Department of veterans Affairs single-drug therapy of hypertension study. Revised figures and new data. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents

The Prevalence of Uncontrolled Hypertension among Patients Taking Antihypertensive Medications and the Associated Risk Factors in North Palestine: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled hypertension (HTN) is a challenge for public health professionals all over the world. It is the leading and most important modifiable risk factor for coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, renal diseases, and retinopathy. The aim of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of uncontrolled HTN among Palestinian hypertensive patients on treatment. In addition, the study aimed to explore the relationship between socio-demographic and clinical factors with HTN control as well as establish a comprehensive literature review for similar studies.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. 218 hypertensive patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study.

RESULTS

HTN is not adequately controlled in over 60% of treated patients. Factors that were linked to uncontrolled HTN and were statistically significant as per this study were diabetes (p=0.010), high BMI (p=0.009), smoking (p < 0.0001), lower educational level (p=0.002), and monotherapy (p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that effective efforts on improving HTN control are strongly needed. The efforts need to target hypertensive patients who are also smokers, diabetics, having a low education level, and have a higher-than-normal BMI.

Association of West African ancestry and blood pressure control among African Americans taking antihypertensive medication in the Jackson Heart Study

African Americans have a wide range of continental genetic ancestry. It is unclear whether racial differences in blood pressure (BP) control are related to ancestral background. The authors analyzed data from the Jackson Heart Study, a cohort exclusively comprised of self-identified African Americans, to assess the association between estimated West African ancestry (WAA) and BP control (systolic and diastolic BP < 140/90 mm Hg). Three nested modified Poisson regression models were used to calculate prevalence ratios for BP control associated with the three upper quartiles, separately, vs the lowest quartile of West African ancestry. The authors analyzed data from 1658 participants with hypertension who reported taking all of their antihypertensive medications in the previous 24 hours. WAA was estimated using 389 ancestry informative markers and categorized into quartiles (Q1: <73.7%, Q2: >73.7%-81.0%, Q3: >81.0%-86.3%, and Q4: >86.3%). The proportion of participants with controlled BP in the lowest-to-highest WAA quartile was 75.2%, 76.1%, 76.6%, and 74.4%. The prevalence ratios (95% CI) for controlled BP comparing Q2, Q3, and Q4 to Q1 of WAA were 1.00 (0.93-1.08), 1.02 (0.94-1.10), and 0.99 (0.91-1.07), respectively. Among African Americans in the Jackson Heart Study taking antihypertensive medication, BP control rates did not differ across quartiles of WAA.

Comparison of Dual Therapies for Lowering Blood Pressure in Black Africans

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of hypertension among black African patients is high, and these patients usually need two or more medications for blood-pressure control. However, the most effective two-drug combination that is currently available for blood-pressure control in these patients has not been established.

METHODS

In this randomized, single-blind, three-group trial conducted in six countries in sub-Saharan Africa, we randomly assigned 728 black patients with uncontrolled hypertension (≥140/90 mm Hg while the patient was not being treated or was taking only one antihypertensive drug) to receive a daily regimen of 5 mg of amlodipine plus 12.5 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, 5 mg of amlodipine plus 4 mg of perindopril, or 4 mg of perindopril plus 12.5 mg of hydrochlorothiazide for 2 months. Doses were then doubled (10 and 25 mg, 10 and 8 mg, and 8 and 25 mg, respectively) for an additional 4 months. The primary end point was the change in the 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure between baseline and 6 months.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 51 years, and 63% were women. Among the 621 patients who underwent 24-hour blood-pressure monitoring at baseline and at 6 months, those receiving amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide and those receiving amlodipine plus perindopril had a lower 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure than those receiving perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (between-group difference in the change from baseline, -3.14 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.90 to -0.38; P = 0.03; and -3.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, -5.8 to -0.20; P = 0.04, respectively). The difference between the group receiving amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide and the group receiving amlodipine plus perindopril was -0.14 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.90 to 2.61; P=0.92). Similar differential effects on office and ambulatory diastolic blood pressures, along with blood-pressure control and response rates, were apparent among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that in black patients in sub-Saharan Africa, amlodipine plus either hydrochlorothiazide or perindopril was more effective than perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide at lowering blood pressure at 6 months. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Africa Noncommunicable Disease Open Lab; CREOLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02742467.).

Impact of Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program clinical trials on practice guidelines for high blood pressure management

Knowing the extent to which a clinical trial's findings translate into clinical practice can be challenging. One practical approach to estimating a trial's influence on clinical practice can be achieved by assessing how the trial informed relevant clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Accordingly, the objectives of this study were to provide an overview of all the clinical trials involving the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) that aimed at informing or resulted in informing the management of high blood pressure and to identify and describe the extent to which these trials informed CPGs for the management of high blood pressure. A total of 26 clinical trials involving the VA CSP were identified. Using bibliographic information, 21 CPGs for the management of hypertension representing over 40 years of treatment recommendations from eight collectives were evaluated to determine how they were informed by trials involving the VA CSP. From 1977 to 2018, 13 of the 26 trials (50.0%) were found to have informed 19 of the 21 CPGs (90.5%) a total of 54 times (mean = 2.6 trial citations per CPG, SD ± 1.8). Clinical trials involving the VA CSP have informed a sizeable proportion of CPGs for the management of high blood pressure over the past 40 years. Because of this impact on the CPGs, these trials are also likely to have had at least moderate influence on clinical practice.

Barnidipine Real-Life Efficacy and Tolerability in Arterial Hypertension: Results from Younger and Older Patients in the BASIC-HT Study

Objective:

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of barnidipine, a strong lipophilic calcium channel blocker, in younger (≤55 for efficacy or <65 years for adverse events) versus older (>55 or ≥65 years) patients with uncomplicated hypertension.

Methods:

20,275 patients received barnidipine, 10 or 20 mg/day, as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drug(s) in the observational BArnidipine real-life Safety and tolerability In Chronic HyperTension (BASIC-HT) study. Efficacy and tolerability were assessed over a 3-month period. The present paper describes results from prespecified subgroup analyses by age not reported elsewhere.

Results:

Both age groups showed a clinically meaningful decrease in blood pressure (BP) over time (p<0.0001). The mean systolic and diastolic BP after approximately 3 months of barnidipine therapy was well below the target value of <140/90 mmHg for individual patients, with no notable differences between age groups. The decrease in mean pulse pressure was greater in patients >55 years (-10.8 mmHg) than in patients ≤55 years (-8.7 mmHg) (p<0.0001) and the proportion of patients with pulse pressure >60 mmHg decreased from 61.1% at baseline to 24.8% at Visit 3 in patients >55 years and from 47.7% to 16.5% in patients ≤55 years (p<0.0001).

The overall incidence of adverse events was low, leading to treatment discontinuation in only 3.0-3.6% of patients. Peripheral edema, a common adverse effect with calcium channel blockers in clinical practice, was reported by 2.7% of patients aged <65 years and by 4.6% of patients aged ≥65 years.

Conclusion:

The efficacy and tolerability profiles of barnidipine as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs were shown to be favorable in both younger and older patients in a real-life practice setting. Randomized double-blind controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults aged 18 to 59 years

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is an important risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events including stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and renal failure. The main goal of treatment is to reduce these events. Systematic reviews have shown proven benefit of antihypertensive drug therapy in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality but most of the evidence is in people 60 years of age and older. We wanted to know what the effects of therapy are in people 18 to 59 years of age.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify antihypertensive drug effects on all-cause mortality in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension. To quantify effects on cardiovascular mortality plus morbidity (including cerebrovascular and coronary heart disease mortality plus morbidity), withdrawal due adverse events and estimate magnitude of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) lowering at one year.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to January 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 contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of at least one year' duration comparing antihypertensive pharmacotherapy with a placebo or no treatment in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension defined as SBP 140 mmHg or greater or DBP 90 mmHg or greater at baseline, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, total cardiovascular (CVS) mortality plus morbidity, withdrawals due to adverse events, and decrease in SBP and DBP. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and a fixed-effect model to combine outcomes across trials. For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD) with 95% CI and a random-effects model as there was significant heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

The population in the seven included studies (17,327 participants) were predominantly healthy adults with mild to moderate primary hypertension. The Medical Research Council Trial of Mild Hypertension contributed 14,541 (84%) of total randomized participants, with mean age of 50 years and mean baseline blood pressure of 160/98 mmHg and a mean duration of follow-up of five years. Treatments used in this study were bendrofluazide 10 mg daily or propranolol 80 mg to 240 mg daily with addition of methyldopa if required. The risk of bias in the studies was high or unclear for a number of domains and led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for all outcomes.Based on five studies, antihypertensive drug therapy as compared to placebo or untreated control may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (2.4% with control vs 2.3% with treatment; low quality evidence; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.13). Based on 4 studies, the effects on coronary heart disease were uncertain due to low quality evidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.19). Low quality evidence from six studies showed that drug therapy may reduce total cardiovascular mortality and morbidity from 4.1% to 3.2% over five years (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (1.3% with control vs 0.6% with treatment; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Very low quality evidence from three studies showed that withdrawals due to adverse events were higher with drug therapy from 0.7% to 3.0% (RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.67 to 13.92). The effects on blood pressure varied between the studies and we are uncertain as to how much of a difference treatment makes on average.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive drugs used to treat predominantly healthy adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension have a small absolute effect to reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity primarily due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity. All-cause mortality and coronary heart disease were not reduced. There is lack of good evidence on withdrawal due to adverse events. Future trials in this age group should be at least 10 years in duration and should compare different first-line drug classes and strategies.

Combination therapy with lercanidipine and enalapril in the management of the hypertensive patient: an update of the evidence

Hypertension is an important risk factor for premature death as it increases the probability of stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Antihypertensive drugs can decrease cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. The majority of hypertensive patients need more than one antihypertensive agent to attain blood pressure (BP) targets. Monotherapy can effectively reduce BP only in 20%–40% of patients. Multiple mechanisms including increased peripheral vascular resistance, increased cardiac work, and hypervolemia are involved in the pathogenesis of hypertension. Targeting multiple pathways may more potently reduce BP. Increasing the dose of a single agent in many cases does not provide the expected BP-lowering effect because the underlying mechanism of the BP increase is either different or already corrected with the lower dose. Moreover, drugs acting on different pathways may have synergistic effects and thus better control hypertension. It is well known that diuretics enhance the actions of renin–angiotensin aldosterone system and activate it as a feedback to the reduced circulated blood volume. The addition of a renin–angiotensin aldosterone system blocker to a diuretic may more effectively reduce BP because the system is upregulated. Reducing the maximal dose of an agent may also reduce possible side effects if they are dose dependent. The increased prevalence of peripheral edema with higher doses of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) is reduced when renin–angiotensin aldosterone system blockers are added to CCBs through vein dilation. The effectiveness of the combination of enalapril with lercanidipine in reducing BP, the safety profile, and the use of the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with CCBs in clinical trials with excellent CV hard end point outcomes make this combination a promising therapy in the treatment of hypertension.

Systematic review: antihypertensive drug therapy in patients of African and South Asian ethnicity

Despite the large differences in the epidemiology of hypertension across Europe, treatment strategies are similar for national populations of white European descent. However, hypertensive patients of African or South Asian ethnicity may require ethnic-specific approaches, as these population subgroups tend to have higher blood pressure at an earlier age that is more difficult to control, a higher occurrence of diabetes, and more target organ damage with earlier cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the evidence on antihypertensive drug treatment in South Asian and African ethnicity patients. We used the Cochrane systematic review methodology to retrieve trials in electronic databases including CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase from their inception through November 2015; and with handsearch. We retrieved 4596 reports that yielded 35 trials with 7 classes of antihypertensive drugs in 25,540 African ethnicity patients. Aside from the well-known blood pressure efficacy of calcium channel blockers and diuretics, with lesser effect of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers, nebivolol was not more effective than placebo in reducing systolic blood pressure levels. Trials with morbidity and mortality outcomes indicated that lisinopril and losartan-based therapy were associated with a greater incidence of stroke and sudden death. Furthermore, 1581 reports yielded 16 randomized controlled trials with blood pressure outcomes in 1719 South Asian hypertensive patients. In contrast with the studies in African ethnicity patients, there were no significant differences in blood pressure lowering efficacy between drugs, and no trials available with mortality outcomes. In conclusion, in patients of African ethnicity, treatment initiated with ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker monotherapy was associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We found no evidence of different efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in South Asians, but there is a need for trials with morbidity and mortality outcomes. Screening for cardiovascular risk at a younger age, treating hypertension at lower thresholds, and new delivery models to find, treat and follow hypertensives in the community may help reduce the excess cardiovascular mortality in these high-risk groups.

Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death in hypertensive individuals

BACKGROUND

High blood pressure is an important public health problem because of associated risks of stroke and cardiovascular events. Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent cardiac events, including myocardial infarction and sudden death (death of unknown cause within one hour of the onset of acute symptoms or within 24 hours of observation of the patient as alive and symptom free).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in preventing sudden death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal myocardial infarction among hypertensive individuals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (all years to January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2016, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2016), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to January 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for hypertension, defined, when possible, as baseline resting systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mmHg and/or resting diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mmHg. Comparisons included one or more antihypertensive drugs versus placebo, or versus no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data. Outcomes assessed were sudden death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and change in blood pressure.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials (39,908 participants) that evaluated antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for a mean duration of follow-up of 4.2 years. This review provides moderate-quality evidence to show that antihypertensive drugs do not reduce sudden death (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.15) but do reduce both non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74, 0.98; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.3% over 4.2 years) and fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90; ARR 0.3% over 4.2 years). Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased in the drug treatment group to 12.8%, as compared with 6.2% in the no treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although antihypertensive drugs reduce the incidence of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, they do not appear to reduce the incidence of sudden death. This suggests that sudden cardiac death may not be caused primarily by acute myocardial infarction. Continued research is needed to determine the causes of sudden cardiac death.

Pharmacogenomic Genome-Wide Meta-Analysis of Blood Pressure Response to β-Blockers in Hypertensive African Americans

African Americans suffer a higher prevalence of hypertension compared with other racial/ethnic groups. In this study, we performed a pharmacogenomic genome-wide association study of blood pressure (BP) response to β-blockers in African Americans with uncomplicated hypertension. Genome-wide meta-analysis was performed in 318 African American hypertensive participants in the 2 Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses studies: 150 treated with atenolol monotherapy and 168 treated with metoprolol monotherapy. The analysis adjusted for age, sex, baseline BP and principal components for ancestry. Genome-wide significant variants with P<5×10(-8) and suggestive variants with P<5×10(-7) were evaluated in an additional cohort of 141 African Americans treated with the addition of atenolol to hydrochlorothiazide treatment. The validated variants were then meta-analyzed in these 3 groups of African Americans. Two variants discovered in the monotherapy meta-analysis were validated in the add-on therapy. African American participants heterozygous for SLC25A31 rs201279313 deletion versus wild-type genotype had better diastolic BP response to atenolol monotherapy, metoprolol monotherapy, and atenolol add-on therapy: -9.3 versus -4.6, -9.6 versus -4.8, and -9.7 versus -6.4 mm Hg, respectively (3-group meta-analysis P=2.5×10(-8), β=-4.42 mm Hg per variant allele). Similarly, LRRC15 rs11313667 was validated for systolic BP response to β-blocker therapy with 3-group meta-analysis P=7.2×10(-8) and β=-3.65 mm Hg per variant allele. In this first pharmacogenomic genome-wide meta-analysis of BP response to β-blockers in African Americans, we identified novel variants that may provide valuable information for personalized antihypertensive treatment in this group.

Patterns of treatment modifications among newly treated hypertensive patients: does choice of modification strategy affect likelihood of treatment discontinuation?

OBJECTIVES

Treatment modifications--addition, uptitration, switching, and downtitration--are necessary to address issues such as unattained blood pressure goals, adverse drug events, drug cost, or patient dissatisfaction which lead to treatment discontinuation. This study assessed the patterns of treatment modifications, and compared the rates of treatment modification and time-to-treatment modification across five antihypertensive drug classes (ADCs). Additionally, the association between treatment modification strategies and the likelihood of treatment discontinuation was assessed.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using the BlueCross-BlueShield of Texas commercial claims database (2008-2012). Treatment modifications that occurred within 1 year of starting hypertension treatment were identified. Patients who received treatment modifications were followed for 12 months to determine if and when they discontinued treatment. Cox regression models were used to determine the likelihood of treatment modification and treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

About 48.5% of patients received treatment modifications within 1 year of treatment initiation. Rates of treatment modification were significantly different across ADCs; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker users were less likely to receive treatment modifications compared with other ADCs. Mean time-to-treatment modification was more than 100 days for adding and uptitrating, and more than 140 days for switching and downtitrating. Patients intensifying treatment by adding medications were about 25% (vs. uptitration) and 50% (vs. switching) less likely to discontinue treatment.

CONCLUSION

Treatment modifications are common among newly treated hypertensive patients, and the rates vary significantly across ADCs. In the real world, treatment modifications occur much later than the 30-day timeline recommended by guidelines. Addition of drugs may be a preferred approach for intensifying treatment of patients at a high risk of treatment discontinuation.

Racial differences in hypertension: implications for high blood pressure management

The racial disparity in hypertension and hypertension-related outcomes has been recognized for decades with African Americans with greater risks than Caucasians. Blood pressure levels have consistently been higher for African Americans with an earlier onset of hypertension. Although awareness and treatment levels of high blood pressure have been similar, racial differences in control rates are evident. The higher blood pressure levels for African Americans are associated with higher rates of stroke, end-stage renal disease and congestive heart failure. The reasons for the racial disparities in elevated blood pressure and hypertension-related outcomes risk remain unclear. However, the implications of the disparities of hypertension for prevention and clinical management are substantial, identifying African American men and women with excel hypertension risk and warranting interventions focused on these differences. In addition, focused research to identify the factors attributed to these disparities in risk burden is an essential need to address the evidence gaps.

Can we identify response markers to antihypertensive drugs? First results from the IDEAL Trial

Current antihypertensive strategies do not take into account that individual characteristics may influence the magnitude of blood pressure (BP) reduction. Guidelines promote trial-and-error approaches with many different drugs. We conducted the Identification of the Determinants of the Efficacy of Arterial blood pressure Lowering drugs (IDEAL) Trial to identify factors associated with BP responses to perindopril and indapamide. IDEAL was a cross-over, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, involving four 4-week periods: indapamide, perindopril and two placebo. Eligible patients were untreated, hypertensive and aged 25-70 years. The main outcome was systolic BP (SBP) response to drugs. The 112 participants with good compliance had a mean age of 52. One in every three participants was a woman. In middle-aged women, the SBP reduction from drugs was -11.5 mm Hg (indapamide) and -8.3 mm Hg (perindopril). In men, the response was significantly smaller: -4.8 mm Hg (indapamide) and -4.3 (perindopril) (P for sex differences 0.001 and 0.015, respectively). SBP response to perindopril decreased by 2 mm Hg every 10 years of age in both sexes (P=0.01). The response to indapamide increased by 3 mm Hg every 10 years of age gradient in women (P=0.02). Age and sex were important determinants of BP response for antihypertensive drugs in the IDEAL population. This should be taken into account when choosing drugs a priori.

The role of plasma renin activity, age, and race in selecting effective initial drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Strategies for initial drug therapy of hypertension are a thiazide diuretic for all or drug selection based on age/race criteria or on plasma renin activity (PRA). It is uncertain which of these strategies will achieve the highest control rate among patients with stage 1 essential hypertension. We sought to compare control rates among 3 drug selection strategies: (i) thiazide diuretic for all, (ii) thiazide diuretic for all black subjects and white subjects aged ≥50 years and a renin-angiotensin system blocker for white subjects aged <50 years, or (iii) thiazide diuretic for PRA < 0.6ng/ml/h (suppressed PRA) and a renin-angiotensin system blocker for PRA ≥ 0.6ng/ml/h (nonsuppressed PRA).

METHODS

Blood pressure responses from the Genetic Epidemiology of Responses to Antihypertensives (GERA) study were used to determine control rates for each of the 3 strategies. In GERA, hypertensive adults were treated with hydrochlorothiazide (n = 286 black subjects and 284 white subjects) or with candesartan (n = 248 black subjects and 278 white subjects).

RESULTS

In the overall sample, the PRA strategy was associated with the highest control rate of 69.4% vs. 61.3% with the age/race strategy (P < 0.001) and 53.8% with the thiazide for all strategy (P < 0.001). This was also true in each racial subgroup (in black subjects: 62.1% vs. 55.2% for the other 2 strategies, P = 0.02; in white subjects: 76.3% vs. 67.1% with the age/race strategy (P < 0.001) and 52.4% with the thiazide for all strategy (P < 0.001)).

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory analysis suggests that choice of initial therapy for hypertension using a PRA strategy may be associated with higher control rates than alternative strategies recommended in current guidelines.

Efficacy of initiating therapy with amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide or their combination in hypertensive Nigerians

In order to evaluate whether amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide would be preferable to initiate therapy, 90 untreated hypertensive Nigerians of both genders aged 31-86 years with blood pressure >160/90 and ≤180/120 mm Hg were recruited into a randomized 48-week study. Patients, 30 each in amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, and amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide groups, were treated, respectively, with amlodipine 5 mg for 6 weeks and the dose increased to 10 mg till week 12, after which hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg was added; hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg till week 6, after which amlodipine 5-10 mg was added; and amlodipine 5-10 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg. Body mass index, blood pressure, heart rate, and 24-hour urine volume were evaluated at baseline and at the end of weeks 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48. The primary efficacy variables were decreased in mean trough sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure such that blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg was regarded as normalized. At week 48 in the amlodipine group, 27 patients versus 25 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group had diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (90% vs. 83.3%; P <.03). In the amlodipine group, 23 patients versus 20 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group had blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg (76.7% vs. 66.7%; P <.01). In the amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide group, 27 patients (90%) and 15 patients (50%) had diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg and blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg, respectively. This study has demonstrated that a regimen of amlodipine to which hydrochlorothiazide is subsequently added provides superior efficacy on blood pressure control when compared with a regimen of hydrochlorothiazide to which amlodipine is subsequently added or with ab initio amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy.

Inherent inaccuracies and potential utility of race/ethnicity labeling in the treatment of hypertension

The use of racial/ethnic labeling for any purpose is fraught with substantial emotional, social and political consequences even when used for demographic studies or census. In addition to the very real historical conflicts associated with slavery in the Americas and various social classification systems elsewhere, such labeling has been shown by the use of ancestral identification markers to be inaccurate in many cases. Even geographic labeling, such as East Asians, ignores the marked heterogeneity of East Asians. The use of race alone to determine selection of initial antihypertensive therapy is a very limited approach. The Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents has demonstrated, however, that the use of age and race together may be a useful paradigm for predicting response to a single antihypertensive drug. Furthermore, individuals from populations who consume high levels of sodium and lower levels of potassium may respond better to diuretics and calcium antagonists. Other populations may be more susceptible to angioedema or cough related to the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Such information may be useful for the selection or avoidance of certain medications. No patient should ever be denied indicated treatment with a drug or drug class because of race or ethnicity.

[Arterial hypertension in patients with coronary artery disease]

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

Fixed combination of lercanidipine and enalapril in the management of hypertension: focus on patient preference and adherence

Hypertension is one of the most important and widespread risk factors for the development of cardiovascular disease. Once, combination therapy was traditionally reserved as a third-line or fourth-line approach in the management of hypertension. However, several major intervention trials in high-risk patient populations have shown that an average of 2-4 antihypertensive agents are required to achieve effective blood pressure control. Combination treatment should be considered as a first choice in patients at high cardiovascular risk and in individuals for whom blood pressure is markedly above the hypertension threshold (eg, more than 20 mmHg systolic or 10 mmHg diastolic), or when milder degrees of blood pressure elevation are associated with multiple risk factors, subclinical organ damage, diabetes, renal failure, or associated cardiovascular disease. A number of clinical trials have demonstrated that a fixed combination of lercanidipine and enalapril has better efficacy and tolerability than monotherapy with either agents. The fixed-dose formulation of lercanidipine-enalapril was well tolerated in all clinical trials, with an adverse event rate similar to that of the component drugs as monotherapy. The advantages of combination therapy include improved adherence to therapy and minimization of blood pressure variability. In addition, combining two antihypertensive agents with different mechanisms of action may provide greater protection against major cardiovascular events and the development of end-organ damage.

Retrospective analysis of real-world efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers versus other classes of antihypertensive agents in blood pressure management

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of blood pressure (BP) lowering may differ between clinical trials and what is observed in clinical practice. These differences may contribute to poor BP control rates among those at risk.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an observational study to determine the BP-lowering efficacy of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) versus non-ARB-based antihypertensive treatments in a large Canadian primary care database.

METHODS

We analyzed the South Western Ontario database of 170,000 adults (aged >18 years) with hypertension persisting with antihypertensive medication for ≥9 months. Routine standard of care office BP was measured using approved manual aneroid or automated devices. BP <140 mm Hg and/or <90 mm Hg ≤9 months after treatment initiation, persistence (presence of initial antihypertensive prescription at the first, second, third, and fourth year anniversary) with antihypertensive therapy, and the presence of a cardiovascular (CV) event (ie, myocardial infarction) were studied.

RESULTS

After 9 months of monotherapy, 28% (978 of 3490) of patients on ARBs achieved target BP versus 27% (839 of 3110) on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (P > 0.05), 26% (265 of 1020) on calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (P > 0.05), 21% (221 of 1050) on β-blockers (P = 0.002), and 19% (276 of 1450) on diuretics (P = 0.001). Attainment rates were significantly higher with irbesartan (38%; 332 of 873) versus losartan (32%; 335 of 1047; P = 0.01), valsartan (19%; 186 of 977; P = 0.001), and candesartan (25%; 148 of 593; P = 0.001). BP goal attainment rates were significantly higher when ARB was compared with non-ARB-based dual therapy (39%; 1007 of 2584 vs 31%; 1109 of 3576; P = 0.004); irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was significantly higher than losartan + HCTZ (36%; 500 of 1390 vs 20%; 252 of 1261; P = 0.001). For patients receiving dual or tri-therapy, 48% (667 of 1390) of patients receiving irbesartan reached target BP versus 41% to 42% for losartan (517 of 1261), valsartan (194 of 462), and candesartan (168 of 401) (P = 0.001 for each). After 4 years, persistence rates were not statistically different among ARB, CCB, and diuretic monotherapies, but appeared somewhat higher with ACEIs and β-blockers (78%, 78%, 79%, 91%, and 84%, respectively). Persistence was not significantly different between irbesartan and losartan monotherapy (76% for both; P > 0.05), but was significantly higher with irbesartan + HCTZ versus losartan + HCTZ (96% vs 73%, respectively; P = 0.001). Patients treated with ARBs reported fewer CV events than those receiving ACEIs or CCBs (4.3% vs 7.0% and 11.0%, respectively; P < 0.001). Within the ARB class, the lowest rate was with irbesartan (3.0% vs 4.6%-5.0% for other ARBs; P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world setting, hypertensive adults treated with ARBs versus β-blockers or diuretics were more likely to have evidence-based target BP recorded. In addition, patients using ARBs versus ACEIs or CCBs had fewer reports of CV events.

Hypertension management 2011: optimal combination therapy

Raised levels of blood pressure result from the complex interplay of environmental and genetic factors. The complexity of blood pressure control mechanisms has major implications for individual responsiveness to antihypertensive drugs. The underlying haemodynamic disorder in the majority of cases is a rise in peripheral vascular resistance. This observation led to the discovery and development of increasingly sophisticated and targeted vasodilators, although many of the earlier antihypertensive drugs, by virtue of their actions blocking the sympathetic nervous system, had a vasodilator component to their mode of action. A recent meta-analysis of placebo controlled trials of monotherapy in unselected hypertensives, reports average (placebo-corrected) blood pressure responses to single agents of 9.1 mmHg systolic and 5.5 mmHg diastolic pressure. These average values disguise the extremely wide ranging responses in individuals across a fall of 20-30 mmHg systolic at one extreme, to no effect at all, or even a small rise in blood pressure at the other. The second factor determining individual responses to monotherapy is the extent to which initial falls in pressure are opposed by reflex responses in counter regulatory mechanisms that are activated following the blood pressure reduction. Thus, a satisfactory blood pressure response is rarely reached with monotherapy alone. What then is the next step if blood pressure is not a goal after the patient has been treated with monotherapy for a few weeks? Should you uptitrate, substitute or combine?

Comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy of irbesartan/HCTZ and valsartan/HCTZ combination therapy: impact of age and gender

This analysis aimed to explore whether low-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has superior blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy over low-dose valsartan/HCTZ in the elderly and across both genders. This is a post-hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, parallel group, open-label, blinded-endpoint study in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with HCTZ monotherapy. The reduction in systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) and rate of BP control achieved following 8 weeks of treatment with irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg or valsartan/HCTZ 80/12.5 mg were analyzed for older (≥65 years) vs. younger (<65 years) patients and for men vs. women. Blood pressure measurements were by home BP monitoring (HBPM). In the age and gender subgroups, both treatments significantly decreased home SBP and DBP (p < 0.0001). The reduction in home SBP and DBP was numerically greater with irbesartan/HCTZ compared to valsartan/HCTZ for all subgroups: the difference in DBP was significant for all except the elderly (p < 0.05), and the difference in SBP was significant in the elderly and in men (p < 0.03). In all subgroups, more patients achieved BP control (HBPM ≤135/85 mmHg) in the irbesartan/HCTZ arm (range 45%-58%) than in the valsartan/HCTZ arm (range, 23%-39%; p < 0.02). Both combination therapies were well tolerated and safety parameters were similar in both age and gender subgroups. More patients with mild or moderate hypertension, uncontrolled in HCTZ monotherapy alone, had their BP controlled with irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg than with valsartan/HCTZ 80/12.5 mg, irrespective of age or gender.

Ethnic differences in blood pressure response to first and second-line antihypertensive therapies in patients randomized in the ASCOT Trial

BACKGROUND

Some studies suggest that blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of commonly used antihypertensive drugs differ among ethnic groups. However, differences in the response to second-line therapy have not been studied extensively.

METHODS

In the BP-lowering arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT-BPLA), BP levels of European (n = 4,368), African (203), and South-Asian- (132) origin patients on unchanged monotherapy (atenolol or amlodipine) and/or on second-line therapy (added thiazide or perindopril) were compared. Interaction between ethnicity and BP responses (defined as end BP minus start of therapy BP) to both first- and second-line therapies were assessed in regression models after accounting for age, sex, and several other potential confounders.

RESULTS

BP response to atenolol and amlodipine monotherapy differed among the three ethnic groups (interaction test P = 0.05). Among those allocated atenolol monotherapy, black patients were significantly less responsive (mean systolic BP (SBP) difference +1.7 (95% confidence interval: -1.1 to 4.6) mm Hg) compared to white patients (referent). In contrast, BP response to amlodipine monotherapy did not differ significantly by ethnic group. BP responses to the addition of second-line therapy also differed significantly by ethnic group (interaction test P = 0.004). On adding a diuretic to atenolol, BP lowering was similar among blacks and South-Asians as compared to whites (referent). However, on addition of perindopril to amlodipine, BP responses differed significantly: compared to whites (SBP difference -1.7 (-2.8 to -0.7) mm Hg), black patients had a lesser response (SBP difference 0.8 (-2.5 to 4.2) mm Hg) and South-Asians had a greater response (SBP difference -6.2 (-10.2 to -2.2) mm Hg).

CONCLUSIONS

We found important differences in BP responses among ethnic groups to both first- and second-line antihypertensive therapies.

Optimal use of beta-blockers in high-risk hypertension: a guide to dosing equivalence

Hypertension is the number one diagnosis made by primary care physicians, placing them in a unique position to prescribe the antihypertensive agent best suited to the individual patient. In individuals with diabetes mellitus, blood pressure (BP) levels >130/80 mmHg confer an even higher risk for cardiovascular and renal disease, and these patients will benefit from aggressive antihypertensive treatment using a combination of agents. β-blockers are playing an increasingly important role in the management of hypertension in high-risk patients. β-blockers are a heterogeneous class of agents, and this review presents the differences between β-blockers and provides evidence-based protocols to assist in understanding dose equivalence in the selection of an optimal regimen in patients with complex needs. The clinical benefits provided by β-blockers are only effective if patients adhere to medication treatment long term. β-blockers with proven efficacy, once-daily dosing, and lower side effect profiles may become instrumental in the treatment of hypertensive diabetic and nondiabetic patients.

Efficacy of antihypertensive treatment based on plasma renin activity: An open label observational study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the extent of blood pressure (BP) reduction and control (<140/90 mmHg) in patients treated with appropriate or inappropriate drugs according to their plasma renin activity (PRA) level (natriuretic drugs and renin-angiotensin system blockers for low-renin and high-renin hypertension, respectively).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and seventy Caucasian untreated hypertensive patients (61 females), aged 18-70 years, participated to the study. Patients with secondary hypertension, diabetes or established cardiovascular or renal disease were excluded. The physician prescribed an antihypertensive monotherapy chosen among all drug classes, unaware of patient's PRA levels. We compared effect of an inappropriate or appropriate drug, evaluating BP values after a month of treatment.

RESULTS

Rate of BP control was not significantly higher in patients treated with an appropriate drug than the others (38% vs 29%, p=0.24). However, in a regression analysis, final diastolic BP (DBP) was lower in subjects treated with an appropriate drug (beta=-2.84, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study does not clearly support the use of PRA in a general population of hypertensive patients to optimize BP control. However, the greater efficacy of a drug appropriate to PRA in reducing DBP may be clinically helpful in young hypertensive patients. Future studies are warranted to evaluate if PRA determination enhances the therapeutic success in patients with predominantly high values of DBP.

Combination therapy in hypertension: A focus on angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers

Every third adult in the United States has hypertension. Hypertension is a continuous, independent, potent risk factor for cardiovascular events like stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. The blood pressure control achieved with most hypertensives is way below the recommended goal. Recent trials suggest that for nearly half of hypertensive patients, a monotherapy regimen is not adequate to control blood pressure. Investigators recommend from randomized, controlled studies that combination therapy be considered when blood pressure is above the goal of 20/10 mm Hg. In this review we discuss clinical trials that establish the need for combination therapy, with the primary focus on a new combination: calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). ARBs and CCBs in combination can complement each other in lowering blood pressure, with a lower incidence of adverse effects, as compared with individual monotherapy components at high doses.

Irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension: a subgroup analysis of the INCLUSIVE trial

This post hoc analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ in patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Adults with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) (140-179 mm Hg; 130-179 mm Hg in type 2 diabetes) after 4 weeks or more of antihypertensive monotherapy once-daily treatment with placebo for 4-5 weeks, followed by HCTZ 12.5 mg for 2 weeks, irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg for 8 weeks, and then irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg for 8 weeks, in a prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study. In patients with isolated systolic hypertension (n = 443) and the total study population (n = 736), irbesartan/HCTZ treatment for 16 weeks provided comparable mean blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline (21.4/10.1 mm Hg vs 21.5/10.4 mm Hg; p < .001 vs baseline) and high SBP control rates (74% vs 77%). Patients with isolated systolic hypertension and concomitant type 2 diabetes experienced smaller BP reductions (17.9/8.7 mm Hg vs 22.9/10.7 mm Hg) and lower rates of SBP control (< 130 mm Hg, 47%) than those without diabetes (< 140 mm Hg, 87%). BP reductions from baseline and SBP control rates were similar across isolated systolic hypertension subgroups (> or = 65 vs < 65 years, sex, race, and metabolic syndrome status). Irbesartan/HCTZ was well tolerated, with drug-related adverse events (dizziness, < or = 3%; upper respiratory tract infection, < or = 2%) occurring with similar rates in the isolated systolic hypertension and total population. Fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ combination treatment provided effective and well-tolerated BP lowering in a diverse population of patients with isolated systolic hypertension.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Elevated blood pressure (known as hypertension) increases with age, and most rapidly over age 60. Systolic hypertension is more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease than diastolic hypertension, and occurs more commonly in older people. It is important to know the benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment of hypertension in this age group.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify antihypertensive drug effect on overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and withdrawal due to adverse effects in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Updated search of electronic database of EMBASE, CENTRAL, MEDLINE until Dec 2008; previous search of two Japanese databases (1973-1995) and WHO-ISH Collaboration register (August 1997); references from reviews, trials and previously published meta-analyses; and experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of at least one year duration in hypertensive elders (at least 60 years old) comparing antihypertensive drug therapy with placebo or no treatment and providing morbidity and mortality data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcomes assessed were total mortality (including cardiovascular, coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular mortality); total cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (representing combined coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality); and withdrawal due to adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (24,055 subjects >/= 60 years) with moderate to severe hypertension were identified. These trials mostly evaluated first-line thiazide diuretic therapy for a mean duration of treatment of 4.5 years. Treatment reduced total mortality, RR 0.90 (0.84, 0.97); event rates per 1000 participants reduced from 116 to 104. Treatment also reduced total cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, RR 0.72 (0.68, 0.77); event rates per 1000 participants reduced from 149 to 106. In the three trials restricted to persons with isolated systolic hypertension the benefit was similar. In very elderly patients >/= 80 years the reduction in total cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was similar RR 0.75 [0.65, 0.87] however, there was no reduction in total mortality, RR 1.01 [0.90, 1.13]. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with treatment, RR 1.71 [1.45, 2.00].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treating healthy persons (60 years or older) with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension reduces all cause mortality and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The decrease in all cause mortality was limited to persons 60 to 80 years of age.

First-line drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Sustained elevated blood pressure, unresponsive to lifestyle measures, leads to a critically important clinical question: What class of drug to use first-line? This review answers that question.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

To quantify the benefits and harms of the major first-line anti-hypertensive drug classes: thiazides, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, alpha-blockers, and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic search of MEDLINE (Jan. 1966-June 2008), EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane clinical trial register, using standard search strategy of the hypertension review group with additional terms.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of at least one year duration comparing one of 6 major drug classes with a placebo or no treatment. More than 70% of people must have BP >140/90 mmHg at baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), cardiovascular events (CVS), decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and withdrawals due to adverse drug effects. Risk ratio (RR) and a fixed effects model were used to combine outcomes across trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 57 trials identified, 24 trials with 28 arms, including 58,040 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thiazides (19 RCTs) reduced mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83, 0.96), stroke (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.57, 0.71), CHD (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75, 0.95) and CVS (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.66, 0.76). Low-dose thiazides (8 RCTs) reduced CHD (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61, 0.84), but high-dose thiazides (11 RCTs) did not (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85, 1.20). Beta-blockers (5 RCTs) reduced stroke (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72, 0.97) and CVS (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81, 0.98) but not CHD (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78, 1.03) or mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86, 1.07). ACE inhibitors (3 RCTs) reduced mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.95), stroke (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.82), CHD (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94) and CVS (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.85). Calcium-channel blocker (1 RCT) reduced stroke (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41, 0.84) and CVS (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57, 0.87) but not CHD (RR 0.77 95% CI 0.55, 1.09) or mortality (RR 0.86 95% CI 0.68, 1.09). No RCTs were found for ARBs or alpha-blockers.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

First-line low-dose thiazides reduce all morbidity and mortality outcomes. First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective but the evidence is less robust. First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers are inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides.

Clinical variables, not RAAS polymorphisms, predict blood pressure response to ACE inhibitors in Sardinians

Aim: No definite factors predict blood pressure response to angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors. The aim of this study was to test the association of gene polymorphisms of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system with essential hypertension and anthropometric variables, intermediate phenotypes and gene polymorphisms with blood pressure after fosinopril in a genetically homogeneous cohort. Methods: A total of 630 essential hypertension patients, not previously treated or out of antihypertensive treatment for at least 6 months versus 219 normotensives (genotype frequencies, χ2). A total of 191 patients were randomly assigned to fosinopril 20 mg/day. Samples for plasma renin activity and aldosterone, 24-h urinary sodium (flame photometry) were collected. Gene polymorphisms – angiotensin-converting enzyme (insertion/deletion), angiotensin II type 1-receptor (A1166C), aldosterone synthase (-344C/T) and angiotensinogen (-6A/G) – were analyzed by standard techniques. The association of anthropometric variables, intermediate phenotypes and gene polymorphisms with blood pressure after 4 weeks therapy was tested by univariate analysis and analysis of covariance model (Intercooled Stata SE 9.2). Results: No genetic polymorphisms were associated with essential hypertension, blood pressure response and intermediate phenotypes (p > 0.05). Systolic blood pressure after therapy was associated with baseline systolic blood pressure, age and sex. Conclusions: Our results confirm the difficulty in dissecting both essential hypertension and pharmacogenomics when analyzing the effect of single genes in complex multifactorial traits.

Management of hypertension in the outpatient setting

The treatment of hypertension on an outpatient basis should be approached in a systematic manner. The diagnosis of hypertension should always be verified first before treatment is initiated and, where indicated, a workup should be done. Lifestyle modifications should be considered in all patients with hypertension. Blood pressure can be brought to goal in the majority of patients if antihypertensive medications are correctly dosed or combined. As blood pressure is brought to goal in the patient with hypertension, ongoing attention should be directed to long-term adherence to therapy.

Significance of pulsatility of brachial artery pressure for blood pressure control

Few studies have examined predictors of poor blood pressure (BP) control. The aim of this study was to observe the relationship between the pulsatility of brachial artery pressure characterized as pulse pressure/diastolic pressure (PP/DP), suggesting aortic input impedance, and poor BP control. We obtained office BP measurements for 94 patients aged 40-75 years with either office systolic BP (SBP) >or= 140 mmHg or diastolic BP (DBP) >or= 90 mmHg. Patients were given a single antihypertensive agent or were untreated at baseline. The angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan (80 mg) was administered to all patients. Patients were treated with 1 to 2 antihypertensive drugs (valsartan only or valsartan + Ca antagonist) for 6 months to achieve an office BP of less than 140/90 mmHg. At follow-up, 32 patients were taking a single drug (valsartan) with good BP control, 24 were receiving two drugs with good BP control, and 38 were on two drugs with poor BP control. SBP and DBP at baseline were similar in the 3 groups. PP/DP at baseline differed in the 3 groups (P<0.01). In multivariate analysis, only PP/DP at baseline correlated with lack of BP control. The pulsatility of brachial artery pressure is associated with achieving adequate BP control.

Effective management of hypertension with dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker-based combination therapy in patients at high cardiovascular risk

The increasing prevalence of hypertension, owing to modern lifestyles and the increasing elderly population, is contributing to the global burden of cardiovascular (CV) disease. Although effective antihypertensive therapies are available, blood pressure (BP) is generally poorly controlled. In addition, the full benefits of antihypertensive therapy can only be realised when target BP is achieved. International guidelines and clinical trial evidence support the use of combination therapy to manage hypertension. In high-risk patients, such as those with coronary artery disease, diabetes and renal dysfunction, BP targets are lower and there is a need for intensive management with combination therapy to control BP and provide additional CV risk reduction benefits. Combinations of antihypertensive agents with different but complementary modes of action improve BP control and may also provide vascular-protective effects. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have been shown to be effective in combination with a range of antihypertensive drugs and in different patient populations. As part of a first-line combination strategy, CCBs can provide CV benefits beyond BP control, even in patients at increased CV risk. Benefits include protection against end-organ damage and serious CV events. Indeed, in major intervention trials, these benefits have already been clearly demonstrated. Ongoing studies will provide further data to support the clinical benefits of combination therapy as a first-line treatment approach. Implementation of this approach in clinical practice, together with adherence to global hypertension management guidelines will help ensure patients achieve and sustain BP targets, and reduce the risk of CV events.

Emerging insights in the first-step use of antihypertensive combination therapy

The blood pressure (BP) goals set by hypertension management guidelines (<140/90 mm Hg in uncomplicated hypertension; <130/80 mm Hg in type 2 diabetes or kidney disease) are not being achieved in a high proportion of patients, partly because monotherapy is insufficient in many patients. In particular, patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe hypertension and/or associated cardiovascular risk factors remain at high risk for cardiovascular events and hypertensive emergency. In recognition of the urgency of treating moderate and severe hypertension, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) advocates the initial use of 2-drug therapies in patients with systolic BP levels >20 mm Hg above goal or diastolic BP level >10 mm Hg above goal. Regimens should usually include a thiazide diuretic and, for patients with diabetes or kidney disease, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. Recently, clinical trial data have shown that first-step antihypertensive treatment of moderate and severe hypertension with carefully chosen fixed-dose combinations provides a high rate of BP goal achievement, a simplified dosing regimen, and superior tolerability compared with monotherapy.

Centrally acting antihypertensive agents: an update

Centrally acting agents stimulate alpha(2) receptors and/or imadozoline receptors on adrenergic neurons situated within the rostral ventrolateral medulla and, in so doing, sympathetic outflow is reduced. Centrally acting agents also stimulate peripheral alpha(2) receptors, which, for the most part, is of marginal clinical significance. Central a agonists have had a lengthy history of use, starting with alpha-methyldopa, which has had a dramatic decline in use, in part, because of bothersome side effects. Patients who require multidrug therapy with otherwise resistant hypertension, such as diabetic and/or renal failure patients, are typically responsive to these drugs, as are patients with sympathetically driven forms of hypertension. Perioperative forms of hypertension respond well to clonidine, a circumstance where the additional anesthesia- and analgesia-sparing effects of this drug may offer additional clinical benefits. Clonidine can be used adjunctively with other more traditional therapies in heart failure, particularly when hypertension is present. Sustained-release moxonidine, however, is associated with early mortality and morbidity when used in patients with heart failure. Escalating doses of drugs in this class often give rise to salt and water retention, in which case diuretic therapy becomes a valuable adjunctive therapy.

WITHDRAWN: Effect of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity and blood pressure in blacks

BACKGROUND

Black people have a greater prevalence of elevated blood pressure leading to excess morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of different antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity and blood pressure black adults with elevated blood pressure.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Medline, Embase, LILACS, African Index Medicus, the Cochrane Library November 2003; Pubmed September 2003 to March 2004. Searches were conducted without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of drugs versus placebo (blood pressure outcomes) or versus placebo or other drugs (morbidity and mortality outcomes).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data unblinded. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Authors were contacted twice to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Full reports or abstracts from more than 2900 references of papers yielded 30 trials considering 53 interventions with 8 classes of antihypertensive drugs in 20,006 black patients from Africa, the Caribbean, and the United States of America, aged 18 to >80 years. In one large trial the main morbidity and mortality outcomes did not differ significantly between initial treatment drug classes when drugs were added to reach goal blood pressures. However, the comparison ACE Inhibitors vs diuretic favoured the diuretic for stroke 1.40 [1.17 to 1.68]; combined CHD 1.15 [1.02 to 1.30] and combined CVD 1.19 [1.09 to 1.30] and the comparison alpha blocker vs diuretic favoured the diuretic for combined CVD 1.40 [1.25 to 1.57]. In addition, all comparisons for heart failure favoured diuretic (1.47 [1.24 to 1.74] vs calcium blocker; 1.32 [1.11 to 1.58] vs ACE Inhibitor; and 2.18 [1.73 to 2.74] vs alpha blocker. The results also showed a greater occurrence of diabetes with diuretics. No significant differences were detected between placebo and beta adrenergic blockers in the reduction of systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference [95% CI], -3.52 [-7.50 to 0.46] mm Hg). In addition, ACE inhibitors did not significantly differ from placebo in achievement of goal diastolic blood pressure (risk difference [95% CI], 5% [-10% to 21%]). Calcium blockers, diuretics, centrally acting agents, alpha adrenergic blockers and angiotensin II antagonists were all more effective than placebo in reducing blood pressure in the pooled analyses. Only calcium blockers remained effective in all prespecified subgroups, including baseline diastolic blood pressure >109 mm Hg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When first-line drugs from different classes are compared in the treatment of black people, there is no evidence of differential effects on most mortality and morbidity outcomes. Those morbidity differences that were found favoured diuretics. Drugs differ in their ability to reduce blood pressure in black people. Calcium blockers were the only drug class that reduced blood pressure in all subgroups of black people including those with severe hypertension. Beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blocker, alpha blockers and ACE Inhibitors were least good at reducing blood pressure in black adults.

Getting to goal in complex patients

Traditionally, the term complex hypertension has been applied to patients who have clinical evidence of target organ damage. However, this definition can be expanded to include many hypertensive patients who either present without manifest disease but harbor silent concomitant organ damage, or belong to a high-risk group and are likely to develop such damage. Thus, the number of patients who deserve special consideration as complex patients is considerable. Various factors may contribute toward classifying a patient as having complex hypertension. These include severe hypertension, concomitant conditions such as diabetes, chronic renal insufficiency, coronary artery disease, orcongestive heart failure; and high-risk populations such as the elderly and African Americans. Recent evidence demonstrates that aggressive goal blood pressure (BP)-lowering therapy is the key toward halting the progression of vascular disease. Although the choice of initial therapy seems less important than achieving goal BP, the drug selected must impart efficacy, organ protection, and tolerability. Combination therapy consisting of calcium-channel blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors seems to achieve these desirable effects. Several clinical trials have demonstrated these agents to have favorable effects on BP and organ protection even in complex hypertension, particularly when used in combination.

Dispelling the Myth of “Aggressive” Antihypertensive Therapy

Data from well designed randomized trials have proven the effectiveness of an intensive approach to hypertension management in reducing morbidity and mortality. Based on these data, guidelines recommend a blood pressure goal of <140/90 mm Hg in the general population, with lower goals for high-risk patients. Clinical trials also show that most patients will require at least two antihypertensive agents to reach goal. Despite this evidence base, only about one third of individuals with hypertension receive sufficient therapy to attain a blood pressure of <140/90 mm Hg. Physicians may be reluctant to use multiple antihypertensive agents to achieve this goal because they may consider it to be "aggressive" and not always in the best interests of the patient, especially in those deemed at low risk. Such perceptions may be founded on several myths: 1) the approach demands a complex, time-consuming titration-to-response strategy, during which the patient may be lost to follow-up; 2) it increases the pill burden, which will decrease patient compliance; 3) it increases treatment-related side effects; and 4) it is not cost-effective. The availability of fixed-dose combinations containing two antihypertensive agents should help to dispel these myths. Careful selection of efficacious, well tolerated, once-daily, fixed-dose combinations allows goal blood pressure to be achieved quickly in a broad range of patients and encourages patient concordance with therapy. Such formulations are also cost-effective. Thus, reducing blood pressure using multiple drugs as fixed-dose combinations is a strategy that recognizes the multiple pathophysiologic changes that lead to hypertension.

Variability in response to antihypertensive drugs

Heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) is a measure of the variations in individual treatment response to the same agent across a population. Hypertension affords an appropriate model for investigators of HTE. Use of blood pressure measurement guidelines and consistent techniques help to reduce the potential variability associated with clinician measurements. Patient characteristics such as age and race/ethnicity can affect blood pressure, including patient response and adverse events observed with antihypertensive medication. Through pharmacogenetic advances, potential underlying causes for such variation are emerging. The growing number of clinical examples of mutations that affect antihypertensive response includes multiple polymorphisms within the components of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. The most prominent examples of these polymorphisms exist in the genes coding for angiotensinogen, angiotensin-converting enzyme, and the angiotensin II type 1 receptor. An understanding of the components of blood pressure variability and sources of HTE in antihypertensive therapy is important for analyzing published reports on this topic. It is also helpful when designing treatment protocols for individual patients with hypertension and in assessing their response to therapy.