Baseline characteristics of the diabetic participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Hypertension in Non-Type 2 Diabetes in Isfahan, Iran: Incidence and Risk Factors

Objective

To estimate the incidence of and risk factors for the development of hypertension (HTN) in people with T1D using routinely collected data.

Method

The mean 16-year incidence of HTN was measured among 1,167 (557 men and 610 women) nonhypertensive patients with T1D from Isfahan Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center outpatient clinics, Iran. HTN was defined as a systolic blood pressure (BP) of 140 mm Hg or higher and/or a diastolic BP 90 mm Hg or higher and/or use of antihypertensive medications. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of participants was 20.6 years (10.5 years) with a mean (SD) duration of diabetes of 3.6 years (4.8 years) at registration.

Results

The prevalence of HTN at baseline was 9.7% (95% CI: 8.2, 11.5). Among the 1,167 patients free of HTN at registration who attended the clinic at least twice in the period 1992–2016, the incidence of HTN was 9.6 (8.0 women and 11.3 men) per 1000 person-years based on 18,870 person-years of follow-up. Multivariate analyses showed that male gender, older age, higher triglyceride, and higher systolic BP were significantly and independently associated with the development of HTN in this population.

Conclusion

These findings will help the identification of those patients with T1D at particular risk of HTN and strongly support the case for vigorous control of BP in patients with T1D.

Changes in treatment of hyperglycemia in a hypertensive type 2 diabetes population as renal function declines

Background

Cardiovascular complications associated with expensive noninsulin agents for type 2 diabetes are the focus of concern in light of the risk of kidney dysfunction with aging. Head-to-head comparisons are unavailable to guide the choice of new drugs for hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and increased cardiovascular risk. A first approach would be to document current medication choices.

Methods

All prescriptions for 10 151 patients (5623 males/4528 females) with both type 2 diabetes and hypertension seen two or  more times during a 5-year period (2007–12) at Joslin Diabetes Center were evaluated. {mean age 64 years [interquartile range (IQR) 64–65)], body mass index 31 kg/m² (IQR 30–32) and mean eGFR 78 mL/min/1.73 m² (IQR 78, 78)}.

Results

Insulin was used in >60% of patients, metformin in 50% and sulfonylurea derivatives in 25%. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) and acarbose class drugs were prescribed in 10% of patients, GLP-1 in 8% and other classes [including thiazolidinediones (TZD)] in <5%. Patients were grouped into four drug Categories none, 447 (4%); insulin only, 3836 (38%); other than insulin, 2910 (29%) and insulin combinations, 2955 (29%). Common combinations included insulin/metformin [n = 2493 (25%)], insulin/sulfonylureas [706 (7%)], metformin/sulfonylureas [2017 (20%)], metformin/GLP1 [949 ( 9%)], metformin/DPP4 [895 (9%)] and metformin/TZD [500 (5%)]. Insulin use increased to 70% from 35% as eGFR dropped to <30 mL/min/1.73 m²; use of insulin combined with other drugs dropped to 12% from 31% and the use of other drugs alone without insulin dropped similarly to 12% from 30%.

Conclusions

Reduced renal function was associated with increased use of insulin and decreased use of other anti-diabetic agents in a statistically significant progression. BMI and gender did not influence medication choice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical Trials and Lipid Guidelines for Type II Diabetes

The management of dyslipidemia in adults with diabetes is receiving more attention. However, there is a paucity of large, prospective, randomized outcome trials designed for diabetic patients. Diabetic dyslipidemia is characterized by an increase in triglyceride levels, low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentrations, and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. The treatment goals include an LDL cholesterol less than 100 mg/dL, triglyceride level less than 150 mg/dL, and an HDL greater than 40 mg/dL for men and more than 50 mg/dL for women. In the Diabetic Atherosclerosis Intervention Study, fenofibrate resulted in a 42% less increase in the percent stenosis, as assessed by quantitative coronary arteriography. The Heart Protection Study documented the unambiguous benefit of simvastatin in reducing all-cause mortality among 5963 diabetic patients. The Lescol Intervention Prevention Study observed a reduction in major adverse cardiac events in diabetics undergoing percutaneous intervention who received fluvastatin. The Veterans Affairs HDL Cholesterol Intervention Trial reported a reduction in major coronary events among 627 diabetic patients with low HDL cholesterol who sustained a myocardial infarction. The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetics (FIELD) Trial (n = 9795), the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD, n = 10,000), the Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease Endpoints in Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (ASPEN, n = 2421), and the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS, n = 2140) will provide the prospective outcome data that are needed for the management of patients. Combination drug therapy will be necessary to achieve treatment goals. Careful monitoring will be required to avoid myositis and hepatotoxicity.

[Evaluation of cardiovascular risk according to Framingham criteria in patients with type 2 diabetes]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to evaluate cardiovascular risk (CR) in type 2 diabetic (T2DM) patients according to Framingham criteria and its possible relationship with other risk factors not included in the Framingham score.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated 333 T2DM outpatients (215 females), aged 56.9+/-9.7 years followed regularly from March 2004 to February 2005 in the Diabetes Unit in our University Hospital. The known diabetes duration was 12 (0-43) years. In order to determinate the risk of death from coronary artery disease (CAD), we applied the Framingham score. Patients were classified in two groups, according to their probability of having a cardiovascular event in ten years: <or=20% and>20%. We intended to establish a correlation between the CR verified in this population and other variables probably related to CR not included on Framingham score.

RESULTS

The CR in ten years was 18.7+/-10.8% in the whole population, being higher in male than female [20% (2-53) vs. 15% (1-27); p<0.001]. Fifty five percent of males and 38.6% of females had a CR>20% according to Framingham score (p=0.003). The CR was related to diabetes duration, triglycerides (TG), creatinine and 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (2G) levels and abdominal circumference (AC) either according to International Diabetes Federation (p<0.001) or World Health Organization (p=0.003) criteria. In the stepwise multivariate analyses we found an independent and significant correlation of CR with the following variables: gender (male), diabetes duration, plasma creatinine levels, AC and TG (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our T2DM patients represent a high-risk population for cardiovascular events according to the Framingham score, mainly males. Routine use of Framingham score, which is feasible and noninvasive, could identify such patients and institute precocious and intensive measures in order to reduce their cardiovascular risk.

Hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control in an adult type 1 diabetes population and a comparable general population

OBJECTIVE

To compare the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in a population-representative sample of adults with type 1 diabetes and comparable nondiabetic control subjects.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In 2000-2002, the Coronary Artery Calcification in Type 1 Diabetes Study enrolled 1,416 individuals aged 19-56 years with no known history of coronary artery disease: 652 type 1 diabetic patients (46% male, mean age 37 years) and 764 nondiabetic control subjects (50% male, mean age 39 years). Subjects were asked if they had been told by a physician that they had hypertension or were on a blood pressure medication. Blood pressure was measured using standardized Joint National Committee (JNC) protocol.

RESULTS

Type 1 diabetic subjects, compared with nondiabetic subjects, had higher rates of hypertension prevalence (43 vs. 15%, P < 0.001), awareness (53 vs. 45%, P = 0.11), treatment (87 vs. 47%, P < 0.001), and control (55 vs. 32%, P < 0.001) for the JNC 6 goal (130/85 mmHg). Only 42% of all type 1 diabetic hypertensive subjects met the new JNC 7 goal (130/80 mmHg). Type 1 diabetic subjects had better blood pressure control (72 vs. 32%, P < 0.0001), using 140/90 mmHg as a common measure. The majority of treated subjects were on a single antihypertensive agent (75 vs. 64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects with type 1 diabetes have higher rates of hypertension prevalence, treatment, and control than nondiabetic subjects. However, hypertension remains largely uncontrolled, even if treated in high-risk populations, such as type 1 diabetic subjects and undiagnosed individuals in the general population. Achieving more stringent blood pressure goals will require increased attention and may necessitate the use of multiple antihypertensive agents.

Cardiovascular outcomes using doxazosin vs. chlorthalidone for the treatment of hypertension in older adults with and without glucose disorders: a report from the ALLHAT study

Insulin resistance underlies most glucose disorders in adults and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Alpha blockers decrease insulin resistance, whereas diuretics increase insulin resistance. The authors studied the effects of these two classes of hypertension medications (doxazosin, an a blocker, and chlorthalidone, a diuretic) on cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults aged >55 years with hypertension and glucose disorders who were participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (8749 had known diabetes mellitus and 1690 had a newly diagnosed glucose disorder [fasting glucose >/=110 mg/dL]). There was no difference in either group between the chlorthalidone- and doxazosin-based treatments with regard to fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality. There was, however, a difference for combined cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, revascularization procedures, angina, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease) in favor of the diuretic. This difference was due primarily to an increased heart failure risk in those treated with doxazosin (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.19) in the known diabetes mellitus group and a relative risk of 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.55) in those with a newly diagnosed glucose disorder despite lower glucose levels on follow-up in those treated with a blockers. The authors conclude that treatment of hypertension with doxazosin in adults with glucose disorders incurs the same risk of coronary heart disease as treatment with chlorthalidone; however, treatment with doxazosin increases the risk of combined cardiovascular disease and heart failure despite lower glucose levels.

Diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular derangements: Pathophysiology and management

Hypertension frequently coexists with diabetes mellitus, occurring twice as frequently in diabetic as in nondiabetic persons. It accounts for up to 75% of added cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in people with diabetes, contributing significantly to the overall morbidity and mortality in this high-risk population. Patients with hypertension are two times more prone to have diabetes than are normotensive persons. Hypertension substantially increases the risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, retinopathy, and nephropathy. In patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension usually clusters with the other components of the cardiometabolic syndrome, such as microalbuminuria, central obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, hypercoagulation, increased inflammation, and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). In type 1 diabetes, hypertension often occurs subsequent to the development of diabetic nephropathy. Hypertension in people with diabetes is characterized by volume expansion, increased salt sensitivity, isolated systolic blood pressure (BP) elevation, loss of the nocturnal dipping of BP and pulse, and increased propensity toward orthostatic hypotension and albuminuria. Among the treatment strategies tested in hypertensive diabetic persons, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lowering to less than 100 mg/dL and aggressive BP control to less than 130/80 mm Hg have proven effective in CVD risk reduction. The combination of two or more drugs is usually necessary to achieve the target BP.

Diabetes and heart disease an evidence-driven guide to risk factors management in diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a worldwide epidemic. Cardiovascular diseases remain the major cause of death in patients with diabetes, partly because of the association of diabetes and the metabolic syndrome. In this review, we will discuss the evidence for treatment and prevention of cardiovascular diseases in patients with diabetes. Aggressive treatment of hypertension and dyslipidemia is at the cornerstone in the management of heart disease in those patients. Despite its known benefit on the prevention of the microvascular complications of diabetes, intensive glycemic control may or may not have a significant effect on reducing macrovascular diseases. Finally, lifestyle changes and other cardiovascular therapies aimed at preventing heart disease may also prevent or delay the development of diabetes.

The expanding scope of the metabolic syndrome and implications for the management of cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes with particular focus on the emerging role of the thiazolidinediones

Over the last decade, new factors including endothelial dysfunction, vascular inflammation, and abnormalities of blood coagulation have joined more established components of the metabolic syndrome, such as hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and visceral obesity. Many of these factors are known to promote atherosclerosis and the clustering of metabolic abnormalities within the syndrome makes a major contribution to the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death associated with type 2 diabetes. Given that most patients have multiple cardiovascular risk factors, good glycemic control does not, by itself, adequately reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease associated with diabetes and clinical management needs to address the full profile of cardiovascular risk. The thiazolidinediones have potentially beneficial effects on many components of the metabolic syndrome and so may help to improve cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

Pharmacogenetic approaches to hypertension therapy: design and rationale for the Genetics of Hypertension Associated Treatment (GenHAT) study

The Genetics of Hypertension Associated Treatment (GenHAT) study will determine whether variants in hypertension susceptibility genes interact with antihypertensive medication to modify coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in hypertensives. GenHAT is an ancillary study of the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, ALLHAT, a double-blind, randomized trial of 42 418 hypertensives, 55 years of age or older, with systolic or diastolic hypertension and one or more risk factors for cardiovascular disease. About 50% are non-white, and about half are female. ALLHAT completes follow-up in March 2002. GenHAT is typing variants in hypertension genes; completion of genotyping is scheduled for 2003. Analysis of gene-treatment interactions in relation to outcomes include CHD, stroke, heart failure, and blood pressure lowering. To our knowledge, GenHAT is the largest pharmacogenetic study ever conducted. An added strength is its ability to link gene-treatment interactions with important clinical outcomes across diverse ethnic and gender groups.

Pharmacotherapy of diabetes mellitus: implications for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease

Diabetes mellitus in adults is associated with an increased risk of premature vascular disease and a higher mortality rate. The presence of other risk factors, often seen in diabetic patients, such as systemic hypertension, augments the rate of vascular diseases. Evidence is growing that tight control of hyperglycemia using insulin and/or oral hypoglycemic agents will modify this risk. More aggressive control of concomitant hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia is also required. Diabetic patients who have myocardial infarctions do worse than nondiabetic patients. Various strategies to improve outcomes include the use of tight blood glucose control, and various coronary interventions are currently under clinical study.

Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in a Canarian population. Relationship with glucose tolerance categories. The Guía Study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in a Canarian population; and their relationship with the glucose tolerance categories.

DESIGN

From a population of 6355 subjects over 29 years old, 690 were chosen in a random sampling. Blood pressure measurements, a standard oral glucose tolerance test (excluding known diabetic patients), and a questionnaire on diabetes and hypertension history and medication use was performed.

RESULTS

The total prevalence of hypertension was 50.3%; 62.0% of the hypertensive subjects were aware of their condition; 60.6% had their diastolic and 11.0% their systolic blood pressure controlled and 8.6% had both. For diabetic, glucose intolerant and normoglycemic subjects, the respective prevalences of hypertension were 79.4, 60.2 and 43.1% (higher in diabetic subjects, P < 0.001); the awareness of hypertension was 66.7, 61.8 and 59.5% (differences not significant); systolic blood pressure control was 4.8, 14.7 and 13.7% (lower in diabetic subjects, P = 0.017 versus glucose intolerant and P = 0.011 versus normoglycemic subjects); diastolic blood pressure control was 50.4, 72.1 and 63.2% (lower in diabetic subjects, P = 0.004 versus glucose intolerant and P = 0.025 versus normoglycemic subjects). There were no differences in the number and type of antihypertensive drugs among the different glucose tolerance categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood pressure was comparable in our population and in other European populations. The prevalence of hypertension was higher, the awareness was similar, and control was worse in diabetic than in non-diabetic subjects; the drug treatment pattern was not different.

Hypertension and diabetes

Hypertension is often associated clinically with diabetes either as part of the insulin resistance syndrome or as a manifestation of renal disease. Elevated systemic blood pressure accelerates the progression of both microvascular and macrovascular complications in diabetes. Agents that interrupt the renin-angiotensin system confer renoprotection via a range of hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic mechanisms. Recent clinical trials confirm that these agents confer renoprotection in type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients with early or advanced renal disease. Hypertension also appears to accelerate vascular and cardiac abnormalities in diabetes, including increased atherosclerosis, arterial stiffness, left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction. A number of recently published and ongoing trials are exploring the role of aggressive antihypertensive treatment with a range of antihypertensive drugs in diabetic subjects at risk of or with macrovascular disease.

Glucose, blood pressure, and lipid control in older people with and without diabetes mellitus: the Cardiovascular Health Study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of cardiovascular risk-factor treatment and control in older adults with normal fasting glucose, impaired fasting glucose, and diabetes mellitus and whether those with diabetes mellitus had better risk factor control than older adults with normal fasting glucose.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from population-based, prospective cohort study of risk factors for cardio-vascular and cerebrovascular disease in older people (Cardiovascular Health Study).

SETTING

Community-based.

PARTICIPANTS

Community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older.

MEASUREMENTS

Fasting plasma glucose, serum cholesterol and its subfractions, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and body mass index.

RESULTS

There were 579 (18%) cohort members with diabetes mellitus (77% receiving antidiabetic medication, 23% with fasting glucose > or =126 mg/dL and no treatment), 213 (6%) with impaired fasting glucose, and 2,582 (77%)with normal fasting glucose. Of diabetic participants, 12% had recommended fasting glucose levels of less than 110 mg/dL. Of participants with hypertension, a larger proportion of diabetic participants than nondiabetic participants (89% versus 75%, P < .01) was treated with antihypertensive agents, but a smaller proportion of diabetic participants had recommended blood pressure levels of 129/85 mmHg or lower than nondiabetic participants had recommended blood pressure levels of 139/89 mmHg or lower (27% vs 48%, P < .01). Diabetic dyslipidemic participants were treated less often with lipid-lowering therapy (26% versus 55%, P < .01) and achieved recommended low-density lipoprotein goals less often (8%versus 54%, P < .01) than nondiabetic dyslipidemic participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, treatment and control of cardiovascular risk factors were suboptimal in this older population, especially among those with diabetes mellitus. Optimizing risk-factor control can improve health outcomes in older adults with and without diabetes mellitus.

Treatment of coexisting diabetes and hypertension

The rapidly growing number of patients with coexisting diabetes and hypertension must be intensively treated to protect them from their very high risk for premature cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. After careful ascertainment of their out-of-the-office blood pressure, and testing for postural hypotension, therapy should consist of both lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive drugs. Usually, two or more such drugs are needed to bring blood pressure below the 130/85 mm Hg level. In addition, control of hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia is usually required. Despite the costs and difficulties of achieving adequate control of these diseases, such patients can be protected from the debilities of diabetes and hypertension.