Statins, antihypertensive treatment, and blood pressure control in clinic and over 24 hours: evidence from PHYLLIS randomised double blind trial

Reproducibility and Treatment Effect on Office and Ambulatory Pressure Relation

BACKGROUND

In the absence of outcome-based ambulatory blood pressure (BP) trails hypertension guidelines provide 24-hour mean BP values corresponding to trial-validated office BP values. Data are shown for untreated and treated patients together, but whether corresponding ambulatory values are similar in untreated and treated hypertensives and reproducible at yearly measurements during treatment is undefined.

METHODS

In 2397 patients of the ELSA (European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis) and PHYLLIS (Plaque Hypertension Lipid-Lowering Italian Study) trials, we calculated the office and 24-hour BP relationship according to the linear regression model, with office systolic BP as the independent variable, at baseline and yearly during a 3-year treatment. Twenty-four hour BP values corresponding to clinically important office BP values (hypertension grading and treatment thresholds and targets) were calculated and compared with those provided by guidelines.

RESULTS

Office and 24-hour systolic BP or diastolic BP always exhibited a significant linear relationship, with, however, limited Pearson correlation coefficients (never >0.44).The slopes of the relationship were superimposable between different years of treatment but always significantly less steep than the slope seen in untreated individuals. Compared with the guideline-provided corresponding values, 24-hour BP showed qualitative and quantitative differences; for example, it was considerably lower and higher than the guideline-corresponding values when office BP was in the high hypertension and low treatment target ranges, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In treated patients with hypertension the slope of the office and 24-hour BP linear regression is reproducible over time. However, the slopes are steeper in untreated individuals, indicating that information on ambulatory BP values corresponding to office BP values can be more accurate if separately estimated in these 2 conditions.

Statins As Anti-Hypertensive Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hypertension is the most prevalent condition in clinical practice. Hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolaemia are major contributing factors to cardiovascular diseases. They commonly coexist in a single patient. Statins have been used as prominent medicines for the reduction of cardiovascular events. Statins have been shown to reduce blood pressure in patients with hypertension and have lipid-lowering properties in recent articles. Statins reduce blood pressure because of their impact on endothelial function, their interactions with the renin-angiotensin system, and their influence on major artery compliance. This meta-analysis aimed to ascertain the effectiveness and efficacy of statins for managing hypertension in patients with hypertension. Systematic searches were conducted on PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials, systematic trials, and cohort studies were retrieved using keywords on statins and their use in patients with hypertension. Exclusion criteria included studies that were not in the English language, studies that did not include patients on statins with hypertension, studies that did not provide enough information, technical reports, opinions, or editorials, and studies involving patients < 18 years old. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, adult patients aged > 18 years old, and studies that were freely available or through institutional login. This meta-analysis scrutinized 9361 randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, of which 32 articles including 25 randomized controlled trials and seven meta-analyses were included in the final analysis. This meta-analysis of the role of statins in hypertensive patients aimed to determine the outcome of hypertension control along with antihypertensive medication. Our study showed that statins are useful in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. We used a heterogeneous model for analysis due to variations in the study characteristics. The I2 value was 0.33 (0.76, 0.10) for systolic blood pressure and 0/88 (0.86, 0.90) for diastolic blood pressure. The I2 value for the seven meta-analyses included in the study was 1.79 (2.88, 0.69).

Bioinformatics analysis of CMTM family in pan-cancer and preliminary exploration of CMTM6 in bladder cancer

BACKGROUND

The chemokine-like factor (CKLF)-like Marvel transmembrane structural domain (CMTM) family is widely expressed in the tumor and immune systems and is essential in human cancer progression. However, the multi-omic profile of CMTM family genes and their role in tumor patient prognosis and immune microenvironment have not been explored.

METHODS

We collected data from 33 cancers and 33 non-cancers and then comprehensively analyzed the basal expression levels of CMTM family genes in normal human tissues as well as abnormal expression in diseases, genomic alterations, diagnostic and prognostic roles, subcellular localization, pathway enrichment, the immune microenvironment, associations with immune checkpoints, and drug sensitivities as well as to predict the immunotherapeutic response of patients to ICIs and targeting of small molecule drugs, the above results were validated by immunohistochemical staining, pathology sections and experiments. We also performed protein docking of immune checkpoints binding to CMTM6 and screening of small molecule drugs targeting CMTM6 based on mass spectrometry results and molecular docking techniques. Finally, we experimentally confirmed the role of CMTM6 in bladder cancer.

RESULTS

We found differential expression and diagnostic biomarker value of the CMTMs family in diseases (cancer and non-cancer). CMTMs were also found to play a key role in pan-cancer with the tumor microenvironment. CMTMs were closely associated with common immune checkpoints, TMB and MSI, so we scored CMTMs based on CMTMs expression in patients undergoing ICI, and patients with lower scores had better survival and showed higher immunotherapy response after immunotherapy. Finally, molecular docking was used to identify small molecule inhibitors that could target CMTM6 and binding poses of CMTM6 to other immune checkpoint genes. Finally, it was determined experimentally that knockdown of CMTM6 gene expression inhibited the proliferation and invasion of bladder cancer cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide a valuable strategy to guide the diagnostic and therapeutic direction of CMTM family genes in disease.

Comparison between visit-to-visit office and 24-h blood pressure variability in treated hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVES

In any treated hypertensive patient office blood pressure (BP) values may differ between visits and this variability (V) has an adverse prognostic impact. However, little information is available on visit-to-visit 24-h BPV.

METHODS

In 1114 hypertensives of the ELSA and PHYLLIS trials we compared visit-to-visit office and 24-h mean BPV by coefficient of variation (CV) of the mean systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP obtained from yearly measurements during a 3-4 year treatment period. Visit-to-visit BPV during daytime and night-time were also compared.

RESULTS

Twenty-four-hour SBP-CV was about 20% less than office SBP-CV ( P  < 0.0001). SBP-CV was considerably greater for the night-time than for the daytime period (20%, P  < 0.0001). Results were similar for DBP and in males and females, older and younger patients, patients under different antihypertensive drugs or with different baseline or achieved BP values. In the group as a whole and in subgroups there was significant correlations between office and 24-h BP-CV but the correlation coefficients was weak, indicating that office SBP or DBP CV accounted for only about 1-4% of 24-h SBP or DBP-CV values.

CONCLUSION

Twenty-four-hour mean BP across visits is more stable than across visit office BP. Visit-to-visit office and 24-h BPV are significantly related to each other, but correlation coefficients are low, making visit-to-visit office BP variations poorly predictive of the concomitant 24-h BP variations and thus of on-treatment ambulatory BP stability.

Effects of statin on hypertension patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of statins and placebo on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with hypertension.

Methods

We used different databases such as MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to search for randomized controlled trials published from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2022 to retrieve relevant studies and full-text articles evaluating statins versus placebo in patients with hypertension. Data were taken from eligible studies. The included articles also performed Cochran’s Q statistics, forest plots, funnel plots, Egger’s test, and sensitivity analyses.

Results

This study included 8 studies with a total of 3086 patients. We sought to assess patients' SBP and DBP. The results were expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. There was no difference in DBP between the statin and placebo groups (MD = 2.48, 95% CI [−2.00, 6.96], p = .28, random effects model). In terms of SBP, the statin group was superior to the placebo group (MD = 4.37, 95% CI [0.72, 8.02], p = .02, random-effects model). Sensitivity analyses and funnel plots showed that our study was robust, with low publication bias.

Conclusion

The results show that statins could be clinically more effective than placebo in patients with hypertension.

Pravastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review. Secondary objectives • To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. • To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

Statin's role on blood pressure levels: Meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Statins have been proven to be effective in minimizing the risk of cardiovascular adverse events, however, their effect on BP variability is debatable with respect to their significance and their use as a potential anti-hypertensive. Using a meta-analysis approach, the aim of this study was to explore whether certain statins have the potential to lower blood pressure (BP). For the period 2002-2022, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for the studies that examined the effect of statins on blood pressure in normotensive or hypertensive individuals. Randomized controlled clinical trials that investigated this effect were included based on our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The final analysis of the study included 49 RCTs involving 45 173 participants randomized to receive either statins or placebo. Among the two groups, the total weighted mean difference (WMD) for systolic blood pressure (ΔSBP) was -1.42 (95% CI: -2.38, -0.46; p = .004) and diastolic blood pressure (ΔDBP) was 0.82 (95% CI: -1.28, -0.36; p = .0005). Despite various studies suggesting the efficacy of statins in blood pressure lowering to be significant and non-significant both, we observed a decrease in SBP and DBP both, although the change was not as large and could be considered significant. A large multicenter, multi-ethnic, large sample pool size, and a long period follow-up study is still required to assert these claims.

Antihypertensive drug treatment in white-coat hypertension: data from the Plaque HYpertension Lipid-Lowering Italian Study

AIM

Little evidence is available on whether antihypertensive treatment lowers cardiovascular risk in white-coat hypertension (WCH). Protection might be indirectly inferred, however, from the blood pressure (BP) effects of treatment as in trials BP reduction is linearly related to outcome reduction. We analyzed the effect of antihypertensive treatment on office and ambulatory BP in WCH using data from the Plaque HYpertension Lipid-Lowering Italian Study (PHYLLIS).

METHODS

: Office and ambulatory blood pressure were measured in 470 hypertensive patients randomized to fosinopril or hydrochlorothiazide alone or combined with a statin before treatment and at 6 month or yearly intervals during 2.6 years of follow-up. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether before randomization to treatment office and 24-h mean BP were elevated (sustained hypertension) or office BP was elevated but 24-h BP values were normal (WCH).

RESULTS

: In both sustained hypertension and WCH antihypertensive treatment was associated with an early marked office BP reduction, which persisted virtually unchanged throughout the treatment period. In contrast, 24-h (and day and night) BP showed a marked and persistent treatment-related fall in sustained hypertension but no change in WCH. The results were similar when data were separately analyzed in patients under fosinopril or diuretic, with or without statin treatment.

CONCLUSION

: In WCH, antihypertensive treatment can effectively and durably reduce office BP. This reduction is accompanied by the inability to lower ambulatory BP from the normal values characterizing this condition at baseline. This appears to be unrelated to the type of treatment employed.

Reproducibility of blood pressure phenotypes identified by office and ambulatory blood pressure in treated hypertensive patients. Data from the PHYLLIS study

Previous studies have shown that white-coat and masked uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH and MUCH, respectively) are clinical conditions with very poor reproducibility over time. This is also the case for the different nighttime blood pressure (BP) patterns (dipping, nondipping, reverse dipping or extreme dipping). Whether and to what extent the phenomenon might depend on the type of antihypertensive treatment is unknown. In the present study, we addressed this issue by analyzing the data collected in the Plaque Hypertension Lipid-Lowering Italian Study (PHYLLIS), in which office and ambulatory BP were measured three times during an almost 3-year treatment period. The results showed that a limited number of WUCH or MUCH patients at an initial office measurement and 24-h systolic (S) BP measurement maintained the same status at a second set of measurements one or more years later. This was also the case for all dipping patterns, and only a minimal number of patients exhibited the same phenotype throughout all on-treatment SBP measurements. The results were similar for treatment with a thiazide diuretic or an ACE inhibitor and are in line with those of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) trial, i.e., the only other available trial with multiple on-treatment office and ambulatory BP measurements, in which patients were treated with a calcium channel blocker or a beta-blocker. All the BP patterns identified in hypertensive patients treated by joint office and ambulatory BP measurements display poor reproducibility, and this is unrelated to the type of antihypertensive treatment used.

Effects of atorvastatin on sevoflurane postconditioning in in vivo rabbit hearts

OBJECTIVES

Myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury is a phenomenon that promotes myocardial damage when the blood supply returns to the tissue after a period of ischemia. Anesthetic postconditioning involves myocardial protection against myocardial I/R injury. The effects of atorvastatin (ATV) on sevoflurane postconditioning against myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury have not been thoroughly studied. The present study aimed to investigate if ATV interacts synergistically with sevoflurane postconditioning against myocardial infarction in rabbit hearts in vivo.

METHODS

Twenty-eight male rabbits underwent 30 min of left anterior descending coronary artery occlusion that was followed by reperfusion for 180 min under ketamine/xylazine (K/X) anesthesia. Rabbits were randomly assigned to four groups that included Group K/X (under K/X anesthesia only), Group POST (sevoflurane exposure at initial reperfusion), Group ATV (ATV 5 mg/kg/day administered before ischemia), and Group ATV + POST (POST intervention with atorvastatin administered once daily for 3 days). At the end of reperfusion, the myocardial infarct size and the area at risk were both measured.

RESULTS

The mean infarct sizes in the POST, ATV, and ATV + POST groups were significantly smaller compared to those in the K/X group. Furthermore, the mean infarct size in Group ATV + POST was significantly smaller than was that in Group POST and significantly smaller compared to that in Group ATV.

CONCLUSION

The combination of sevoflurane postconditioning and pre-administration of ATV further reduced the myocardial infarction size compared to that observed with sevoflurane postconditioning alone or ATV alone. Our data suggest that sevoflurane postconditioning and ATV may function additively to enhance cardioprotection.

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

OBJECTIVE

Statin therapy was associated with lower blood pressure (BP) in some but not all studies. We evaluated the association between statin therapy and ambulatory BP in a large hypertensive population using 'propensity score matching'.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study on 1827 consecutive essential hypertensive patients evaluated with 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring. Antihypertensive treatment intensity (ATI) was calculated to compare different drug associations. We used a propensity score matching to compare two equally-sized cohorts of patients with similar characteristics according to statin therapy. Matching was performed on log-transformed propensity score in a 1 : 1 fashion with a caliper of 0.1, in order to account for the different baseline characteristics between statin and no-statin group.

RESULTS

Mean age: 58.1 ± 13.8 years; male sex: 55%. Patients on statin therapy: 402 (22%). These patients showed lower 24-h BP (-2.8/-7.1 mmHg), daytime (-3.3/-7.6 mmHg) and night-time BP (-2.5/-6.0 mmHg, all P < 0.001). They also showed better ambulatory BP control, even after adjustment for confounding factors. The analyses on the groups derived from the 'propensity score matching' (369 patients in each group) confirmed these results (OR 1.8 for 24-h BP control; OR = 1.6 for daytime BP control; OR = 1.7 for night-time BP control, all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Statin therapy is associated with better ambulatory BP control in essential hypertensive patients. This result is not affected by the intensity of the antihypertensive treatment or by the several cofactors analyzed.

Effect of Combined Statin and Antihypertensive Therapy in Patients with Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis aimed to explore the preventive effects of combined statin and antihypertensive therapy on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and reference lists of published studies were systematically searched throughout October 9, 2019. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials and investigating the effects of combined statin and antihypertensive therapy versus antihypertensive therapy alone were included. Data abstraction and quality of included studies were assessed by 2 independent authors. The summary results were calculated using relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs employing a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 8 randomized controlled trials including 38,618 patients were finally enrolled. The summary RRs indicated that the combined therapy significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with antihypertensive therapy alone (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.71-0.88; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the patients in the combined therapy group also experienced less myocardial infarction (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.53-0.84; p = 0.001) and stroke risks (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.72-0.94; p = 0.005), while no significant difference was observed between combined therapy and antihypertensive therapy alone regarding cardiac death (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84-1.08; p = 0.465) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86-1.04; p = 0.277).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggested that combined statin and antihypertensive therapy was associated with more cardiovascular benefits compared with antihypertensive therapy alone.

Effects of combined statin and ACE inhibitor therapy on endothelial function and blood pressure in essential hypertension - a randomised double-blind, placebo controlled crossover study

Background:

The aim of this study was to compare the influence of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors on endothelial function and blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension on long-term angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy.

Method:

The study was designed as a prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover clinical trial. Twenty patients with essential hypertension were treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; the control group included 10 healthy subjects. Hypertensive patients received in random order 80 mg of fluvastatin daily or placebo for 6 weeks. The following parameters were assessed at baseline and after each treatment period: serum lipids, flow-mediated vasodilation, activity of von Willebrand factor, concentration of vascular endothelial growth factor, C-reactive protein and 24-hour blood pressure profile.

Results:

Hypertensive patients did not differ from healthy subjects with respect to age, body mass and biochemical parameters, with the exception of C-reactive protein, which was higher in hypertensive patients (P=0.02). After statin therapy, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P<0.0001), C-reactive protein (P=0.03), von Willebrand factor (P=0.03) and vascular endothelial growth factor (P<0.01) decreased and flow-mediated vasodilation improved (P<0.001). Statins had no significant effect on blood pressure.

Conclusions:

Statins added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors may improve endothelial function and ameliorate inflammation independently of blood pressure.

Changes in the function of angiotensin II type 1 receptor due to cholesterol depletion from cell membrane

Blockers of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), angiotensin II (Ang II) type 1 (AT₁) receptor and β₁-adrenergic (Ad) receptor, have been shown to improve the prognosis of cardiovascular disease. Cholesterol molecules in the cell membrane are needed to stabilize GPCRs as well as the cell membrane itself. We determined whether the functions of AT₁ and β₁-Ad receptors were changed by cholesterol depletion from cardiovascular cell membranes. Ang II-induced inositol phosphate production through AT₁ receptor was suppressed by cholesterol depletion from cell membranes using rosuvastatin or methyl-β-cyclodextrin (MβCD), whereas isoproterenol-induced cyclic AMP production through β₁-Ad receptor did not change after cholesterol depletion. In addition, the binding affinities of Ang II and AT₁ receptor blocker after cholesterol depletion were significantly lower than those before depletion. Although AT₁ receptor expression levels did not change after cholesterol depletion, the expression levels of AT₁ receptor that could bind to Ang II significantly decreased after depletion. The changes in the structure of AT₁ receptor due to depletion were confirmed by substituted-cysteine accessibility mapping. In conclusion, Ang II-induced activation of AT₁ receptor is reduced without affecting the function of β₁-Ad receptor after cholesterol depletion from cardiovascular cell membranes.

Effect of simvastatin and microRNA-21 inhibitor on metastasis and progression of human salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma

Salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma (SACC) is a common malignancy of the salivary glands. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and P53 signaling pathway are associated with SACC metastasis and progression. Although simvastatin (SIM) is effective against the growth of many cancer types, its side effects limit its use. microRNA-21 (miR-21) is highly expressed in a variety of tumors and has a role in promoting tumor development. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of SIM in combination with miR-21 inhibitor (miR-21i) against lung metastatic SACC cells (SACC-LM). Our results showed that miR-21i was effective in reducing the resistance of SACC-LM to SIM, resulting in SACC-LM acquisition of epithelial traits, cell migration and invasion reduction, growth inhibition and induction of apoptosis. The expression of proteins associated to metastasis and tumor progression were regulated by the combined use of SIM and miR-21i. Thus, our findings demonstrated that such combination was effective in inhibiting SACC-LM progression, suggesting that multi-target therapy against SACC might represent a potentially successful approach in clinical treatment.

Rosuvastatin improves myocardial hypertrophy after hemodynamic pressure overload via regulating the crosstalk of Nrf2/ARE and TGF-β/ smads pathways in rat heart

Left ventricular hypertrophy is more commonly associated with hemodynamic overload imposed by hypertension or volume overload. Transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) is involved in the cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis of the left ventricle. The fact that TGF-β1 and the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) both become up-regulated upon persistent vessel overload suggests that these two factors may virtually impact on their signaling pathways. In this research, 40 rats were divided into sham group, model group, rosuvastatin low and high dose group. Rat models were established by incomplete constriction of abdominal aorta. After five weeks treatment, blood pressure, heart mass index (HMI), hemodynamic parameters and the average diameter of myocardium cell and collagen volume fraction (CVF) improved significantly in rosuvastatin groups, compared with the model group. Both rosuvastatin groups, increased in expression of Smad7, Nrf2, NAD (P) H dehydrogenase [quinone] 1 (Nqo1) and heme oxygenase 1(Ho1),and decreased in expression of TGF-βl、Smad3 compared with the model group. Results from co-immunoprecipitation and GST pull down showed that Nrf2 interacts with Smad7. Our results revealed the crosstalk between TGF-β1/Smads and Nrf2/ antioxidant response elements (ARE) pathways in myocardial remodeling through the interaction between Smad7 and Nrf2. Rosuvastatin can improve cardiac function and hypertrophy by regulating the crosstalk of the two signaling pathways.

Impact of Statin Therapy on the Blood Pressure-Lowering Efficacy of a Single-Pill Perindopril/Amlodipine Combination in Hypertensive Patients with Hypercholesterolemia

INTRODUCTION

Several lines of research indicate that statins can lower blood pressure (BP) independently of their lipid-lowering effects when used as monotherapy and in combination with antihypertensive agents.

AIM

This short-term, open-label study examined whether statin therapy had a synergistic effect on the BP-lowering efficacy of perindopril/amlodipine in a subgroup of patients in the PERSPECTIVA study with concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, with or without statin at baseline.

METHODS

The PERSPECTIVA study recruited 732 adults with untreated or uncontrolled hypertension. This subgroup analysis of PERSPECTIVA included 587 patients with concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia (mean age 56.7 years) of whom 226 were receiving a statin at baseline (statin [+] group) and 361 were not (statin [-] group). All patients received treatment with single-pill combination perindopril/amlodipine at a dose of 5/5, 10/5 or 10/10 mg/day. The study duration was 60 days with follow-up visits for BP monitoring at 7, 15, 30 and 60 days.

RESULTS

At day 60, BP control (<140/90 mmHg) was significantly greater in the statin [+] vs statin [-] group: 73 vs 64% respectively (+14%, P < 0.05). In the statin [+] group, the single-pill perindopril/amlodipine combination significantly reduced BP in patients previously untreated (n = 18), or treated with monotherapy (n = 97), dual therapy (n = 93), or triple therapy (n = 18): -38.8/-20.0, -39.1/-20.1, -38.0/-19.4, -39.9/-18.3 mmHg respectively (P < 0.001 vs baseline BP). The greatest BP reductions were observed in the first 7 days. Treatment was well tolerated with a similar rate of adverse events in the statin [+] group (0.9%) vs the statin [-] group (2.5%).

CONCLUSION

BP control rates in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and concomitant hypercholesterolemia are significantly improved with a treatment regimen that combines perindopril/amlodipine with statin therapy, regardless of previous antihypertensive therapy. This subanalysis of the PERSPECTIVA study supports the synergistic BP-lowering effect of statins and perindopril/amlodipine.

Renin-Angiotensin System Blockade Associated with Statin Improves Endothelial Function in Diabetics

Background

Studies suggest that statins have pleiotropic effects, such as reduction in blood pressure, and improvement in endothelial function and vascular stiffness.

Objective

To analyze if prior statin use influences the effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors on blood pressure, endothelial function, and vascular stiffness.

Methods

Patients with diabetes and hypertension with office systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 80 mmHg had their antihypertensive medications replaced by amlodipine during 6 weeks. They were then randomized to either benazepril or losartan for 12 additional weeks while continuing on amlodipine. Blood pressure (assessed with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring), endothelial function (brachial artery flow-mediated dilation), and vascular stiffness (pulse wave velocity) were evaluated before and after the combined treatment. In this study, a post hoc analysis was performed to compare patients who were or were not on statins (SU and NSU groups, respectively).

Results

The SU group presented a greater reduction in the 24-hour systolic blood pressure (from 134 to 122 mmHg, p = 0.007), and in the brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (from 6.5 to 10.9%, p = 0.003) when compared with the NSU group (from 137 to 128 mmHg, p = 0.362, and from 7.5 to 8.3%, p = 0.820). There was no statistically significant difference in pulse wave velocity (SU group: from 9.95 to 9.90 m/s, p = 0.650; NSU group: from 10.65 to 11.05 m/s, p = 0.586).

Conclusion

Combined use of statins, amlodipine, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors improves the antihypertensive response and endothelial function in patients with hypertension and diabetes.

Rate of control of LDL cholesterol and incident hypertension requiring antihypertensive treatment in hypercholesterolemic subjects in daily clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary evidence suggests that hypercholesterolemia is associated to an increased risk to develop hypertension. We aimed at evaluating the association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level and incidence of new onset of hypertension in a large population sample.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A population-based cohort of 20,074 subjects with at least one LDL-C measurement between July 2006 and June 2007 and free of antihypertensive treatment (AHT) at baseline was followed from the LDL-C date until death or 31 December 2009.

RESULTS

During the follow-up, 10.7% of patients with LDL-C < 130 mg/dL, 13.2% of patients with LDL-C between 130 and 159 mg/dL, 12.2% of patients with LDL-C between 160 and 189 mg/dL, and 13.9% of patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL had new-onset hypertension requiring the initiation of AHT. Compared with the LDL-C < 130 mg/dL group, the hazard ratio (HR) of initiation of AHT increased among those with LDL-C level between 130 and 159 mg/dL (HR 1.23; 95% CI: 1.08-1.40), those with LDL-C level between 160 and 189 mg/dL (HR 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01-1.51), and those with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL (HR 1.45; 95% CI: 1.11-1.89).

CONCLUSION

A better control of cholesterolemia seems to be associated to a lower incidence of new-onset of hypertension requiring AHT in a large cohort of general population.

Antiplatelet and Lipid-lowering Drugs in Hypertension

Antiplatelet therapy, and low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in particular, is recommended in hypertensive patients with previous cardiovascular events and is considered in hypertensive patients with reduced renal function or a high cardiovascular (CV) risk, provided blood pressure is well-controlled. Acetylsalicylic acid is not recommended in low-to-moderate risk hypertensive patients in whom absolute benefit and harm are equivalent. Further trials evaluating antithrombotic therapy including newer agents in hypertension are needed. Women at high and moderate risk of pre-eclampsia are advised to take a low dose of ASA daily from 12 weeks of gestation until delivery. In addition to their lipid-lowering effects, statins induce a small blood pressure reduction. The 2013 European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend using statin therapy in hypertensive patients at moderate-to-high CV risk to achieve the target low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol value <3 mmol/l (115 mg/dl). For individuals with manifest CV disease or at very high CV risk, a more aggressive LDL target of <1.8 mmol/l (70 mg/dl) is recommended.

An update on telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide combinations for the management of hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors

International hypertension guidelines endorse the use of combination therapy to achieve blood pressure control in the majority of patients. Angiotensin AT1 receptor blockers, in combination with diuretics, are among the preferred combinations, with telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) being an effective and well-tolerated combination. This article provides an up-to-date review of the existing data on telmisartan/HCTZ combination for the management of hypertension in patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors, including reports emerging from a number of recent clinical trials and secondary analyses of older trials. The accumulated evidence from clinical trials demonstrates that telmisartan/HCTZ combinations are effective and well tolerated in patients with mild-to-severe hypertension, including subgroups of patients with cardiovascular risk factors such as advanced age, obesity, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus and treatment-resistant hypertension.

Blood pressure-lowering effect of simvastatin: a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Part of the efficacy of statins in the prevention of cardiovascular events can be attributed to their blood pressure-lowering effect, but clinical trials primarily designed to investigate this effect are scarce. In a double-blind parallel placebo-controlled clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring, 79 hypertensive patients were randomly assigned to 40 mg of simvastatin (n=40) or placebo (n=39) taken in the morning for 2 months. Between-group deltas of ABP change, adjusted for the corresponding baseline BP, were 2.8 mm Hg (95% CI: 0.4-5.1; P=0.02) for 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP), 4.2 mm Hg (95% CI: 0.1-8.4; P=0.04) for daytime systolic BP and 3.1 mm Hg (95% CI: 0.4-5.9; P=0.02) for daytime DBP. There was no effect on nighttime BP. There was an interaction between baseline cholesterol levels and treatment effect, which was restricted to patients with cholesterol above the median of the whole sample. There was no significant change in office BP. In conclusion, simvastatin lowers ABP in patients with hypertension, particularly in the presence of higher levels of cholesterol. This effect may contribute to the beneficial effects of statins in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Antihypertensive effects of statins: a meta-analysis of prospective controlled studies

In experimental studies, statins have been shown to lower blood pressure through increased nitric oxide bioavailability and improved arterial compliance. The clinical significance of this effect remains poorly documented. The authors performed a meta-analysis of the effect of statins on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) including prospective randomized, controlled trials of statin therapy. EMBASE and MEDLINE searches for studies in which patients were randomized to treatment with a statin plus standard treatment (or placebo) vs standard treatment (or placebo) were conducted. Studies that provided data on SBP and DBP values before the initiation of the treatment and at the end of the follow-up period were included. A total of 40 studies with 51 comparison groups examining 22,511 controls and 22,602 patients taking statins were examined. Mean SBP in the statin group decreased by 2.62 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.41 to -1.84; P<.001) and DBP by 0.94 mm Hg (95% CI, -1.31 to -0.57; P<.001). In studies including hypertensive patients, the decrease in blood pressures with statins was slightly greater (SBP, -3.07 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.00 to -2.15 and DBP, 1.04; 95% CI, -1.47 to -0.61). Similarly, statins effectively reduced SBP in diabetic patients. In this large meta-analysis of prospective controlled studies, the authors found a small but statistically significant reduction of SBP in patients taking statins. The decrease in blood pressure may contribute to the pleiotropic effect of statins in reducing cardiovascular risk.

The effects of statins on blood pressure in normotensive or hypertensive subjects--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether statin therapy is associated with blood pressure (BP)-lowering in patients with or without hypertension.

BACKGROUND

The beneficial effects of statins on the cardiovascular system may in part be related to effects beyond lipid-lowering. It has been suggested that statins may reduce BP; however the available data are still ambiguous and often conflicting.

METHODS

Data from Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1966-January 2012 were searched for studies that investigated the effect of statins on BP in normotensive or in hypertensive subjects. We included all randomized controlled clinical trials that investigated this effect. Changes in systolic and diastolic BP were the key outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 18 trials and 5628 subjects (4692 normotensive and 936 hypertensive patients) randomized to receive either statins or placebo. The weighted mean difference of systolic (∆SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (∆DBP) in normotensive patients for the 11 statin trials included were 0.03 (95% CI: -0.95-1.02; p = 0.95) and -0.28 (95% CI: -0.80-0.24; p = 0.29), respectively. For hypertensive patients treated with statins (8 trials) the weighted mean difference of ∆SBP and ∆DBP were 1.45 (95% CI: -0.49-3.39; p = 0.14) and -1.32 (95% CI: -3.93-1.28; p = 0.32) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite previous suggestions statin therapy in normotensive or hypertensive patients does not lead to significant reductions in systolic or diastolic BP.

Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Reducing high blood cholesterol, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in people with and without a past history of CVD is an important goal of pharmacotherapy. Statins are the first-choice agents. Previous reviews of the effects of statins have highlighted their benefits in people with CVD. The case for primary prevention was uncertain when the last version of this review was published (2011) and in light of new data an update of this review is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects, both harms and benefits, of statins in people with no history of CVD.

SEARCH METHODS

To avoid duplication of effort, we checked reference lists of previous systematic reviews. The searches conducted in 2007 were updated in January 2012. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2022, Issue 4), MEDLINE OVID (1950 to December Week 4 2011) and EMBASE OVID (1980 to 2012 Week 1).There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of statins versus placebo or usual care control with minimum treatment duration of one year and follow-up of six months, in adults with no restrictions on total, low density lipoprotein (LDL) or high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, and where 10% or less had a history of CVD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal CHD, CVD and stroke events, combined endpoints (fatal and non-fatal CHD, CVD and stroke events), revascularisation, change in total and LDL cholesterol concentrations, adverse events, quality of life and costs. Odds ratios (OR) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and for continuous data, pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

The latest search found four new trials and updated follow-up data on three trials included in the original review. Eighteen randomised control trials (19 trial arms; 56,934 participants) were included. Fourteen trials recruited patients with specific conditions (raised lipids, diabetes, hypertension, microalbuminuria). All-cause mortality was reduced by statins (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94); as was combined fatal and non-fatal CVD RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.81), combined fatal and non-fatal CHD events RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.80) and combined fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89). Reduction of revascularisation rates (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.72) was also seen. Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were reduced in all trials but there was evidence of heterogeneity of effects. There was no evidence of any serious harm caused by statin prescription. Evidence available to date showed that primary prevention with statins is likely to be cost-effective and may improve patient quality of life. Recent findings from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists study using individual patient data meta-analysis indicate that these benefits are similar in people at lower (< 1% per year) risk of a major cardiovascular event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Reductions in all-cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of adverse events among people without evidence of CVD treated with statins.

The antihypertensive actions of statins: modulation by salt intake

Hydroxy methyl glutaryl CoA inhibitors (statins) are the agents most frequently used to reduce elevated serum cholesterol. In addition to their cholesterol lowering effects, statins also have nonlipid lowering pleiotropic properties. These include reducing oxidative stress, renin-angiotensin and endothelin synthesis and activity, and improving nitric oxide (NO) synthesis and availability. Thus, one would predict that statins might be able to exert an antihypertensive effect. Experimental models bear out the blood pressure lowering effects but the data from clinical trials have been inconsistent perhaps due to inappropriate experimental designs, sample size, blood pressure measurement techniques etc. Moreover, although experimental models strongly suggest a role for salt intake in the potential antihypertensive responses to statins, available clinical trials fail to report salt intake in the studied populations. The statins' antihypertensive effects remain an unsettled hypothesis and calls for a large clinical trial at a wide range of doses and a controlled salt intake. Statins meanwhile remain as a excellent option to control high cholesterol and in tissue injury prevention.

Impact of age and gender on blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction: results of a pooled analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the simultaneous reduction of blood pressure (BP) to below 150 mmHg and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) after treatment with single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) among younger (<65 years), older (≥65 years) and elderly (≥75 years) men and women with hypertension and dyslipidemia.

METHODS

Data from five, 14-20-week, open-label, multi-national studies (GEMINI US, GEMINI-Australia, Asia, Latin-America, Africa/Middle-East [AALA], JEWEL 1, JEWEL 2, and the Clinical Utility of Caduet in Simultaneously Achieving Blood Pressure and Lipid End Points [CAPABLE]) were pooled. In these studies, SPAA (5/10 to 10/80 mg/mg) was electively titrated to achieve study-specific targets. Reductions in BP and LDL-C, and changes in renal and liver function tests, fasting glucose and adverse event (AE) rates were compared across the three age groups.

RESULTS

A total of 3613 patients (65%) were <65 years, 1946 (35%) were ≥65 years and 441 (8%) were ≥75 years. Baseline mean systolic BP tended to increase with age and diastolic BP and LDL-C decreased, p<0.001. Final mean SPAA dose was similar (7.2/23.9, 7.1/24.3, 7.1/24.0 mg/mg). Final mean BP in the younger/older/elderly groups was 128.1/79.9, 131.3/75.0, 132.8/73.4 mmHg (adjusted BP reductions -20.2/-10.4, -18.6/-12.7, -17.7/-13.2 mmHg, p<0.001). Final mean LDL-C was 91, 87, 87 mg/dl (2.4, 2.3, 2.3 mmol/l) p<0.001; adjusted %LDL-C reductions -27.1, -26.8, -26.4, p<0.001. Estimated glomerular filtration rate increased in the younger group but decreased in the older and elderly groups (p=0.005). Small increases in liver function tests and fasting glucose were observed. Discontinuations due to AEs tended to increase with age but were low in all groups (6.2%, 7.9%, 8.8%, p=0.045). Study limitations include post hoc analysis and short duration of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous reduction of BP to below 150 mmHg and LDL-C using SPAA is both effective and well-tolerated among younger and older men and women, including those aged≥75 years. Clinicians may be reassured by the low proportion of AEs that led to discontinuation in all groups suggesting that older patients were not disadvantaged by this treatment.

Effect of rosuvastatin on systemic blood pressure in patients with hypercholesterolemia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether rosuvastatin reduces blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

The present study investigated the effect of rosuvastatin on lipids and clinical parameters in 25 patients with a mean (± SD) age of 58.4±10.6 years over a three-month period.

RESULTS

Rosuvastatin (2.5 mg/day to 5.0 mg/day) reduced systolic BP from 136.3±13.1 mmHg to 130.8±10.7 mmHg (P<0.01), along with a significant reduction in serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (P<0.01). The patients were divided into two groups: 13 responders whose BP decreased by >5 mmHg with rosuvastatin treatment and 12 nonresponders who showed a BP reduction of ≤5 mmHg. Baseline systolic BP was significantly higher in responders than nonresponders (143.6±9.6 mmHg versus 128.4±11.9 mmHg, respectively; P<0.01). Responders also had a lower serum concentration of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein compared with nonresponders (0.11±0.07 mg/dL versus 0.40±0.28 mg/dL; P<0.01). The extent of BP reduction was positively correlated with baseline systolic BP (r=0.585; P=0.0021) but not with the reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. Among the patients with baseline systolic BP >130 mmHg, all 11 responders (138.3 mmHg) were nonsmokers, while five of six nonresponders (145.7 mmHg) were smokers.

CONCLUSION

Rosuvastatin had an additive antihypertensive effect in patients with poorly controlled hypertension that was independent of its lipid-lowering effect, which may be related to an inflammatory mechanism.

Hypotensive effect of atorvastatin in hypertensive patients: the association among flow-mediated dilation, oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the hypothesis that atorvastatin decreases blood pressure (BP) values and improves endothelial function assessed by flow-mediated dilation (FMD) in normolipidaemic hypertensive patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-six hypertensive patients were randomized in a 2 : 1 proportion to atorvastatin (80 mg/day/3 months; group A; n = 39) or previous standard anti-hypertensive therapy (group B), which means the patients were treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, β-blockers, calcium antagonists and angiotensin receptor blockers. The study had a crossover design: after 3 months, both groups were changed (group A* stopped and group B* started atorvastatin treatment). Nitric oxide (NO), total antioxidant status (TAS), endothelin-1 (ET-1), and peroxide concentrations as well as FMD were measured before, after 3 and after 6 months of treatment. Atorvastatin added to existing treatment decreased BP in both groups.

RESULTS

Flow-mediated dilation improved in both statin-treated groups, but only significantly in group B* (from 11.9 ±8.3% to 22.1 ±9.0%; p < 0.05). In patients with FMD improvement, there was a greater BP reduction. After treatment discontinuation, FMD significantly decreased (from 19.6 ±12.6% to 13.0 ±10.5%; p < 0.05), which was consistent with BP increase. Changes in FMD were not significantly related to the increase in NO and TAS concentrations and decrease in ET-1 and peroxides measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The hypotensive effect of atorvastatin is associated with FMD improvement in normolipidaemic, hypertensive patients. Although this could be related to changes in oxidative stress and endothelial function, this was not demonstrated in this study and warrants further investigation.

Effects of statin treatment on endothelial function, oxidative stress and inflammation in patients with arterial hypertension and normal cholesterol levels

OBJECTIVE

Patients with arterial hypertension are characterized by impaired endothelial function and increased cardiovascular risk. Statins have been proposed as a potential treatment option in hypertension, even in those with normal low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol levels. We tested whether fluvastatin reduces oxidative stress and inflammation, and improves endothelial function in patients with arterial hypertension and normal LDL-cholesterol.

METHODS

In a cross-over designed, double-blind randomized trial, 26 patients with arterial hypertension and LDL-cholesterol below 160 mg/dl were treated for 2 weeks with either placebo or fluvastatin 80 mg/day. Endothelium-dependent vasodilation (EDV) was assessed as the forearm blood flow (FBF) response to intra-arterial infusion of acetylcholine (ACH, 12 and 48 μg/min), and endothelium-independent vasodilation (EIV) as the FBF response to nitroprusside (3.2 and 12.8 μg/min). Furthermore, we measured reduced to oxidized glutathione (GSH/GSSG) ratio in red blood cells, total antioxidant capacity in plasma (TAC) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels.

RESULTS

Fluvastatin lowered LDL-cholesterol from 118 ± 16 to 90 ± 25 mg/dl (P < 0.0001), but had no effect on blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol or triglycerides. EDV and EIV were unaffected by fluvastatin treatment (e.g. increase of FBF 48 μg/min: 339 ± 285% during placebo versus 268 ± 194% during fluvastatin, n.s.). Finally, GSH/GSSG ratio, TAC and hs-CRP levels were similar between fluvastatin and placebo treatment.

CONCLUSION

Fluvastatin treatment did not improve endothelial function, oxidative stress or inflammation in patients with arterial hypertension and normal LDL-cholesterol levels. These data argue against the usefulness of statins in patients with arterial hypertension in the absence of hypercholesterolemia or other additional risk factors.

Association of statin therapy with blood pressure control in hypertensive hypercholesterolemic outpatients in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Some clinical evidence revealed that statins, apart from lowering cholesterol levels, also have an antihypertensive effect. Our aim was to evaluate the existence of a possible association of statin therapy with blood pressure (BP) control in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients attending a hypertension/dyslipidemia clinic were prospectively evaluated. Those patients with a diagnosis of stage 1 hypertension and hypercholesterolemia who consented to participate were included in the study, either in the statin group (when taking a statin) or in the control group (when not taking a statin). Exclusion criteria included dementia, pregnancy, or breastfeeding, and history or evidence of stage 2 hypertension. Detailed clinical information was prospectively obtained from medical records. A total of 110 hypertensive patients were assigned to the study (82 in the statin group and 28 in the control group).

RESULTS

Although there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in both groups concerning gender, body mass index, antihypertensive pharmacotherapy, and serum levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, a higher BP control was observed in the statin group (P = 0.002). Significantly lower systolic BP (-6.7 mmHg, P = 0.020) and diastolic BP (-6.4 mmHg, P = 0.002) levels were reported in the statin group. Serum levels of low-density lipoprotein were also significantly lower in the statin group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This observational study detected an association of statin therapy with BP control in hypertensive hypercholesterolemic patients in clinical practice. These findings raise the possibility that statin therapy may be useful for BP control in the studied population.

Does the blood pressure-lowering effect of statins contribute to their beneficial cardiovascular effects?

Not all cardiovascular protection provided by statins is explained by their beneficial effects on lipoproteins. Old (e.g., clofibrate) and new (e.g., torcetrapib and ezetimibe) agents, with similar or more intense beneficial effect over lipoproteins, do not reproduce the beneficial effects of statins. Besides their anti-inflammatory and other pleiotropic effects, a blood pressure-lowering effect could be an additional mechanism of cardiovascular protection of statins. Large trials of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease did not report an effect on blood pressure, but the use of blood pressure-lowering agents was left to the discretion of physicians during the trial. Post hoc analyses of small trials and a meta-analysis of some of them have suggested that statins could lower systolic blood pressure by approximately 4 mmHg, particularly in patients with high blood pressure. Most studies, however, had small samples and were not blinded. Others had a cross-over or observational design. The overall view of these studies rules out a substantial blood pressure-lowering effect of statins. An effect restricted to subjects with high blood pressure could ultimately derive from the anti-inflammatory effect of statins, since higher levels of C-reactive protein are associated with higher blood pressure. An unequivocal demonstration of an antihypertensive effect of statins, however, is still lacking, and a randomized trial with enough power to evaluate blood pressure variation in a large range of blood pressure values is required to demonstrate whether statins definitely have an antihypertensive effect.