The smoothness index: a new, reproducible and clinically relevant measure of the homogeneity of the blood pressure reduction with treatment for hypertension

Efficacy of Allisartan Isoproxil in the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Essential Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Allisartan isoproxil is a selective nonpeptide angiotensin II (AT1) receptor blocker developed by China, this study aimed to assess its clinical efficacy for essential hypertension (EH).

METHODS

Patients with mild-to-moderate EH, selected at 44 sites in China from September 9, 2016, to December 7, 2018, were administered 240 mg allisartan isoproxil daily for 4 weeks. Patients with controlled blood pressure (BP) continued monotherapy for 8 weeks, others were randomly assigned (1:1) to A + D group (allisartan isoproxil 240 mg + indapamide 1.5 mg) or A + C group (allisartan isoproxil + amlodipine besylate 5 mg) for 8 weeks. BP were measured at week 4, 8 and 12.

RESULTS

2,126 patients were included in the analysis. After 12 weeks of treatment, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decreased by 19.24 ± 12.02 and 10.63 ± 8.89 mm Hg, respectively, and the overall BP control rate was 78.56%. The sitting blood pressures (SBP/DBP) decreased by 19.12 ± 11.71/10.84 ± 8.73 mm Hg in patients with 12 weeks allisartan isoproxil monotherapy (both P < 0.0001). The BP reductions and control rates were comparable between A + D and A + C groups. 48 patients with monotherapy-controlled BP underwent ambulatory BP monitoring, with a mean decrease in ambulatory BP of 10.04 ± 10.87/5.50 ± 8.07 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment, and consistent reductions between day and night. SBP and DBP had trough-to-peak ratios of 64.64% and 62.63% and smoothness indices of 3.82 and 2.92, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

An allisartan isoproxil-based antihypertensive regimen can effectively control BP in patients with mild-to-moderate EH.

PROJECT REGISTRATION NO

CTR20160138 (Registration and Information Disclosure Platform for China Drug Clinical Studies, http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html).

A Prospective, Randomized Open-Label Study for Assessment of Antihypertensive Effect of Telmisartan Versus Cilnidipine Using Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (START ABPM Study)

Background

The antihypertensive agent telmisartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker with a terminal elimination half-life of 24 h and has a high lipophilicity, thereby enhancing its bioavailability. Another antihypertensive agent, cilnidipine is a calcium antagonist and has dual mode of action on the calcium channels. This study aimed at determining effect of these drugs on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) levels.

Methods

A randomized, open-label, single-center study was conducted during 2021 - 2022 on newly diagnosed adult patients with stage-I hypertension, in a mega city of India. Forty eligible patients were randomized to telmisartan (40 mg) and cilnidipine (10 mg) groups, with once daily dose administered for 56 consecutive days. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) (24 h) was performed pre- and post-treatment, and the ABPM-derived parameters were compared statistically.

Results

Statistically significant mean reductions were observed in all BP endpoints in telmisartan group but only in 24-h systolic blood pressure (SBP), daytime and nighttime SBP, and manual SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in cilnidipine group. The mean change from baseline to day 56 between two treatment groups showed statistical significance in last 6-h SBP (P = 0.01) and DBP (P = 0.014), and morning SBP (P = 0.019) and DBP (P = 0.028). The percent nocturnal drop within and between groups was statistically nonsignificant. Also, the between group mean SBP and DBP smoothness index differed nonsignificantly.

Conclusions

Telmisartan and cilnidipine once daily were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of newly diagnosed stage-I hypertension. Telmisartan provided sustained 24-h BP control and may offer advantages over cilnidipine in terms of BP reductions, particularly over the 18- to 24-h post-dose period or critical early morning hours.

Short- to long-term blood pressure variability: Current evidence and new evaluations

Increased blood pressure (BP) variability and the BP surge have been reported to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk independently of BP levels and can also be a trigger of cardiovascular events. There are multiple types of BP variation: beat-to-beat variations related to breathing and the autonomic nervous system, diurnal BP variation and nocturnal dipping related to sleep and physical activity over a 24-hr period, day-to-day BP variability with anomalous readings within a several-day period, visit-to-visit BP variability between outpatient visits, and seasonal variations. BP variability is also associated with the progression to hypertension from prehypertension and the progression of chronic kidney disease and cognitive impairments. Our research group proposed the "resonance hypothesis of blood pressure surge" as a new etiological hypothesis of BP variability and surges; i.e., the concept that when the time phases of surges and hypertension-inducing environmental influences coincide, resonance occurs and is amplified into a larger "dynamic surge" that triggers the onset of cardiovascular disease. New devices to assess BP variability as well as new therapeutic interventions to reduce BP variability are being developed. Although there are still issues to be addressed (including measurement accuracy), cuffless devices and information and communication technology (ICT)-based BP monitoring devices have been developed and validated. These new devices will be useful for the individualized optimal management of BP. However, evidence regarding the usefulness of therapeutic interventions to control BP variability is still lacking.

2022 Prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases in Of the Russian Federation. National guidelines

.

Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques

Current hypertension guidelines recommend using the average values of several blood pressure (BP) readings obtained both in and out of the office for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. In-office BP measurement using an upper-arm cuff constitutes the evidence-based reference method for current BP classification and treatment targets. However, out-of-office BP evaluation using 24 h ambulatory or home BP monitoring is recommended by all major medical associations for obtaining further insights into the BP profile of an individual and how it relates to their daily activities. Importantly, the highly variable nature of office and out-of-office BP readings has been widely acknowledged, including the association of BP variability with cardiovascular outcomes. However, to date, the implications of BP variability on cardiovascular outcomes have largely been ignored, with limited application in clinical practice. Novel cuffless wearable technologies might provide a detailed assessment of the 24 h BP profile and behaviour over weeks or months. These devices offer many advantages for researchers and patients compared with traditional BP monitors, but their accuracy and utility remain uncertain. In this Review, we outline and compare conventional and novel methods and techniques for assessing average BP levels and BP variability, and reflect on the utility and potential of these methods for improving the treatment and management of patients with hypertension.

The most commonly available blood pressure (BP) monitoring devices are useful for capturing a snapshot BP value, but most have limited utility in measuring BP variability. In this Review, Schutte and colleagues outline the advantages and disadvantages of conventional and novel techniques to measure average BP levels and BP variability.

Although the dynamic nature of blood pressure (BP) is well-known, hypertension guidelines recommend using the average values of static BP readings (office or out-of-office), specifically aiming to level the fluctuations and peaks in BP readings.

All current BP measurement methods have imperfect reproducibility owing to the continuous fluctuation in BP readings, making it difficult to accurately diagnose hypertension.

Accumulating evidence from clinical trials, large registries and meta-analyses shows that increased BP variability predicts cardiovascular outcome, independently of the average BP values.

To date, BP variability is overlooked, with limited application in clinical practice, probably owing to a variety of complex non-standardized BP variability assessment methods and indices, and uncertain thresholds and clinical usefulness.

Novel cuffless wearable BP technologies can provide very large numbers of readings for days and months without the discomfort of traditional BP monitoring devices, and have the potential to replace current BP methods, once accuracy issues are resolved and their clinical usefulness is proved.

Ambulatory blood pressure response to S‐amlodipine in Korean adult patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension: A prospective, observational study

Although amlodipine is recommended as the first‐line therapy for the treatment of hypertension, its use is limited by its potential side effects. S‐amlodipine is expected to be able to minimize side effects of amlodipine with a similar antihypertensive effect by removing the malicious R‐chiral form. However, sustainable blood pressure control with S‐amlodipine has not been well established yet. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) profiles before and after a 12‐week treatment of S‐amlodipine. Patients received once‐daily S‐amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg. ABP during 24 hr and office blood pressure were measured at baseline and after the 12‐week treatment. Primary endpoints were changes of systolic and diastolic 24 hr ABP. After 12‐week S‐amlodipine treatment, mean systolic ABP (‐15.1 ± 16.2 mmHg, p < .001) and diastolic ABP (‐8.9 ± 9.8 mmHg, p < .001) were decreased significantly. Both daytime and night‐time mean systolic BP and diastolic BP were also significantly decreased after the 12‐week treatment. Global trough‐to‐peak ratio and smoothness index after 12‐week S‐amlodipine treatment were .75 and .79 for SBP and .65 and .61 for DBP, respectively. Age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.67–14.3) and nonalcohol drinking (HR: 3.09; 95% CI: 1.34–7.17) were independent clinical factors for target ABP achievement. Adverse drug reactions (ADR) were developed in 16 (6.4%) patients, including two (.8%) cases of peripheral edema. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of S‐amlodipine in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension.

Pathophysiologically based antihypertensive pharmacotherapeutics rationality, efficacy and safety in Sub Saharan African Nations – A review

Background

Hypertension (HT) prevalence, Uncontrolled Blood Pressure (UBP), morbidity and mortality are highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Correlating pathophysiology of HT to pharmaco-therapy with antihypertensive drugs (AHD) may bring amelioration. Aims:To review peculiarities of HT in SSA, UBP causes, diagnostic modalities, AHD use, rationality and efficacy.

Methods and results

14 published therapeutic audits in 4 SSA nations on Google Scholar or PUBMED, (total n = 6496 patients) were evaluated. Calcium Channel blockers (CCB) amlodipine, and thiazide diuretics (TD), hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) were the commonest AHD. Thiazide Like Diuretics (TLD) were underutilized. The % of patients on AHD were: 1 drug 5.4–55%; 2 drugs 37–82%; >/ = 3 drugs 6–50.3%. 2-drug combinations were: ACEI/ARB + TD (42%); CCB + TD (36.8%); ACEI + CCB (15.8%) of studies. Triple/quadruple therapy included Methyldopa (MTD) with ACEI + CCB or TD. The (%) attaining BP < 140/< 90 mmHg, ranged from 29 to 53.6%, median, 44%. The co-morbidities, range and median were: Diabetes Mellitus (DM): 9.8–64%, 19.2%; Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD): 5.7–7.5%, 6.9%, and Coronary artery Disease (CAD): 0.9–2.6%, 2.3%. ACEI + CCB ± TD were the preferred AHD for comorbidities.

Conclusions

Therapeutic inertia; Non-compliance; co-morbidities; refractory HT; ignorance; substandard AHD; contribute to UBP. Studies relating 24 hour ABPM to complications and mortality in SSA hypertensives; and impact of different AHD classes on ABPM, are needed. Study of ACEI + alpha-₁ blockers + TLD on 24 hour ABPM and personalized care, are required.

Current challenges for hypertension management: From better hypertension diagnosis to improved patients' adherence and blood pressure control

Hypertension control still remains a largely unmet challenge for public health systems. Despite the progress in blood pressure (BP) measurement techniques, and the availability of effective and safe antihypertensive drugs, a large number of hypertensive patients are not properly identified, and a significant proportion of those who receive antihypertensive treatment fail to achieve satisfactory control of their BP levels. It is thus not surprising that hypertension is still a major contributor to disease burden and disability worlwide, even in developed countries. This paper will address current challenges in hypertension management and potential strategies for an improvement in this field. In its first part relevant issues related to hypertension diagnosis will be addressed, in particular how to improve identification of sustained BP elevation and specific BP phenotypes such as white coat and masked hypertension trough the combined use of office and out-of-office BP monitoring techniques. In its second part focus will be on how to improve achievement of hypertension control in treated patients by optimization and simplification of medication regimens, including more efficient selection and titration of antihypertensive drugs and their combinations, aimed at achieving a more consistent 24hBP control; and by favoring a more active patients' and physicians' involvement in hypertension management also through BP telemonitoring and mobile health technologies.

Antihypertensive therapy and short-term blood pressure variability

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Blood pressure variability (BPV) is recognized as a prognostic contributor in hypertension. We aimed to assess differences in short-term BPV in treated hypertensive patients depending on the number, classes, combinations and individual compounds of the antihypertensive treatment.

METHODS

We selected 38 188 treated patients from the Spanish Ambulatory BP Monitoring (ABPM) Registry. SBP and DBP standard deviations (SD) from 24-h, daytime and night-time, weighted SD (WSD), and average real variability (ARV) were calculated through ABPM. They were compared (after adjustment for clinical confounders and BP) depending on the number of antihypertensive drugs, antihypertensive drug classes and compounds (in 13 765 patients on monotherapy), or combinations (in 12 716 patients treated with two drugs and 7888 treated with three drugs).

RESULTS

Systolic and diastolic BPV significantly increased in patients treated with multiple drugs with respect to monotherapy. Among drug classes, calcium channel blockers, especially amlodipine, and diuretics were associated with lower systolic BPV, including daytime and night-time SD, WSD and ARV, compared with beta blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Likewise, in patients treated with two-drug and three-drug combinations, those which included a calcium channel blocker showed lower BPV in comparison to those without such drug class.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with calcium channel blockers, especially amlodipine, and with diuretics is associated with slight, but significant lower values of short-term BPV in comparison to other major drug classes, both in monotherapy and in combination. These results could be helpful when considering BPV reduction as an additional treatment target.

How to Choose the Optimal Single-Pill Combination of the First-Line Antihypertensive Drugs? The Benefits of Amlodipine and Telmisartan Combination

In patients with arterial hypertension (AH), an extremely important measure of the effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs (AHD) is not only a direct decrease in blood pressure (BP), but also its stable control throughout the 24 hours, preventing excessive morning surge and increased BP variability, which in turn are recognized cardiovascular risk factors. Currently, in the vast majority of hypertensive patients, the main antihypertensive therapy approach is using single-pill combinations (SPC) of AHD. Among the first-line combinations for a wide range of patients with AH and no special clinical conditions is amlodipine/telmisartan SPC. Distinctive features of these drugs, on the one hand, are unique pharmacological properties, consisting in an ultra-long antihypertensive effects, superior to other AHD in their classes; and on the other hand, there is an large body of evidence from numerous clinical trials confirming their high antihypertensive and target-organ protective potential as well as excellent capabilities in cardiovascular risk reduction. To assess the AHD effectiveness extent, several parameters have been proposed, of which the most rational and useful is the smoothness index, calculated using the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring data. Smoothness index describes both the degree of BP reduction and its distribution during the monitoring period. This index inversely associates with the changes in BP variability, and has predictive value in relation to the hypertension-mediated organ damage regression during different antihypertensive regimens. Amlodipine/telmisartan SPC has also been studied in many trials, including comparative ones with other AHD. In these works its direct powerful antihypertensive effect and a pronounced beneficial impact on the smoothness index have been proved, demonstrating stable BP control throughout the 24 hours (especially in the most dangerous morning hours), and also a decrease in BP variability. Therefore, amlodipine/telmisartan SPC can effectively reduce cardiovascular risk and improve prognosis in patients with AH.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring over 24 h: A Latin American Society of Hypertension position paper-accessibility, clinical use and cost effectiveness of ABPM in Latin America in year 2020

Accurate office blood pressure measurement remains crucial in the diagnosis and management of hypertension worldwide, including Latin America (LA). Office blood pressure (OBP) measurement is still the leading technique in LA for screening and diagnosis of hypertension, monitoring of treatment, and long-term follow-up. Despite this, due to the increasing awareness of the limitations affecting OBP and to the accumulating evidence on the importance of ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), as a complement of OBP in the clinical approach to the hypertensive patient, a progressively greater attention has been paid worldwide to the information on daytime and nighttime BP patterns offered by 24-h ABPM in the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic management of hypertension. In LA countries, most of the Scientific Societies of Hypertension and/or Cardiology have issued guidelines for hypertension care, and most of them include a special section on ABPM. Also, full guidelines on ABPM are available. However, despite the available evidence on the advantages of ABPM for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in LA, availability of ABPM is often restricted to cities with large population, and access to this technology by lower-income patients is sometimes limited by its excessive cost. The authors hope that this document might stimulate health authorities in each LA Country, as well as in other countries in the world, to regulate ABPM access and to widen the range of patients able to access the benefits of this technique.

The association of smoothness index of central blood pressure with ambulatory carotid femoral pulse wave velocity after 20-week treatment with losartan in combination with amlodipine versus hydrochlorothiazide

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

The aim of this study was to identify associations between the smoothness index of central SBP (CSBP) and changes of ambulatory carotid femoral pulse wave velocity in response to 20-week treatments with losartan and amlodipine vs. losartan and hydrochlorthiazide combinations.

Bioinformatics Study on Serum Triglyceride Levels for Analysis of a Potential Risk Factor Affecting Blood Pressure Variability

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to establish whether Triglycerides (TGs) are related to Blood Pressure (BP) variability and whether controlling TG levels leads to better BP variability management and prevents Cardiovascular Disease (CVD).

Methods:

In this study, we enrolled 106 hypertensive patients and 80 non-hypertensive patients. Pearson correlation and partial correlation analyses were used to define the relationships between TG levels and BP variability in all subjects. Patients with hypertension were divided into two subgroups according to TG level: Group A (TG<1.7 mmol/L) and Group B (TG>=1.7 mmol/L). The heterogeneity between the two subgroups was compared using t tests and covariance analysis.

Results:

TG levels and BP variability were significantly different between the hypertensive and non-hypertensive patients. Two-tailed Pearson correlation tests showed that TG levels are positively associated with many BP variability measures in all subjects. After reducing other confounding factors, the partial correlation analysis revealed that TG levels are still related to the Standard Deviation (SD), Coefficient of Variation (CV) of nighttime systolic blood pressure and CV of nighttime diastolic blood pressure, respectively (each p<0.05). In the subgroups, group A had a lower SD of nighttime Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP_night_SD; 11.39±3.80 and 13.39±4.16, p=0.011), CV of nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP_night_CV; 0.09±0.03 and 0.11±0.03, p=0.014) and average real variability of nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP_night_ARV; 10.99±3.98 and 12.6±3.95, p=0.024) compared with group B, even after adjusting for age and other lipid indicators.

Conclusion:

TG levels are significantly associated with BP variability and hypertriglyceridemia, which affects blood pressure variability before causing target organ damage.

Effect of antihypertensive treatment on 24-h blood pressure variability: pooled individual data analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring studies based on olmesartan mono or combination treatment

Objective:

To evaluate the impact of olmesartan alone or combined with one to three antihypertensive drugs on 24-h blood pressure variability (BPV) and on distribution of BP reduction in a pooled individual data analysis of 10 double-blind, randomized, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) studies.

Methods:

ABPMs were performed before and after 6–12 weeks of treatment with placebo (n = 119), active control monotherapy [n = 1195, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DCCBs)] olmesartan monotherapy (n = 1410), active control dual combination [n = 79, DCCB + thiazide diuretic (TD)], olmesartan dual combination (n = 637, DCCB or TD), and triple combination therapy (n = 102, DCCB+TD). 24-h BPV was calculated as unweighted or weighted SD of the mean BP, and average real variability. BP control was assessed by smoothness index and treatment-on-variability index.

Results:

The greatest effect on 24-h systolic BPV/diastolic BPV was observed under olmesartan triple [−2.6/−1.9; −1.9/−1.3; −1.4/−1.3 mmHg] and active control dual combination [−1.8/−1.4; −1.9/−1.5; −1.2/−1.1 mmHg]. Smoothness indexes and treatment-on-variability indexes were significantly (P = 0.0001) higher under olmesartan dual (1.53/1.22, 1.67/1.29, 2.05/1.59), olmesartan triple (2.47/1.85, 2.80/2.06, 3.64/2.67), or active control dual combination (1.70/1.26, 1.85/1.33, 2.29/1.65) than under monotherapies (control: 0.86/0.73, 0.80/0.65, 1.01/0.82; olmesartan: 1.02/0.86, 0.95/0.78, 1.23/1.00). They were also greater in patients receiving high-dose olmesartan monotherapy or high-dose olmesartan dual combination than in the corresponding low-dose group.

Conclusion:

Olmesartan plus a DCCB and/or a TD produces a larger, more sustained, and smoother BP reduction than placebo and monotherapies, a desirable feature for a more effective prevention of the cardiovascular consequences of uncontrolled hypertension.

24-Hour blood pressure response to lower dose (30 mg) fimasartan in Korean patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Fimasartan is an angiotensin type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) which has comparable efficacy and tolerability with other ARBs. The aim of this study was to evaluate 24-hour blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and the tolerability of the low dose fimasartan compared with valsartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

METHODS

This study was a phase II, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-grouped trial. A total of 75 hypertensive patients, whose mean ambulatory BP monitoring values were ≥ 135/85 mmHg, were randomized to either fimasartan 30 mg or valsartan 80 mg daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the mean 24-hour systolic BP (SBP) values from the baseline and at the week 8. Secondary endpoints included the change in the mean 24-hour diastolic BP values, the daytime and the nighttime mean BP values at week 8, the trough-to-peak (T/P) ratio and the smoothness index.

RESULTS

At week 8, the mean 24-hour SBP values significantly decreased in both groups; -10.5 ± 11.9 mmHg (p < 0.0001) in the fimasartan group and -5.5 ± 11.6 mmHg (p = 0.0307) in the valsartan group. The difference between two groups was 4.3 ± 2.9 mmHg but there was no statistical significance (p = 0.1392). The global T/P ratio in the fimasartan 30 mg groups were 0.48 and 0.40 in the valsartan 80 mg group, respectively (p = 0.3411). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were acute pharyngitis and there were no cases of severe AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, low dose (30 mg) fimasartan showed comparable 24-hour BP lowering efficacy compared with valsartan (80 mg). There was no difference in tolerability between two groups.

Twenty-Four-Hour Blood Pressure Monitoring to Predict and Assess Impact of Renal Denervation: The DENERHTN Study (Renal Denervation for Hypertension)

The DENERHTN trial (Renal Denervation for Hypertension) confirmed the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of renal denervation added to a standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment for resistant hypertension at 6 months. We report here the effect of denervation on 24-hour BP and its variability and look for parameters that predicted the BP response. Patients with resistant hypertension were randomly assigned to denervation plus stepped-care treatment or treatment alone (control). Average and standard deviation of 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP and the smoothness index were calculated on recordings performed at randomization and 6 months. Responders were defined as a 6-month 24-hour systolic BP reduction ≥20 mm Hg. Analyses were performed on the per-protocol population. The significantly greater BP reduction in the denervation group was associated with a higher smoothness index (P=0.02). Variability of 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP did not change significantly from baseline to 6 months in both groups. The number of responders was greater in the denervation (20/44, 44.5%) than in the control group (11/53, 20.8%; P=0.01). In the discriminant analysis, baseline average nighttime systolic BP and standard deviation were significant predictors of the systolic BP response in the denervation group only, allowing adequate responder classification of 70% of the patients. Our results show that denervation lowers ambulatory BP homogeneously over 24 hours in patients with resistant hypertension and suggest that nighttime systolic BP and variability are predictors of the BP response to denervation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01570777.

Zofenopril or irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension untreated or uncontrolled by previous treatment: a double-blind, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To compare zofenopril + hydrochlorothiazide (Z + H) vs. irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide (I + H) efficacy on daytime SBP in elderly (>65 years) patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), untreated or uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy.

METHODS

After a 1-week run-in, 230 ISH patients (office SBP ≥ 140  mmHg and DBP < 90  mmHg + daytime SBP ≥ 135  mmHg and daytime DBP < 85  mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 18-week treatment with Z + H (30 + 12.5  mg) or I + H (150 + 12.5  mg) once daily, in an international, multicenter study. Z and I doses could be doubled after 6 and 12 weeks, and nitrendipine 20  mg added at 12 weeks in nonnormalized patients.

RESULTS

In the full analysis set (n = 216) baseline-adjusted average (95% confidence interval) daytime SBP reductions after 6 weeks (primary study end point) were similar (P = 0.888) with Z + H [7.7 (10.7, 4.6)  mmHg, n = 107] and I + H [7.9 (10.7, 5.0)  mmHg, n = 109]. Daytime SBP reductions were sustained during the study, and larger (P = 0.028) with low-dose Z + H at study end [16.2 (20.0, 12.5)  mmHg vs. 11.2 (14.4, 7.9)  mmHg I + H]. Daytime SBP normalization (<135 mmHg) rate was similar under Z + H and I + H at 6 and 12 weeks, but more common under Z + H at 18 weeks (68.2 vs. 56.0%, P = 0.031). Both drugs equally reduced SBP in the last 6 h of the dosing interval and homogeneously reduced SBP throughout the 24 h. The proportion of patients reporting drug-related adverse events was low (Z + H: 4.4% vs. I + H: 6.0%; P = 0.574).

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients with ISH respond well to both low and high-dose Z or I combined with H.

Evening versus morning dosing of antihypertensive drugs in hypertensive patients with sleep apnoea: a cross-over study

OBJECTIVE

Beneficial effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on both blood pressure (BP) levels and variability have been documented in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). We investigated the relevant impact of different dosing times of antihypertensive drugs beyond CPAP application.

METHODS

In this prospective, cross-over trial, we included 41 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension and never treated OSA (apnoea-hypopnea index ≥15/h), without increased daytime somnolence (Epworth Score ≤10 points). Patients first received treatment with valsartan or with a fixed combination of amlodipine and valsartan in a single morning dose for 8 weeks. In the following 8-week period, patients received the same therapeutic regimen in a single evening dose. Office and ambulatory BP were measured at baseline and after each treatment period.

RESULTS

Compared with morning administration, evening dosing induced a greater decrease in office SBP (by 3.7 ± 6.5 mmHg, P = 0.001). The decrease in 24-h SBP/DBP was significant and similar after morning and evening dosing (-16.4 ± 11/11.0 ± 7.5 and -18.4 ± 11/12.1 ± 7.5 mmHg, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). Evening compared with morning dosing further reduced night-time SBP/DBP by 4.4 ± 8.6/2.9 ± 5.6 mmHg (P = 0.007 and P = 0.006, respectively). Night-time dippers increased from 24% at baseline to 34% with morning dosing and to 61% with evening dosing. There was no significant interaction between concurrent CPAP application and drugs dosing time on BP changes.

CONCLUSION

Evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs improves night-time BP and dipping status in nonsleepy patients with OSA, irrespective of CPAP application.

Blood pressure variability: assessment, predictive value, and potential as a therapeutic target

A large body of evidence has consistently supported the relationship between blood pressure (BP) levels and the risk of cardiovascular complications. In recent years, several independent studies have also indicated that this risk may not only depend on the magnitude of the blood pressure elevation per se but also on the presence of other associated conditions such as increased blood pressure variability. This concept has been supported by a series of reports, most of which post hoc analyses of clinical trials in hypertension, showing that increasing values of BP variability (BPV) (either in the short term, in the midterm, or in the long term) may predict development, progression, and severity of cardiac, vascular, and renal organ damage, as well as cardiovascular events and mortality. Remarkably, studies conducted in populations at high cardiovascular risk have shown increasing values of BPV in the individual subjects (so-called intra- or within-individual BPV) to be strong predictors of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, even to a larger extent than average BP values. However, in subjects at low to moderate cardiovascular risk, the contribution of BPV to cardiovascular risk prediction over and beyond average BP values has been shown to be only moderate. The aim of this paper is to critically review the evidence addressing the prognostic relevance of different components of BPV addressing a yet open question, i.e., whether routine assessment of BPV in clinical practice should be regarded as an additional target of antihypertensive treatment to improve cardiovascular protection.

Advantages of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Assessing the Efficacy of Antihypertensive Therapy

The cumulative evidence in the past three decades situates ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as a central element in diagnosing and predicting the prognosis of subjects with hypertension. However, for various reasons, this diagnostic and prognostic importance has not been translated in equal measure into making decisions or guiding antihypertensive treatment. Mean 24-h, daytime, and night-time blood pressure estimates, the occurrence of divergent phenotypes between clinic measurements, and ABPM, as well as the main elements that determine blood pressure variability over 24 h, especially night-time dipping, are all elements that in addition to providing evidence for patient prognosis, can be used to guide antihypertensive treatment follow-up enabling greater precision in defining the effect of the drugs. In recent years, specific indices have been developed using 24-h monitoring, evaluate the duration of treatment action, the homogeneity of the effect over the monitoring period, and its possible effects on variability. In future controlled clinical trials on antihypertensive therapies it is necessary to evaluate the effects of those treatments on hard endpoints based on therapy guided by ABPM.

Measurement of blood pressure variability and the clinical value

Authors have collected and analyzed literature data on blood pressure variability. They present the methods of blood pressure variability measurement, clinical value and relationships with target organ damages and risk of presence of cardiovascular events. They collect data about the prognostic value of blood pressure variability and the effects of different antihypertensive drugs on blood pressure variability. They underline that in addition to reduction of blood pressure to target value, it is essential to influence blood pressure fluctuation and decrease blood pressure variability, because blood pressure fluctuation presents a major threat for the hypertensive subjects. Data from national studies are also presented. They welcome that measurement of blood pressure variability has been included in international guidelines. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(42), 1661–1672.

Efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine combination therapy in reducing ambulatory blood pressure in moderate-to-severe hypertensive patients not controlled by amlodipine alone

This previously unpublished, preplanned analysis investigated the efficacy of the olmesartan/amlodipine combination at different doses on 24-h blood pressure (BP) control, as well as assessed trough estimation of trough-to-peak ratio (TPR) and smoothness index (SI). Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension whose BP was inadequately controlled after 8 weeks' treatment with amlodipine 5 mg. Patients were randomized to continue with amlodipine 5 mg or to receive olmesartan/amlodipine 10/5, 20/5 or 40/5 mg for 8 weeks (Period II). Patients not achieving BP control were uptitrated to a more powerful regimen for another 8 weeks (Period III). During Period II, each olmesartan/amlodipine combination reduced 24-h systolic and diastolic BP (SBP/DBP), as well as morning and early morning SBP/DBP, significantly more than amlodipine 5 mg (P<0.001 for all). TPRs were higher in each olmesartan/amlodipine group than with amlodipine 5 mg, and SI values showed dose-related increases; olmesartan/amlodipine 40/5 mg produced a significantly higher SI for SBP and DBP (1.55 and 1.33, respectively) than amlodipine 5 mg (0.96 and 0.77, respectively, P<0.0001 for each). During Period III, uptitrated patients showed further BP reductions, which were largest in those on olmesartan/amlodipine 40/10 mg. SI values increased in uptitrated patients and were highest with olmesartan/amlodipine 40/10 mg (SBP 1.62/DBP 1.41). The olmesartan/amlodipine combination effectively reduces BP over 24 h, including the morning hours, in a dose-related manner. Compared with amlodipine alone, the olmesartan/amlodipine combination has a better 24-h coverage (TPR) and a dose-related improvement in BP lowering homogeneity (SI).

European Society of Hypertension position paper on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is being used increasingly in both clinical practice and hypertension research. Although there are many guidelines that emphasize the indications for ABPM, there is no comprehensive guideline dealing with all aspects of the technique. It was agreed at a consensus meeting on ABPM in Milan in 2011 that the 34 attendees should prepare a comprehensive position paper on the scientific evidence for ABPM.This position paper considers the historical background, the advantages and limitations of ABPM, the threshold levels for practice, and the cost-effectiveness of the technique. It examines the need for selecting an appropriate device, the accuracy of devices, the additional information and indices that ABPM devices may provide, and the software requirements.At a practical level, the paper details the requirements for using ABPM in clinical practice, editing considerations, the number of measurements required, and the circumstances, such as obesity and arrhythmias, when particular care needs to be taken when using ABPM.The clinical indications for ABPM, among which white-coat phenomena, masked hypertension, and nocturnal hypertension appear to be prominent, are outlined in detail along with special considerations that apply in certain clinical circumstances, such as childhood, the elderly and pregnancy, and in cardiovascular illness, examples being stroke and chronic renal disease, and the place of home measurement of blood pressure in relation to ABPM is appraised.The role of ABPM in research circumstances, such as pharmacological trials and in the prediction of outcome in epidemiological studies is examined and finally the implementation of ABPM in practice is considered in relation to the issue of reimbursement in different countries, the provision of the technique by primary care practices, hospital clinics and pharmacies, and the growing role of registries of ABPM in many countries.

Antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily in treatment-naive patients with essential hypertension: A 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study

BACKGROUND

Dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are largely employed for the treatment of hypertension, coronary heart disease, and heart failure.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to compare the antihypertensive effect of the dihydropyridine calcium antagonists barnidipine and amlodipine.

METHODS

This was a 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study. Consecutive treatment-naive patients with grade I or II essential hypertension (office sitting systolic blood pressure [BP] of 140-179 mm Hg and diastolic BP of 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. The primary end points were the effect of treatment with either barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily on office and ambulatory BP, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and markers of cardiac damage, serum procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide, and plasma amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations. Patients were assessed at enrollment, and 12 and 24 weeks. During each visit, the prevalence of adverse events (AEs) was also monitored using spontaneous reporting, patient interview, and physical examination, the relationship to study drug being determined by the investigators. Compliance with treatment was assessed at each study visit by counting returned tablets.

RESULTS

Thirty eligible patients (20 men, 10 women; mean [SD] age, 47 [12] years) were included in the study; all patients completed the 24 weeks of study treatment. Twelve weeks after randomization, 6 patients in the amlodipine group had their dose doubled to 10 mg due to inadequate BP control. Mean BP reductions at study end were not significantly different between the barnidipine and amlodipine groups (office BP, -10.3/-9.4 vs -16.6/-9.1 mm Hg; ambulatory BP, 9.4/6.4 vs 8.1/5.1 mm Hg). Reductions in LVMI and markers of cardiac damage were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Significantly more patients in the amlodipine group reported drug-related AEs compared with those in the barnidipine group (9 [60%] vs 2 [13%]; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this small sample of treatment-naive hypertensive patients, the antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg once daily was not significantly different from that of amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily.

Effectiveness of hydrochlorothiazide in combination with telmisartan and olmesartan in adults with moderate hypertension not controlled with monotherapy: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point (PROBE), parallel-arm study

BACKGROUND

The potential combinations of antihypertensive agents are many, and making rational choices depends on the characteristics of each drug and on their complementary mechanisms of action.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to olmesartan 20 mg or telmisartan 80 mg on blood pressure (BP) in patients with moderate hypertension.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients at the Centro per l'Ipertensione e la Fisiopatologia Cardiovascolare, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, of both sexes aged 39 to 75 years were considered eligible for enrollment if they had a sitting diastolic BP (DBP) ->99 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg at the end of an initial 2-week washout period. Patients were random- ized to olmesartan 20 mg QD or telmisartan 80 mg QD according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-arm design. After 8 weeks of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP ->90 mm Hg) received HCTZ 12.5 mg QD for 8 additional weeks. Clinical and ambulatory BPs were measured at the end of the washout period and at the end of both treatment periods. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded from spontaneous reports and direct inquiry from investigators.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five patients, all of whom were white, were recruited for the study. After the initial washout period, 13 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 6 refused to continue. A total of 126 white patients (69 men, 57 women; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [11.6] years) were randomized to receive monotherapy. Of these, 35 patients (56%) in the olmesartan group and 33 (52%) in the telmisartan group had previously received antihypertensive therapy. At the end of monotherapy, the 52 patients in the olmesartan group and the 49 patients in the telmisartan treatment group who were still in the study and had their BP inadequately controlled by treatment had HCTZ 12.5 mg QD added to their treatment regimen. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP) and DBP reduction than monothera- py (SBP: 145.3 [6.1] in the olmesartan group and 140.1 [6.4] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05; DBP: 88.1 [5.1] in the olmesartan group and 84.9 [4.9] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05). The mean (SD) reduction from baseline in the telmisartan/HCTZ-treated patients (21.5 [10.1]/14.6 [5.2] mm Hg for 24 hours, 21.8 [10.2]/14.9 [5.2] mm Hg for daytime, and 20.4 [10.3]/13.7 [5.9] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline) was significantly greater than that observed in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients (18.8 [9.8]/12.3 [4.9] mm Hg for 24 hours, 19.3 [9.8]/12.8 [4.9] mm Hg for daytime, and 17.4 [10.2]/10.6 [5.5] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline), with a significant difference between the 2 treatment groups (P < 0.01). Compared with mono- therapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg QD administration was significantly greater in the telmisartan group than in the olmesartan group (P < 0.05); the differ- ence being more evident for nighttime BP values (SBP, P 0.031; DBP, P 0.025). Reported AEs were similar in the olmesartan/HCTZ and the telmisartan/HCTZ groups (4 patients [7%] vs 3 patients [6%]).

CONCLUSION

The addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to telmisartan 80 mg monothera- py was associated with greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 nag monotherapy in these patients previously uncontrolled on monotherapy.

Effects of barnidipine on blood pressure and left ventricular diastolic function in patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome: A 12-week, open-label noncomparison study

BACKGROUND

Barnidipine is one of a new generation of dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers. Despite evidence of favorable effects on blood pressure (BP) and insulin sensitivity, this drug has rarely been tested in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome (MS).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of barnidipine on BP and left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in patients with hypertension and MS.

METHODS

Consecutive subjects aged 18 to 75 years with systolic BP (SBP) of 140 to 179 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP (DBP) of 90 to 109 mm Hg and MS (based on Adult Treatment Panel III criteria) were assessed for inclusion in the study. Lifestyle changes according to current guidelines were recommended and barnidipine monotherapy 10 mg daily was initiated. All patients entered a 2-week run-in period. After a 6-week treatment period, the daily dosage was doubled for the remainder of the study in patients whose BP remained uncontrolled (≥140/≥90 mm Hg). We assessed the glycolipidic profile and LV structure and function using standard Doppler and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) echocardiography before and after 12 weeks of treatment. Ambulatory BP records and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic tracings were coded and shipped to a central laboratory for blinded analysis. Possible adverse events (AEs) were recorded at predetermined intervals throughout the follow-up period and at unplanned intervals whenever an AE became known to the investigators.

RESULTS

Thirty-four consecutive patients were assessed for inclusion. Thirty consecutive patients (20 men, 10 women; mean {SD| age, 55.9 {10.3| years; 5 current smokers) were included in the study. At study entry, mean office SBP was 146 mm Hg, DBP was 87 mm Hg, and heart rate was 72 beats/min. At the study end, mean office SBP/DBP was <140/90 mm Hg in 20 patients (66.7%). From baseline to study end, 24-hour ambulatory BP decreased significantly by 12 and 8 mm Hg for SBP and DBP, respectively (both, P = 0.001). The smoothness index was 0.92 for SBP and 0.82 for DBP. Fasting plasma glucose concentration decreased significantly from 110 to 104 mg/dL (P = 0.001). Total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations did not change significantly. From baseline to study end, there were no significant changes in LV structure or systolic function (LV mass, 50.7 vs 50.6 g/ht(2.7); LV diastolic/systolic diameters, 47.50/29.80 vs 48.40/30.76 mm; wall motion score index, 1.0 vs 1.0; ejection fraction, 61% vs 60%), while the peak E/A velocity ratio on TDI increased from 1.078 to 1.245 (P = 0.009). No AEs (including AEs reflected by chemistry values) either unrelated or related to treatment were noted during the 12-week duration of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

In these hypertensive patients with MS, a 12-week treatment period with barnidipine in addition to lifestyle modifications was associated with significant reductions in 24-hour BP and BP variability, reduction in plasma glucose concentration, and improvement in LV diastolic relaxation. No significant changes in lipid concentrations, LV structure, or systolic function were found.

Zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide and irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in previously treated and uncontrolled diabetic and non-diabetic essential hypertensive patients

Introduction

In most treated patients with hypertension, a two or more drug combination is required to achieve adequate blood pressure (BP) control. In our study we assessed whether the combination of zofenopril + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was at least as effective as irbesartan + HCTZ in essential hypertensives with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy.

Methods

After a 2-week placebo washout, 361 treated hypertensive patients [office sitting diastolic BP (DBP), ≥90 mmHg], aged 18–75 years, were randomized double blind to 18-week treatment with zofenopril 30 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily, in an international, multicenter study. After the first 6 and 12 weeks, zofenopril and irbesartan doses could be doubled in non-normalized subjects. The primary study end point was the office sitting DBP reduction after 18 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included office systolic BP (SBP), ambulatory BP and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP).

Results

The between-treatment difference for office DBP averaged to +1.0 (95% CI −0.4, +0.8) mmHg (P = 0.150), the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval being inferior to the protocol-defined non-inferiority limit (3 mmHg). In the subset of patients with valid ambulatory BP, no difference in 24-h average DBP [n = 181; 6.7 (8.7, 4.6) zofenopril + HCTZ vs. 6.3 (8.8, 3.7) mmHg irbesartan + HCTZ, P = 0.810] and SBP reductions [11.7 (15.4, 8.0) vs. 12.6 (17.2, 8.0) mmHg, P = 0.758] were observed between the two treatment groups. hs-CRP was reduced by zofenopril + HCTZ [−0.52 (−1.05, 0.01) mg/L], while it was increased by irbesartan plus HCTZ [0.97 (0.29, 1.65) mg/L, P = 0.001 between treatments].

Conclusion

In previously monotherapy-treated, uncontrolled patients with hypertension, zofenopril 30–60 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg is as effective as irbesartan 150–300 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg, with the added value of a potential protective effect against vascular inflammation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-013-0090-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Olmesartan vs. ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients: review of data from two published randomized, double-blind studies

Hypertension is a frequent condition among individuals over 65 years of age worldwide and is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) disease. Effective drug treatment of elderly hypertensives is usually associated with a marked reduction in CV morbidity and mortality. Among the different classes of antihypertensive agents, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE-inhibitors are supposed to provide the best efficacy in lowering blood pressure (BP) and protecting target organ damage while featuring a good tolerability profile. However, up to date, few randomized clinical studies have directly compared the activity and safety of ARBs and ACE-inhibitors in elderly hypertensive patients. Aim of this review of published and unpublished pooled data from two recent randomized, double-blind, controlled trials, is to offer a comprehensive head-to-head comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy of the ARB olmesartan medoxomil vs. the ACE-inhibitor ramipril in a large study population including more than 1,400 hypertensive subjects aged 65-89 years with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. The efficacy of the two drugs was separately evaluated in subgroups of patients classified according to the presence of metabolic syndrome, reduced renal function, CV risk level, gender, class of age, type of arterial hypertension and previous antihypertensive treatments. Olmesartan showed a greater efficacy than ramipril both in terms of clinic BP reduction and rate normalization. Olmesartan appeared significantly superior to ramipril in providing a more homogeneous and long-lasting 24-h BP control and maintaining an effective antihypertensive action in the last 6-h period from drug intake. In subgroups of patients with additional clinical conditions, olmesartan gave comparable, and in some cases greater, BP responses than those achieved with the ACE-inhibitor. The incidence of adverse events was similar for both drugs. Olmesartan may thus represent an effective alternative to ACE-inhibitors among first-line drug treatments for hypertension in older people.

Use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to guide hypertensive therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

With the advent of noninvasive 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), clinicians have access to a wealth of individualized data for the hypertensive patient. This has led to a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of hypertension and its complications. This tool has provided more precise diagnostic criteria for hypertension and helped discover those with white coat and masked hypertension. Patterns noted on ABPM and correlated with outcomes have allowed for more accurate identification of patients at high risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, and have offered an additional prognostic tool. In addition, ABPM allows for the assessment of the efficacy and adequacy of blood pressure treatment. In the current paper, we will describe the essential components of ABPM, review the evidence detailing the prognostic information that can be derived from its use, highlight clinical scenarios wherein ABPM can offer invaluable diagnostic information, and describe applications of ABPM that evaluate the efficacy of treatment of the hypertensive patient.

Assessment and interpretation of blood pressure variability in a clinical setting

Blood pressure (BP) is characterized by marked fluctuations occurring within the 24 h as a result of complex interactions between behavioral, environmental, humoral, and neural central or reflex influences. Significant BP variations also occur over more prolonged periods of time (i.e. between days, weeks, months, seasons and even years), not as a random phenomenon but as a result of several interacting factors yet not completely identified. Depending on the method and time interval considered for measurement, the clinical significance and prognostic implications of different types of BP variability (BPV) may substantially differ. Either in the short or in the long term, BPV has been associated with development, progression and severity of cardiac, vascular and renal organ damage and with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality, independently adding to cardiovascular risk, over and above the contribution of elevated mean BP levels. The present paper provides a review on the main methods currently employed for assessment of BPV as well as on the mechanisms, clinical interpretation and prognostic significance of different types of BPV, addressing the question on whether BPV should be a target for antihypertensive treatment for the current prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Nutraceuticals for blood pressure control in patients with high-normal or grade 1 hypertension

BACKGROUND

Current hypertension management guidelines do not recommend drug treatment in subjects with blood pressure (BP) in the high-normal range due to the risk of side effects of the currently available antihypertensive agents that overcomes the possible benefit. Nutraceuticals are free from relevant side effects and could be a valuable strategy for the treatment of these patients.

AIM

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two nutraceutical compositions given by the combination of policosanol, red yeast rice extract, berberine, folic acid and coenzyme Q(10) with or without Orthosiphon stamineus in lowering the BP and lipid profile.

METHODS

Thirty patients with grade 1 essential hypertension and low cardiovascular risk were analysed. At the end of a run-in period, patients were divided into two study arms and assigned to receive the nutraceutical combination with and without Orthosiphon stamineus. All participants underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring at the end of the run-in period and of the 4-week treatment with each of the two different nutraceutical combinations.

RESULTS

In patients treated with Orthosiphon stamineus a significant reduction of mean 24-hour systolic and diastolic BP levels compared with baseline values was registered and the smoothness index calculated for systolic and diastolic BP showed a more reliable and homogeneous effect on BP over 24 hours. In contrast, nutraceutical treatment without Orthosiphon stamineus was not associated with a significant reduction of BP.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the addition of Orthosiphon stamineus to the combination of nutraceuticals confers an antihypertensive effect that allows a surprisingly effective 24-hour BP control in hypertensive patients.

Nutraceuticals for blood pressure control in patients with high-normal or grade 1 hypertension

BACKGROUND

Current hypertension management guidelines do not recommend drug treatment in subjects with blood pressure (BP) in the high-normal range due to the risk of side effects of the currently available antihypertensive agents that overcomes the possible benefit. Nutraceuticals are free from relevant side effects and could be a valuable strategy for the treatment of these patients.

AIM

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two nutraceutical compositions given by the combination of policosanol, red yeast rice extract, berberine, folic acid and coenzyme Q(10) with or without Orthosiphon stamineus in lowering the BP and lipid profile.

METHODS

Thirty patients with grade 1 essential hypertension and low cardiovascular risk were analysed. At the end of a run-in period, patients were divided into two study arms and assigned to receive the nutraceutical combination with and without Orthosiphon stamineus. All participants underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring at the end of the run-in period and of the 4-week treatment with each of the two different nutraceutical combinations.

RESULTS

In patients treated with Orthosiphon stamineus a significant reduction of mean 24-hour systolic and diastolic BP levels compared with baseline values was registered and the smoothness index calculated for systolic and diastolic BP showed a more reliable and homogeneous effect on BP over 24 hours. In contrast, nutraceutical treatment without Orthosiphon stamineus was not associated with a significant reduction of BP.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the addition of Orthosiphon stamineus to the combination of nutraceuticals confers an antihypertensive effect that allows a surprisingly effective 24-hour BP control in hypertensive patients.

Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability

Blood pressure (BP) is characterized by marked short-term fluctuations occurring within a 24 h period (beat-to-beat, minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, and day-to-night changes) and also by long-term fluctuations occurring over more-prolonged periods of time (days, weeks, months, seasons, and even years). Rather than representing 'background noise' or a randomly occurring phenomenon, these variations have been shown to be the result of complex interactions between extrinsic environmental and behavioural factors and intrinsic cardiovascular regulatory mechanisms. Although the adverse cardiovascular consequences of hypertension largely depend on absolute BP values, evidence from observational studies and post-hoc analyses of data from clinical trials have indicated that these outcomes might also depend on increased BP variability (BPV). Increased short-term and long-term BPV are associated with the development, progression, and severity of cardiac, vascular, and renal damage and with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Of particular interest are the findings from post-hoc analyses of large intervention trials in hypertension, showing that within-patient visit-to-visit BPV is strongly prognostic for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This result has prompted discussion on whether antihypertensive treatment should be targeted not only towards reducing mean BP levels but also to stabilizing BPV with the aim of achieving consistent BP control over time, which might favour cardiovascular protection.