Aggressive antihypertensive strategies based on hydrochlorothiazide, candesartan or lisinopril decrease left ventricular mass and improve arterial compliance in patients with type II diabetes mellitus and hypertension

We investigated the effects of aggressive antihypertensive therapy based on hydrochlorothiazide, candesartan or lisinopril on left ventricular mass (LVM) index and arterial stiffness in hypertensive type II diabetic individuals. Seventy hypertensive type II diabetic individuals were treated with three antihypertensive strategies in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy design. Blood pressure was titrated to levels below 130/85 mm Hg or a decrease in systolic pressure of 10% with a diastolic pressure below 85 mm Hg. After titration, patients were treated for 12 months. Mean blood pressures were 157/93, 151/94 and 149/93 mm Hg at baseline in the hydrochlorothiazide (n = 24), candesartan (n = 24) and lisinopril (n = 22) groups, and 135/80, 135/82 and 131/80 mm Hg after titration. About 70% reached target blood pressures, with the median use of three antihypertensive drugs. Left ventricular mass index and all estimates of arterial stiffness showed significant improvement after 12 months: that is, LVM index (-11 g/m(2); -8%); carotid distensibility coefficient (DC; +2.8 x 10(-3) kPa(-1); +27%), compliance coefficient (CC; +0.13 mm2/kPa; +21%) and elastic modulus (-0.19 kPa; -16%); femoral DC (+1.6 x 10(-3) kPa(-1); +50%) and CC (+0.08 mm2/kPa; +26%); brachial DC (+2.1 x 10(-3) kPa(-1); +39%) and CC (+0.03 mm2/kPa; +27%) and total systemic arterial compliance (+0.29 ml/mm Hg; +16%). No differences in outcome variables between treatment groups were observed. Aggressive antihypertensive treatment, although difficult to achieve, resulted in substantial reductions of LVM index and arterial stiffness in relatively uncomplicated hypertensive type II diabetic individuals. Strategies based on renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were not clearly superior to conventional (i.e. diuretic-based) strategies.     

Effect of combination therapy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor plus calcium channel blocker on urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive microalbuminuric patients with type II diabetes.

It has been demonstrated that antihypertensive treatment of hypertensive diabetic patients is quite effective in preventing macrovascular and microvascular complications and improving prognosis. Nevertheless, the target blood pressure level of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuria (i.e., with early diabetic nephropathy) remains to be established. In this study, we evaluated the effect of intensive blood pressure control (diastolic blood pressure <80 mmHg) on urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive, type II diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. We examined the effects of a combination therapy using an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor plus a long-acting calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), and compared them with the effect of an ACE inhibitor alone. Thirty hypertensive, type II diabetic patients with microalbuminuria were treated with either an ACE inhibitor alone (group I, n=17) or an ACE inhibitor plus amlodipine (group II, n=13) for 32 weeks. With treatment, blood pressures in both groups were significantly reduced, and diastolic blood pressure was lowered to a much greater extent in group II (76 +/- 2 mmHg) than in group I (83 +/- 2 mmHg, p < 0.05). Although the urinary albumin excretion rate was decreased in both groups, the decrease attained statistical significance only in group II (from 141 +/- 25 mg/day to 69 +/- 18 mg/day, p < 0.05); the extent of reduction in microalbuminuria during antihypertensive treatment was significantly greater in group II (50 +/- 10%) than in group I (14 +/- 13%, p < 0.05). In conclusion, this study showed that in hypertensive microalbuminuric type II diabetic patients, the combination of an ACE inhibitor plus amlodipine resulted in a more pronounced decreased in blood pressure (diastolic blood pressure <80 mmHg) and a greater reduction in urinary albumin excretion than did use of an ACE inhibitor alone. This combination strategy should thus be a more effective tool for obtaining optimal blood pressure control in patients with diabetic nephropathy.     

Comparison of the AT1-receptor blocker, candesartan cilexetil, and the ACE inhibitor, lisinopril, in fixed combination with low dose hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients

AIM: To compare candesartan cilexetil and lisinopril in fixed combination with hydrochlorothiazide with respect to antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability. METHODS: This was a double-blind (double-dummy), randomised, parallel group comparison in patients with a mean sitting diastolic blood pressure 95-115 mm Hg on prior antihypertensive monotherapy. Treatments were candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide 8/12.5 mg once daily (n = 237) and lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide 10/12.5 mg once daily (n = 116) for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was change in trough sitting diastolic blood pressure. RESULTS: Changes in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure did not differ significantly between the groups (mean difference 0.5 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval -1.6, 2.7, P = 0.20). No significant differences between the groups was found for other haemodynamic variables (sitting systolic blood pressure, standing blood pressure, sitting/erect heart rate, and proportion of responders and controlled patients). Both drugs were well tolerated but the proportion of patients with at least one adverse event was significantly greater in the lisinopril group (80% vs 69%, P = 0.020). The proportion of patients spontaneously reporting cough (23.1% vs 4.6%) and discontinuing therapy due to adverse events (12.0% vs 5.9%) was also higher in the lisinopril group compared with the candesartan cilexetil group. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed combinations of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide 8/12.5 mg and lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide 10/12.5 mg once daily are equally effective as antihypertensive agents. The fixed combination containing candesartan cilexetil is better tolerated than that containing lisinopril.     

Effects of candesartan and lisinopril on the fibrinolytic system in hypertensive patients

The effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan and the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril on the fibrinolytic system were investigated in a double-blinded, prospective, randomized study. Seventy-seven hypertensive patients taking candesartan (n=41) and lisinopril (n=36) with a systolic blood pressure >130 mm Hg and/or a diastolic blood pressure >80 mm Hg obtained by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement were included in the study. Blood pressure, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and the molar ratio of PAI-1/tPA were determined before treatment and 6 weeks later. Blood pressure decreased in both groups (candesartan, 155/85 mm Hg to 140/84 mm Hg; P<.05; lisinopril, 152/85 mm Hg to 138/83 mm Hg; P<.05). The fibrinolytic balance was significantly different between treatment groups (molar ratio of PAI-1/tPA: candesartan, 3.66 [2.2;] lisinopril, 5.44 [2.6;] P<.05). In contrast to lisinopril, the balance between coagulation and fibrinolytic activity shifted toward fibrinolysis during candesartan treatment.     

Effect of telmisartan on blood pressure control and kidney function in hypertensive, proteinuric patients with chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVES: To assess the antihypertensive and antiproteinuric efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker telmisartan in patients with hypertension and chronic kidney disease. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective trial was performed in adults with hypertension [systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >130/85 mmHg), chronic renal insufficiency (serum creatinine <4.0 mg/dl), and proteinuria (>1 g/24 h). In addition to existing antihypertensive therapy, the nature and doses of which remained unchanged throughout the study, patients received once-daily telmisartan 40 mg for the first 3 months followed by forced titration to telmisartan 80 mg for the subsequent 3 months to achieve a target SBP/DBP of <130/85 mmHg. The rationale for using telmisartan was its long half-life efficacy, greater antihypertensive effect compared with valsartan or losartan, and newly discovered potential antidiabetic effect. RESULTS: The study was conducted in 92 patients (45 men, 47 women), of whom 60 had diabetes mellitus (54 patients with type 2 disease). Five patients discontinued prematurely: two because of hyperkalemia, two because of protocol violation, and one because of lack of efficacy. After 6 months' telmisartan treatment, office trough seated SBP was reduced by 19.6 mmHg (P<0.001) from 154.9+/-14.6 mmHg and DBP by 11.8 mmHg (P<0.001) from 91.7+/-8.1 mmHg. Seated trough SBP/DBP of <130/85 mmHg was achieved at 6 months in 34.8% of patients. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring also demonstrated significant reductions in mean daytime SBP of 10.9 mmHg (P=0.01), night-time SBP of 12.1 mmHg (P=0.05), daytime DBP of 3.1 mmHg (P=0.05), and night-time DBP of 6.5 mmHg (P=0.05). Proteinuria decreased significantly from 3.6+/-3.4 to 2.8+/-2.8 g/24 h (P=0.01). A decrease in proteinuria depended significantly on a decrease in SBP at the end of the study (P=0.044). Each decrease in SBP of about 10 mmHg led to a decrease in proteinuria of about 0.79 g/24 h (95% CI 0.02-1.56 g/24 h). Serum creatinine increased from 1.96+/-0.79 to 2.08+/-0.89 mg/dl (P=0.01), whereas creatinine clearance did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan effectively and safely reduced blood pressure and brought about regression of proteinuria in diabetic and nondiabetic, hypertensive, proteinuric patients with chronic kidney disease, even in those with mild-to-moderate chronic renal failure.     

Pulse pressure lowering effect of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril vs. high-dose ACE inhibition in hypertensive type 2 diabetic subjects: a CALM II study post-hoc analysis

BACKGROUND: Elevated pulse pressure (PP) is strongly associated with micro- and macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetic patients. We examined the effect of 12 months of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril vs. high-dose lisinopril monotherapy on ambulatory PP in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients from the CALM (Candesartan and Lisinopril Microalbuminuria Trial) II study. METHODS: The CALM II study was a 12-month prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-masked study that included 75 type 1 and type 2 diabetic subjects with hypertension. Participants were randomized for treatment with either high-dose lisinopril (40 mg once daily (o.d.)) or for dual blockade treatment with candesartan (16 mg o.d.) and lisinopril (20 mg o.d.). In this article, we present data from the post-hoc subgroup of 51 type 2 diabetic subjects who completed the full 12-month study period with successful ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements at both baseline and follow-up visits. RESULTS: Baseline 24-h BP values were similar in the two groups (24-h systolic BP (SBP) 130 +/- 12 vs. 127 +/- 9, 24-h diastolic BP (DBP) 77 +/- 8 vs. 74 +/- 7, and 24-h PP 53 +/- 8 vs. 53 +/- 7 mm Hg, for the lisinopril and dual blockade groups, respectively, P > 0.2 for all). Compared with lisinopril monotherapy, dual blockade treatment caused a highly significant reduction in 24-h PP levels (-5 +/- 5 mm Hg, P = 0.003), albeit the difference in the BP lowering effect between the treatment groups did not differ significantly for 24-h systolic (P = 0.21) or diastolic (P = 0.49) BP. Dual blockade treatment significantly lowered 24-h SBP (-5 +/- 11 mm Hg, P = 0.03), but not 24-h DBP (-2 +/- 7 mm Hg, P = 0.29), whereas in the lisinopril group, the opposite effect was observed (24-h SBP -1 +/- 9 mm Hg, P = 0.45, 24-h SBP -3 +/- 7 mm Hg, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril significantly reduced PP when compared with high-dose monotherapy with lisinopril. Larger studies are needed to confirm this observation, and to evaluate whether this effect translates into a greater degree of end-organ protection from dual blockade treatment than from conventional angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition.     

Beneficial effect of lisinopril plus telmisartan in patients with type 2 diabetes, microalbuminuria and hypertension

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have favourable effects on hypertension and diabetic nephropathy, but persistent use may result in incomplete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system. Long-term effects of dual blockade using the ACE inhibitor lisinopril and the long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) telmisartan on blood pressure and albumin excretion rate (AER) were evaluated. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] >or=140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >or=90 mmHg) and microalbuminuria (AER 30-300 mg/24h) received 20mg of lisinopril or 80 mg of telmisartan once a day for 24 weeks. Patients were then randomised to continuing treatment with the respective monotherapy or with lisinopril plus telmisartan for a further 28 weeks. Significant (P<0.001) declines in SBP (11.1 mmHg versus 10.0 mmHg), DBP (5.6 mmHg versus 5.3 mmHg) and AER (98 mg/24 h versus 80 mg/24 h) were achieved with lisinopril (n=95) or telmisartan (n=97), respectively, after 24 weeks. Subsequent treatment with lisinopril plus telmisartan for 28 weeks resulted in further significant reductions (P<0.001) in SBP, DBP and AER compared with either monotherapy. All treatments were well tolerated. Lisinopril plus telmisartan thus provides superior blood pressure and AER control than either monotherapy. We conclude that use of dual blockade may provide a new approach to prevention of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension and microalbuminuria.     

Is renoprotection by angiotensin receptor blocker dependent on blood pressure?: the Saitama Medical School, Albuminuria Reduction in Diabetics with Valsartan (STAR) study.

To explore the effects of various antihypertensive regimes on microalbuminuria, an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), valsartan, was substituted for or added to treatment with a calcium channel blocker (CCB). After a 6-month CCB baseline period, 28 Japanese hypertensive patients with incipient diabetic nephropathy (defined as a urinary albumin excretion [UAE] of 30-300 mg/g creatinine), were assigned to two groups according to their blood pressure (BP) levels: in patients with a BP of more than 130/85 mmHg (n=17), valsartan was added to the CCB (Group A), while in patients with a BP <130/85 mmHg, valsartan alone was given (Group B: n=11) for 12 months. UAE was determined before and at 3, 6 and 12 months after the initiation of ARB. Although the initial BP was significantly higher in Group A (150/83 mmHg) than Group B (127/77 mmHg), BP was decreased to 141/78 mmHg in Group A and slightly, but not significantly, increased to 130/82 mmHg in Group B. In both groups, UAE was significantly decreased after ARB treatment (to 89% of the basal value in Group A and to 40.5% of the basal value in Group B) and did not differ each other and the amount of decrease did not differ significantly between the two groups. These results suggest that combination therapy with an ARB and CCB is very effective in lowering BP and UAE in cases in which BP is not well controlled, while, even in patients with a sufficient BP control of <130/85 mmHg, the use of ARB singly resulted in a significant decrease in UAE without a further decrease in BP, implying that the ARB had a renoprotective action independent of changes in BP.     

Addition of manidipine improves the antiproteinuric effect of candesartan in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes and microalbuminuria

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare the effect of manidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in addition to candesartan on the urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER) in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes and microalbuminuria. METHODS: After a 2-week washout and run-in period, and 8-week monotherapy with candesartan 16 mg every day, 174 microalbuminuric diabetic hypertensive patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) (>130/80 mm Hg) were randomized to addition of manidipine 10 mg every day (n = 87) or HCTZ 12.5 mg every day (n = 87) for 24 weeks, with a titration after 4 weeks (manidipine or HCTZ dose-doubling) in nonresponder patients. Blood pressure, UAER, creatinine clearance, serum electrolytes, fasting plasma glycemia, and glycosylated hemoglobin were evaluated at baseline (end of run-in period), after candesartan monotherapy, and at the end of the combination treatment period. RESULTS: Both combinations produced greater systolic BP/diastolic BP reduction than candesartan monotherapy (-28/21 mm Hg versus -16/11 mm Hg and -28/20 mm Hg versus -15/11 mm Hg, respectively; all P < .05 versus monotherapy), with no significant difference between the two combinations. The addition of manidipine produced a greater reduction in UAER than candesartan monotherapy (-55.4 mg/24 h v -36.1 mg/24 h, P < .05), whereas the addition of HCTZ did not significantly modify UAER; the difference between the two combinations was statistically significant (P < .05). Similarly, the percentage of patients moving to a normoalbuminuric state (UAER <30 mg/24 h) was increased by the addition of manidipine to candesartan (from 35% to 64%, P < .05), but not by the addition of HCTZ (from 34% to 39%, NS), with a statistical difference between the two combinations (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that, despite equivalent reduction in BP, the addition of manidipine to candesartan further reduced the UAER, whereas the addition of HCTZ did not modify the UAER. This suggests that the antiproteinuric effect of manidipine is partially independent of BP reduction, and is attributable to mechanisms different from those mediated by angiotensin receptor blockade.     

Blood pressure control in Japanese hypertensives with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension are thought to be at high risk for cardiovascular diseases. Recent guidelines for treatment of hypertension such as the JNC VI and WHO/ISH guidelines, recommend that antihypertensive agents be strated at as low as at 130/85 mmHg and that blood pressure be lowered to less than 130/85 mmHg. Our study was designed to clarify how well and to what extent blood pressure (BP) was controlled in Japanese hypertensive patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus. We interviewed two hundred physicians, randomly sellected from among the members of the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) (n=98) and the Japanese Diabetes Society (JDS) (n=102) and obtained information regarding five most recent cases of hypertension with (n=954 in total) and their 2 most recent cases of hypertension without diabetes (n=371 in total). The achieved BP was below 140/90 mmHg in 40.5% of non-diabetic and 38.3% of diabetic hypertensives. The percentage of patients whose BP was less than 130/85 mmHg was 10.8% in nondiabetics and 11.4% in diabetics. The average number of hypotensive agents used was 1.46 in nondiabetics and 1.52 in diabetics. Physicians prescribed more ACE inhibitors and alpha-blockers in diabetics than in nondiabetics, although Ca-antagonists were administered in more than 70% of patients irrespective of whether or not they had diabetes. In contrast, fewer beta-blockers and diuretics were administered to diabetics. These results suggest that although Japanese physicians are considering the effects of hypotensive agents on metabolism and renal function when they treat diabetic hypertensives, the achieved blood pressure in both hypertensives with and those without diabetes is insufficient, with only one of ten patients having a blood pressure less than 130/85 mmHg even among diabetics. Improved blood pressure control will therefore be needed to treat high risk groups such as patients with diabetes mellitus.     

Masked hypertension in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Relationship with left-ventricular structure and function

BACKGROUND: To evaluate in type 2 diabetes mellitus the relationship between masked hypertension (MH) and left ventricular (LV) morpho-functional characteristics. METHODS: Using 24-hour BP monitoring and echocardiography, we evaluated 71 type 2 diabetic patients, without overt cardiac disease and never treated with antihypertensive drugs: 45 normotensive subjects with clinic BP <130/85 mmHg and 26 sustained hypertensives (SH)(clinic BP > or = 140 and/or 90 mmHg and 24-hour BP > or =125 and/or 80 mmHg), matched for age, gender, BMI and duration of diabetes with clinically normotensive patients. MH was diagnosed with clinic BP <130/85 mmHg and 24-hour BP > or =125 and/or 80 mmHg. RESULTS: Among clinically normotensive patients, 21 (47%) had MH and 24 were true normotensive (NT, 24-hour BP <125/80 mmHg). LV mass increased from NT to MH to SH (p < 0.001); the parameters of LV diastolic function were similar between MH and SH and significantly lower than in NT. CONCLUSION: In type 2 diabetic patients with clinic BP <130/85 mmHg, MH is frequent and is associated with LV remodelling characterized by increased myocardial mass and preclinical impairment of LV diastolic function; the remodelling is qualitatively and for some aspects also quantitatively similar to that found in sustained hypertensive patients. Therefore it would be useful to look for MH in diabetic subjects with clinic BP <130/85 mmHg, who, following the guidelines, are not entitled to antihypertensive treatment: the finding of MH could identify a subgroup of patients at higher cardiovascular risk and therefore needing a prompt antihypertensive treatment.     

Metabolic outcome during 1 year in newly detected hypertensives: results of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation (ALPINE study)

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation study was to compare the long-term effect of the commonly used inexpensive medication with a low-dose diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), alone or in combination with a beta-adrenoceptor (atenolol), with that of more modern but also more expensive antihypertensive treatment with an angiotensin-II-receptor blocker (candesartan), alone or in combination with a calcium antagonist (felodipine), and to do so in newly diagnosed patients with primary hypertension. The objectives included comparisons of the effects on the glucose metabolism, lipoprotein metabolism, electrolytes, blood pressure, and subjective symptoms. DESIGN: A 1-year, prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. SUBJECTS: In an investigator-initiated study, we included 392 patients (mean age 55 years, 48% men); 370 patients (94%) had never been treated with antihypertensive drugs before the study. No patient was lost to follow-up. RESULTS: Both treatment regimens lowered blood pressure well (23/13 mmHg in the hydrochlorothiazide group and 21/13 mmHg in the candesartan group), with a majority of patients needing two drugs. Fasting levels of both serum insulin and plasma glucose increased in the hydrochlorothiazide group in contrast to unaffected levels in the candesartan group. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in nine patients during follow-up, in eight patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1%) and in one patient (0.5%) in the candesartan group (P = 0.030). Triglycerides increased and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol decreased more in the hydrochlorothiazide group than in the candesartan group. Both the low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein and the apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A-I ratios increased in the hydrochlorothiazide group. At 12 months, 18 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group versus five in the candesartan group had a 'metabolic syndrome', as defined by the World Health Organization (P = 0.007) despite 1 year of active blood pressure-lowering therapy. There were less (P = 0.020) adverse events in the candesartan group, but no major differences in the subjective symptoms assessment profile. One subject in each group had a myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: Antihypertensive treatment with a diuretic, if needed combined with a beta-adrenoceptor blocker, was associated with an aggravated metabolic profile; this was not so for patients treated with an angiotensin-II-receptor blocker, if needed combined with a calcium antagonist. An antihypertensive treatment strategy that costs more in the short run but has no metabolic adverse effects may have a health economic impact in the long term.     

A comparison of indapamide SR 1.5 mg with both amlodipine 5 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in elderly hypertensive patients: a randomized double-blind controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the efficacy of indapamide sustained-release (SR) 1.5 mg in reducing blood pressure versus amlodipine 5 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, in elderly hypertensive patients. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, 12 week study using three parallel groups. SETTING: European teaching hospitals and general practices. PATIENTS: Randomized patients, (n = 524) including 128 patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH); mean age: 72.4 years; mean systolic/diastolic blood pressures (SBP/DBP): 174.5/97.9 mmHg. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressure variations. RESULTS: Indapamide SR 1.5 mg demonstrates a similar efficacy to that of amlodipine 5 mg, as well as to that of hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (equivalence P < 0.001); the mean decreases in SBP/DBP were -22.7/-11.8 mmHg, -22.2/-10.7 mmHg and -19.4/-10.8 mmHg, respectively. In the ISH subgroup, indapamide SR 1.5 mg tends to have greater efficacy than hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in reducing the SBP (-24.7 versus -18.5 mmHg, respectively; equivalence P = 0.117), while similar results are obtained with amlodipine 5 mg (-23 mmHg, equivalence P < 0.001). The normalization rate was relatively high for indapamide SR 1.5 mg (75.3%), when compared with amlodipine (66.9%) and hydrochlorothiazide (67.3%), especially in the subgroup of isolated systolic hypertensive patients: 84.2 versus 80.0% for amlodipine, and versus 71.4% for hydrochlorothiazide. CONCLUSIONS: Indapamide SR 1.5 mg shows similar antihypertensive efficacy to amlodipine 5 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in elderly hypertensive patients, while in patients with isolated systolic hypertension, indapamide SR 1.5 mg shows a similar efficacy to amlodipine 5 mg but a greater efficacy than hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg.     

Efficacy and safety of lercanidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide as add-on to enalapril in diabetic populations with uncontrolled hypertension

OBJECTIVE: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors plus dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers or low-dose thiazide diuretics are considered first-line therapies in hypertensive diabetic patients as glucose metabolism is not relevantly affected. Most diabetic patients require at least two different drug classes to achieve the recommended target blood pressure of 130/85 mmHg. This controlled clinical trial investigated the calcium channel blocker lercanidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) as add-on in diabetic patients with uncontrolled hypertension on enalapril monotherapy. METHODS: Overall, 174 patients (18-80 years old, well-controlled diabetes type 1 or 2, mild to moderate hypertension) were included in a 2-week placebo run-in followed by 4 weeks on enalapril 20 mg. Subsequently, 135 non-responders (90 mmHg < or = mean sitting diastolic blood pressure < or = 109 mmHg) were randomized to 20 weeks of double-blind add-on therapy to enalapril with either lercanidipine 10 mg (n = 69) or HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 66). The primary study objective was to prove non-inferiority of lercanidipine add-on versus HCTZ add-on in reducing sitting diastolic blood pressure; response rates and tolerability data were also observed. RESULTS: Both add-on treatments clearly decreased diastolic blood pressure to a greater extent than enalapril monotherapy (mean +/- SD changes at study end: lercanidipine, -9.3 mmHg; HCTZ, -7.4 mmHg); non-inferiority of lercanidipine versus HCTZ was formally proven. Blood pressure response rates reached 69.6% on enalapril plus lercanidipine as compared with 53.6% on enalapril plus HCTZ (difference between treatments, P > 0.05). Blood pressure of 130/85 mmHg or less was achieved in 30.4% of patients on lercanidipine add-on and in 23.2% of those randomized to HCTZ add-on (P > 0.05). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Lercanidipine add-on showed comparable efficacy to HCTZ add-on in diabetic patients with hypertension badly controlled on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor monotherapy. The blood pressure response rates seemed to be somewhat higher following enalapril plus lercanidipine than enalapril plus HCTZ.     

Beneficial effect of combination therapy with antihypertensive drugs in patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND: Cardiac hypertrophy and failure are major complications of hypertension. OBJECTIVES: The beneficial effect of treatment with antihypertensive drugs on serum levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was examined in patients with essential hypertension. METHODS: Antihypertensive drugs were administered to 88 hypertensive patients (44 diabetic and 44 nondiabetic) whose systolic blood pressure was greater than 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure was greater than 90 mmHg. Other antihypertensive drugs were added every two months until the blood pressure fell below 130/85 mmHg. Candesartan, benidipine, bisoprolol or celiprolol, and bunazosin were administered in this order. RESULTS: The mean systolic blood pressure was reduced from 163.7+/-11.6 mmHg to 121.8+/-7.5 mmHg after 12 months in patients with diabetes and from 167.6+/-12.3 mmHg to 122.8+/-7.5 mmHg in patients without diabetes. The mean diastolic blood pressure was also significantly reduced in patients with and without diabetes. Serum BNP levels were reduced from 52.2+/-38.8 pg/mL to 38.8+/-30.9 pg/mL in patients with diabetes and from 47.1+/-34.2 pg/mL to 35.8+/-22.5 pg/mL in patients without diabetes. In patients older than 70 years of age, serum BNP levels were reduced from 56.3+/-39.3 pg/mL to 40.2+/-23.0 pg/mL in those with diabetes and from 54.6+/-32.9 pg/mL to 38.0+/-16.0 pg/mL in those without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that combination therapy with antihypertensive drugs is usually necessary to reduce blood pressure to below 130/85 mmHg and to improve serum BNP levels.     

Renoprotective effect of the addition of losartan to ongoing treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in type-2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are frequently used for the treatment for glomerulonephritis and diabetic nephropathy because of their albuminuria- or proteinuria-reducing effects. To many patients who are nonresponsive to monotherapy with these agents, combination therapy appears to be a good treatment option. In the present study, we examined the effects of the addition of an ARB (losartan) followed by titration upon addition and at 3 and 6 months (n=14) and the addition of an ACE-I followed by titration upon addition and at 3 and 6 months (n=20) to the drug regimen treatment protocol in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy for whom more than 3-month administration of an ACE-I or the combination of an ACE-I plus a conventional antihypertensive was ineffective to achieve a blood pressure (BP) of 130/80 mmHg and to reduce urinary albumin to <30 mg/day. During the 12-month treatment, addition of losartan or addition of an ACE-I to the treatment protocol reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 10% and 12%, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 7% and 4%, and urinary albumin excretion by 38% and 20% of the baseline value, respectively. However, the effects on both BP and urinary albumin were not significantly different between the two therapies. In conclusion, addition of losartan or an ACE-I to an ongoing treatment with an ACE-I, or addition of an ACE-I to ongoing treatment with a conventional antihypertensive were equally effective at reducing the urinary albumin excretion and BP, and provided renal protection in patients with type-2 diabetic nephropathy.     

Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial of cardiovascular events in high-risk hypertensive patients: rationale, design, and methods.

Hypertension continues to be a major public health issue in the world. To combat this problem, many anti-hypertensive drugs have been developed and proven effective at controlling blood pressure in the last half century. In recent decades, antihypertensive drugs have been shown to have cardiovascular benefits beyond the reduction of blood pressure, and the focus has shifted to clarification of these effects. Angiotensin II receptor antagonists and calcium channel blockers are the most widely used antihypertensive drugs in Japan. However, these two classes of drugs have not yet been compared with respect to their efficacy for treating cardiovascular events. The Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial described herein is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, 2-arm parallel group comparison with a response-dependent dose titration and blinded assessment of endpoints in high-risk hypertensive patients treated with either an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (candesartan cilexetil) or a third-generation calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besilate). The eligibility criteria in this study were 1) age between 20 and 85 years; 2) systolic blood pressure (SBP) > or = 140 mmHg in those below 70 years of age or > or = 160 mmHg in those above 70 years of age or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 90 mmHg on two consecutive measurements at clinic; and 3) at least one of the following high risk factors for cardiovascular events: a) SBP > or = 2180 mmHg or DBP > or = 110 mmHg on two consecutive visits, b) type 2 diabetes mellitus (fasting blood glucose > or = 126 mg/dl, casual blood glucose > or = 200 mg/dl, HbA1c > or = 6.5%, 2 h blood glucose on 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) > or = 200 mg/dl, or current treatment with hypoglycemic therapy), c) history of cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral infarction, or transient ischemic attack until 6 months prior to the screening, d) left ventricular hypertrophy on either echocardiography or ECG, angina pectoris, or history of myocardial infarction until 6 months prior to screening, e) proteinuria or serum creatinine > or = 1.3 mg/dl, and f) symptoms of arteriosclerotic artery obstruction. The therapeutic goals of blood pressure control were set as follows: SBP < 130 mmHg and DBP < 85 mmHg for patients below 60 years of age, SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg for those in their 60s, SBP < 150 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg for those in their 70s, and SBP < 160 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg for those in their 80s. A total of 3,200 patients, equally allocated to each of the two treatment arms, were required based on a two-sided alpha level 0.05 and 90% power. The CASE-J is also the first study to employ the newly developed Automatic Bar Code Data-Capturing/Allocation, Booking & Trial Coding, Data Management (ABCD) system for data collection and management. Enrollment of patients started in September 2001 and ended in December 2002. Follow-up data will be collected every 6 months until December 2005. The CASE-J trial will provide important evidence on the comparative effectiveness of candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine besilate on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among Japanese. In addition, the use of the ABCD system is expected to contribute to the development of more efficient data management systems for large-scale clinical trials.     

Comparative effects of candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide on blood pressure,insulin sensitivity,and sympathetic drive in obese hypertensive individuals: results of the CROSS study

OBJECTIVE: The increase in blood pressure that accompanies the obese state is almost invariably associated with alterations in metabolism (insulin resistance and dyslipidaemia) and the neurohumoral profile (activation of the renin-angiotensin system, sympathetic overactivity), which potentiate the cardiovascular risk associated with hypertension. However, debate remains as to the antihypertensive drug on which treatment of obesity-related hypertension should be based. The CROSS (Candesartan Role on Obesity and on Sympathetic System) study was undertaken to examine the antihypertensive, neuroadrenergic, and metabolic effects of an angiotensin II receptor blocker in comparison with a diuretic in obese hypertensive individuals. METHODS: In 127 obese hypertensive individuals aged 50.7 +/- 5.1 years (mean +/- SD), we measured clinic blood pressure, heart rate, plasma glucose, and insulin at rest and during an oral glucose load before and 12 weeks after treatment with either candesartan cilexetil (8-16 mg once daily) or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ, 25-50 mg once daily), administered orally in accordance with a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-parallel-groups study design. Insulin sensitivity was expressed as insulin resistance index (IRI), calculated as the ratio of the area under the curve (AUC) for glucose to that for insulin. In a subgroup of patients, measurements also included direct microneurographic recording of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) in the peroneal nerve. RESULTS: Candesartan cilexetil caused a significant (P < 0.01) reduction in both mean blood pressure (from 114.2 +/- 5.1 to 99.6 +/- 6.0 mmHg) and MSNA (from 51.0 +/- 12.3 to 40.4 +/- 12.5 bursts per 100 heart beats), and a significant (P < 0.02) increase in insulin sensitivity (AUC IRI: from -23.2 +/- 22.1 to -17.6 +/- 12.2). In contrast, HCTZ did not significantly affect MSNA and worsened insulin sensitivity, while achieving blood pressure reductions similar to those produced by candesartan cilexetil. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence that, in obese hypertensive individuals, treatment with candesartan cilexetil has an antihypertensive effect similar to that of HCTZ. Unlike diuretic treatment, however, treatment with candesartan cilexetil improves insulin sensitivity and exerts sympathoinhibitory effects.     

Effects of up-titration of candesartan versus candesartan plus amlodipine on kidney function in type 2 diabetic patients with albuminuria

In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that up-titrating the dose of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) is superior to combined treatment with an ARB and a calcium channel blocker for the same degree of blood pressure (BP) reduction, with respect to urinary albumin excretion in diabetic patients treated with a standard dose of the ARB. Hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and albuminuria (≥30?mg?g(-1) creatinine) were enroled in the study, and were either started on or switched to candesartan (8?mg per day) monotherapy. After a 12-week run-in period, baseline evaluations were performed and patients with BP ≥130/80?mm?Hg were randomly assigned to receive either candesartan (12?mg per day) or candesartan (8?mg per day) plus amlodipine (2.5?mg per day) for a further 12 weeks. The primary end-point was a reduction in urinary albumin levels. Although there was no significant difference in the BP reduction between the two groups, the reduction in urinary albumin was greater in the up-titrated than the combination therapy group (-40±14% vs -9±38%, respectively; P<0.0001). Thus, up-titration of candesartan more effectively reduces urinary albumin excretion than combined candesartan plus amlodipine in hypertensive patients with diabetes for the same degree of BP reduction.