Statin therapy is associated with better ambulatory blood pressure control: a propensity score analysis

Effects of statin use on blood pressure and other hypertension-related outcome indicators in hypertensive patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

This meta-analysis delved into the impact of statin therapy, both as a monotherapy and in conjunction with antihypertensive medications, on blood pressure levels and outcomes pertinent to hypertension.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for studies published before October 1 2023. Studies designed as cohort studies or randomized controlled trials and investigating the effects of single use of statin or its combined use with other antihypertensive therapy were included. Authors extracted the data independently and differences were decided through discussion. Random-effects model was used to evaluate the merged outcomes. Due to the high heterogeneity of the HDL-C group, we performed subgroup analysis according to the type of statin. To assess the robustness and potential publication bias of our findings, we utilized sensitivity analysis, Egger's test, and funnel plots.

RESULTS

23 trials were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes revealed that administering statins did not significantly impact the systolic pressure (SBP) of hypertensive patients (MD, -1.77; 95 % CI, -4.82-1.27). -The promoted effect of statin treatment on diastolic pressure (DBP) in hypertensive patients was found (MD, -1.87; 95 % CI, -3.72 --0.01). The secondary outcomes revealed that the use of statins resulted in a significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), while significantly increasing high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) in hypertensive patients.

CONCLUSION

Statin use did not modulate SBP and DBP of patients with hypertension, but SBP was decreased in the rosuvastatin or pravastatin subgroup, while DBP was decreased in the simvastatin or pravastatin subgroup. Statin treatment reduced LDL-C, increased HDL-C, and reduced the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality compared to control groups.

Greater use of antihypertensive medications explains lower blood pressures and better control in statin-treated than statin-eligible untreated adults

OBJECTIVE

Statins appear to have greater antihypertensive effects in observational studies than in randomized controlled trials. This study assessed whether more frequent treatment of hypertension contributed to better blood pressure (BP, mmHg) control in statin-treated than statin-eligible untreated adults in observational studies.

METHODS

National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2009-2020 data were analyzed for adults 21-75 years ( N  = 3814) with hypertension (BP ≥140/≥90 or treatment). The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Guideline defined statin eligibility. The main analysis compared BP values and hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in statin-treated and statin-eligible but untreated adults. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of statin therapy to hypertension control and the contribution of antihypertensive therapy to that relationship.

RESULTS

Among adults with hypertension in 2009-2020, 30.3% were not statin-eligible, 36.9% were on statins, and 32.8% were statin-eligible but not on statins. Statin-treated adults were more likely to be aware of (93.4 vs. 80.6%) and treated (91.4 vs. 70.7%) for hypertension than statin-eligible adults not on statins. The statin-treated group had 8.3 mmHg lower SBP (130.3 vs. 138.6), and 22.8% greater control (<140/<90: 69.0 vs. 46.2%; all P values <0.001). The association between statin therapy and hypertension control [odds ratio 1.94 (95% confidence interval 1.53-2.47)] in multivariable logistic regression was not significant after also controlling for antihypertensive therapy [1.29 (0.96-1.73)].

CONCLUSION

Among adults with hypertension, statin-treated adults have lower BP and better control than statin-eligible untreated adults, which largely reflects differences in antihypertensive therapy.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe in patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, therapeutic confirmatory, phase III clinical trial

This study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficacy of the blood pressure (BP) control and cholesterol-lowering effects and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe versus rosuvastatin and ezetimibe double therapy or telmisartan single therapy in dyslipidemia patients with hypertension. After a wash-out/therapeutic lifestyle change period of ≥4 weeks, a total of 100 eligible patients were randomized and received one of three treatments for 8 weeks: (1) telmisartan 80 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (TRE), (2) rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (RE), or (3) telmisartan 80 mg (T). The primary endpoint was the efficacy evaluation of TRE by comparing changes in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and mean percentage change in low-density lipoprotein-C (LDL-C) from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment. The least square (LS) mean (SE) changes in msSBP at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -23.02 (3.04) versus -7.18 (3.09) mmHg in the TRE and RE groups, respectively (p < .0001), and -25.80 (2.74) versus -14.92 (2.65) mmHg in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p = .0005). The percentage changes in the mean (SD) LDL-C at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -54.97% (3.49%) versus -0.17% (3.23%) in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p < .0001). No serious adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions occurred among the three groups. TRE therapy significantly decreased msSBP and LDL-C compared to RE or T therapy with comparable safety and tolerability profiles.

Remnant cholesterol associates with hypertension beyond low-density lipoprotein cholesterol among the general US adult population

Background

Previous findings have indicated that elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and remnant cholesterol (RC) are associated with hypertension. We aim to explore whether higher RC levels may be associated with hypertension beyond LDL-C in the general US adult population.

Methods

This study included 10,842 adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2018. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) of hypertension for LDL-C and RC. We also performed analyses examining the association between hypertension and LDL-C vs. RC concordant/discordant groups.

Results

A total of 4,963 (41.54%, weighted) individuals had hypertension. The weighted median levels were LDL-C: 118mg/dL, RC: 20mg/dL. At lower LDL-C clinical cut-point, the proportion of discordantly high RC dramatically increased. After multivariable adjustment, log RC was associated with higher prevalence of hypertension [OR 2.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.17-2.99]. Participants with the highest tertile of RC were more likely to have hypertension (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.89-2.52) compared with those with the lowest tertile of RC. This association remained marked after including body mass index (BMI), LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) or triglycerides. The association between LDL-C and hypertension was absent after adjusting for BMI, RC or triglycerides. Compared with low LDL-C/low RC group, the discordant low LDL-C/high RC group was associated with hypertension (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.72-2.42), whereas the high LDL-C/low RC group was not, regardless of BMI, HDL-C or triglycerides. Similar results were observed when examining discordance among different clinical cut-points, except for the cut-point of LDL-C 70 mg/dL and RC 13 mg/dL. To better understand the association, we performed an additional analysis, which showed that among participants with apolipoprotein B < median (92mg/dL), those with discordant RC ≥ median (20mg/dL) had significantly higher odds of having hypertension (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.38-2.17).

Conclusion

RC was associated with hypertension beyond LDL-C in the general US adult population. This association went beyond increased triglycerides levels, and lipoproteins other than apoB may be involved.

An Expert Opinion on the Role of the Rosuvastatin/Amlodipine Single Pill Fixed Dose Combination in Cardiovascular Prevention

Current cardiovascular disease prevention strategies are based on the management of cardiovascular risk as a continuum, redefining the therapeutic goals for each individual based on the estimated global risk profile. Given the frequent clustering of the principal cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia, in the same individual, patients are required to take multiple drugs to achieve therapeutic targets. The adoption of single pill fixed dose combinations may contribute to achieve better control of blood pressure and cholesterol compared to the separate administration of the individual drugs, mostly due to better adherence related to therapeutic simplicities. This paper reports the outcomes of an Expert multidisciplinary Roundtable. In particular, the rational and potential clinical use of the single pill fixed dose combination "Rosuvastatin-Amlodipine" for the management of concomitant hypertension/hypercholesterolemia in different clinical fields are discussed. This Expert Opinion also illustrates the importance of an early and effective management of total cardiovascular risk, highlights the substantial benefits of combining blood pressure and lipid-lowering treatments in a single-pill fixed dose combination and attempts to identify and overcome the barriers to the implementation in clinical practice of the fixed dose combinations with dual targets. This Expert Panel identifies and proposes the categories of patients who may benefit the most from this fixed dose combination.

Achievement of target blood pressure among community residents with hypertension and factors associated with therapeutic failure in the northern territory of Japan

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the rate of achieving the target blood pressure (BP) defined by Japanese hypertension management guidelines and to examine factors associated with achieving the target BP.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study, which was conducted between January 2012 and December 2015, examined the BP control status and associated factors among 9,016 Japanese community residents with hypertension. Residents were divided into the following six groups: G1, young, middle-aged, and early-phase elderly patients; G2, patients with cerebrovascular disease; G3, patients with coronary artery disease; G4, patients with chronic kidney disease with proteinuria; G5, patients with diabetes; and G6, patients with chronic kidney disease without proteinuria. BP target achievement rates were calculated for each group. A multivariate analysis identified factors associated with "therapeutic failure" of target BP.

RESULTS

The target BP was achieved by 52.6% participants in G1, 84.3% in G2, 50.6% in G3, 45.6% in G4, 48.7% in G5, and 75.0% in G6. The body mass index and receiving antilipidemic medication were associated with therapeutic failure.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that achievement rates for treatment goals among Japanese patients with hypertension are still low. Body mass index and treatment of dyslipidemia may be associated with the control of BP.

Impact of simultaneous management of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia with ACE inhibitors and statins on cardiovascular outcomes in the Brisighella Heart Study: A 8-year follow-up

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To evaluate the long-term effect of simultaneous treatment of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and statins on the incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) and other clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We considered data from a subset of Brisighella Heart Study (BHS) participants who were consecutively evaluated in three epidemiological surveys between 2012 and 2020. We excluded normotensive subjects and individuals with a low calculated 10-year CVD risk, hypertensive patients treated with antihypertensive drugs different from ACE inhibitors and patients who changed antihypertensive medications during follow-up. The remaining participants were divided into four groups depending on whether they were treated with (I) perindopril ± amlodipine without statin treatment (N. 132), (II) perindopril ± amlodipine and atorvastatin (N. 132), (III) an ACE inhibitor other than perindopril ± a calcium-channel blocker without statin therapy (N. 133), (IV) an ACE inhibitor other than perindopril ± a calcium-channel blocker and statin therapy (N. 145). The long-term (8 years) effects of the different combined treatment were compared among the pre-defined groups. Over the follow-up period of 8 years, the proportion of subjects who developed MACE, type 2 diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia, and the proportion of subjects needing for the intensification of antihypertensive treatment to improve blood pressure control were statistically different among the predefined groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Combined treatment with ACE inhibitors and statins (especially atorvastatin) in hypertensive patients seems to significantly reduce the risk of developing CVD in comparison with treatment with ACE inhibitors alone.

Single-pill fixed-dose drug combinations to reduce blood pressure: the right pill for the right patient

Arterial hypertension is one of the major causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Effective and sustained reduction in blood pressure is essential to reduce individual cardiovascular risk. In daily clinical practice, single-pill fixed-dose combinations of different drug classes are important therapeutic resources that could improve both treatment adherence and cardiovascular risk management by targeting distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. The aim of this practical narrative review is to help physicians choosing the right single-pill fixed-dose combination for the right patient in the daily clinical practice, based on the individual clinical phenotype and cardiovascular risk profile.

Carotid Atherosclerosis Predicts Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Hypertension: The Campania Salute Network Registry

Background

The 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension arterial hypertension guidelines do not recommend routine carotid ultrasound as a tool to identify hypertension‐mediated organ damage, unless clinically indicated. However, carotid plaque (CP) is a strong correlate of increased arterial stiffness, which influences blood pressure (BP) control over time. Thus, we assessed whether evidence of CP at first visit could predict BP control during follow‐up.

Methods and Results

From the CSN (Campania Salute Network) Registry, 6684 patients with hypertension had complete carotid ultrasound examination and were categorized by the presence of CP at baseline. Optimal BP control was defined as average BP <140/90 mm Hg and <135/85 during follow‐up for office and home BP, respectively. At baseline, participants with CP (n=3061) were more likely to be men, to be older, to have diabetes, and to exhibit higher systolic BP, lower diastolic BP, worse lipid profile, and higher prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (all P<0.0001) than patients without CP. Optimal office BP control was adjudicated in 54% with and 62% without CP (P<0.0001), and optimal home BP in 51% with and 58% without CP (P<0.01). Presence of CP was significantly associated with the reduced probability of controlled office BP during follow‐up (both P<0.0001), independently of significant effect of older age, male sex, higher baseline BP values, classes of medication, and presence of left ventricular hypertrophy, and only attenuated by duration of hypertension.

Conclusions

Presence of CP in treated patients with hypertension is associated with suboptimal BP control during follow‐up, independently of worse metabolic profile and presence of left ventricular hypertrophy.

The Number of Pills, Rather Than the Type of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor, Predicts Ambulatory Blood Pressure Control in Essential Hypertensives on Triple Therapy: A Real-Life Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

We evaluated the prevalence and predictors of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control in patients taking a triple antihypertensive therapy (renin–angiotensin system inhibitor + calcium channel blocker + thiazide/thiazide-like diuretic, in either free or fixed-dose combinations) containing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Methods

We performed an observational cross-sectional study on 520 consecutive patients with essential hypertension taking a stable triple therapy in whom 24-h ambulatory BP was evaluated. Both number of pills and antihypertensive treatment intensity (ATI), as possible pharmacological predictors of ambulatory BP control, were taken into account.

Results

A total of 189 (36.3%) patients were taking triple therapy with ACEi and 331 (63.7%) patients were taking triple therapy with ARB. Mean age was 62.7 ± 12.2 years. Patients on triple therapy with ACEi had a significantly lower ATI and took fewer antihypertensive pills than patients on triple therapy with ARB (22.2% of patients took a single-pill triple fixed-dose combination). Patients taking triple therapy with ACEi had higher prevalence of both 24-h (54.8% vs 44.0%; p = 0.019) and daytime BP control (61.8% vs 49.2%; p = 0.006) than patients taking triple therapy with ARB, even after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, smoking habit, type 2 diabetes mellitus, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and ATI [OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1–2.2) and OR 1.6 (95% CI 1.1–2.4), respectively]. However, these independent associations with ambulatory BP control were lost when the number of antihypertensive pills was included in the model.

Conclusion

The higher prevalence of ambulatory BP control found in patients taking a triple therapy with ACEi was affected by the lower number of antihypertensive pills taken, which was also the key predictor of ambulatory BP control in our study. This confirms the importance of fixed-dose combinations in the management of essential hypertension.

Associations between remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and central systolic blood pressure in a Chinese community-based population: a cross-sectional study

Background

The lipid profile is reportedly related to peripheral blood pressure or pulse wave velocity. However, no studies have investigated the associations between lipid parameters, especially remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C), and central systolic blood pressure (cSBP).

Methods

This study used baseline data of a community-based cohort in Beijing, China. Participants who had been treated with anti-hypertensive or lipid-lowering agents were excluded. RLP-C is equal to total cholesterol (TC) minus the sum of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). An Omron HEM-9000AI device was used to measure non-invasive cSBP. The associations between blood lipid profile and non-invasive cSBP were evaluated using multivariable regression models.

Results

The 5173 included participants were 55.0 ± 8.5 years old; 35.7% (1845) of participants were men. Increased cSBP was significantly associated with increased TC, LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), triglyceride (TG), and RLP-C but with decreased HDL-C, even after adjusting for possible covariates. When simultaneously entering individual pairs of RLP-C and other blood lipid parameters into the multivariable regression model, RLP-C remained significantly associated with cSBP, even after adjusting for other lipids. Compared with participants who had RLP-C levels in the first quartile (Q1), cSBP for those with RLP-C in Q4 was increased to 4.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.08–6.06) mmHg after adjusting for LDL-C, 4.50 (95%CI: 2.98–6.02) mmHg after adjusting for TC, 3.91 (95%CI: 1.92–5.89) mmHg after adjusting for TG, 5.15 (95%CI: 3.67–6.63) mmHg after adjusting for HDL-C, and 4.10 (95%CI: 2.36–5.84) mmHg after adjusting for non-HDL-C.

Conclusions

Increased blood RLP-C level was significantly associated with higher cSBP in a Chinese population, independently of other lipids, which indicates its importance in individual cardiovascular risk assessment.

Clinical outcomes between calcium channel blockers and angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertensive patients without established cardiovascular diseases during a 3-year follow-up

Although both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are all suitable for the initiation of antihypertensive treatment, studies investigating efficacy and safety between ARBs and CCBs are limited, and there is no previous study comparing their clinical outcomes during long-term follow-up periods in real world setting. We compared cardiovascular (CV) events between ARBs and CCBs in 464,948 hypertensive adults using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database during a 3-year follow-up. The patients with hypertension without heart failure, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral artery disease were enrolled. The CV events between only single prescription of CCBs and ARBs were finally compared. The primary endpoint for this study was the first occurrence of a major adverse CV events, defined as the composite of all-cause death, cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. ARB was significantly more administered in male and patients with higher income, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney diseases, and higher Charlson comorbidity index. The primary endpoints occurred in 10,526 patients (5.2%) in the ARB group and in 19,363 patients (7.3%) in the CCB group (p < 0.001) during a 3-year follow-up (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93–0.98). All the components of CV events including all-cause death, cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke occurred more frequently in the CCB group. With multivariable models adjusting age, sex, income, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and Charlson comorbidity index, the primary endpoints less frequently developed in the ARB group than in the CCB group (HR 0.957, 95% CI 0.933–0.983, p < 0.001). After the propensity-score matching, baseline characteristics were similar and still showed significantly better primary endpoints in ARB group than CCB group (5.3% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001). In this nationwide population-based simple hypertension study, administration of ARBs showed superior protection against CV events than CCBs during a 3-year follow-up. Our results suggest that ARBs could be preferred over CCBs as the initial choice of antihypertensive treatment regardless of age in real-world practice.

Variation in the Outcome of Norepinephrine-Dependent Septic Patients After the Institution of a Patient-Tailored Therapy Protocol in an Italian Intensive Care Unit: Retrospective Observational Study

Objective: To evaluate the outcome of patients with septic shock after the institution of a patient tailored therapy protocol in our Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

Methods: Single-center retrospective observational study including 100 consecutive septic patients (≥ 16 years) requiring norepinephrine infusion, admitted to our ICU between 2018 and 2019 after the institution of a patient-tailored therapy protocol, compared with a historical control group of 100 patients admitted between 2010 and 2013 (historical controls). The patient-tailored therapy protocol included the use of IgM-enriched immunoglobulins for patients with low plasma IgM levels, blood purification strategies for patients with high plasma levels of cytokines or endotoxin, albumin correction and modulation of vasoactive agents. Clinical and therapeutic parameters were noted at the time of initiation of norepinephrine infusion and for the 1st 24 h. The primary outcome was ICU mortality.

Results: ICU-mortality was lower in the patient-tailored therapy cohort as compared to historical controls (32 vs. 57%, p < 0.001). Patient-tailored therapy was associated with a lower risk of ICU-mortality even after adjusting for the main clinical severity indices (adjusted odds ratio 0.331 [95% confidence interval 0.166–0.658], p = 0.002). After propensity score matching, 48 patients in historical control group and 48 patients in the patient-tailored therapy cohort with similar general characteristics were selected. ICU-mortality was lower in the patient-tailored therapy matched subgroup as compared to historical controls (40 vs. 60%, p = 0.037).

Conclusions: An individualized therapeutic approach in septic patients may be associated with a survival benefit. However, the use of an historical control group of patients admitted between 2010 and 2013 may introduce substantial bias. Further adequately designed studies are needed to demonstrate the impact of patient-tailored therapy on outcome.