Does Systolic Blood Pressure Response to Lifestyle Intervention Indicate Metabolic Risk and Health‐Related Quality‐of‐Life Improvement Over 1 Year?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether responders (minimum 4‐mm Hg reduction of systolic blood pressure [BP]) at 24 weeks) to a 52‐week lifestyle intervention had greater changes in metabolic risk factors and health‐related quality of life than nonresponders. Participants (N=126; age, 57.4 [9.1] years) had waist circumference (WC), resting BP, glycated hemoglobin, lipids, and fitness assessed at baseline and at 12, 24, and 52 months. The 36‐item short‐form survey was administered to assess HRQOL. At baseline, responders had higher mental health scores (P=.04) and systolic and diastolic BPs (P<.001) than nonresponders. Across 52 weeks, responders also had greater improvements in diastolic BP (P<.001), WC (P=.01), and maximal oxygen uptake (P=.04) compared with nonresponders. Participants with clinically important changes in systolic BP at 24 weeks had greater metabolic improvements across 52 weeks, compared with those without clinically important systolic BP changes.     

Which influenza viruses will emerge following the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic?

The world has experienced five pandemics in just over one hundred years, four due to influenza and one due to coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2). In each case of pandemic influenza, the pandemic influenza strain has replaced the previous seasonal influenza virus. Notably, throughout the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic, there has been a 99% reduction in influenza isolation globally. It is anticipated that influenza will re‐emerge following the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic and circulate again. The potential for which influenza viruses will emerge is examined.     

Impact of the “atherosclerotic pabulum” on in‐hospital mortality for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Is calcium score able to identify at‐risk patients?

BackgroundAlthough the primary cause of death in COVID‐19 infection is respiratory failure, there is evidence that cardiac manifestations may contribute to overall mortality and can even be the primary cause of death. More importantly, it is recognized that COVID‐19 is associated with a high incidence of thrombotic complications.HypothesisEvaluate if the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score was useful to predict in‐hospital (in‐H) mortality in patients with COVID‐19. Secondary end‐points were needed for mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission.MethodsTwo‐hundred eighty‐four patients (63, 25 years, 67% male) with proven severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection who had a noncontrast chest computed tomography were analyzed for CAC score. Clinical and radiological data were retrieved.ResultsPatients with CAC had a higher inflammatory burden at admission (d‐dimer, p = .002; C‐reactive protein, p = .002; procalcitonin, p = .016) and a higher high‐sensitive cardiac troponin I (HScTnI, p = <.001) at admission and at peak. While there was no association with presence of lung consolidation and ground‐glass opacities, patients with CAC had higher incidence of bilateral infiltration (p = .043) and higher in‐H mortality (p = .048). On the other side, peak HScTnI >200 ng/dl was a better determinant of all outcomes in both univariate (p = <.001) and multivariate analysis (p = <.001).ConclusionThe main finding of our research is that CAC was positively related to in‐H mortality, but it did not completely identify all the population at risk of events in the setting of COVID‐19 patients. This raises the possibility that other factors, including the presence of soft, unstable plaques, may have a role in adverse outcomes in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.     

Do Obese Individuals With Hypertension Have More Difficult‐to‐Control Blood Pressure and End Organ Damage Than Their Nonobese Counterparts?

The authors assessed whether individuals with elevated body mass index (BMI) and hypertension had more difficult‐to‐control blood pressure (BP) and more evidence of end organ damage using data collected prospectively over 11 years from a secondary care hypertension clinic. A total of 1114 individuals were divided by BMI criteria into normal (n=207), overweight (n=440), and obese (n=467). Mean daytime, nighttime, and 24‐hour systolic BP and diastolic BP were similar in all groups. There was less nocturnal dip in obese compared with overweight groups (P=.025). Individuals with a normal BMI were taking fewer antihypertensive medications than those in the obese group (P=.01). Individuals classified as obese had a higher left ventricular mass index than those with a normal BMI (female, P=.028; male, P<.001); this relationship remained after multivariate linear regression. Obese individuals with hypertension required more medication to achieve similar mean ambulatory BP values, had less nocturnal dip in BP, and had a higher prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy. As such, obese patients are at potentially increased risk of cardiovascular events.     

Out‐of‐Office Blood Pressures—Are They Helpful in Guiding the Treatment of Hypertension Patients?

Following a hypertension symposium in Philadelphia in September 2005, a roundtable was convened to discuss the significance of out-of-office blood pressure. Dr. Marvin Moser of the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, moderated the panel discussion. Participants included Dr. Raymond Townsend of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, and Dr. Norman Kaplan of the University of Texas Health Science Center in Dallas, Dallas, TX.     

Does Participatory Decision Making Improve Hypertension Self‐Care Behaviors and Outcomes?

This study examined patients' perceptions of their providers' participatory decision making (PDM) style and hypertension self-care behaviors and outcomes. Five hundred fifty-four veterans with hypertension enrolled in the Veterans' Study to Improve the Control of Hypertension rated providers' PDM styles using a validated 3-item instrument. Behaviors assessed included presence of a home blood pressure monitor, monitoring frequency, and self-reported antihypertensive medication adherence. Overall, veterans with hypertension rated providers as highly participatory. In adjusted analyses, a lower PDM score was associated with decreased odds of having a home monitor (odds ratio, 0.90 per 10-point decrement in PDM score; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.98) but not with monitoring frequency, adherence, or blood pressure control. Providers' involvement of patients in decision making, reflected in ratings of PDM style, may be important to securing patients' participation in their own care, but alone this factor seems insufficient. No relationship between PDM score and blood pressure control was observed.     

Combination Therapy With Renin‐Angiotensin‐Aldosterone Receptor Blockers for Hypertension: How Far Have We Come?

In a large number of patients with hypertension, > or =2 antihypertensive agents are required to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. There is good rationale for initial combination therapy based on clinical trials demonstrating that achievement of BP goals within a reasonably short period of time results in fewer cardiovascular events. One approach to attaining BP goals and improving medication adherence is fixed-dose combination therapy, the use of which dates back to the 1960s. Given some of the advantages of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers in patients with heart disease, kidney disease, and diabetes, many combinations include either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. In most studies, however, thiazide diuretics were necessary to achieve goal BP. Calcium channel blockers have also been used in combination with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors to lower BP. Studies are now under way to determine the relative benefits of an RAAS blocker/diuretic compared with an RAAS blocker/calcium channel blocker as initial therapy.     

Antihypertensive treatment and renal protection: Is there a J‐curve relationship?

A bidirectional relationship between hypertension and kidney disease, with one exacerbating the effect of the other, is well established. Elevated blood pressure (BP) is a well‐recognized, modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease as well as for development and progression of chronic kidney disease and, therefore, the identification of optimal BP target is a key issue in the management of renal patients. Recent large trials and real life cohort studies have indicated that below a definite BP value renal protection seems to plateau and too low levels may even be associated with a paradoxical increase in renal morbidity, thus reviving the debate about the so called BP ‐renal function J‐curve relationship. Existing evidence supports a systolic target around 130 mm Hg to combine both renal and CV protection and possibly lower levels in the presence of overt proteinuria.     

Is the newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil more efficacious in lowering blood pressure than the older ones? A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Angiotensin‐receptor blockers are often considered insufficiently efficacious in reducing blood pressure. However, newer angiotensin‐receptor blockers may be more effective than the older ones. A network meta‐analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of various angiotensin‐receptor blockers in reducing office and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Relevant literature was searched from English and Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials involving angiotensin‐receptor blockers in hypertension. Efficacy variables included systolic and diastolic blood pressure either in the office or on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Absolute blood pressure reductions at 6‐12 weeks of treatment and their credible intervals were reported. A total of 34 publications provided adequate data for analysis (n = 14 859). In 28 studies on office systolic blood pressure (n = 12 731), against the common comparator valsartan 80 mg, the differences in systolic blood pressure were in favor of azilsartan medoxomil (20‐80 mg), irbesartan (300 mg), olmesartan (20‐40 mg), telmisartan (80 mg), and valsartan (160‐320 mg), but not candesartan (8‐16 mg), losartan (50‐100 mg), irbesartan (150 mg), olmesartan (10 mg), and telmisartan (40 mg). The ranking plot shows that azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg had a possibility of 99% being the best in the class. Similar results were observed for office diastolic blood pressure and from 13 studies for 24‐hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, angiotensin‐receptor blockers had different blood pressure lowering efficacy. The newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil at the dose of 80 mg seemed to be most efficacious in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the office and on ambulatory measurement.     

First‐Step Use of Fixed‐Dose Combination Treatment in Stage 2 Hypertensive Patients: Has the Time Come?

A panel discussion was convened on February 14, 2007, to discuss the use of fixed-dose combination therapy for stage 2 hypertensive patients. The panel was moderated by Michael A. Weber, MD, Professor of Medicine, SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, New York, NY. Participants included Luis Ruilope, MD, Chief, Hypertension Unit, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain, Thomas D. Giles, MD, Professor of Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, Metairie, LA, and Joseph L. Izzo, Jr, MD, Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.