Effects of manidipine plus rosuvastatin versus olmesartan plus rosuvastatin on markers of insulin resistance in patients with impaired fasting glucose, hypertension, and mixed dyslipidemia

Comparative efficacy of fixed-dose statin and antihypertensive agent combinations: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The concurrent administration of statins and antihypertensive agents has been associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes, although the optimal fixed-dose combination remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to compare the blood pressure and lipid-lowering effects of various statin and antihypertensive drug combinations.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to 20 March 2021. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of statin-antihypertensive agent combinations on systolic blood pressure or serum lipids were held eligible. A random-effects frequentist model was applied to provide estimates of mean difference of percentage change.

RESULTS

Overall, 18 studies were included, comprising 4450 patients. Compared to statin monotherapy no significant difference in the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was achieved by adding any antihypertensive agent. Compared to amlodipine monotherapy, the addition of moderate-intensity statin resulted in a significantly greater percentage reduction of systolic blood pressure (-2.22%, 95% confidence intervals: [-3.82 to -0.62]). Combined high-intensity statin and amlodipine lead to significant increase of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (8.34%, 95% confidence intervals: [0.73 to 15.95]), while effective triglyceride reduction was achieved by adding amlodipine and telmisartan to high-intensity statin (-14.68%, 95% confidence intervals: [-28.48 to -0.89]). No significant difference of adverse effects was observed.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis suggests that the administration of fixed-dose combinations of statins and antihypertensive agents is safe and effective in reducing blood pressure and serum lipids. The optimal dosing strategy to prevent cardiovascular events remains to be determined.

Factors associated with the reduction of albumin excretion in diabetic hypertensive patients: differential effect of manidipine versus amlodipine

AIMS

In AMANDHA trial, the addition of manidipine, but not amlodipine, in diabetic patients with uncontrolled hypertension, microalbuminuria and preserved renal function resulted in a large decrease of urinary albumin excretion (UAE) despite similar blood pressure (BP) reductions. Factors associated with the reduction of UAE were analyzed.

METHODS

For this purpose, a multivariable analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Although after 6 months of treatment, manidipine and amlodipine decreased BP to a similar extent, reductions of UAE were higher with manidipine. The assigned treatment, changes in mean BP, sympathetic tone and glycemic control were associated with changes in UAE.

CONCLUSION

The assigned treatment, changes in mean BP, sympathetic tone and glycemic control were independently associated with changes in UAE. Compared with amlodipine, manidipine reduced UAE to a higher extent, independently of BP reduction.

Lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin

BACKGROUND

Rosuvastatin is one of the most potent statins and is currently widely prescribed. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of rosuvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of rosuvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Secondary objectives To quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of rosuvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 10 of 12, 2014 in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 5 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 44), Web of Science Core Collection (1970 to 5 November 2014) and BIOSIS Citation Index (1969 to 31 October 2014). No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of rosuvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and eight trials (18 placebo-controlled and 90 before-and-after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of rosuvastatin in 19,596 participants. Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg/day caused LDL-cholesterol decreases of 46% to 55%, when all the trials were combined using the generic inverse variance method. The quality of evidence for these effects is high. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 to 80 mg, revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol. When compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was about three-fold more potent at reducing LDL-cholesterol. There was no dose-related effect of rosuvastatin on blood HDL-cholesterol, but overall, rosuvastatin increased HDL by 7%. There is a high risk of bias for the trials in this review, which would affect WDAEs, but unlikely to affect the lipid measurements. WDAEs were not statistically different between rosuvastatin and placebo in 10 of 18 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.47).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The total blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol-lowering effect of rosuvastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Rosuvastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with atorvastatin, this represents a three-fold greater potency. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with rosuvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 44% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Antihypertensive drugs and glucose metabolism

Hypertension plays a major role in the development and progression of micro- and macrovascular disease. Moreover, increased blood pressure often coexists with additional cardiovascular risk factors such as insulin resistance. As a result the need for a comprehensive management of hypertensive patients is critical. However, the various antihypertensive drug categories have different effects on glucose metabolism. Indeed, angiotensin receptor blockers as well as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors have been associated with beneficial effects on glucose homeostasis. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have an overall neutral effect on glucose metabolism. However, some members of the CCBs class such as azelnidipine and manidipine have been shown to have advantageous effects on glucose homeostasis. On the other hand, diuretics and β-blockers have an overall disadvantageous effect on glucose metabolism. Of note, carvedilol as well as nebivolol seem to differentiate themselves from the rest of the β-blockers class, being more attractive options regarding their effect on glucose homeostasis. The adverse effects of some blood pressure lowering drugs on glucose metabolism may, to an extent, compromise their cardiovascular protective role. As a result the effects on glucose homeostasis of the various blood pressure lowering drugs should be taken into account when selecting an antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients which are at high risk for developing diabetes.