Additive hypotensive effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and angiotensin-receptor antagonism in essential hypertension

The study was designed to assess the antihypertensive effect of combined angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition and angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1) antagonism in patients with essential hypertension. Twenty patients with uncontrolled ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (BP) after 6 weeks of ACE inhibitor monotherapy (benazepril, 20 mg, o.d.) were randomized to receive double-blind valsartan, 80 mg, o.d. (AT1 antagonist) or matching placebo for 5 weeks while continuing to receive background benazepril. Then patients crossed over to the alternative regimen for a second 5-week period. The 24-h ambulatory BP was monitored on the final day of the benazepril monotherapy period and on the final day of each double-blind treatment period. Valsartan added to benazepril produced a significant antihypertensive effect with a benefit over placebo of 6.5 +/- 12.6/4.5 +/- 8.0 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) for average awake ambulatory BP (p < 0.05), 7.1 +/- 9.4/5.6 +/- 6.5 mm Hg for asleep BP (p < 0.01), and 6.8 +/- 9.7/4.9 +/- 6.8 mm Hg for average 24-h ambulatory BP (p < 0.01). Pulse rate was unaffected. Plasma active renin was higher on the benazepril-valsartan combination compared with benazepril-placebo (p < 0.05). There was no change in routine biochemical variables when valsartan was added to benazepril. Six patients reported mild dizziness or fatigue (three also with placebo). These data suggest that in hypertensive patients uncontrolled with an ACE inhibitor, the addition of an AT1 antagonist provides a powerful and safe antihypertensive drug combination.     

THE A1166C MUTATION IN THE ANGIOTENSIN II TYPE I RECEPTOR AND HYPERTENSION IN THE ELDERLY

1. Using a nested case-control study of 661 non-institutionalized elderly (> or = 60 years) residents of Dubbo, New South Wales, Australia, the aim of this study is to determine whether the A1166C polymorphism of the angiotensin II type I (AT1) receptor gene is associated with hypertension in the elderly. 2. Individuals were classified as isolated systolic hypertension (ISH, n = 146), systolic diastolic hypertension (SDH, n = 188), or normotensive, age- and sex-matched controls (n = 327). AA, CC and AC genotypes were determined using restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of DNA generated by nested polymerase chain reaction. 3. A univariate analysis (chi 2) was complemented by a logistic regression analysis, facilitating adjustment for potential confounders. The unadjusted genotype and allele frequencies in ISH or SDH subjects did not differ significantly from the control subjects (chi 2 = 3.0, P = 0.55, 4 d.f.; chi 2 = 3.0, P = 0.23, 2 d.f., respectively). After adjustment for potential confounders neither genotype nor allele predicted ISH or SDH in this cohort. 4. From this study we conclude that the A1166C polymorphism of the AT1 receptor gene is not a marker for ISH nor for SDH in this large, elderly community sample.     

Comparing Antihypertensive Effect and Plasma Ciclosporin Concentration between Amlodipine and Valsartan Regimens in Hypertensive Renal Transplant Patients Receiving Ciclosporin Therapy

Background

Hypertension, a major complication in kidney transplant recipients, is associated with premature death and graft loss. However, an optimal antihypertensive therapy for these patients has not been established [Chinese Clinical Trial Registry No. ChiCTR-TRC-10001071].

Objective

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of amlodipine and valsartan on BP control in renal transplant patients and to analyze the correlation between cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A5 or multidrug resistance-1 gene (MDR1) genotype and the antihypertensive effect of these two regimens.

Methods

150 renal transplant patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension were enrolled in the trial. Patients were randomly assigned to amlodipine or valsartan. Metoprolol was added if BP was not under control after 4 weeks. BP and plasma levels of ciclosporin were monitored during the 24-week trial. CYP3A5 and MDR1 genotypes were determined using a polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) method.

Results

The demographic features and baseline BP were similar between these two groups. During the 24-week trial, the reduction of systolic BP (SBP) was similar between the amlodipine and valsartan groups. However, the reduction of diastolic BP (DBP) was significantly greater in the amlodipine group compared with the valsartan group at 12, 16, and 24 weeks of treatment. The plasma level of ciclosporin at 2 hours of medication was significantly higher in the amlodipine group than in the valsartan group after 4 weeks of the trial. The reduction of DBP at 24 weeks was greater in the subjects with CYP3A5 *3/*3 variant than in those with CYP3A5*1/*1 variant (?13.5± 1.9mmHg vs ?8.7± 1.6mmHg, p<0.05).

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that amlodipine produced a greater reduction of DBP than valsartan, although both amlodipine and valsartan resulted in satisfactory control of BP in patients with renal transplantation. Administration of amlodipine significantly increased the plasma concentration of ciclosporin, and its effects on BP control and ciclosporin concentration may be associated with the CYP3A5 genotype in these subjects [Chinese Clinical Trial Registry No. ChiCTR-TRC-10001071].     

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor <Emphasis Type="Italic">1166A/C</Emphasis> polymorphism in association with blood pressure response to exogenous angiotensin II

Background The angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) 1166A/C polymorphism is reported to be implicated in cardiovascular diseases. The association between the 1166A/C polymorphism and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) changes in response to exogenous angiotensin II and valsartan was evaluated by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling. Methods Thirteen normotensive, healthy adults (six with the 1166A/A polymorphism and seven with 1166A/C) were enrolled in this clinical study. Angiotensin II was infused continuously over a 2-min period at four different rates (from 5 ng/kg/min and increased by 5 ng/kg/min) at 0 (before valsartan dosing), 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h after a single oral dose of valsartan (40 mg). BP was measured serially before and at the end of each rate of angiotensin II infusion. Plasma concentration-time profiles of valsartan were established over a 24-h period. We analyzed data using NONMEM and studied the relationship between the AT1R 1166A/C genotypes and BP responses. Results Plasma valsartan concentrations and DBP data best fitted into a two-compartment linear model and E_max model (E_max with baseline for angiotensin II and inhibitory E_max for valsartan), respectively. The ED50 for angiotensin II in the subjects with 1166A/C [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.30∼14.02 ng/kg/min] was significantly lower than in those with 1166A/A (95% CI: 14.23∼28.77 ng/kg/min), while the E_max for angiotensin II and EC50 for valsartan was similar in both genotype groups. Conclusions These results suggest that exogenous human angiotensin II increases the BP more potently in subjects with 1166A/C than in those with 1166A/A.     

Combination of Amlodipine plus Angiotensin Receptor Blocker or Diuretics in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients

Background and Objectives

Antihypertensive therapy is effective in reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. However, blood pressure (BP) control rate remains poor and the optimal combination therapy against hypertension is not established in China. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of two antihypertensive regimens, amlodipine plus telmisartan and amlodipine plus amiloride/hydrochlorothiazide, in patients with essential hypertension and at least one cardiovascular risk factor.

Methods

In a multicenter open-label clinical trial, eligible patients were randomized to receive treatment with amlodipine 2.5–5 mg plus amiloride/hydrochlorothiazide 1.25–2.5 mg/12.5–25 mg (Group A) or amlodipine 2.5–5 mg plus telmisartan 40–80 mg (Group T). If a target BP was not reached, other antihypertensive agents would be added. The target BP was <130/80mmHg for patients with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease and <140/90mmHg for others. Efficacy variables were changes from baseline in systolic BP and diastolic BP at the endpoint of 96 weeks. Safety evaluations included monitoring of any adverse events (AEs).

Results

Of 13 542 patients randomized, 13 080 (96.6%) completed the study: 6529 in Group A and 6551 in Group T. At endpoint, the BP levels were reduced by 27.4/14.3 mmHg in Group A and 27.1/14.5 mmHg in Group T. The BP control rates were similar for the two therapeutic regimens (87.5% vs 86.1%). Less than 4% of patients in each group discontinued their drugs during follow-up. Peripheral edema was one of the most common AEs, and occurred in only 24 patients in Group A and 19 in Group T.

Conclusions

Long-term combination therapy with amlodipine plus telmisartan or amlodipine plus amiloride/hydrochlorothiazide was not only well tolerated but also efficacious in reducing BP levels with acceptable control rates in the majority of hypertensive patients.

Clinical Trials Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01011660.     

Dose-Dependent Antihypertensive Efficacy and Tolerability of Perindopril in a Large, Observational, 12-Week, General Practice-Based Study

Background

Current guidelines recommend the use of full therapeutic dosages of antihypertensive agents, or combination therapy, to improve BP control of hypertensive patients in primary healthcare.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the dose-dependent antihypertensive efficacy and safety of perindopril 4 and 8 mg/day in the clinical setting.

Study Design and Setting

The CONFIDENCE study was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial. This was a real-world, clinic-based, outpatient study involving 880 general practitioners/primary-care clinics and 113 specialists in Canada.

Patients

The study included untreated or inadequately managed patients with hypertension (i.e. seated BP≥140/90 mmHg, or ≥130/80 mmHg in the presence of diabetes mellitus, renal disease, or proteinuria) without coronary artery disease (CAD).

Intervention

Treatment consisted of perindopril 4 mg/day, uptitrated to 8 mg/day as required for BP control at visit 2, for 12 weeks. Among the patients already being treated at baseline, perindopril either directly replaced all previous ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]), or was added to antihypertensive treatment with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), diuretics, or β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers).

Main Outcomes Measures

The primary outcomes were the mean changes in BP from baseline following treatment with perindopril 4 and 8 mg/day as well as the proportion of patients achieving BP control (BP <140/90 mmHg, or <130/80 mmHg in diabetic patients) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary analyses included the incidence of adverse events and compliance.

Results

A total of 8298 hypertensive patients entered the study: 56% with newly diagnosed hypertension and 44% with uncontrolled hypertension. Mean SBP/DBP decreased significantly from baseline (152.5 ±10.8/89.5 ±9 mmHg) over 12 weeks (?18.5/?9.7 mmHg; p < 0.001). At visit 2, 23% of patients were uptitrated to perindopril 8 mg/day, which resulted in an additional mean 10.1/5.3 mmHg BP reduction; this reduction was even greater (15.1/5.7 mmHg) among a separate group of severely hypertensive patients (i.e. SBP >170 mmHg or DBP > 109 mmHg at baseline). Target BP was achieved in 54% of the ITT population. Both perindopril 4 mg/day and perindopril 8 mg/day were well tolerated and compliance was high throughout the study.

Conclusion

In the clinical outpatient setting, perindopril was found to be an effective dose-dependent and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment, with good compliance. Uptitration to the full therapeutic dosage of perindopril is an efficient approach for the management of a broad range of hypertensive patients without CAD.     

An Olmesartan Medoxomil-Based Treatment Algorithm is Effective in Achieving 24-Hour BP Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Regardless of Age, Race, Sex, or Severity of Hypertension

Background

Hypertension often occurs concomitantly with diabetes mellitus, such that >50% of adults with type 2 diabetes have hypertension. These individuals are at a greater risk of developing renal and cardiovascular disease. The currently recommended BP goal of <130/80 mmHg for patients with type 2 diabetes is achieved in only 37.5% of treated patients with diabetes and hypertension.

Methods

The antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was investigated in prespecified subgroups (age <65/≥65 years, Blacks/non-Blacks, males/females, or stage 1/ stage 2 hypertension) of patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes enrolled in an open-label, single-arm study (n= 192). Patients started treatment with OM 20 mg/day and were uptitrated at 3-week intervals to OM 40, OM/HCTZ 40/12.5, and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day if BP was ≥120/70 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP from baseline to week 12, assessed by mean 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Secondary endpoints included changes in mean 24-hour ambulatory DBP, mean daytime ambulatory BP, mean nighttime ambulatory BP, and mean office seated BP, and the proportions of patients achieving prespecified ambulatory BP targets.

Setting

This was a multicenter study (24 sites) that took place between November 2006 and November 2007 in the US.

Results

BP reductions were significant (p<0.0001) and similar among subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes. Following dose titration to OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day, similar proportions of patients in the age, race, and sex subgroups (approximately 60–64% across these subgroups) achieved an ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mmHg. A larger proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage 1 hypertension achieved this same goal compared with patients with stage 2 hypertension (75% vs 46.3%). The combination of OM/HCTZ was well tolerated in all patient subgroups irrespective of age, race, sex, or hypertension severity.

Conclusions

In this open-label study, OM/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious and well tolerated in subgroups of patients with diabetes and hypertension.     

Management of Hypertension with the Fixed Combination of Perindopril and Amlodipine in Daily Clinical Practice

Background

Current clinical guidelines recognize that the use of more than one agent is necessary to achieve target BP in the majority of patients. The ASCOT-BPLA trial demonstrated that the free combination of amlodipine and perindopril effectively controlled BP and was better than a β-adrenoceptor antagonist (β-blocker)/diuretic combination in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of perindopril and amlodipine in the clinical setting.

Study design

The STRONG (SafeTy & efficacy analysis of coveRsyl amlodipine in uncOntrolled and Newly diaGnosed hypertension) study was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial.

Setting

This was a naturalistic, real-world, clinic-based, outpatient study involving 336 general practitioners/ primary care physicians in 65 cities in India.

Patients

Adults aged 40–70 years with newly diagnosed/untreated stage 2 hypertension (BP ≥ 160/100 mmHg), hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy (BP > 140/90 mmHg), or hypertension inadequately managed with another combination therapy.

Intervention

Fixed combination perindopril 4 mg/amlodipine 5 mg once daily for 60 days.

Main outcomes measure

The primary outcomes were the mean change in BP from baseline and the proportion of patients achieving adequate BP control (≤ 140/90 mmHg, or ≤ 130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary analyses included incidence of adverse events (ITT) and treatment adherence rate (completers).

Results

In total, 1250 patients comprised the ITT population: 32.6% with newly diagnosed hypertension; 40.5% with hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy; and 26.9% with hypertension inadequately managed with another combination therapy. Mean SBP/DBP decreased significantly from baseline (167.4±15.2/101.4±9.1 mmHg) over 60 days (?41.9 ± 34.8/?23.2 ± 21.8 mmHg; p<0.0001). Target BP was achieved in 66.1% of patients in the total population, 68.3% of untreated patients, 68.4% of patients uncontrolled with monotherapy, and 59.9% of patients inadequately managed with combination therapy. In 161 patients with SBP >180 mmHg at baseline (newly diagnosed: n = 50; uncontrolled on monotherapy: n = 53; inadequately managed on combination therapy: n = 58), BP was reduced by 63.2 ± 32.5/29.0 ± 21.9 mmHg (p<0.0001) at day 60. The fixed combination was safe and well tolerated. All 1175 patients completing the 60-day study (94%) adhered to their treatment regimen.

Conclusion

Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine was found to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment, with an excellent rate of treatment adherence in the clinical setting. Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine is expected to be useful in the management of hypertension in primary healthcare, with a positive impact on treatment adherence.     

Placebo Effect and Efficacy of Nebivolol in Patients with Hypertension not Controlled with Lisinopril or Losartan: A Phase IV, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background

Most patients with hypertension require more than one antihypertensive to achieve blood pressure (BP) control.

Objective

The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on nebivolol, a vasodilatory β-blocker, in patients with untreated or poorly controlled hypertension, receiving stable therapy with lisinopril (an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or losartan (an angiotensin II receptor blocker).

Study Design

This was a phase IV double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from August 2008 to March 2010 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00734630). Patients entered a 2-week, single-blind, placebo-only washout phase, followed by a 3- to 4-week open-label lead-in phase (lisinopril, 10–20 mg/day, or losartan, 50–100 mg/day), and a 12-week randomized, double-blind add-on treatment phase with placebo or nebivolol (5–40 mg/day).

Setting

This study was conducted at 76 outpatient centers in the United States.

Patients

Participants were men and women aged 18–85 years with a diagnosis of primary hypertension and seated trough systolic BP (SBP) at screening in the range of 170–200 mmHg if untreated, 155–180 mmHg if taking 1 antihypertensive medication, or 140–170 mmHg if taking 2 antihypertensive medications.

Intervention

The intervention was 12 weeks’ treatment with nebivolol 5–40 mg/day added to a background therapy of lisinopril 10–20 mg/day or losartan 50–100 mg/day.

Main Outcome Measures

Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were changes from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP and diastolic BP (DBP) at Week 12, respectively. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

A total of 491 patients were randomized to receive nebivolol (n = 258) or placebo (n = 233). Efficacy analyses were conducted for 256 nebivolol and 232 placebo patients (intent-to-treat population); completion rates were 88.8 % and 85.8 %, respectively. Mean baseline SBP/DBP values were 163.1/98.2 mmHg (nebivolol) and 162.4/96.8 mmHg (placebo). Nebivolol was associated with a non-significant mean ± SD reduction in SBP (?10.1 ± 16.9 mmHg) versus placebo (?7.3 ± 15.9 mmHg, P = 0.093) and significant mean DBP reduction (?7.8 ± 10.1 mmHg vs ?3.5 ± 10.6 mmHg, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis suggested a significant effect on DBP for patients receiving background losartan treatment (?8.1 ± 9.2 mmHg vs ?3.1 ± 9.4 mmHg, P < 0.001), but not for those receiving lisinopril (?7.6 ± 10.8 mmHg vs ?3.8 ± 11.6 mmHg, P = 0.076). A total of 28 % nebivolol-treated and 22 % placebo-treated patients reported a TEAE, the most frequent being upper respiratory tract infection (4.3 % and 2.1 %, respectively), bradycardia (2.7 % and 0 %), headache (2.3 % and 2.1 %), and nasopharyngitis (2.3 % and 0.9 %).

Conclusion

These data suggest that nebivolol, when added to lisinopril or losartan, results in an additional BP reduction; however, only the effect on DBP reached statistical significance. A subanalysis suggests that the effect on DBP may be stronger in losartan-treated than lisinopril-treated patients. A relatively strong placebo effect may limit data interpretation. Nebivolol was well tolerated, as there was no difference in TEAEs between nebivolol and placebo.

Funding

This trial (NCT00734630) was funded by Forest Laboratories, Inc.     

Angiotensin II receptor polymorphisms in hypertension. Pharmacogenomic considerations

Molecular variants of individual components of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) are thought to contribute to inherited predisposition towards essential hypertension. Polymorphisms in genes of angiotensinogen (AGT), angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) and angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT-1) have been related to differential responses to antihypertensive drugs. AT-1 receptor mediates the major pressor and trophic actions of angiotensin II (Ang II). At least 14 AT-1 polymorphisms have been described in the gene (AGT1R); in particular the +1166 A/C polymorphism has been associated with the severe form of essential hypertension. A relationship was suggested between this polymorphism and the humoral and renal hemodynamic responses to losartan, an antihypertensive drug acting as an AT-1 blocker. Variability in the individual response to AT-1 antagonists could also be due to variations in the pharmacokinetics of the drugs. This review presents current knowledge on Ang II-receptors and polymorphisms in AGT1R related to cardiovascular disease and antihypertensive therapy.     

Impact of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system genes on the treatment response of patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of clinical, biochemical and genetic markers on the response to antihypertensive treatment in patients with essential hypertension and the metabolic syndrome (MetS). METHODS: Measurements of anthropometric indices, blood pressure (BP), and metabolic parameters were obtained from the medical records of 132 (77 women) newly diagnosed, untreated hypertensive patients. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) genes polymorphisms (including ACE I/D, angiotensinogen M235T, angiotensin II type 1 receptor [AT1-receptor] A1166C) were determined. Response to treatment was defined as BP less than 140/90 mmHg. RESULTS: Patients with MetS (n=60) had higher systolic BP and pulse pressure and a more atherogenic lipid profile than patients without MetS. The frequencies of the ACE and the AT1-receptor gene polymorphisms were similar between patients with and without MetS. Response to treatment was positively associated with pulse pressure, and the presence of the C allele as well as the AC genotype of the AT1-receptor gene and inversely with age after adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: RAAS genes distribution does not differ between hypertensive patients with and without the MetS. Higher baseline pulse pressure levels, the presence of the C allele and/or the AC genotype may be in favour of a better response to structured antihypertensive treatment in patients with MetS. However, these findings need to be evaluated in future studies.     

Blood Pressure Effects of High-Dose Amlodipine-Benazepril Combination in Black and White Hypertensive Patients Not Controlled on Monotherapy

Background

Black hypertensive patients are more resistant to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor monotherapy than White patients. This resistance can be overcome with the combination of ACE inhibitors with diuretics or calcium-channel blockers (CCBs).

Objectives

The objective of this clinical investigation was to evaluate the antihypertensive effectiveness of monotherapy with the ACE inhibitor benazepril or the CCB amlodipine and their combination in Black and White hypertensive patients in two separate studies.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of data from two separate studies, pooled because of their similarities, to increase the sample size. Outpatient Black and White hypertensive patients were selected for these studies. In study H2303, 201 patients of both sexes and races, whose mean seated diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with benazepril 40mg/day, were randomized into two groups. Group 1 received benazepril 40mg/day and group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 5/40mg/day, which was uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day at week 4 of the study. In study H2304, 812 similar patients, whose MSDBP was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with amlodipine 10 mg/day, were randomized into three groups. Group 1 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day, uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day after 2 weeks. Group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day. Group 3 received amlodipine 10 mg/day. All three groups were followed up for 6 additional weeks.

Results

This report presents the results of post hoc analysis of pooled data from two separate but similar studies. Combination therapy resulted in greater lowering of MSDBP and mean seated systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) than monotherapy with either benazepril or amlodipine (p< 0.001). With respect to combination therapy, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day resulted in greater blood pressure (BP) reductions in White patients than in Black patients (p<0.004). In contrast, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day resulted in similar BP reductions in both Black and White hypertensive patients. There were no serious clinical or metabolic side effects noted, with the exception of pedal edema, which was more common with amlodipine monotherapy.

Conclusion

This study showed that combination therapy with amlodipine/benazepril is more effective in BP lowering than monotherapy with the component drugs. Black hypertensive patients are responsive to the combination of amlodipine/benazepril; however, they require higher dose combinations for BP reductions similar to those achieved in White hypertensive patients.     

Evaluation of long-term efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR in elderly hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term antihypertensive efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR 1.5 mg in elderly hypertensive patients (> or = 65 years). STUDY DESIGN: Open, 12-month, follow-up study of 444 patients, treated with indapamide SR, who were responders and/or achieved target BP levels following a 3-month, randomised, controlled, double-blind short-term comparison of indapamide SR versus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and amlodipine 5 mg. RESULTS: The long-term decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 12 months follow-up with indapamide SR was -24.0/-13.1 mmHg from baseline (M0). The percentage of patients that achieved target BP levels (DBP < 95 mmHg, SBP < or = 160 mmHg) was 80.1% [84.3% for isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) subgroup], and the response rate (BP < 140/90 mmHg or decrease in supine diastolic BP > or = 10 mmHg or in supine systolic BP > or = 20 mmHg) 81.5%. Blood pressure (BP) remained stable throughout the 12 months follow-up period (M3-M15), whatever the previous treatment received during the 3-month, doubleblind period (M0-M3). Clinical and biological acceptability was good. A low occurrence of withdrawals (7.2%), was reported. CONCLUSION: Over the course of the long-term, 12-month follow-up study, indapamide SR was shown to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive therapy, even after a switch from amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, in patients aged 65 years-80 years with systolo-diastolic hypertension (SDH) or ISH.     

Associations between polymorphisms of endothelial nitric oxide synthase(eNOS) gene G298A,matrix metalloproteinase-3(MMP-3) gene 5A/6A,angiotensinogen(AGT) gene M235T,angiotensin Ⅱ type 1 receptor(AT1R) gene A1166C and risk of restenosis after percutaneo

OBJECTIVE Previous studies had provided controversial results regarding the restenosis risk for eNOS, MMP-3, AGT and AT1 R polymorphisms. The aim of our study was to summarize the relationship between those polymorphisms and risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS Al studies published on the association of e NOS G298 A, MMP-3 5 A/6 A, AGT M235 T and AT1 R A1166 C polymorphism with restenosis were identified by searching the Pub Med, Embase,Cochrane's Library and clinicaltrials.gov. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias(Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and extracted data. The metaanalysis was performed in Stata 12.0. PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42019135173. RESULTS A total of 18 researches were analyzed in the meta-analysis, including 5 on G298 A, 4 on 5 A/6 A, 6 on M235 T and 7 on A1166 C.Overall, under several models, there were significant associations of elevated restenosis risk for e NOS gene G298 A, MMP3 gene 5 A/5 A, AGT gene M235 T and A1 TR gene A1166 c polymorphism. For G298 A variant eNOS gene, OR_(allele)=1.685(1.269, 2.338), OR_(heterozygote)=2.144(1.490, 3.085), OR_(dominant)=2.078(1.462, 2.954) and OR_(over-dominant)=0.496(0.348, 0.706). For 5 A/6 A variant MMP3 gene, OR_(heterozygote)=0.839(0.722, 0.975), OR_(dominant)=0.846(0.733, 0.976) and OR_(over-dominant)=1.131(1.001, 1.301). For M235 T variant of AGT gene with OR_(heterozygote)=1.594(1.179, 2.155), OR_(dominant)=1.437(1.077, 1.918) and OR_(over-dominant)=0.694(0.555, 0.869). Moreover, positive results were observed in AT1 R gene A1166 C polymorphism under three models with OR_(homozygote)=2.009(1.433, 2.816),OR_(recessive)=1.874(1.353, 2.595) and ORdominant=1.350(1.105, 1.649). There were heterogeneity ranging from low(0.0%) to high(66.2%) levels found during the analysis process, in which ethnicity and intervention type might play a role. CONCLUSION The pooled OR of the present meta-analysis suggested evidence that there was an increase in the risk of restenosis conferred by the G298 A variant of e NOS gene in Caucasian, the 5 A/6 A variant of MMP-3 gene in Asian, the M235 T variant of the AGT gene in Caucasian and the A1166 C variant of A1 TR gene in Asian.     

Acute cardiac and hemodynamic effects of sildenafil on resistant hypertension

Purpose

Failure to control blood pressure (BP) despite the use of three or more drugs characterizes resistant hypertension (RHTN). Impaired endothelial function is associated with this condition and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i)—inhibiting cGMP breakdown—reduce BP in RHTN patients. We hypothesized that acute administration of PDE5i could ameliorate hemodynamic, endothelial parameters and left ventricular diastolic function (LVDF) in RHTN patients. Also, an exploratory analysis was performed to assess the influence of the T-786C endothelial NO synthase polymorphism on those responses.

Methods

Subjects (n?=?26) underwent a 6-month clinical screening for RHTN diagnosis. Increasing doses of oral sildenafil were given at 30 min intervals (37.5, 50 and 100 mg) while continuous non-invasive hemodynamic measures were assessed. LVDF, flow mediated dilation (FMD), nitrite and cGMP levels were also determined.

Results

Mean arterial pressure and total peripheral resistance decreased in all patients (84.17?±?21.04 to 75?±?17.21 mmHg; 1149?±?459.7 to 1037?±?340 dyn.s/cm^?5, respectively). Likewise, sildenafil improved diastolic dysfunction parameters (Left atrial volume: 25?±?5.8 to 20?±?4.4; IVRT: 104?±?19.33 to 88?±?15.22; E/e’ septal: 9.7?±?3.8 to 7.9?±?2.9; E/e’ lateral: 7.7?±?3.4 to 6.4?±?3.2). No statistical changes were found in FMD, nitrite and cGMP with PDE5i.

Conclusion

Our data suggest PDE5i acutely improves diastolic function and hemodynamic profile in RHTN subjects, despite unchanging endothelial dysfunction.     

Add-on therapy with doxazosin in patients with hypertension influences arterial stiffness and albuterol-mediated arterial vasodilation

What is already known about this subject

• Hypertension is associated with increased arterial stiffness and impaired endothelial function.
• Arterial vasodilation depends on endothelial function and can be regulated by β₂-adrenergic stimulation.
• Doxazosin is a known and potent antihypertensive agent. However, its effects on arterial stiffness and vasodilation have not been fully established.

What this study adds

Sixteen-week add-on antihypertensive therapy with 4 mg of doxazosin extended release daily:

• Reduces arterial stiffness.
• Improves albuterol-mediated, i.e. endothelium-dependent, arterial vasodilation.
• Does not influence nitroglycerin-mediated, i.e. endothelium-independent, arterial vasodilation.

Aims

Doxazosin is an antihypertensive agent with largely unknown effects on arterial stiffness and vasodilation. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the addition of doxazosin extended-release (ER) to the standard management of hypertension in patients with inadequately controlled blood pressure (BP) on arterial stiffness and arterial vasodilation.

Methods

Twenty patients with inadequately controlled hypertension were treated with 4 mg doxazosin ER daily for 16 weeks as an adjunct to their existing antihypertensive regimen.

Results

Doxazosin ER add-on therapy was associated with significantly reduced systolic (P < 0.0001) and diastolic (P = 0.0003) BP, improved arterial stiffness (determined by digital volume pulse analysis (P = 0.048) and albuterol-mediated arterial vasodilation (P = 0.030).

Conclusions

Add-on therapy with 4 mg of doxazosin ER daily reduces BP and arterial stiffness and improves arterial vasodilation in response to adrenergic stimulation.     

Clinical Inertia in Poorly Controlled Elderly Hypertensive Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Spanish Physicians to Ascertain Reasons for Not Intensifying Treatment

Background

Clinical inertia, the failure of physicians to initiate or intensify therapy when indicated, is a major problem in the management of hypertension and may be more prevalent in elderly patients. Overcoming clinical inertia requires understanding its causes and evaluating certain factors, particularly those related to physicians.

Objective

The objective of our study was to determine the rate of clinical inertia and the physician-reported reasons for it.

Methods

An observational, cross-sectional, multi-center study was carried out in a primary care setting. We included 512 physicians, with a consecutive sampling of 1,499 hypertensive patients with clinical inertia.

Main Outcome Measure

Clinical inertia was defined when physicians did not modify treatment despite knowing that the therapeutic target had not been reached. Clinical inertia was considered to be justified (JCI) when physicians provided an explanation for not intensifying treatment and as not justified (nJCI) when no reasons were given.

Results

JCI was observed in 30.1 % (95 % CI 27.8–32.4) of patients (n = 451) and nJCI in 69.9 % (95 % CI 67.6–72.2) (n = 1,058). JCI was associated with higher blood pressure (BP) values (both systolic and diastolic) and diabetes (p = 0.012) than nJCI. nJCI was associated with patients having an isolated increase of systolic or diastolic or high borderline BP values or cardiovascular disease.

Conclusion

Physicians provided reasons for not intensifying treatment in poorly controlled patients in only 30 % of instances. Main reasons for not intensifying treatment were borderline BP values, co-morbidity, suspected white coat effect, or perceived difficulty achieving target. nJCI was associated with high borderline BP values and cardiovascular disease.     

Tadalafil-induced improvement in left ventricular diastolic function in resistant hypertension

Purpose

Left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) remain highly frequent markers of cardiac damage and risk of progression to symptomatic heart failure, especially in resistant hypertension (RHTN). We have previously demonstrated that administration of sildenafil in hypertensive rats improves LVDD, restoring phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibition in cardiac myocytes.

Methods

We hypothesized that the long-acting PDE-5 inhibitor tadalafil may be clinically useful in improving LVDD in RHTN independently of blood pressure (BP) reduction. A single blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study enrolled 19 patients with both RHTN and LVDD. Firstly, subjects received tadalafil (20 mg) for 14 days and after a 2-week washout period, they received placebo orally for 14 days. Patients were evaluated by office BP and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), endothelial function (FMD), echocardiography, plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP-32), cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) and nitrite levels.

Results

No significant differences were detected in BP measurements. Remarkably, at least four echocardiographic parameters related with diastolic function improved accompanied by decrease in BNP-32 in tadalafil use. Although increasing cGMP, tadalafil did not change endothelial function or nitrites. There were no changes in those parameters after placebo.

Conclusion

The current findings suggest that tadalafil improves LV relaxation through direct effects PDE-5-mediated in the cardiomyocytes with potential benefit as an adjunct to treat symptomatic subjects with LVDD such as RHTN patients.     

The response to the first dose of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in uncomplicated hypertension--a placebo controlled study utilising ambulatory blood pressure recording.

1. The importance of total dose to the initial hypotensive response with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (quinapril) was assessed using a suggested 'maintenance' dose (20 mg) or matched placebo in a randomised double-blind study in patients with uncomplicated hypertension. 2. Thirty-two patients were recruited who were not on therapy or had not received diuretic therapy in their existing drug treatment in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary causes of hypertension had previously been excluded and sustained clinic blood pressures of SBP greater than 160 mmHg and/or DBP greater than 90 mmHg were taken as indications for a trial of adjuvant or monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor. 3. After uneventful supervised therapy with quinapril in an open pilot study (n = 5) 27 patients entered a double-blind, randomised, crossover study of quinapril or placebo using ambulatory monitoring to assess BP response. 4. All patients remained asymptomatic and both therapy and monitoring were well tolerated. A smooth onset of antihypertensive effect was noted with an overall 24 h placebo corrected fall in systolic BP of 9.9 mmHg (7.2-12.6 95% CI) and diastolic BP of 6.4 mmHg (4.2-8.8) with no significant effect on heart rate. Individual placebo corrected maximal responses during the first 8 h following quinapril showed a wide range for both systolic (+1.56 to 44.0 mmHg) and diastolic (+2.3 to -35.6 mmHg) pressure. Larger falls tended to be associated with higher baseline pretreatment pressures but in no case did absolute systolic pressure fall below 100 mmHg during the first 8 h following administration of placebo or quinapril.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

AT1R基因A1166C多态性与非酒精性脂肪性肝炎关系的研究

目的：研究血管紧张素1型受体（angiotensin type 1 receptor,AT1R）基因A1166C多态性与日本高知地区非酒精性脂肪性肝炎（NASH）易感性的相关性,从基因学角度探讨NASH的发生发展机制,为NASH的预防、诊断和治疗提供一定的理论依据。方法：应用聚合酶链反应-限制性片段长度多态性（PCR-PFLP）方法对日本高知地区96例NASH患者和150例正常人AT1R-A1166C基因多态性进行分析。结果：NASH病例组A等位基因频率与正常对照组相比差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。NASH病例组AA基因型频率与正常对照组相比差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：AT1R-A1166C基因多态性与NASH的发生发展尚未显示相关。