagnosis depends primarily on reliable measurement. Over the years, it has become increasingly recognized that blood pressure (BP) measurement occurring in clinical settings produces far less accurate and reliable readings than do other methods, notably 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and home BP measurement. Beyond technique, there are additional challenges to obtaining accurate readings, including emotional factors that produce either falsely elevated or lowered results, having the potential to mislead the clinician. The need to overcome obstacles to proper diagnosis and determine effective treatments has reached heightened urgency, especially for patients with compelling comorbidities such as diabetes, renal disease, congestive heart failure, and other cardiovascular diseases. The continuing evolution of the management of HBP is reflected in updated guidelines from the American Heart Association and evidence-based information stemming from recent studies and randomized clinical trials. The appropriate selection of antihypertensive agents, at the proper doses, is a complex issue requiring greater understanding of our pharmacologic options. The contributions of some of the more recent and salient studies and trials are mentioned here, although there is no attempt in this brief review to match drug classes with compelling indications. The trials discussed involve such pharmacologic treatments as diuretic therapy, alpha-blockers, conventional beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers. Trial outcomes shed light on the relative benefits and drawbacks of these agents, often within the context of various patient characteristics such as age, comorbidities, and risk status. Successful management of HBP is a multi-faceted and ongoing endeavor, in which developing knowledge constantly tempered by new questions moves us toward the goal of improving the lives of our patients.

Patient adherence and preference considerations in managing cardiovascular risk: focus on single pill and amlodipine/atorvastatin fixed combination

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) accounts for in excess of 930,000 deaths in the United States each year. Risk factors for CVD often co-exist. Studies estimate that over half of the hypertensive population also has dyslipidemia. Observational data suggest that fewer than 10% of patients attain recommended therapeutic targets for both conditions. A variety of patient, regimen and system characteristics have been associated with the risk for non-adherence. Poly-pharmacy and complex drug regimens are associated with poor patient adherence and thus the use of fixed-dose combination therapies, may improve adherence by reducing the pill burden. The fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/atorvastatin offers a convenient and effective approach to manage two important CVD risk factors. The combination of amlodipine/atorvastatin has a synergistic effect. The half-life of both agents facilitates once-daily dosing and both can be administered at any time of the day with or without food. Amlodipine/atorvastatin combined pill can be used to initiate both agents or patients can be switched directly from single-agent therapy with one or both agents. The convenience of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin has the potential to improve patient adherence and the management of cardiovascular risk in selected patients, thereby improving clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan combination therapy in hypertensive patients not adequately controlled on amlodipine monotherapy

ABSTRACT (ARB), in essential hypertensive patients not adequately controlled by amlodipine monotherapy.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study in patients with essential hypertension. After a washout period followed by a single-blind amlodipine 10 mg run-in period, patients with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) > or =90 mmHg and <110 mmHg were randomised to receive amlodipine/valsartan (10/160 mg o.d.) or amlodipine (10 mg o.d.) for 8 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00171002.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in msDBP at study endpoint. Secondary efficacy variables were change from baseline in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP), responder rate (msDBP <90 mmHg or > or =10 mmHg reduction from baseline) and DBP control rate (msDBP <90 mmHg).

RESULTS

Of the 1283 patients enrolled in single-blind period, 944 were randomised to receive amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg (n = 473) and amlodipine 10 mg (n = 471). Statistically significant greater reductions (p < 0.0001) from baseline in msSBP/msDBP were observed with combination therapy (12.9/11.4 mmHg) compared to monotherapy (10.0/9.3 mmHg). Responder rate was significantly greater (p = 0.0011) with combination therapy (79.0%) compared to monotherapy (70.1%). The percentage of patients with controlled DBP was also significantly (p < 0.0001) higher with combination therapy (77.8%) compared to monotherapy (66.5%). Incidence of peripheral oedema was slightly higher with amlodipine monotherapy (9.4%) compared to combination therapy (7.6%).

CONCLUSION

The combination of amlodipine/valsartan in this 8-week double-blind study provided additional BP control and was well tolerated in patients inadequately controlled with amlodipine monotherapy. Results should be interpreted with the knowledge that study entry criteria may limit application to a wider population.

Hypertension in the elderly

Many elderly patients have hypertension, although it is more likely to go untreated in this population. Treatment goals are the same in elderly patients as in younger patients, but elderly patients are more likely to have multiple comorbidities, which must be factored into treatment plans. This article highlights the unique challenges in treating this population.

Polyvascular atherosclerotic disease: recognizing the risks and managing the syndrome

BACKGROUND

Patients with an initial ischemic event secondary to atherosclerosis have an increased risk of suffering a recurrent event not only in the same vascular territory, but in other territories as well. Patients with polyvascular disease, or atherosclerotic disease in more than one vascular territory, have worse clinical outcomes than those with disease in a single vascular territory. This suggests that atherosclerosis should be treated as a systemic disease with appropriately aggressive secondary preventive measures in order to prevent recurrent events throughout the arterial tree.

OBJECTIVE

To discuss relevant findings for the management of patients with polyvascular disease and provide guidance to clinicians who may not be aware of how best to manage these patients.

METHODS

Relevant English-language articles published from 1950 through February 2009 were identified by searching the Cochrane, MEDLINE, and Ovid databases using the terms 'atherosclerosis,' 'atherothrombosis,' 'cerebrovascular disease,' 'coronary artery disease,' 'cross-risk,' 'management guidelines,' 'peripheral arterial disease,' 'polyvascular,' and 'secondary prevention' either singly or in combination.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

According to limited data from patient registries, anywhere from 15% to 30% of patients with atherosclerosis present with disease in multiple vascular territories and experience significantly greater rates of adverse cardiovascular events. Despite these findings, a search of the literature reveals a lack of studies comprised of patients with polyvascular disease only and very few reports on the results of patients with polyvascular disease enrolled in existing secondary prevention studies. Although any conclusions are limited by this small number of studies, clinicians typically treat only the initially affected territory without consideration of the other affected territories and may lack awareness of the overall atherothrombotic syndrome. In the future, clinical trials focused specifically on patients with polyvascular disease should be conducted in order to increase our knowledge on how to manage these patients. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are also necessary to improve the management of patients with polyvascular disease.

Current status of thoracic endografting and its adjunctive pharmacology

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising treatment modality. The advantages in the short term include shorter hospital stay, avoidance of lengthy invasive procedures, and decreased anesthesia time. It has made possible the treatment of elderly patients with coexisting comorbidities who otherwise would be difficult candidates for open surgery.

OBJECTIVE

Although the technical aspects of thoracic endovascular procedures have been described in the literature, the adjunct pharmacology has not been discussed. The aim of this study is therefore to review the clinical pharmacology necessary for procedural details in repair of patients with aortic aneurysms and aortic dissection.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PUBMED by combining relevant Medical Subject Heading key words. The query was subsequently limited to English language, and involving "human". The articles were assessed for their validity, importance, and applicability. The publications were analyzed and clinically important data were collected and incorporated.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a complex procedure on a morbid cohort of patients with aortic pathologies. The pharmacotherapy is a crucial component of the procedure: It is aimed at facilitating the endovascular procedure and improving outcomes.

Role of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists in the treatment of hypertension in patients aged >or=65 years

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) increases with age, and hypertension affects approximately two-thirds of adults in the US aged >60 years. Blood pressure (BP) increases as a consequence of age-related structural changes in large arteries, which lead to loss of elasticity and reduced vascular compliance. Increased pulse wave velocity augments SBP, resulting in a high prevalence of isolated systolic hypertension. Because age itself elevates cardiovascular risk, effective treatment of hypertension in an older (aged >or=65 years) patient population prevents many more events per 1000 patients treated than treatment of younger hypertensive patients. Recommendations for treating hypertension are similar in older patients compared with the general population. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Prevention, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends target BP goals of <140/90 mmHg for patients with uncomplicated hypertension, and <130/80 mmHg for those with diabetes mellitus or renal disease. Recent guidelines and position papers have extended these aggressive treatment goals to include patients with coronary artery disease, other types of vascular disease and heart failure. Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of calcium channel antagonists (calcium channel blockers [CCBs]), low-dose diuretics, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) in reducing the risk of stroke and other adverse cardiovascular outcomes in older patients; beta-adrenoceptor antagonists are less effective in terms of endpoint reduction. The majority of older patients require two or more drugs to achieve BP goals. Despite active treatment, half of these patients do not achieve target BP, in part because of the reluctance of physicians to intensify treatment, a phenomenon referred to as 'clinical inertia'. ARBs are effective antihypertensive agents in older patients and have been shown to reduce cardiovascular endpoints in patients with hypertension, diabetic nephropathy, cerebrovascular disease and heart failure. ARBs produce additive BP reduction when combined with diuretics or CCBs. They also have the advantage of placebo-like tolerability, and this contributes favourably to patient compliance with long-term treatment, which is a prerequisite for reducing morbidity and mortality.

The impact of drug vintage on patient survival: a patient-level analysis using Quebec's provincial health plan data

OBJECTIVES

There is some debate about the value received for the money spent on prescription drugs. Some argue that most drug spending is on "me-too" drugs--drugs that provide only marginal health gains. Others suggest that the opposite is true--new drugs offer good value for money and are well worth the cost. To provide evidence on this issue, we evaluated the impact of drug innovation on the longevity of Canadians.

METHODS

We analyzed patient-level claims data from Quebec's provincial health plan. We selected elderly patients with continuous health coverage dispensed at least one drug prescription in each year of the study period, 1997 to 2006. Drug vintage was defined as the active ingredient's earliest marketed date. We estimated the impact of drug vintage on patient survival using a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model that controlled for year indicator variables, patient age, sex, region of residence, low income status, medical services use, concomitant drug use, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of the 102,743 subjects in the study population, 14,154 (14%) died during the study period. Mean patient age was 68 years; 59% were women. Our survival models indicated that the use of newer medications was associated with a statistically significant mortality risk reduction (hazard ratio: 0.522; 95% confidence interval: 0.476 to 0.572, P < 0.0001), relative to older medications. Other covariates associated with an increased risk of mortality included age, sex (male), low guaranteed income supplement status, hospitalization, and number of comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

This analysis showed that recent drug innovation has had a significant beneficial impact on the longevity of elderly patients.

Antihypertensive medications: benefits of blood pressure lowering and hazards of metabolic effects

Blood pressure reduction is associated with significant reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Certain blood pressure-lowering drugs have adverse effects on glucose homeostasis, and have been associated with the development of both prediabetes and diabetes during use. There is controversy over the significance of diabetes that develops during treatment with antihypertensives and whether the benefits of blood pressure reduction offset the hazards of dysglycemia that can lead to diabetes. Many treatment guidelines have recently undergone revisions to include consideration for the metabolic effects of antihypertensive drugs, particularly in high-risk populations. This review summarizes the data related to the benefits of blood pressure reduction as well as the adverse metabolic effects and new-onset diabetes associated with some medications.

Lifestyle Modifications for Its Prevention and Management

Therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC) are important for the prevention and management of, as well as adjuncts to, pharmacotherapy of hypertension. This article reviews relevant TLC and their effects on blood pressure (BP) levels, with emphasis on exercise and dietary habits. Regular, moderate-intensity (40%-70% of heart rate reserve) aerobic exercise training for 30 to 60 minutes, 3 to 5 times per week, can lower systolic and diastolic BP levels, with a greater reduction observed in patients with hypertension compared with those with normal BP levels. A diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, with a moderate intake of fat-free or low-fat dairy products, and low in saturated and total fat, sodium, and alcohol, such as the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension eating pattern, also significantly reduces BP levels. A TLC program including regular exercise and dietary modifications along with weight management appears to result in a greater BP reduction than either intervention alone. TLC can also significantly reduce other risk factors for cardiovascular disease commonly accompanying hypertension. Multiple mechanisms appear to contribute to BP reduction by dietary intervention (reduced weight, sodium, and alcohol and increased calcium, potassium, and magnesium). For exercise, these include improvements in arterial endothelial function and compliance, left ventricular structure and function, and perhaps vascular blood supply with increased cardiorespiratory endurance. The available evidence is robust in support of TLC for management of elevated BP and for the primary prevention of hypertension, supporting the recommendations by the Joint National Committee Seventh Report on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

Cardiovascular comorbidities and blood pressure control in stroke survivors

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of cardiovascular(CV) comorbidities with the likelihood of being a stroke survivor and to determine the prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension in this population.

METHODS

In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2004, 495 stroke survivors, aged 20 years or older, were characterized by CV risk factors and comorbidities. Hypertension prevalence, treatment,and control rates were determined and logistic regression was performed to examine the likelihood of stroke according to the presence of comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of the stroke survivors, 59.4% were women, 57.1%were at least 65 years of age, 66.2% were overweight/obese, 25.1% were current smokers, 75.1% had hypertension, and 79.3% had additional comorbidities,including diabetes mellitus (24.7%), coronary artery disease(28.8%), chronic kidney disease (25.3%), heart failure(16.5%), and peripheral arterial disease (10.9%). The odds(and 95% confidence intervals) of prevalent stroke were 2.2(1.5-3.2), 5.0 (3.2-7.8), 4.1 (2.1-7.8), and 10.0 (4.8-20.9)with one, two, three, and four or more comorbidities,respectively. Of these high-risk stroke survivors with comorbidities and hypertension, 18% were not receiving antihypertensive therapy; of those receiving therapy, 55.3%did not meet a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 140 mmHg and, on average, were 20 mmHg above this target.

CONCLUSION

A high percentage of stroke survivors,projected to 4.98 million adults in the USA have multiple CV risk factors, numerous comorbidities, and poor control of hypertension, placing them at increased risk for further complications. Therefore, increased efforts must be made to reduce overall global risk in these high-risk persons.

Prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography have multiple uncontrolled coronary artery disease risk factors and high risk for cardiovascular events

Limited contemporary data exist on the cardiovascular risk of patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) requiring diagnostic coronary angiography. We examined the prevalence and control of coronary artery disease risk factors and the outcomes of 367 prior CABG patients who underwent diagnostic coronary angiography between October 1, 2004 and May 31, 2007 at the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Mean age was 65 +/- 9 years, 97% were men, and the mean time from CABG to diagnostic angiography was 8.2 +/- 6.1 years. Hypertension, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, smoking, and obesity were suboptimally controlled in 70%, 59%, 47%, 33%, and 50%, respectively. Intake of statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers was 88% and 81%, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 1.4 +/- 0.8 years, the incidence of death and major cardiovascular events was 10% and 32%, respectively. In spite of significant improvement compared to previous studies and good compliance with indicated medications, contemporary prior CABG patients undergoing coronary angiography still have multiple and poorly controlled coronary artery disease risk factors and high risk for cardiovascular events. Novel pharmacologic and behavioral treatment strategies are needed.

Treatment blood pressure targets for hypertension

BACKGROUND

When treating elevated blood pressure, doctors need to know what blood pressure (BP) target they should try to achieve. The standard of clinical practice for some time has been </= 140 - 160/ 90 - 100 mmHg. New guidelines are recommending BP targets lower than this standard. It is not known whether attempting to achieve targets lower than the standard reduces mortality and morbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if lower BP targets (</= 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard BP targets (</= 140-160/ 90-100 mmHg).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic search of MEDLINE (1966-2008), EMBASE (1980-2008), and CENTRAL (up to June 2008); references from review articles, clinical guidelines, and clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing patients randomized to lower or to standard BP targets and providing data on any of the primary outcomes below.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers (JAA, MIP) independently assessed the included trials and data entry. Primary outcomes were total mortality; total serious adverse events; total cardiovascular events; myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure and end stage renal disease. Secondary outcomes were achieved mean systolic and diastolic BP and withdrawals due to adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

No trials comparing different systolic BP targets were found. Seven trials (22,089 subjects) comparing different diastolic BP targets were included. Despite a -4/-3 mmHg greater achieved reduction in systolic/diastolic BP, p< 0.001, attempting to achieve "lower targets" instead of "standard targets" did not change total mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-1.15), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.09), stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.25) , congestive heart failure (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59-1.32), major cardiovascular events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07), or end-stage renal disease (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.27). The net health effect of lower targets cannot be fully assessed due to lack of information regarding all total serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse effects in 6 of 7 trials. A sensitivity analysis in diabetic patients and in patients with chronic renal disease also did not show a reduction in any of the mortality and morbidity outcomes with lower targets as compared to standard targets.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treating patients to lower than standard BP targets, </=140-160/90-100 mmHg, does not reduce mortality or morbidity. Because guidelines are recommending even lower targets for diabetes mellitus and chronic renal disease, we are currently conducting systematic reviews in those groups of patients.

Improving outcomes in hypertensive patients: focus on adherence and persistence with antihypertensive therapy

Although effective control of blood pressure (BP) reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension, BP control rates among treated patients in actual clinical practice are less than optimal. Although the costs of medicines and medical care (which are difficult to estimate both in clinical trials and general clinical practice) are important, medication-taking behavior--adherence and persistence with antihypertensive regimens--influences BP control rates. Many factors affect adherence and persistence with medications, including efficacy and tolerability of drugs prescribed, such that rates vary greatly among antihypertensive classes. In general, medications with fewer adverse effects (in registration trials or large outcomes studies) are associated with increased adherence and lower discontinuation rates. More widespread use of such agents, particularly those available in generic formulations or in low-cost formularies, may lead to better long-term BP control and fewer cardiovascular events.

Pharmacologic therapy for intermittent claudication

Peripheral artery disease, defined as atherosclerosis in the lower extremities, affects nearly 8.5 million people in the United States. Due to the frequent asymptomatic manifestation of peripheral artery disease, diagnosis may be delayed and its true incidence underestimated. However, some patients may experience aching pain, numbness, weakness, or fatigue, a condition termed intermittent claudication. Peripheral atherosclerosis is associated with cardiovascular risk and physical impairment; therefore, treatment goals are aimed at decreasing cardiovascular risk, as well as improving quality of life. Little debate exists regarding the management of cardiovascular risk reduction, which consists of both antiplatelet therapy and risk factor modification. Despite recently published guidelines, the treatment of intermittent claudication is less well established and the management remains controversial and uncertain. Exercise remains the first-line therapy for intermittent claudication; however, pharmacologic treatment is often necessary. Although only two prescription drugs have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of intermittent claudication, several supplements and investigational agents have been evaluated. Therapeutic optimization should balance the anticipated improvements in quality of life with the potential safety risks.

Blood pressure responder rates versus goal rates: which metric matters?

Reducing blood pressure (BP) to guideline-recommended goals associated with reductions in cardiovascular risk is central to effective hypertension management. In addition to measuring BP reduction, clinical trials of antihypertensive agents should assess the percentage of patients responding to treatment. The Food and Drug Administration's defined rate of response required for drug approval is a reduction in diastolic BP (DBP) to <90 mmHg and/or a DBP reduction of > or = 10 mmHg. Consequently, some patients may be counted as responders even if they have not reached DBP <90 mmHg. An antihypertensive agent's effectiveness may be better assessed by the proportion of patients who achieve recommended BP goals. This article analyzes the frequency of response rates versus goal rates as endpoints in randomized trials since January 2001. Data showed that goal rates, especially combined systolic BP (SBP)/DBP goal rates, are consistently lower than response rates in studies evaluating both endpoints. Goal rates incorporating both SBP and DBP, or having a focus on SBP for individuals >50 years of age, provide the most clinically relevant information and are a more clinically relevant metric of an agent's ability to reduce BP than DBP alone.

Hypertension and myocardial ischemia

Detailed studies over the past 30 years have built up an impressive evidence base for the presence of myocardial ischemia in patients who have hypertension. This relationship ranges from the obvious association with obstructive coronary artery disease to mechanisms related to hemodynamic, microcirculatory, and neuroendocrine abnormalities. All of these factors serve to destabilize the critical balance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand. We have at our disposal a range of sophisticated investigations that allow us to demonstrate the presence and extent of the ischemia and therefore to target specific therapies to reduce the risk to these patients. Achieving target BP and managing all reversible components of the patient's cardiovascular risk status reduce to a minimum the clinical sequelae of myocardial ischemia in this vulnerable population..

Improving hypertension quality measurement using electronic health records

BACKGROUND

Simple hypertension outcome measures may not indicate which patients receive poor care. This could be problematic as incentives increase.

OBJECTIVE

Compare measured quality using simple outcome measures to more sophisticated measures utilizing data available within an electronic health record.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SUBJECTS

A total of 5905 hypertensive adults with 3 or more clinic visits between July 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006 at an internal medicine clinic.

MEASURES

We measured simple control as the proportion of diagnosed hypertension patients with their last blood pressure below goal (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 if diabetic). We compared this to sequentially more complex measures.

RESULTS

Among nondiabetic patients, baseline measurement of control was 58.1% [95% confidence interval (CI), 56.5-59.6]. Counting patients as having adequate care whose last or mean blood pressure was at or below goal raised performance to 75.4%. Accounting for patients prescribed aggressive treatment raised it to 82.5%. Accounting for low diastolic blood pressure raised it to 83.6%. Including patients with undiagnosed hypertension lowered it to 80.5%. For diabetes patients, baseline measurement of control was 29.9% (95% CI, 27.6-32.3) and changed to 46.4%, 72.8%, 76.7%, and 73.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to use electronic health record data to devise hypertension measures that may better reflect who has actionable uncontrolled blood pressure, do not penalize clinicians treating resistant hypertension patients, reduce the encouragement of potentially unsafe practices, and identify patients possibly receiving poor care with no hypertension diagnosis. This could improve the detection of true quality problems and remove incentives to over treat or stop caring for patients with resistant hypertension.

Macrovascular Complications of Diabetes Mellitus

Adults with diabetes mellitus frequently develop macrovascular complications. Vascular disease is a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with diabetes. Diabetes and vascular diseases remain among the most common causes of death in the United States. A number of clinical trials and practice guidelines have been published addressing the management of macrovascular complications. The cornerstone of preventing or delaying the progression of macrovascular complications of diabetes is aggressive management of hypertension and cholesterol. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have proven effective in managing hypertension and avoiding other complications of diabetes. The body of evidence for angiotensin receptor blockers is growing in this area as well. Statins have been repeatedly proven to be the first-line agents in the management of dyslipidemia. Lifestyle modification strategies and antiplatelet therapy also remain essential. This review will focus on the role of newer diagnostic techniques, clinical trial evidence, and appropriate pharmacotherapy for macrovascular complications of diabetes.

Aliskiren: an oral direct renin inhibitor for the treatment of hypertension

Aliskiren is the first member of the new class of orally active direct renin inhibitors to receive approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertension. In patients with hypertension, aliskiren can be used either as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive agents. By inhibiting renin, aliskiren blocks the conversion of angiotensinogen to angiotensin I, which subsequently results in a reduction in angiotensin II concentrations. Unlike the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), which reactively stimulate an increase in plasma renin activity, aliskiren suppresses the effects of renin and leads to a reduction in plasma renin activity. In clinical trials involving patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, aliskiren provided antihypertensive efficacy that was comparable to that of an ARB. Combination therapy with aliskiren and an ARB may provide additional blood pressure-lowering effects compared with the respective monotherapies with each of the agents. The results from surrogate outcome studies have also alluded to the potential for aliskiren to prevent target organ damage. Because aliskiren does not significantly affect the cytochrome P450 system, it has been associated with few drug interactions. In clinical studies, aliskiren was well tolerated, and its adverse-effect profile was similar to that of placebo. Fatigue, headache, dizziness, diarrhea, nasopharyngitis, and back pain were the most commonly reported adverse events. Overall, aliskiren appears to be a reasonable treatment option for patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension who are intolerant of first-line antihypertensive therapies. Aliskiren may also be a promising renoprotective strategy in patients with concomitant hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Its potential as a first-line antihypertensive agent will have to be further examined once studies evaluating its effects on long-term clinical outcomes are completed.

A quality improvement plan for hypertension control: the INCOTECA Project (INterventions for COntrol of hyperTEnsion in CAtalonia)

BACKGROUND

Different studies have shown insufficient blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients. Multiple factors influence hypertension management, and the quality of primary care is one of them. We decided therefore to evaluate the effectiveness of a quality improvement plan directed at professionals of Primary Health Care Teams (PHCT) with the aim to achieve a better control of hypertension. The hypothesis of the study is that the implementation of a quality improvement plan will improve the control of hypertension. The primary aim of this study will be to evaluate the effectiveness of this plan.

METHODS AND DESIGN

DESIGN

multicentric study quasi-experimental before - after with control group. The non-randomised allocation of the intervention will be done at PHCT level.

SETTING

18 PHCT in the Barcelona province (Spain).

SAMPLE

all patients with a diagnosis of hypertension (population based study).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

patients with a diagnosis of hypertension made later than 01/01/2006 and patients younger than 18 years.

INTERVENTION

a quality improvement plan, which targets primary health care professionals and includes educational sessions, feedback to health professionals, audit and implementation of recommended clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertensive patients.

MEASUREMENTS

age, sex, associated co-morbidity (diabetes mellitus type I and II, heart failure and renal failure). The following variables will be recorded: BP measurement, cardiovascular risk and antihypertensive drugs used. Results will be measured before the start of the intervention and twelve months after the start of the study. Dependent variable: prevalence of hypertensive patients with poor BP control.

ANALYSIS

Chi-square test and Student's t-test will be used to measure the association between independent qualitative and quantitative variables, respectively. Non-parametric tests will be used for the analysis of non-normally distributed variables. Significance level (alpha) will be set at < 0.05. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.

DISCUSSION

The implementation of a quality improvement plan might benefit the coordination of different professionals of PHCTs and may also improve blood pressure control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This protocol has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the ID number MS: 1998275938244441.

Characteristics and outcomes of revascularized patients with hypertension: an international verapamil SR-trandolapril substudy

Our understanding of the growing population of revascularized patients with hypertension is limited. We retrospectively analyzed the International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril Study, which randomized coronary artery disease patients with hypertension to either verapamil SR- or atenolol-based treatment strategies, focusing on characteristics and outcomes of 6166 previously revascularized patients compared with 16 410 nonrevascularized patients. Revascularized patients had a history of coronary artery bypass grafting (45.2%), percutaneous coronary intervention (42.1%), or both (12.8%). Compared with nonrevascularized patients, revascularized patients at baseline demonstrated a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease risk factors and risk conditions (P<0.001). This higher prevalence was the principal cause of a higher incidence of primary outcome (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) among revascularized patients (14.2% versus 8.5% for nonrevascularized patients; P<0.001). However, both patient groups demonstrated a relatively low incidence of subsequent revascularization (5.1% versus 1.5% respectively; P<0.0001). Associations between adjusted hazard ratio for primary outcome and follow-up blood pressure appeared "J shaped" for both patient groups. Because, as a group, revascularized patients with hypertension had worse outcomes compared with nonrevascularized patients, management of blood pressure to a specific target in future studies could result in improved outcomes.

Sex differences in the hypertensive population with chronic ischemic heart disease

Cardiopatía Isquémica Crónica e Hipertensión Arterial en la Práctica Clínica en España (CINHTIA) was a survey designed to assess the clinical management of hypertensive outpatients with chronic ischemic heart disease. Sex differences were examined. Blood pressures (BP) was considered controlled at levels of <140/90 or <130/80 mm Hg in diabetics (European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology 2003); low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was considered controlled at levels <100 mg/dL (National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III). In total, 2024 patients were included in the study. Women were older, with a higher body mass index and an increased prevalence of atrial fibrillation. Dyslipidemia, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, and peripheral arterial disease were more frequent in men. In contrast, diabetes, left ventricular hypertrophy, and heart failure were more common in women. BP and LDL-C control rates, although poor in both groups, were better in men (44.9% vs 30.5%, P<.001 and 33.0% vs 25.0%, P<.001, respectively). Stress testing and coronary angiography were more frequently performed in men.

Blood pressure control by drug group in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

Blood pressure (BP) control rates and number of antihypertensive medications were compared (average follow-up, 4.9 years) by randomized groups: chlorthalidone, 12.5-25 mg/d (n=15,255), amlodipine 2.5-10 mg/d (n=9048), or lisinopril 10-40 mg/d (n=9054) in a randomized double-blind hypertension trial. Participants were hypertensives aged 55 or older with additional cardiovascular risk factor(s), recruited from 623 centers. Additional agents from other classes were added as needed to achieve BP control. BP was reduced from 145/83 mm Hg (27% control) to 134/76 mm Hg (chlorthalidone, 68% control), 135/75 mm Hg (amlodipine, 66% control), and 136/76 mm Hg (lisinopril, 61% control) by 5 years; the mean number of drugs prescribed was 1.9, 2.0, and 2.1, respectively. Only 28% (chlorthalidone), 24% (amlodipine), and 24% (lisinopril) were controlled on monotherapy. BP control was achieved in the majority of each randomized group-a greater proportion with chlorthalidone. Over time, providers and patients should expect multidrug therapy to achieve BP <140/90 mm Hg in a majority of patients.

Treating hypertension in older adults: safety considerations

This article discusses the efficacy, use and adverse effects of antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. Numerous double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that antihypertensive drug therapy reduces cardiovascular events in older adults. All antihypertensive drugs may predispose older patients to the development of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension and postprandial hypotension, and syncope or falls. Adverse effects of diuretics, beta-adrenergic receptor antagonists, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor antagonists, calcium channel antagonists, alpha-adrenergic receptor antagonists, centrally acting drugs and direct vasodilators are discussed. The adverse effects depend on the antihypertensive drugs used, the doses used, the co-morbidities present in older patients taking these drugs and drug-drug interactions.

Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil or valsartan in combination with amlodipine: a review of factorial-design studies

BACKGROUND

Most patients with hypertension require more than one drug to attain recommended blood pressure (BP) targets. Initiating therapy with two agents is recommended for patients at high risk of a cardiovascular event or with a BP > 20/10 mmHg above goal. Combination therapy is effective when comprised of agents with complementary mechanisms of action, such as calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin II-receptor blockers (ARBs). Two fixed-dose CCB/ARB combinations are approved in the US: amlodipine/valsartan (AML/VAL) and amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (AML/OM).

OBJECTIVES

To review and describe the efficacy of AML/VAL and AML/OM combinations by discussing similarly designed clinical trials.

METHODS

Three 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group factorial-design studies were examined (two AML/VAL; one AML/OM). The study endpoints presented in this review were: change from baseline in least-squares mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) and least-squares mean seated systolic BP (SeSBP). In addition to the efficacies of AML/VAL and AML/OM combinations, the efficacies of AML, VAL and OM administered as monotherapy are presented. Placebo-subtracted BP reductions were calculated for this review.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar but mean baseline SeBP was higher in the OM study (163.8/101.6 mmHg) than in the VAL studies (152.8/99.3 and 156.7/99.1 mmHg), possibly suggesting that the OM study included a more difficult-to-treat patient population. AML/ARB combinations consistently produced greater mean SeBP reductions than monotherapy. Least squares (LS) mean SeDBP reductions were 19.4 mmHg (AML/OM 10/40 mg; placebo-corrected: 15.9 mmHg) and 18.6 mmHg (AML/VAL 10/320 mg; placebo-corrected: 9.8 mmHg). LS mean SeSBP reductions were 28.5 mmHg (AML/OM 10/40 mg; placebo-corrected: 25.7 mmHg) and 28.4 mmHg (AML/VAL 10/320 mg; placebo-corrected: 15.5 mmHg).

CONCLUSIONS

This review of published factorial-design studies showed that the maximal marketed doses of an amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil combination (10/40 mg) and an amlodipine/valsartan combination (10/320 mg) produced large reductions in BP from baseline. Limitations of this review include the small number of studies analyzed and the inherent heterogeneity between patient populations. Further research is warranted to directly compare the efficacy of these combinations in a randomized, controlled trial, or additional published clinical trials are required to provide larger data sets for robust meta-analyses and to overcome heterogeneity observed within these studies.

Review of nifedipine GITS in the treatment of high risk patients with coronary artery disease and hypertension

Nifedipine is a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker (CCB) introduced approximately 30 years ago for the prophylaxis of angina symptoms, and then later utilized as an anti-hypertensive agent. In the 1990s, several meta-analyses and a case-control study were published which raised concern regarding increased mortality and increased risk for myocardial infarction with short-acting nifedipine. Further evaluation of these meta-analyses and case control study underscores some important limitations and the need to further elucidate the role of this class of medications in high-risk patients. Until 2000, there was a paucity of data on the long-term effects as well as the long-term outcomes of CCBs in the treatment of stable coronary disease or in patients with manifestations of the disease such as hypertension or angina. While it has been well established that nifedipine and other dihydropyridines lower blood pressure and improve symptoms of angina, several studies were designed to evaluate the effect of dihydropyridines on "hard" outcomes, specifically cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. In this review, we describe the clinical studies evaluating the use of nifedipine when compared to placebo as well as other anti-hypertensive therapies in an attempt to identify the most appropriate place in therapy for this class of medications and to further clarify its utilization in high-risk patients.

Hydrochlorothiazide, but not Candesartan, Aggravates Insulin Resistance and Causes Visceral and Hepatic Fat Accumulation

Treatment with angiotensin II receptor blockers is associated with lower risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with thiazide diuretics. The Mechanisms for the Diabetes Preventing Effect of Candesartan Study addressed insulin action and secretion and body fat distribution after treatment with candesartan, hydrochlorothiazide, and placebo. Twenty-six nondiabetic, abdominally obese, hypertensive patients were included in a multicenter 3-way crossover trial, and 22 completers (by predefined criteria; 10 men and 12 women) were included in the analyses. They underwent 12-week treatment periods with candesartan (C; 16 to 32 mg), hydrochlorothiazide (H; 25 to 50 mg), and placebo (P), respectively, and the treatment order was randomly assigned and double blinded. Intravenous glucose tolerance tests and euglycemic hyperinsulinemic (56 mU/m 2 per minute) clamps were performed. Intrahepatic and intramyocellular and extramyocellular lipid content and subcutaneous and visceral abdominal adipose tissue were measured using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and MRI. Insulin sensitivity (M-value) was reduced following H versus C and P (6.07±2.05, 6.63±2.04, and 6.90±2.10 mg/kg of body weight per minute, mean±SD; P ≤0.01). Liver fat content was higher ( P <0.05) following H than both P and C. The subcutaneous to visceral abdominal adipose tissue ratio was reduced following H versus C and P ( P <0.01). Glycosylated hemoglobin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels were higher ( P <0.05) after H, but not C, versus P. There were no changes in body fat, intramyocellular lipid, extramyocellular lipid, or first-phase insulin secretion. Blood pressure was reduced similarly by C and H versus P. In conclusion, visceral fat redistribution, liver fat accumulation, low-grade inflammation, and aggravated insulin resistance were demonstrated after hydrochlorothiazide but not candesartan treatment. These findings can partly explain the diabetogenic potential of thiazides.