Simvastatin in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia in elderly patients

Twenty elderly (mean age, 69 years), hypercholesterolemic patients (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] levels greater than or equal to 160 mg/dl) were supplied a lipid-lowering diet for one month and then received 10 mg of simvastatin daily for 12 months. Total cholesterol levels fell significantly, from 304.6 mg/dl at baseline to 277.4 mg/dl after one month on the diet, to 245.9 mg/dl after one month of simvastatin, and to 216.1 mg/dl after two months of simvastatin; total cholesterol levels remained significantly lower (221.6 mg/dl at month 12). LDL levels decreased significantly, from 217.6 mg/dl at baseline to 130.4 mg/dl at month 12. High-density lipoprotein levels increased significantly only at months 2 and 3. Apolipoprotein (apo) A levels increased significantly, from 147.2 mg/dl at baseline to 217.9 mg/dl at month 12. There were no significant changes in triglyceride or apo B levels. No changes in blood pressure, heart rate, or body weight or in results of laboratory tests were noted. Few side effects were reported. It is concluded that simvastatin is safe and effective in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia in elderly patients.     

Lipid and blood pressure treatment goals for type 1 diabetes: 10-year incidence data from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study

OBJECTIVE--Subjects with type 1 diabetes are at high risk for many long-term complications, including early mortality and coronary artery disease (CAD). Few data are available on which to base goal levels for two major risk factors, namely blood pressure and lipid/lipoproteins. The objective of this study was to determine at which levels of LDL and HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure the relative risks of type 1 diabetic complications increase significantly. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--Observational prospective study of 589 patients with childhood-onset type 1 diabetes (<17 years) aged > or =18 years at baseline; 10-year incidence of mortality, CAD, lower-extremity arterial disease, proliferative retinopathy, distal symmetric polyneuropathy, and overt nephropathy. Relative risks were determined using traditional groupings of blood pressure and lipid/lipoproteins, measured at baseline, using the lowest groupings (<100 mg/dl [2.6 mmol/l] LDL cholesterol, <45 mg/dl [1.1 mmol/l] HDL cholesterol, <100 mg/dl [1.1 mmol/l] triglycerides, <110 mmHg systolic blood pressure, and <80 mmHg diastolic blood pressure) as reference. Adjustments for age, sex, and glycemic control were examined. RESULTS--Driven mainly by strong relationships (RR range 1.8-12.1) with mortality, CAD, and overt nephropathy, suggested goal levels are as follows: LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l), HDL cholesterol >45 mg/dl (1.1 mmol/l), triglycerides <150 mg/dl (1.7 mmol/l), systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure <80 mmHG: Age, sex, and glycemic control had little influence on these goals. CONCLUSIONS--Although observational in nature, these data strongly support the case for vigorous control of lipid levels and blood pressure in patients with type 1 diabetes.     

Cholesterol guidelines, lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and triglyceride levels: potential for misclassification of coronary heart disease risk

By using National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines for serum cholesterol (less than 200 mg/dl is designated "desirable," and 200 to 239 mg/dl is designated "borderline-high," and greater than or equal to 240 mg/dl is designated "high"), low-density and high-density lipoprotein (LDL, HDL) cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels were quantitated in 897 self-referred fasting subjects to assess the potential for coronary risk misclassification. With cholesterol less than 200 mg/dl, misclassification was arbitrarily identified by an LDL level greater than or equal to the 75th percentile, a triglyceride level greater than or equal to the 90th percentile, or an HDL level less than or equal to the 10th percentile. With the cholesterol level in the 200 to 239 mg/dl range, misclassification was identified by an LDL level greater than or equal to the 75th percentile, a triglyceride level greater than or equal to the 90th percentile, and an HDL level less than or equal to the 10th percentile or greater than or equal to the 90th percentile (or both). With a cholesterol level greater than or equal to 240 mg/dl, misclassification was identified by an HDL level less than or equal to the 10th percentile, or greater than or equal to the 90th percentile. With the cholesterol level less than 200 mg/dl, misclassification is rare, occurring in 14.5% of the subjects. With the cholesterol level in the 200 to 239 mg/dl range, and greater than or equal to 240 mg/dl, misclassification occurred in 46.7% and 17.6% of the subjects, respectively. The importance of routine lipoprotein analysis when the cholesterol level is greater than or equal to 240 mg/dl is emphasized by the finding that 65% of the subjects in this category had top quartile LDL levels, 8% had bottom decile HDL levels, and 30% had top decile triglyceride levels. To avoid misclassification, fasting HDL, LDL, and triglyceride levels should probably be measured in all subjects with screening cholesterol levels greater than or equal to 200. There is remarkably little misclassification with top quartile LDL or bottom decile HDL levels (or both) when the cholesterol level is less than 200 mg/dl.     

Comparative effects of diltiazem sustained-release formulation and metoprolol on ambulatory blood pressure and plasma lipoproteins

We compared the effects of diltiazem sustained-release formulation and metoprolol on diurnal ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and plasma lipoprotein levels. Forty-nine patients with primary hypertension were included in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study, and 44 completed the trial. Both diltiazem and metoprolol significantly lowered office (p less than 0.001) and diurnal ambulatory BP (p less than 0.01). After 16 weeks of therapy with diltiazem, mean ambulatory BP decreased 10/7 mm Hg, whereas metoprolol lowered BP by 16/10 mm Hg (p less than 0.001 for systolic BP and p less than 0.01 for diastolic BP). Moreover, metoprolol seemed to induce a greater reduction in morning BP at work. Although diltiazem had no effect on lipid levels, treatment with metoprolol was associated with a significant rise in triglyceride levels (p less than 0.001 vs baseline and diltiazem), total cholesterol levels (p less than 0.05 vs baseline), atherogenic index (p less than 0.05 vs baseline and diltiazem) and very low-density lipoprotein and cholesterol levels (p less than 0.001 vs baseline and diltiazem) and a significant decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (p less than 0.01 vs baseline and p less than 0.001 vs diltiazem). These data suggest that both diltiazem and metoprolol provide adequate office BP control. The deleterious effects of metoprolol on lipid and lipoprotein levels may counterbalance its beneficial effects on reduction of ambulatory BP.     

Metabolic and antihypertensive effects of nebivolol and atenolol in normometabolic patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

This was a double-blind, randomized, two-center, active-controlled, prospective, parallel study designed to evaluate the effects of nebivolol at daily doses of 5 mg on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism and on blood pressure in comparison with atenolol at daily doses of 50 mg. Normometabolic subjects with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension were recruited for this study, which included a 4-week, single-blind placebo washout phase and a 12-week double-blind treatment phase. After 12 weeks of treatment, both drugs demonstrated a significant decrease from baseline in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) apolipoprotein A-I (HDL-apoA-I) (nebivolol, P <.02; atenolol, P <.05). A significant reduction in HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) from baseline was also observed with nebivolol (P <.05). There were no significant differences between the drugs for these parameters, and the ratio low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-to-HDL-C did not change significantly after 12 weeks of active treatment with nebivolol or atenolol. There were no significant changes in total cholesterol, HDL (2) -C, HDL (3) -C, LDL-C, very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C), total triglycerides, HDL-triglycerides (TG), LDL-TG, VLDL-TG, total apoB, LDL-B, VLDL-B (including the ratio LDL-C-to-LDL-apoB), or Lp(a) during treatment with both drugs. No significant differences in plasma apoA-I and apoC-III as well as in apoA-I-, C-III-containing lipoprotein particles (including the apoC-III ratio) were observed between the drugs, neither before nor after each active treatment. There were no significant differences between the drugs or within each treatment group in plasma glucose, insulin, or C-peptide concentrations after a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test. Mean clinic trough sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) significantly decreased from 150/98 mm Hg at baseline to 141/90 mm Hg at termination for nebivolol and from 160/99 mm Hg at baseline to 145/88 mm Hg at termination for atenolol. No significant between-treatment differences were observed for the mean clinic trough sitting SBP/DBP. Both drugs significantly increased the atrial natriuretic factor (ANF) N-terminal plasma levels, whereas no changes were observed in ANF C-terminal plasma concentrations. A significant decrease (P <. 05) in the plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone levels was observed after administration of both drugs. A significant decrease (P <.05) in plasma cortisol levels was observed only after atenolol treatment. The incidence of adverse events reported during nebivolol treatment was comparable to that observed during atenolol treatment. Heart rate was significantly reduced by both drugs. There were no significant changes in hematology, biochemistry, or urinalysis studies. Neither nebivolol nor atenolol adversely affected lipid or carbohydrate metabolism in normometabolic hypertensive patients. Both treatments demonstrated adequate and similar antihypertensive effects and were well tolerated.     

Effect of rosuvastatin monotherapy or in combination with fenofibrate or ω-3 fatty acids on lipoprotein subfraction profile in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia and metabolic syndrome

Background: Raised triglycerides (TG), decreased high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C) levels and a predominance of small dense low density lipoproteins (sdLDL) are characteristics of the metabolic syndrome (MetS). Objective: To compare the effect of high‐dose rosuvastatin monotherapy with moderate dosing combined with fenofibrate or ω‐3 fatty acids on the lipoprotein subfraction profile in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia and MetS. Methods: We previously randomised patients with low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) > 160 and TG > 200 mg/dl to rosuvastatin monotherapy 40 mg/day (R group, n = 30) or rosuvastatin 10 mg/day combined with fenofibrate 200 mg/day (RF group, n = 30) or ω‐3 fatty acids 2 g/day (Rω group, n = 30). In the present study, only patients with MetS were included (24, 23 and 24 in the R, RF and Rω groups respectively). At baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment, the lipoprotein subfraction profile was determined by polyacrylamide 3% gel electrophoresis. Results: The mean LDL size was significantly increased in all groups. This change was more prominent with RF than with other treatments in parallel with its greater hypotriglyceridemic capacity (p < 0.05 compared with R and Rω). A decrease in insulin resistance by RF was also noted. Only RF significantly raised HDL‐C levels (by 7.7%, p < 0.05) by increasing the cholesterol of small HDL particles. The cholesterol of larger HDL subclasses was significantly increased by R and Rω. Conclusions: All regimens increased mean LDL size; RF was the most effective. A differential effect of treatments was noted on the HDL subfraction profile.     

Blood pressure, plasma volume, and catecholamine levels during enalapril therapy in blacks with hypertension

The effect of enalapril, an antihypertensive inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme, on plasma catecholamine levels and plasma volume (PV) has not been well established. In a randomized, double-blind study, 29 subjects (28 blacks and one white) received one of the following dosing regimens: hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), 25 mg twice a day (group 1; n = 12); enalapril, 10 mg twice a day (group 2; n = 12); or enalapril, 10 mg twice a day, with HCTZ, 25 mg twice a day (group 3; n = 5). Dosages were doubled after 4 wk if diastolic blood pressure was greater than or equal to 90 mm Hg. After 8 wk of therapy, supine blood pressure decreased by 24.1/16.0 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) in group 1, by 10.8/4.0 mm Hg in group 2, and by 48.0/27.8 mm Hg in group 3. Mean values of supine plasma levels of norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine did not change with therapy. PV fell 7.9% in group 1, 1.3% in group 2, and 5.0% in group 3. There were no correlations between changes in PV and blood pressure, but a decrease in PV correlated with an increase in plasma norepinephrine levels in the group treated with HCTZ alone (r = -0.65) and in all 29 subjects combined (r = -0.45). Enalapril alone was not very effective in lowering blood pressure in these subjects, but the combination of enalapril with HCTZ was very effective. There was no evidence of a direct effect of enalapril on the sympathetic nervous system or on PV.     

Efficacy and tolerability of lovastatin in elderly hypercholesterolemic patients.

In a previously published multicenter study (Kannel and associates, 1990), the effects of six months' treatment with lovastatin were evaluated in patients with hypercholesterolemia. In the present report the results from the 144 elderly patients (aged 65 to 83 years) are presented and compared with those from the 343 patients aged less than 65 years. The initial dose of lovastatin was 20 mg daily and could be increased to a maximum of 80 mg/day. After one month of treatment, in both the elderly and younger patients, levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, and the total cholesterol: high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and LDL:HDL [corrected] cholesterol ratios were significantly lower and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly higher. These improvements in the lipid profile were maintained for six months in both patient groups. LDL cholesterol goals of less than 130 mg/dl in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or two CHD risk factors and less than 160 mg/dl among the other patients were achieved by 53% of the elderly patients and 40% of the younger patients at one month (P less than 0.01) and by 62% and 47% at six months (P less than 0.01). By the end of the study, the mean daily dose of lovastatin was 35.4 mg for the elderly and 38.4 mg for the younger patients. The drug was generally well tolerated by all patients. The results indicate that both elderly and younger hypercholesterolemic patients respond well to treatment with lovastatin.     

A long-term study of the effects of norethisterone on lipoprotein metabolism in menopausal women

Long-term effects of the androgenic progestogen norethisterone on lipoprotein metabolism were studied by measuring lipoprotein concentrations in 21 women during one year on treatment for the relief of climacteric symptoms. There were significant reductions in total serum triglyceride (p less than 0.01), very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol (p less than 0.01) and high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (p less than 0.001) after two months on treatment, all of which were still in evidence after one year. Low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels climbed gradually becoming significantly higher than baseline after one year on treatment (p less than 0.01). Comparison of cholesterol concentrations in HDL subfractions in the one year treated subjects with those in a control group of untreated subjects suggests that the fall in HDL cholesterol is due to reductions in both the HDL2 and HDL3 fractions. We conclude that norethisterone adversely affects the important lipoprotein risk factors for coronary heart disease.     

Lipoproteins and apolipoproteins in human pleural effusions.

We investigated the lipoproteins and apoproteins in human serum and pleural effusions of different origin: transudates, inflammatory exudates, and malignant exudates. Transudates had a low cholesterol content of 35 +/- 12 mg/dl (mean +/- SD) because of low levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol--representing 16% of serum levels--whereas inflammatory exudates (cholesterol 92 +/- 26 mg/dl) and malignant exudates (cholesterol 86 +/- 6 mg/dl) exhibited high levels of LDL, with 67% and 69% of serum levels. Apolipoprotein (apo) B level corresponded with LDL and presented with multiple split-products in sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in exudative effusions. LDL levels in effusions correlated with serum levels in exudates but did not correlate with those in transudates. In contrast, lipoprotein(a) appeared in all effusions from patients with detectable serum levels. The isoforms were similar as demonstrated by immunoblotting. Differences were found in the composition of the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) fraction: transudates had cholesterol-rich HDL when compared with serum. HDL particles of malignant exudates were poor in cholesterol, and isoelectric focusing demonstrated more sialized apolipoprotein E. A strongly abnormal HDL level with accumulation of cholesterol was found in a long-standing tuberculous effusion. In conclusion, cholesterol in acute effusions is bound to lipoproteins and derived from the blood. The difference in total cholesterol levels between transudates and exudates is based on the lack of LDL in transudates. Transudates show the lipoprotein characteristics of interstitial fluid. Alterations of lipoproteins occur in chronic inflammation and in malignancy with possible de novo synthesis of apolipoprotein E by tumor cells. Lipoprotein(a) accumulates independently from LDL in the pleural space, a finding that supports the view that the physiologic function of lipoprotein(a) is located in the interstitial space.     

Present status of serum lipid levels in Beijing professional populations and its trend of changes over 15 years--a collaborative study of seven research and clinical laboratories in Beijing

BACKGROUND: China's economy has been growing rapidly since 1980, which may have affected blood lipid levels. We carried out a study on serum lipid levels and prevalence of lipid abnormalities in Beijing professional populations in 2001-2002 and assessed the changing trends of lipid levels by comparing the results with that of a similar study in 1984-1986. METHODS: The study population included 31,068 government employees, medical and educational workers and scientific research personnel (male/female 6:4). All participants had physical examination and blood chemistry tests. Lipid parameters analyzed included total cholesterol, low- and high-density lipoprotein (LDL and HDL) cholesterol and triglyceride. RESULTS: Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations increased significantly as compared with the 1984-1986 study, but the variations of lipid levels with age and sex remained unchanged. Age-adjusted prevalence of dyslipidemia and its distribution in different sexes and age groups were statistically analyzed. Comparing the results with the data of the US in the 1990s, total cholesterol concentration was lower by 16 mg/dl in men and 18 mg/dl in women, whereas LDL cholesterol concentration was lower by 20 mg/dl in men and 15 mg/dl in women. HDL cholesterol was significantly higher than the US in both genders. CONCLUSIONS: The mean levels of total cholesterol (LDL cholesterol ) increased rapidly in the 1980s, stabilized and descended slightly in 1990s. Coronary lipid risk level in Beijing professional populations is significantly lower than in the US.     

Increased efficacy and tolerability with losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and therapy-related symptoms receiving two monotherapies

The efficacy and tolerability of losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg and enalapril 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg were compared in a double-blind, randomized trial in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled and experiencing side effects on prior therapy. Patients with moderate or severe hypertension, currently treated with at least two single-agent drugs (excluding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) above 90 mm Hg, and at least one undesirable drug-related symptom were randomized to once-daily treatment with one of the combinations for 12 weeks. Losartan/HCTZ lowered sitting DBP from the prior therapy baseline by 13.7 mm Hg and sitting systolic blood pressure 19.3 mm Hg; similar reductions occurred with enalapril/HCTZ. Trough sitting DBP was reduced to normal levels (< 90 mm Hg) in 63% of patients switched to the losartan combination and in 58% of those treated with the enalapril combination. Each combination was associated with improved tolerability compared with prior therapy, although fewer patients reported each of 24 undesirable symptoms after 12 weeks of losartan/HCTZ. The improvement from prior therapy in the occurrence of cough was significantly greater with losartan/HCTZ (P = .005). Enalapril/HCTZ, but not losartan/HCTZ, increased serum uric acid levels at week 12. In conclusion, the combination of losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg offers a beneficial therapeutic option for patients with a history of moderate to severe hypertension whose blood pressure is not adequately controlled or who exhibit side effects while on two or more single-agent antihypertensive drugs. In this population, the switch from prior antihypertensive therapies to once daily losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg improves blood pressure control and reduces side effects.     

High-density lipoproteins in cholesterosis of the gall bladder

The composition of serum high-density lipoproteins (HDL) was studied in 64 patients with polypous cholesterosis (PC). The spectrum of serum lipids in patients with PC was characterized by the lower concentrations of HDL cholesterol (42.0 +/- 2.5 mg/dl; p < 0.05) and higher concentrations of low-density lipoproteins (LDL) cholesterol (169.9 +/- 6.9 mg/dl; p < 0.01) than those in the controls. The decreased HDL cholesterol, or hypoalphacholesterolemia was associated with quantitative changes in HDL phospholipids (PL) (66.48 +/- 3.4; p < 0.01) and with changes in the composition of individual PL by lowering the proportion of lecithin (47.13 +/- 2.19 mg/dl; p < 0.01). It may be suggested that the lower amount of HDL cholesterol is caused by the decreased HDL acception of free cholesterol from the peripheral cell membranes due to the impaired complexation of PL with free cholesterol and associated the altered PL composition of the superficial monolayer of a lipoprotein particle. At the same time the physicochemical changes in Hdl superficial layer are a cause of abnormal free cholesterol esterification and the impaired plunge of esterified cholesterol into the nucleus of a HDL particle, which facilitates the conversion of HDL to LDL and may explain elevated LDL levels in cholesterosis. The findings suggest that serum lipids are involved in the development of cholesterosis.     

Regulation of the production and catabolism of plasma low density lipoproteins in hypertriglyceridemic subjects. Effect of weight loss.

In subjects with hypertriglyceridemia, plasma concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol are often normal or reduced. Perturbations that alter plasma very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) concentrations are associated with opposite changes in plasma LDL levels. To determine the mechanisms regulating plasma LDL levels, we used 131I-VLDL and 125I-LDL to measure the fractional catabolic rates (FCR), production rates (PR), and rates of interconversion of apoprotein B (apo B) in VLDL, intermediate density lipoprotein, and LDL in six hypertriglyceridemic subjects pre- and post-weight reduction. [2-3H]glycerol was used to quantitate VLDL triglyceride PR. All data are presented as mean +/- SD. Percent ideal body weight fell from 132 +/- 17.9 to 119 +/- 15.9% in the group, P less than 0.05. After weight loss, plasma VLDL triglyceride (486.0 +/- 364.1 vs. 191.3 +/- 65.4 mg/dl, P less than 0.05) and VLDL apo B (32.2 +/- 12.0 vs. 14.8 +/- 6.8 mg/dl, P less than 0.05) concentrations were reduced. VLDL triglyceride PR also fell after weight reduction (56.6 +/- 39.0 vs. 28.6 +/- 23.1 mg/kg per h, P less than 0.05), as did VLDL apo B PR (47.9 +/- 41.4 vs. 19.0 +/- 14.1 mg/kg per d, P less than 0.05). Pre-weight loss, plasma LDL cholesterol and apo B levels were low-normal or reduced (64.0 +/- 12.6 and 58.4 +/- 11.9 mg/dl, respectively) despite normal or elevated LDL apo B PR (17.4 +/- 7.2 mg/kg per d). The reduced cholesterol and apo B levels were associated with increased FCRs (0.68 +/- 0.29 d-1) and reduced cholesterol/protein ratios (1.01 +/- 0.18) in LDL. The plasma levels of LDL cholesterol and apo B rose after weight reduction (84.8 +/- 24.9, P less than 0.05; and 69.5 +/- 14.3 mg/dl, P less than 0.05, respectively, vs. base line). These increased concentrations resulted from a combination of events. First, the FCR for LDL apo B fell in five of six subjects with a significant reduction for the group as a whole (0.48 +/- 0.11 d-1, P less than 0.05 vs. base line). Second, the cholesterol/protein ratio increased in all six subjects with a significantly greater mean after weight loss (1.25 +/- 0.27, P less than 0.05 vs. base line). In contrast, the LDL apo B PR fell or was essentially unchanged in the six subjects after weight loss (mean, 14.4 +/- 2.8 mg/kg per d; NS vs. pre-weight loss). The changes in LDL catabolism and composition were associated with changes in the source of LDL apo B. Pre-weight loss, 73.3% of LDL was derived from VLDL, while 26.7% was directly secreted into plasma. Post-weight reduction, VLDL-derived LDL fell to 46.8% of total, while direct secretion accounted for 53.2% of LDL production. These changes were significant; P < 0.95. Thus, all subjects had direct secretion of LDL apo B and the magnitude of this source of VLDL triglyceride secretion. These results indicate that the regulation of plasma LDL levels in hypertriglyceridemic subjects is quite complex and that the rise in LDL levels after weight loss results from reduction in the fractional catabolism of this lipoprotein. The fall in the FCR is associated with changes in the source of LDL and in its composition.     

Low-dose combination treatment for hypertension versus single-drug treatment-bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide versus amlodipine, enalapril, and placebo: combined analysis of comparative studies

To assess the efficacy and safety of 2.5, 5, and 10 mg bisoprolol/6. 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), 2.5, 5, and 10 mg amlodipine; and 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg enalapril in subjects (n = 541) with a sitting diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 114 mm Hg, data from two comparative studies were pooled. All drugs were titrated to a diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or less. Both studies were double-blind, randomized, parallel dose escalation trials with similar designs and included three active treatments. The second study also had a placebo group. The mean change from baseline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure for placebo (n = 79) was -0. 1/-2.2 mm Hg; amlodipine (n = 154), -12.4/-10.3 mm Hg; enalapril (n = 155), -9.4/-8.2 mm Hg; and bisoprolol/HCTZ (n = 155), -14.0/-12.0. Overall efficacy analyses documented a statistically significant decrease in sitting diastolic blood pressure for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ compared with placebo, amlodipine, and enalapril. There was a significant reduction in sitting systolic blood pressure for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ compared with placebo and enalapril but not amlodipine. Also, there was a significant decrease in sitting heart rate for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ (-6.2 beats/min) compared with placebo (+0.1 beats/min), amlodipine (+1.2 beats/min), and enalapril (+0.5 beats/min). The control rate (diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ (66.5%) was significantly better than for placebo (21.8%) and enalapril (47.1%) but not amlodipine (58.4%). Of those patients achieving and maintaining control, 49% of the bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ subjects were on the lowest two doses compared with 30% of the amlodipine and 26% of the enalapril subjects. Percentages of patients reporting at least one drug-related adverse event through week 12 were 27%, 24%, 28%, and 25% for placebo, bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ, amlodipine, and enalapril (not significant). Lower doses of two drugs in fixed combination can provide as good or better blood pressure control compared with higher doses of a single drug with similar tolerability and safety.     

Efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide compared with amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients with other cardiovascular risk factors: the VAST study

BACKGROUND: Recent antihypertensive treatment guidelines recommend greater use of combination therapies. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether combination therapy with valsartan 160 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg OD would be more effective than monotherapy with amlodipine 10 mg OD in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with moderate (stage II) hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition. A secondary objective was to assess the effects of the study treatments on circulating markers of endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week study. After a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 3 groups, 2 of them receiving valsartan 160 mg OD and 1 receiving amlodipine 5 mg OD. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg OD was added to valsartan in one of the treatment groups (V+HCTZ12.5), HCTZ 25 mg OD was added to the other (V+HCTZ25), and the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg OD (A10). The primary efficacy variable was change in mean sitting SBP at week 24. Other variables were changes in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean pulse pressure (PP) from baseline, and response rate (systolic response defined as mean sitting SBP <140 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting SBP of > or =20 mm Hg from baseline; diastolic response defined as mean sitting DBP <90 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting DBP of > or =10 mm Hg from baseline). Changes in the following markers of endothelial dysfunction were determined at baseline and weeks 4, 12, and 24 in all randomized patients from the participating European and South African centers: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), vascular tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) antigen, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL). RESULTS: The study enrolled 1088 patients with moderate hypertension (mean age, 61 years; 82% white; 53% women). The intent-to-treat population consisted of 1079 patients: 357 in the V+HCTZ12.5 group, 363 in the V+HCTZ25 group, and 359 in the A10 group. At baseline, the groups were comparable in terms of blood pressure and most other characteristics; the only statistically significant difference between groups was in the proportion of patients aged > or =65 years, which was lower in the amlodipine group (P = 0.01). At the end of the study, the least squares mean (SD) changes from baseline in mean sitting SBP were 27.1 (13.7), 29.7 (13.7), and 27.6 (13.8) mm Hg in the V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10 groups, respectively, with corresponding percent changes of 16%, 18%, and 17% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). The changes in mean sitting DBP did not differ significantly between groups. The reductions in PP were 17.5 (11.3), 18.7 (11.3), and 16.9 (11.3) mm Hg, with percent changes of 24%, 26%, and 23% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). Significant reductions in t-PA antigen were observed in both combination-therapy groups compared with the amlodipine monotherapy group at week 12 (P < 0.05); the reductions remained significant through the end of the study in the V+HCTZ12.5 group. There was a significant reduction in IL-6 and hs-CRP at week 12 with V+HCTZ25 compared with A10 (P < 0.05). Oxidized LDL values were reduced by approximately 10% with all treatments. Rates of total adverse events were significantly lower with the valsartan-based treatments compared with amlodipine monotherapy (49.7%, 49.6%, and 67.5% with V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10, respectively; P < 0.05). Rates of total discontinuations were a respective 10.1%, 9.0%, and 24.5%, and discontinuation rates due to AEs were 4.2%, 3.5%, and 18.2%. Leg edema was more common with amlodipine monotherapy than with the valsartan-based combinations (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this group of patients with moderate hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition, similar and greater antihypertensive effects were seen with the fixed-dose combinations of valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 12.5 and 25 mg OD, respectively, compared with amlodipine 10 mg OD, with significantly lower rates of treatment-related adverse events and possible beneficial effects on vascular markers.     

Beneficial effects of pinacidil on blood lipids: comparisons with prazosin and placebo in patients with hypertension. Pinacidil-Prazosin and Pinacidil-Placebo Research Groups, Lilly Research Laboratories

In two randomized, double-blind clinical trials comparing pinacidil with prazosin and with placebo in patients with hypertension, a number of statistically significant and potentially beneficial effects on blood lipids were detected in the patients taking pinacidil. Patients treated with pinacidil exhibited significant average decrements from baseline in concentrations of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides and a significant average increment in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The mean effects seen in the pinacidil group were significantly greater than those in the placebo group for both total cholesterol (-9.8 vs +4.2 mg/dl, p less than 0.001) and triglycerides (-21.6 vs +8.6 mg/dl, p less than 0.001). The effects seen in patients given pinacidil were also significantly greater than those seen in the patients treated with prazosin for both high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (+3.6 vs -1.0 mg/dl, p = 0.002) and triglycerides (-14.8 vs +30.3 mg/dl, p less than 0.001). Negative effects of hydrochlorothiazide and propranolol on blood lipids were not apparent in patients given pinacidil. Thus, pinacidil treatment of hypertension is associated with a beneficial effect on blood lipids, which may be of clinical significance.     

Circulating electronegatively charged low-density lipoprotein in patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease

There is growing experimental evidence to suggest the role of oxidatively modified low-density lipoprotein (LDL) in the initiation and progression of atherosclerosis. The oxidation of lipoprotein moiety causes modification of positively charged lysine residues and results in negative net charge of lipoprotein particles. OBJECTIVE: To measure the amount of circulating electronegatively charged LDL particles (LDL-) in plasma of patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Thirty patients were assigned to the study group (CAD+) and 10 patients to the control group (Ctrl). LDL- was quantitated in homogeneous LDL fractions obtained by ultracentrifugation, using ion exchange high performance liquid chromatography. Plasma lipids were measured using enzymatic kits. RESULTS: The CAD+ group had significantly higher levels of LDL- in the whole LDL fraction (7.66+/-1.92 vs. 5.14+/-0.84%, p=0.0003). Moreover the CAD+ group had significantly higher levels of total cholesterol (255.4+/-35.1 vs. 210.4+/-22.4 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol (154.5+/-26.9 vs. 122.4+/-21.1 mg/dL) and significantly lower levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (40.4+/-9.4 vs. 51.0+/-11.5 mg/dL). LDL- remained significantly higher in the CAD+ group after adjustment for total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol (6.3 vs. 5.14% at p=0.0095). There is a trend towards a positive correlation between LDL- levels and LDL cholesterol in the control group (Spearman R=0.55 at p=0.098). CONCLUSIONS: Electronegatively charged LDL appears to be an additional hallmark of coronary artery disease, independently of established lipid risk factors. The trend towards a positive correlation between LDL cholesterol concentration and the level of LDL- in the control group may reflect the susceptibility of LDL cholesterol to autoxidation, Moreover, this may indicate other oxidative mechanisms in coronary artery disease. Nonetheless, further studies assessing the prognostic value of electronegatively charged LDLs are necessary.     

Time course of serum amyloid A response in myocardial infarction

Plasma concentrations of serum amyloid A (SAA), high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoproteins (Apo) A-I and B were measured daily for 6 days in 10 patients following myocardial infarction (MI) and in 10 secular controls admitted to a coronary care unit. SAA concentrations peaked 3 days following MI (mean 47 mg/dl) and correlated with creatine kinase (CK) (r = 0.67, P less than 0.001). Non-HDL cholesterol and Apo B fell 15 and 18%, respectively, reached nadirs 3-4 days after MI and were inversely related to CK concentrations (P less than 0.01 for both). HDL cholesterol levels, in contrast, increased 15% and were significantly higher than baseline by day 3 when SAA concentrations were maximum. HDL cholesterol subsequently fell in parallel with SAA and had returned to baseline by day 6. Apo A-I declined throughout the 6 days of observation and was 13% lower than initial values on day 6 (P less than 0.05). The Apo A-I reduction was inversely related to both CK and SAA concentrations. There were no significant changes in any of the analytes in control subjects. We conclude that Apo A-I and possibly Apo B containing lipoproteins are negative acute phase reactants. HDL cholesterol is transiently elevated after MI despite decreasing Apo A-I levels and this may relate to incorporation of SAA into HDL particles.     

Telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide versus telmisartan or hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent surveys reveal continuing deficiencies in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension. In many cases, failure to achieve blood pressure targets may be attributable to the use of antihypertensive monotherapy. OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to identify combinations of telmisartan, a new oral angiotensin II type 1-receptor antagonist, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) that might provide greater antihypertensive efficacy than monotherapy with either agent in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. It also examined the dose-response surface for the 2 drugs alone and in combination. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that employed all cells of a 4 x 5 factorial design. After a 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, men and women between 18 and 80 years of age with mild to moderate hypertension (defined as mean supine diastolic blood pressure [DBP] between 95 and 114 mm Hg during the last 2 weeks of the placebo run-in period and systolic blood pressure [SBP] between 114 and 200 mm Hg immediately before randomization) were eligible to enter the 8-week, double-blind, double-dummy treatment period. Study comparisons were between once-daily telmisartan monotherapy (20, 40, 80, or 160 mg), HCTZ monotherapy (6.25, 12.5, or 25 mg), 12 combinations of these telmisartan/HCTZ doses, and placebo. The focus was on 2 combinations: telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg. The primary efficacy variable was change in supine trough DBP from baseline to the last evaluable measurement during double-blind treatment. Plasma renin activity and safety parameters, including treatment-emergent adverse events, physical findings, electrocardiograms, and serum electrolyte levels (which are known to increase with HCTZ treatment), were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1293 patients screened, 818 (63.3%) were enrolled at 47 centers. Of these 818, 749 (91.6%) completed the study. The intent-to-treat population (randomized with > or = 1 postrandomization blood pressure measurement) consisted of 807 patients (98.7%). Telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg significantly decreased mean supine trough SBP/DBP by 23.9/14.9 mm Hg, a benefit of 8.5/3.4 mm Hg compared with telmisartan 80 mg and of 17.0/7.6 mm Hg compared with HCTZ 12.5 mg (both comparisons, P < 0.01). Telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg significantly reduced mean supine SBP by 18.8 mm Hg, a benefit of 6.6 mm Hg compared with telmisartan 40 mg and 11.9 mm Hg compared with HCTZ 12.5 mg (both, P < 0.01). This same combination significantly reduced mean supine DBP by 12.6 mm Hg, a benefit of 5.3 mm Hg compared with HCTZ 12.5 mg (P < 0.01), but was not significantly different from telmisartan 40 mg. Telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg in reducing mean supine DBP and SBP (both, P < 0.05). The response surface and responder analyses confirmed the additive antihypertensive efficacy of the combination of telmisartan and HCTZ. All regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg was effective and well tolerated when used to reduce SBP and DBP in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In addition to enhancing efficacy, this combination protected against potassium depletion, a common side effect of thiazide monotherapy.