Clinical outcomes by race in hypertensive patients with and without the metabolic syndrome: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

Health Disparities, Clinical Trials, and the Digital Divide

In the past few years, there have been rapid advances in technology and the use of digital tools in health care and clinical research. Although these innovations have immense potential to improve health care delivery and outcomes, there are genuine concerns related to inadvertent widening of the digital gap consequentially exacerbating health disparities. As such, it is important that we critically evaluate the impact of expansive digital transformation in medicine and clinical research on health equity. For digital solutions to truly improve the landscape of health care and clinical trial participation for all persons in an equitable way, targeted interventions to address historic injustices, structural racism, and social and digital determinants of health are essential. The urgent need to focus on interventions to promote health equity was made abundantly clear with the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which magnified long-standing social and racial health disparities. Novel digital technologies present a unique opportunity to embed equity ideals into the ecosystem of health care and clinical research. In this review, we examine racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials, historic instances of unethical research practices in biomedical research and its impact on clinical trial participation, and the digital divide in health care and clinical research, and we propose suggestions to achieve digital health equity in clinical trials. We also highlight key digital health opportunities in cardiovascular medicine and dermatology as exemplars, and we offer future directions for development and adoption of patient-centric interventions aimed at narrowing the digital divide and mitigating health inequities.

First-line diuretics versus other classes of antihypertensive drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.

Blood pressure—lowering medication prescribing, its adherence to guidelines and relationship with blood pressure control at a family medicine department

Background

In many resource‐constrained countries, control of blood pressure (BP) is low. Antihypertensive drug prescribing practices may influence BP control. However, adherence of prescribing to treatment guidelines may not be optimal in resource‐constrained settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pattern of blood pressure‐lowering medication prescribing, and how it adheres to treatment guidelines, and to identify the relationship between medication prescriptions and BP control.

Methods

It was a cross‐sectional study of hypertensive outpatients at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH) Family Medicine department (FMD)/Polyclinic. Data was collected with a validated structured form. Adherence of “prescribing” to recommendations of the 2017 Standard Treatment Guidelines of Ghana and 2018 European Society of Cardiology guidelines was assessed using a composite measure. We analyzed data with SPSS.

Results

About 81% (247/304) of patients received two or more antihypertensive drugs. Most patients (41%; 267/651) received calcium channel blockers (CCB), and 21.8% (142/651), 15.7% (102/651) and 12.7% (83/651) were on diuretics, angiotensin‐receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors respectively. CCB plus RAS inhibitor (50%) was the most prescribed two‐drug combination. Number of BP drugs per patient had a statistically significant inverse relationship with BP control (beta Coefficient = –0.402; 95% Cl: 1.252–2.470; p = 0.015). The composite adherence score was 0.73 (moderate adherence) but Single‐pill combination (SPC) was poor (3.2%; n = 8).

Conclusion

Most patients received multiple‐pill combination treatment, and overall adherence to guidelines was suboptimal, largely owing to complex drug therapy. Number of drugs predicted BP control. Our findings suggest a need to prioritize simplified treatment, and implement other strategies to improve hypertension guideline adherence. Further research on the influence of SPC on BP control may inform future hypertension guidelines in Ghana and elsewhere in Africa.

Hypertension management in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities

Arterial hypertension is a leading cause of death globally. Due to ageing, the rising incidence of obesity, and socioeconomic and environmental changes, its incidence increases worldwide. Hypertension commonly coexists with Type 2 diabetes, obesity, dyslipidaemia, sedentary lifestyle, and smoking leading to risk amplification. Blood pressure lowering by lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive drugs reduce cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Guidelines recommend dual- and triple-combination therapies using renin–angiotensin system blockers, calcium channel blockers, and/or a diuretic. Comorbidities often complicate management. New drugs such as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists improve CV and renal outcomes. Catheter-based renal denervation could offer an alternative treatment option in comorbid hypertension associated with increased sympathetic nerve activity. This review summarises the latest clinical evidence for managing hypertension with CV comorbidities.

Akt: A Potential Drug Target for Metabolic Syndrome

The serine/threonine kinase Akt, also known as protein kinase B (PKB), is one of the key factors regulating glucose and lipid energy metabolism, and is the core focus of current research on diabetes and metabolic diseases. Akt is mostly expressed in key metabolism-related organs and it is activated in response to various stimuli, including cell stress, cell movement, and various hormones and drugs that affect cell metabolism. Genetic and pharmacological studies have shown that Akt is necessary to maintain the steady state of glucose and lipid metabolism and a variety of cellular responses. Existing evidence shows that metabolic syndrome is related to insulin resistance and lipid metabolism disorders. Based on a large number of studies on Akt-related pathways and reactions, we believe that Akt can be used as a potential drug target to effectively treat metabolic syndrome.

Self-Reported Antihypertensive Medication Class and Temporal Relationship to Treatment Guidelines

The greater antihypertensive responses to initial therapy with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or thiazide-type diuretics than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) adults was recognized in the US High BP guidelines from 1988 to 2003. The 2014 Report from Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (2014 aJNC8 Report) and the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association High Blood Pressure Guideline were the first to recommend CCBs or thiazide-type diuretics rather than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in NHB. We assessed the temporal relationship of these recommendations on self-reported CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy by NHB and NHW adults with hypertension absent compelling indications for β-blockers or renin-angiotensin system blockers in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to 2018 versus 2007 to 2012 (after versus before 2014 aJNC8 Report). CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy was unchanged in NHW adults (17.1% versus 18.1%, P=0.711) and insignificantly higher after 2014 among NHB adults (43.7% versus 38.2%, P=0.204), although CCB monotherapy increased (29.5% versus 21.0%, P=0.021) and renin-angiotensin system blocker monotherapy fell (44.5% versus 31.0%, P=0.008). Although evidence-based CCB monotherapy increased among NHB adults in 2015 to 2018, hypertension control declined as untreated hypertension and monotherapy increased. While a gap between recommended and actual monotherapy persists, evidence-based monotherapy appears insufficient to improve hypertension control in NHB adults, especially given evidence for worsening therapeutic inertia. Initiating treatment with single-pill combinations and timely therapeutic intensification when required to control hypertension are evidence-based, race-neutral options for improving hypertension control among NHB adults.

Metabolic syndrome and its components predict the development of arterial stiffening in a sample of adult men

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Metabolic syndrome (MS) and its components are associated with greater cardiovascular risk. A number of studies found a positive association between MS and vascular damage, but few observational studies evaluated the predictive role of MS on arterial stiffening (AS). Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the ability of MS and its components to predict the risk of AS in an 8-year follow-up of a sample of adult men (Olivetti Heart Study).

METHODS

The analysis included 778 men without AS (pulse pressure >60 mmHg) at baseline. A positive diagnosis of MS was made by recognized criteria, if at least three components were present.

RESULTS

At the end of the follow-up period, there was an incidence of 11% in AS. The percentage of participants that developed AS was greater in the MS group than those without MS, also after adjustment for main confounders (odds ratio: 2.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-4.9). The risk of AS also increased with increase in the numbers of MS elements (p for trend <.01). In addition, the analysis of the predictive role of the single MS component showed that high blood pressure (HBP) was the strongest predictor.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this prospective study indicate a predictive role of MS on AS, independently of main confounders. In addition, HBP seems the strongest predictor of AS among MS components.

Disparities by Race and Ethnicity Among Adults Recruited for a Preclinical Alzheimer Disease Trial

IMPORTANCE

Underrepresentation of many racial/ethnic groups in Alzheimer disease (AD) clinical trials limits generalizability of results and hinders opportunities to examine potential effect modification of candidate treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To examine racial and ethnic differences in recruitment methods and trial eligibility in a multisite preclinical AD trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study analyzed screening data from the Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic AD study, collected from April 2014 to December 2017. Participants were categorized into 5 mutually exclusive ethnic/racial groups (ie, Hispanic, Black, White, Asian, and other) using participant self-report. Data were analyzed from May through December 2020 and included 5945 cognitively unimpaired older adults between the ages of 65 and 85 years screened at North American study sites.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes included recruitment sources, study eligibility, and ineligibility reasons. To assess the probability of trial eligibility, regression analyses were performed for the likelihood of being eligible after the first screening visit involving clinical and cognitive assessments.

RESULTS

Screening data were included for 5945 participants at North American sites (mean [SD] age, 71.7 [4.9] years; 3524 women [59.3%]; 5107 White [85.9%], 323 Black [5.4%], 261 Hispanic [4.4%], 112 Asian [1.9%], and 142 [2.4%] who reported race or ethnicity as other). Recruitment sources differed by race and ethnicity. While White participants were recruited through a variety of sources, site local recruitment efforts resulted in the majority of Black (218 [69.2%]), Hispanic (154 [59.7%]), and Asian (61 [55.5%]) participants. Participants from underrepresented groups had lower mean years of education (eg, mean [SD] years: Hispanic participants, 15.5 [3.2] years vs White participants, 16.7 [2.8] years) and more frequently were women (226 [70.0%] Black participants vs 1364 [58.5%] White participants), were unmarried (184 [56.9%] Black participants vs 1364 [26.7%] White participants), and had nonspousal study partners (237 [73.4%] Black participants vs 2147 [42.0%] White participants). They were more frequently excluded for failure to meet cognitive inclusion criteria (eg, screen failures by specific inclusion criteria: 147 [45.5%] Black participants vs 1338 [26.2%] White participants). Compared with White participants, Black (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.54; P < .001), Hispanic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.69; P < .001), and Asian participants (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.82; P = .003) were less likely to be eligible after screening visit 1.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Racial/ethnic groups differed in sources of recruitment, reasons for screen failure, and overall probability of eligibility in a preclinical AD trial. These results highlight the need for improved recruitment strategies and careful consideration of eligibility criteria when planning preclinical AD clinical trials.

Effects of Blood Pressure Lowering Agents on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Weight Excess Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Obesity hypertension is an ongoing pandemic. The first-line medications to treat this condition are still subject to debate. We compared diuretics, calcium-channel blockers (CCB), beta-blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) as an initial antihypertensive therapy for prevention of cardiovascular morbimortality of hypertensive individuals who are overweight or obese.

METHODS

We conducted a search of the literature for randomized clinical trials in which at least 50% of the participants were overweight or obese. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), stroke, or end-stage renal disease.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 16 randomized studies. Comparisons of two classes of drugs with at least two studies indicated that (1) CCB and ACEI increased the risk of HF [relative risk (RR) = 2.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-4.40] and stroke [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.13; 1.00-1.26]), respectively, compared to diuretics; and (2) CCB showed a reduction in stroke (HR = 0.77; 0.66-0.89) and total mortality (HR = 0.94; 0.87-1.01) compared to the BB atenolol. Comparisons of two classes of antihypertensive medications with only one study showed that the risk of MI was higher with ARB valsartan versus CCB (HR = 1.19; 95% CI 1.02-1.38, p = 0.02). In contrast, losartan lowered the risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome compared to atenolol (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In hypertensive subjects with excess weight, diuretics are more effective for preventing HF and stroke than CCB and ACEI, respectively. CCB are a good first-line choice for prevention of cardiovascular disease, except HF.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I² = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I² = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I² = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I² = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Österreichischer Blutdruckkonsens 2019

Erhöhter Blutdruck bleibt eine Hauptursache von kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen, Behinderung und frühzeitiger Sterblichkeit in Österreich, wobei die Raten an Diagnose, Behandlung und Kontrolle auch in rezenten Studien suboptimal sind. Das Management von Bluthochdruck ist eine häufige Herausforderung für Ärztinnen und Ärzte vieler Fachrichtungen. In einem Versuch, diagnostische und therapeutische Strategien zu standardisieren und letztendlich die Rate an gut kontrollierten Hypertoniker/innen zu erhöhen und dadurch kardiovaskuläre Erkrankungen zu verhindern, haben 13 österreichische medizinische Fachgesellschaften die vorhandene Evidenz zur Prävention, Diagnose, Abklärung, Therapie und Konsequenzen erhöhten Blutdrucks gesichtet. Das hier vorgestellte Ergebnis ist der erste Österreichische Blutdruckkonsens. Die Autoren und die beteiligten Fachgesellschaften sind davon überzeugt, daß es einer gemeinsamen nationalen Anstrengung bedarf, die Blutdruck-assoziierte Morbidität und Mortalität in unserem Land zu verringern.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension

: Document reviewers: Guy De Backer (ESC Review Co-ordinator) (Belgium), Anthony M. Heagerty (ESH Review Co-ordinator) (UK), Stefan Agewall (Norway), Murielle Bochud (Switzerland), Claudio Borghi (Italy), Pierre Boutouyrie (France), Jana Brguljan (Slovenia), Héctor Bueno (Spain), Enrico G. Caiani (Italy), Bo Carlberg (Sweden), Neil Chapman (UK), Renata Cifkova (Czech Republic), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Jean-Philippe Collet (France), Ioan Mircea Coman (Romania), Peter W. de Leeuw (The Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (The Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Hans-Christoph Diener (Germany), Maria Dorobantu (Romania), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Csaba Farsang (Hungary), Marc Ferrini (France), Ian M. Graham (Ireland), Guido Grassi (Italy), Hermann Haller (Germany), F. D. Richard Hobbs (UK), Bojan Jelakovic (Croatia), Catriona Jennings (UK), Hugo A. Katus (Germany), Abraham A. Kroon (The Netherlands), Christophe Leclercq (France), Dragan Lovic (Serbia), Empar Lurbe (Spain), Athanasios J. Manolis (Greece), Theresa A. McDonagh (UK), Franz Messerli (Switzerland), Maria Lorenza Muiesan (Italy), Uwe Nixdorff (Germany), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Gianfranco Parati (Italy), Joep Perk (Sweden), Massimo Francesco Piepoli (Italy), Jorge Polonia (Portugal), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Stefano F. Rimoldi (Switzerland), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Naveed Sattar (UK), Petar M. Seferovic (Serbia), Iain A. Simpson (UK), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Alice V. Stanton (Ireland), Philippe van de Borne (Belgium), Panos Vardas (Greece), Massimo Volpe (Italy), Sven Wassmann (Germany), Stephan Windecker (Switzerland), Jose Luis Zamorano (Spain).The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these Guidelines are available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines.

A Review of ACE Inhibitors and ARBs in Black Patients With Hypertension

Objective: To review current guidelines and recent data evaluating the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in black hypertensive patients. Data Sources: Articles evaluating race-specific outcomes in hypertension were gathered using a MEDLINE search with keywords black, African American, ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, angiotensin system, and hypertension. Studies published from 2000 through April 2018 were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Six guidelines, 8 monotherapy publications, and 5 combination therapy publications included race-specific results and were included in the review. The authors individually compared and contrasted the results from each publication. Data Synthesis: Numerous monotherapy trials indicate that black patients may have a reduced blood pressure (BP) response with ACE inhibitors or ARBs compared with white patients. Conversely, additional studies propose that race may not be the primary predictor of BP response. Reduced efficacy is not observed in trials involving combination therapy. Some studies suggest increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality with ACE inhibitor or ARB monotherapy in black patients; however, data are conflicting. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This article clarifies vague guideline statements and informs clinicians on the appropriate use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs for hypertension treatment in black patients through an in-depth look into the evidence. Conclusions: Potentially reduced efficacy and limited outcomes data indicate that ACE inhibitors or ARBs should not routinely be initiated as monotherapy in black hypertensive patients. Use in combination with a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic is efficacious in black patients, and there are no data showing that this increases or decreases cardiovascular or cerebrovascular outcomes.

Influence of metabolic syndrome and race on the relationship between intensive blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes in the SPRINT cohort

AIMS

To determine whether baseline metabolic syndrome (MetS) modifies the effect of intensive blood pressure control on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, and whether the effects varied by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

We performed post hoc analyses among non-Hispanic black, non-hispanic white and Hispanic participants, with and without MetS, in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), who were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group, N = 4544) or an SBP target of <140 mm Hg (standard group, N = 4553). The median follow-up was 3.26 years. The primary outcome was the composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, non-myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome or CV death.

RESULTS

Overall, 3521/9097 participants (38.7%) met the criteria for MetS at baseline. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two SBP target groups within each MetS subgroup, except body mass index was slightly higher in the standard arm of the MetS subgroup (33.3 ± 5.6 vs 33.0 ± 5.3 kg/m² ; P < .01), but were similar across treatment arms in the non-MetS subgroup. The hazard ratio for the primary outcome was similarly reduced in participants with or without baseline MetS: 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57, 0.96) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.57, 0.87), respectively (adjusted P value for treatment by subgroup interaction = .98). Similarly, there was no evidence of treatment × MetS subgroup interaction for all-cause mortality (adjusted interaction P value = .98). The findings were also similar across race/ethnic subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis the CV benefit of intensive SBP control did not differ among participants by baseline MetS status, regardless of race/ethnicity.

Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of reserpine for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Many antihypertensive agents exist today for the treatment of primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or both). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been carried out to investigate the evidence for these agents. There is, for example, strong RCT evidence that thiazides reduce mortality and morbidity. Some of those trials used reserpine as a second-line therapy. However, the dose-related blood pressure reduction with this agent is not known.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to quantify the dose-related efficacy of reserpine versus placebo or no treatment in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP), or both.We also aimed to evaluate the dose-related effects of reserpine on mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), as well as the dose-related effects on withdrawals due to adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register (January 1946 to October 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1946 to October 2016), Embase (January 1974 to October 2016), and ClinicalTrials.gov (all dates to October 2016). We also traced citations in the reference sections of the retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing reserpine monotherapy to placebo or no treatment in participants with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed methods of randomisation and concealment. We extracted and analysed data on blood pressure reduction, heart rate, and withdrawal due to adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four RCTs (with a total of 237 participants) that met the inclusion criteria, none of which we found through the 2016 update search. The overall pooled effect demonstrates a statistically significant systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction in participants taking reserpine compared with placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -7.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.05 to -1.78). Because of significant heterogeneity across the trials, a significant effect in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) could not be found. A dose of reserpine 0.5 mg/day or greater achieved the SBP effects. However, we could not determine the dose-response pattern because of the small number of trials. We did not combine data from the trial that investigated Rauwiloid against placebo with reserpine data from the remaining three trials. This is because Rauwiloid is a different alkaloid extract of the plant Rauwolfia serpentina, and the dose used is not comparable to reserpine. None of the included trials reported withdrawals due to adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Reserpine is effective in reducing SBP roughly to the same degree as other first-line antihypertensive drugs. However, we could not make definite conclusions regarding the dose-response pattern because of the small number of included trials. More RCTs are needed to assess the effects of reserpine on blood pressure and to determine the dose-related safety profile before the role of this drug in the treatment of primary hypertension can be established.

Contextualizing Genetics for Regional Heart Failure Care

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a chronic and often devastating cardiovascular disorder with no cure. There has been much advancement in the last two decades that has seen improvements in morbidity and mortality. Clinicians have also noted variations in the responses to therapies. More detailed observations also point to clusters of diseases, phenotypic groupings, unusual severity and the rates at which CHF occurs. Medical genetics is playing an increasingly important role in answering some of these observations. This developing field in many respects provides more information than is currently clinically applicable. This includes making sense of the established single gene mutations or uncommon private mutations. In this thematic series which discusses the many factors that could be relevant for CHF care, once established treatments are available in the communities; this section addresses a contextual role for medical genetics.

Patterns and Correlates of Baseline Thiazide-Type Diuretic Prescription in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial

Thiazides and thiazide-type diuretics are recommended as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, but contemporary information on their use in clinical practice is lacking. We examined patterns and correlates of thiazide prescription in a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from participants enrolled in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). We examined baseline prescription of thiazides in 7582 participants receiving at least 1 antihypertensive medication by subgroup, and used log-binomial regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios for thiazide prescription (versus no thiazide). Forty-three percent of all participants were prescribed a thiazide at baseline, but among participants prescribed a single agent, the proportion was only 16%. The prevalence of thiazide prescription differed significantly by demographic factors, with younger participants, women, and blacks all having higher adjusted prevalence of thiazide prescription than other corresponding subgroups. Participants in the lowest category of kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were half as likely to be prescribed a thiazide as participants with preserved kidney function. In conclusion, among persons with hypertension and heightened cardiovascular risk, we found that thiazide prescription varied significantly by demographics and kidney disease status, despite limited evidence about relative differences in effectiveness.

Blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes in normal-weight, overweight, and obese hypertensive patients treated with three different antihypertensives in ALLHAT

OBJECTIVE

Epidemiologically, there is a strong relationship between BMI and blood pressure (BP) levels. We prospectively examined randomization to first-step chlorthalidone, a thiazide-type diuretic; amlodipine, a calcium-channel blocker; and lisinopril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, on BP control and cardiovascular outcomes in a hypertensive cohort stratified by baseline BMI [kg/m(2); normal weight (BMI <25), overweight (BMI = 25-29.9), and obese (BMI >30)].

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, practice-based Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, 33,357 hypertensive participants, aged at least 55 years, were followed for an average of 4.9 years, for a primary outcome of fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction, and secondary outcomes of stroke, heart failure, combined cardiovascular disease, mortality, and renal failure.

RESULTS

Of participants, 37.9% were overweight and 42.1% were obese at randomization. For each medication, BP control (<140/90 mmHg) was equivalent in each BMI stratum. At the fifth year, 66.1, 66.5, and 65.1% of normal-weight, overweight, and obese participants, respectively, were controlled. Those randomized to chlorthalidone had highest BP control (67.2, 68.3, and 68.4%, respectively) and to lisinopril the lowest (60.4, 63.2, and 59.6%, respectively) in each BMI stratum. A significant interaction (P = 0.004) suggests a lower coronary heart disease risk in the obese for lisinopril versus chlorthalidone (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.98) and a significant interaction (P = 0.011) suggests a higher risk of end-stage renal disease for amlodipine versus chlorthalidone in obese participants (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.06-2.08). However, these results were not consistent among other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

BMI status does not modify the effects of antihypertensive medications on BP control or cardiovascular disease outcomes.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for diabetic patients on the basis of postulated advantages for the reduction of diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for hypertension in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in patients with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to November 19, 2014 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to October 19, 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies with at least six months follow-up in people with primary elevated blood pressure (≥130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. Patients with proven secondary hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies, involving 65,733 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large studies at a low risk of bias for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalization, total cardiovascular (CV) events (consisted of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalizations), and ESRF. Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90, ARR 1.2%), and moderate quality evidence that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, ARI 0.7%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence), total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence). The results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11; moderate quality evidence), and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). Results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, we found low quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and low quality evidence that they decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Our analyses do not exclude potentially important differences between first-line RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers on all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; low quality evidence), HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; low quality evidence), and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; low quality evidence).Blood pressure comparisons between RAS inhibitors and other classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.In the protocol, we identified non-fatal serious adverse events (SAE) as a primary outcome. However, when we extracted the data from included studies, none of them reported total SAE in a manner that could be used in the review. Therefore, there is no information about SAE in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found predominantly moderate quality evidence that all-cause mortality is similar when first-line RAS inhibitors are compared to other first-line antihypertensive agents. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. The quality of the evidence comparing first-line beta-blockers and first-line RAS inhibitors was low and the lower risk of total CV events and stroke seen with RAS inhibitors may change with the publication of additional trials. Compared with first-line CCBs, first-line RAS inhibitors reduced HF but increased stroke. The magnitude of the reduction in HF exceeded the increase in stroke. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the primary outcomes.

Antihypertensive drugs and glucose metabolism

Hypertension plays a major role in the development and progression of micro- and macrovascular disease. Moreover, increased blood pressure often coexists with additional cardiovascular risk factors such as insulin resistance. As a result the need for a comprehensive management of hypertensive patients is critical. However, the various antihypertensive drug categories have different effects on glucose metabolism. Indeed, angiotensin receptor blockers as well as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors have been associated with beneficial effects on glucose homeostasis. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have an overall neutral effect on glucose metabolism. However, some members of the CCBs class such as azelnidipine and manidipine have been shown to have advantageous effects on glucose homeostasis. On the other hand, diuretics and β-blockers have an overall disadvantageous effect on glucose metabolism. Of note, carvedilol as well as nebivolol seem to differentiate themselves from the rest of the β-blockers class, being more attractive options regarding their effect on glucose homeostasis. The adverse effects of some blood pressure lowering drugs on glucose metabolism may, to an extent, compromise their cardiovascular protective role. As a result the effects on glucose homeostasis of the various blood pressure lowering drugs should be taken into account when selecting an antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients which are at high risk for developing diabetes.

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), for whom the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people who have existing coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review published in 2009, and includes evidence from 27 new studies (25,068 participants) in addition to the 26 studies (20,324 participants) assessed previously; and excludes three previously included studies (107 participants). This updated review includes 50 studies (45,285 participants); of these 38 (37,274 participants) were meta-analysed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits (such as reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, MI and stroke; and slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)) and harms (muscle and liver dysfunction, withdrawal, and cancer) of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD who were not on dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 5 June 2012 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on mortality, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD not on dialysis were the focus of our literature searches.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (lipids, creatinine clearance and proteinuria) and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (major cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or non-fatal stroke, ESKD, elevated liver enzymes, rhabdomyolysis, cancer and withdrawal rates) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 studies (45,285 participants): 47 studies (39,820 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment and three studies (5547 participants) compared two different statin regimens in adults with CKD who were not yet on dialysis. We were able to meta-analyse 38 studies (37,274 participants).The risk of bias in the included studies was high. Seven studies comparing statins with placebo or no treatment had lower risk of bias overall; and were conducted according to published protocols, outcomes were adjudicated by a committee, specified outcomes were reported, and analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat methods. In placebo or no treatment controlled studies, adverse events were reported in 32 studies (68%) and systematically evaluated in 16 studies (34%).Compared with placebo, statin therapy consistently prevented major cardiovascular events (13 studies, 36,033 participants; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), all-cause mortality (10 studies, 28,276 participants; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91), cardiovascular death (7 studies, 19,059 participants; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87) and MI (8 studies, 9018 participants; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.72). Statins had uncertain effects on stroke (5 studies, 8658 participants; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.12).Potential harms from statin therapy were limited by lack of systematic reporting and were uncertain in analyses that had few events: elevated creatine kinase (7 studies, 4514 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.48), liver function abnormalities (7 studies, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 130).Statins had uncertain effects on progression of CKD. Data for relative effects of intensive cholesterol lowering in people with early stages of kidney disease were sparse. Statins clearly reduced risks of death, major cardiovascular events, and MI in people with CKD who did not have CVD at baseline (primary prevention).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statins consistently lower death and major cardiovascular events by 20% in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Statin-related effects on stroke and kidney function were found to be uncertain and adverse effects of treatment are incompletely understood. Statins have an important role in primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality in people who have CKD.

Impact of metabolic syndrome on global left ventricular function: As evaluated by the myocardial performance index

BACKGROUND

Metabolic syndrome is associated with the development of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. The impact of metabolic syndrome on the progression of atherosclerosis has been well documented. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of metabolic syndrome on global left ventricular function by using left ventricular myocardial performance index (LVMPI).

METHODS

The diagnosis of metabolic syndrome was made as per the criteria of the International Diabetes Federation. Echocardiography was performed with a Philips IE33 machine using a 1-5 MHz transthoracic probe. LVMPI was calculated by adding isovolumic contraction time with isovolumic relaxation time and dividing it by ejection time.

RESULTS

The mean LVMPI value in metabolic syndrome was 0.64 ± 0.09, while that in controls was 0.48 ± 0.06 (p < 0.001). Metabolic syndrome was seen to have more significant influence on LVMPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Metabolic syndrome is a strong predictor of sub-clinical myocardial dysfunction in subjects free of clinically apparent heart disease.

Obesity and hypertension: It's about more than the numbers

OBJECTIVE

This editorial comments on the recent Obesity Society and American Society of Hypertension joint position paper, justified by the substantial link between obesity and hypertension (HTN).

DESIGN AND METHODS

The editorial reviews the expert opinions. Other relevant clinical research is highlighted, such as an obesity paradox. Evidence-based lifestyle changes, drugs, and behavorial modification and newer agents are highlighted.

RESULTS

Areas of controversy are noted. Despite the importance of renin angiotensin system blockage, future federal guidelines may maintain thiazides as first choice, even with metabolic syndrome (MetS) and diabetes (DM). Chlorthalidone, 12.5-25 mg, has shown cardiovascular benefit, including with MetS and DM.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion calls for more research. However, the identification and elimination of racial/ethnic disparities should be addressed more explicitly. To better understand the obesity-hypertension linkage, curtail costs, and decrease premature disease and death, this excellent position paper is essential.

Regression of albuminuria and hypertension and arrest of severe renal injury by a losartan-hydrochlorothiazide association in a model of very advanced nephropathy

Treatments that effectively prevent chronic kidney disease (CKD) when initiated early often yield disappointing results when started at more advanced phases. We examined the long-term evolution of renal injury in the 5/6 nephrectomy model (Nx) and the effect of an association between an AT-1 receptor blocker, losartan (L), and hydrochlorothiazide (H), shown previously to be effective when started one month after Nx. Adult male Munich-Wistar rats underwent Nx, being divided into four groups: Nx+V, no treatment; Nx+L, receiving L monotherapy; Nx+LH, receiving the L+H association (LH), and Nx+AHHz, treated with the calcium channel blocker, amlodipine, the vascular relaxant, hydralazine, and H. This latter group served to assess the effect of lowering blood pressure (BP). Rats undergoing sham nephrectomy (S) were also studied. In a first protocol, treatments were initiated 60 days after Nx, when CKD is at a relatively early stage. In a second protocol, treatments were started 120 days after Nx, when glomerulosclerosis and interstitial fibrosis are already advanced. In both protocols, L treatment promoted only partial renoprotection, whereas LH brought BP, albuminuria, tubulointerstitial cell proliferation and plasma aldosterone below pretreatment levels, and completely detained progression of renal injury. Despite normalizing BP, the AHHz association failed to prevent renal damage, indicating that the renoprotective effect of LH was not due to a systemic hemodynamic action. These findings are inconsistent with the contention that thiazides are innocuous in advanced CKD. In Nx, LH promotes effective renoprotection even at advanced stages by mechanisms that may involve anti-inflammatory and intrarenal hemodynamic effects, but seem not to require BP normalization.

Predictors of long-term weight loss in adults with modest initial weight loss, by sex and race

Effective weight management interventions could reduce race-sex disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD), yet little is known about factors associated with successful weight loss maintenance in race-sex subgroups. In the Weight Loss Maintenance trial (WLM), overweight/obese (BMI 25-45 kg/m(2)) adults who lost ≥4 kg in a 6-month behavioral weight loss intervention (phase I) were randomized into one of three 30-month maintenance interventions (phase II). To investigate predictors in subgroups, randomized groups were combined for this analysis. Of 1,685 phase I participants, 1,032 (61%) entered phase II, including 12% black men (BM), 26% black women (BW), 25% white men (WM), and 37% white women (WW). Weight change over the 36-month study ranged from -2.3% (95% confidence interval = -3.1 to -1.5%) in BW to -4.5% (95% confidence interval = -5.7 to -4.0%) in WM, the result of differential weight loss during phase I. Within race, men lost significantly more weight than women, but within sex group, weight loss did not differ significantly between races. Although participants regained weight during phase II, regain did not differ by race-sex group, and mean weight at the end of the study was significantly lower than phase I entry weight for each subgroup. In regression models, phase I weight loss predicted overall 36-month weight loss in all race-sex groups. Healthy dietary pattern at entry, improvement in dietary pattern, or both were predictive in three of four race-sex groups. Few other variables other than initial weight loss and dietary pattern were predictive. Future research should identify additional modifiable influences on long-term maintenance after a modest weight loss.

A guide to the management of blood pressure in the diabetic hypertensive patient

Diabetes mellitus and hypertension frequently coexist in patients with the insulin resistance syndrome (IRS). Patients with both diabetes and hypertension typically have widespread endothelial dysfunction, increased oxidative stress, an activated sympathoadrenal system, and an elevated systemic burden of inflammatory mediators. Patients with diabetes and hypertension also have concomitant mixed dyslipidemia and obesity with significant frequency, and are at high risk for the development of macro- and microvascular disease, congestive heart failure, and nephropathy. Current data suggest that ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers with or without a diuretic are important, if not preferred, initial therapies for the patient with diabetes and hypertension. Other drug classes such as combined alpha-/beta-adrenoceptor antagonists, dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists (CCAs), and peripheral alpha-adrenoceptor antagonists are also useful therapeutic options in these patients. In order to optimally reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in the patient with diabetes and hypertension, optimal BP control should be coupled with comprehensive lifestyle modification and aggressive management of dyslipidemia and hyperglycemia.

Metabolic syndrome: definition and therapeutic implications

The collection of impaired glucose metabolism, central obesity, elevated blood pressure, and dyslipidemia is identified as metabolic syndrome (MetS). It is estimated that approximately 25% of the world's population has MetS. In the United States, MetS is more common in men and Hispanics, and its incidence increases with age. Metabolic syndrome increases the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The underlying risk factors include insulin resistance and abdominal obesity. Confusion about MetS exists in part due to the lack of a consensus definition and treatment protocol. Treatment of MetS begins with therapeutic lifestyle changes and then pharmacologic treatment of the syndrome's individual components. Effective interventions include diet modification, exercise, and use of pharmacologic agents to treat risk factors. Weight loss and increasing physical activity significantly improve all aspects of MetS. A diet that includes more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, monounsaturated fats, and low-fat dairy products will benefit most patients with MetS. Physicians can be most effective in advising patients by customizing specific lifestyle recommendations after assessing patients for the presence of risk factors.

The metabolic syndrome and risk of chronic kidney disease: pathophysiology and intervention strategies

Metabolic syndrome is characterized by a clustering of cardiovascular risk factors, including abdominal obesity, elevated blood pressure and glucose concentrations, and dyslipidemia. The presence of this clinical entity is becoming more pervasive throughout the globe as the prevalence of obesity increases worldwide. Moreover, there is increased recognition of the complications and mortality related to this syndrome. This paper looks to examine the link between metabolic syndrome and the development of chronic kidney disease.

Sympathetic nervous system in obesity-related hypertension: mechanisms and clinical implications

Obesity markedly increases the risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease, which may be related to activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS). Sympathetic overactivity directly and indirectly contributes to blood pressure (BP) elevation in obesity, including stimulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). The adipocyte-derived peptide leptin suppresses appetite, increases thermogenesis, but also raises SNS activity and BP. Obese individuals exhibit hyperleptinemia but are resistant to its appetite-suppressing actions. Interestingly, animal models of obesity exhibit preserved sympathoexcitatory and pressor actions of leptin, despite resistance to its anorexic and metabolic actions, suggesting selective leptin resistance. Disturbance of intracellular signaling at specific hypothalamic neural networks appears to underlie selective leptin resistance. Delineation of these pathways should lead to novel approaches to treatment. In the meantime, treatment of obesity-hypertension has relied on antihypertensive drugs. Although sympathetic blockade is mechanistically attractive in obesity-hypertension, in practice its effects are disappointing because of adverse metabolic effects and inferior outcomes. On the basis of subgroup analyses of obese patients in large randomized clinical trials, drugs such as diuretics and RAAS blockers appear superior in preventing cardiovascular events in obesity--hypertension. An underused alternative approach to obesity-hypertension is induction of weight loss, which reduces circulating leptin and insulin, partially reverses resistance to these hormones, decreases sympathetic activation and improves BP and other risk factors. Though weight loss induced by lifestyle is often modest and transient, carefully selected pharmacological weight loss therapies can produce substantial and sustained antihypertensive effects additive to lifestyle interventions.

Modern views on amlodipine and new S-amlodipine medications

The review presents the latest evidence on the calcium antagonist amlodipine, summarizing its mechanisms of action, its pleiotropic, endothelial function-related effects, and its anti-atherogenic activity. Amlodipine suppresses the proliferation of vascular smooth myocytes and extracellular matrix and improves endothelial vasodilatation, despite the absence of L-type calcium channels in these cells. This mechanism is related to an increase in endothelial nitric oxide (NO) release. The results of experimental studies on the role of S and R amlodipine isomers in its hemodynamic and pleiotropic activity are presented. While S-amlodipine is a pharmacologically active blocker of L-type calcium channels, R-amlodipine increases endothelial NO release. New medications have been developed, based on S-amlodipine. It has been shown that S-amlodipine 5 mg/d is bioequivalent to amlodipine 10 mg/d. The pharmacodynamics analysis demonstrated that S-amlodipine 5 mg/d and amlodipine 10 mg/d did not differ significantly in terms of mean levels of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, or mean heart rate. S-amlodipine was better tolerated and characterised by a lower incidence of peripheral edema than amlodipine. However, the effects of S-amlodipine on hard end-points should be investigated in the long-term prospective studies.

Alpha 1 adrenoreceptor antagonists

KEY POINTS AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: •  α Antagonists lower blood pressure by selectively blocking post-synaptic α(1) -adrenoreceptors, which antagonizes catecholamine-induced constriction of the arterial and venous vascular beds. •  α(1) -Adrenoreceptor antagonists are not indicated for initial, first-line antihypertensive therapy; however, they can be added to most other antihypertensive drug classes in--preferably diuretic-containing--drug regimens. •  When used over time, these agents cause expansion of the extracellular fluid and plasma volumes that typically manifests as weight gain and an attenuation of the blood pressure-lowering efficacy in persons who are consuming usual amounts of dietary sodium. •  Utilization of α(1) -adrenoreceptor antagonists with diuretics such as chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide is beneficial because these agents minimize the α antagonist-induced expansion of the extracellular and plasma volumes while providing significant incremental reductions in blood pressure. •  α(1) -Adrenoreceptor antagonists are especially useful in men with benign prostatic hypertrophy because they increase mean and peak urinary flow rates as well as reduce lower urinary tract symptoms. •  α(1) -Adrenoreceptor antagonists are contraindicated in persons with heart failure because of their aforementioned ability to expand extracellular and plasma volumes.

Older blood pressure medications-do they still have a place?

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but control of hypertension remains inadequate, often because of poor patient adherence to prescribed medical regimens that are viewed as poorly tolerated and expensive. Physicians have largely stopped using some older blood pressure medications in favor of newer agents, mostly because of a presumed more favorable side effect profile. The investigators reviewed the pharmacologic properties and the evidence supporting the effectiveness and tolerability of several older blood pressure drugs: sympatholytic agents such as reserpine, methyldopa, and clonidine; diuretics such as chlorthalidone, ethacrynic acid and spironolactone; the vasodilators hydralazine and minoxidil; and others. In conclusion, some of these drugs are well studied and represent alternatives for patients who cannot afford or tolerate newer medications.

Office and ambulatory blood pressure-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs. hydrochlorothiazide-based therapy in obese, hypertensive patients

The authors evaluated the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs. amlodipine/HCTZ in a 16-week, double-blind, randomized, forced-titration study and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) substudy involving centrally obese hypertensive patients 40 years and older. Patients were started on valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy, force-titrated at week 4 to valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg and HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. The HCTZ group initiated amlodipine 5 mg at week 8 and 10 mg at week 12. A subset of patients had 24-hour ABPM at baseline and weeks 8 and 16. At week 16 in the intent-to-treat population (n=401), valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/HCTZ lowered office systolic BP (-30.6 vs. -28.3 mm Hg; P=.14). In the ABPM subgroup (n=111), valsartan/HCTZ was more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in reducing 24-hour systolic BP (-20.6 vs. -14.5 mm Hg; P=.011). In obese hypertensive patients, valsartan/HCTZ reduced office BP similar to amlodipine/HCTZ but lowered 24-hour systolic BP more.

Why physicians do not prescribe a thiazide diuretic

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reasons physicians provided when the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) guidelines recommending a thiazide diuretic as a first line treatment for hypertension were not followed. A subsample of patients from a randomized controlled study who had uncontrolled blood pressure at an index visit and were not prescribed a thiazide were evaluated. Differences in groups that received any medication change or therapeutic lifestyle changes counseling and those that did not were compared. Differences in treatment were also compared for patients who received educational materials with or without telephone calls and financial incentive with a control group. The authors examined whether patients achieved blood pressure control in 12 months. The results show providers are not aggressive enough with getting blood pressure to goal and patients who are more educated about hypertension may be less likely to experience clinical inertia.

ALLHAT: still providing correct answers after 7 years

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) is re-evaluated considering information from recent subgroup and exploratory analyses, other new clinical trials, and meta-analyses. The ALLHAT analyses specifically emphasize heart failure findings, results in Black participants and those with chronic kidney disease, selection and doses of thiazide and similar diuretics, and the association of antihypertensive drug use with new-onset diabetes and its cardiovascular consequences.

RECENT FINDINGS

The initial ALLHAT conclusion, that thiazide diuretics are superior to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), calcium antagonists (CCBs) and alpha-blockers in preventing one or more major clinical outcomes, including heart failure and stroke, and unsurpassed in significantly preventing any cardiovascular or renal outcome, has been further validated for patients with diabetes, renal disease, and/or metabolic syndrome. The evidence is even more compelling for Black patients. New-onset diabetes associated with thiazides did not increase cardiovascular outcomes. The diuretic was superior to all in preventing heart failure with preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and similar to the ACEI in preventing heart failure with impaired LVEF. It was also unsurpassed in preventing atrial fibrillation.

SUMMARY

The totality of evidence re-affirms the initial ALLHAT conclusion that thiazide and similar diuretics (at evidence-based doses) are the preferred first-step therapy in most patients with hypertension.