0
selected
-
1.
Utilization of antihypertensive drugs in obesity-related hypertension: a retrospective observational study in a cohort of patients from Southern Italy.
Cataldi, M, di Geronimo, O, Trio, R, Scotti, A, Memoli, A, Capone, D, Guida, B
BMC pharmacology & toxicology. 2016;:9
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although the pathophysiological mechanisms of arterial hypertension are different in obese and lean patients, hypertension guidelines do not include specific recommendations for obesity-related hypertension and, therefore, there is a considerable uncertainty on which antihypertensive drugs should be used in this condition. Moreover, studies performed in general population suggested that some antihypertensive drugs may increase body weight, glycemia and LDL-cholesterol but it is unclear how this impact on drug choice in clinical practice in the treatment of obese hypertensive patients. Therefore, in order to identify current preferences of practitioners for obesity-related hypertension, in the present work we evaluated antihypertensive drug therapy in a cohort of 129 pharmacologically treated obese hypertensive patients (46 males and 83 females, aged 51.95 ± 10.1 years) that came to our observation for a nutritional consultation. METHODS Study design was retrospective observational. Differences in the prevalence of use of the different antihypertensive drug classes among groups were evaluated with χ(2) square analysis. Threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS 41.1 % of the study sample was treated with one, 36.4 % with two and the remaining 22.5 % with three or more antihypertensive drugs. In patients under single drug therapy, β-blockers, ACEIs and ARBs accounted each for about 25 % of prescriptions. The prevalence of use of β-blockers was about sixfold higher in females than males. Diuretics were virtually never used in monotherapy regimens but were used in more than 60 % of patients on dual antihypertensive therapy and in all patients assuming three or more drugs. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of use of any of the aforementioned drugs among patients with obesity of type I, II and III or between patients with or without metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS Our data show that no first choice protocol seems to be adopted in clinical practice for the treatment of obesity-related hypertension. Importantly, physicians do not seem to differentiate drug use according to the severity of obesity or to the presence of metabolic syndrome or to avoid drugs known to detrimentally affect body weight and metabolic profile in general population.
-
2.
Nonantithrombotic medical options in acute coronary syndromes: old agents and new lines on the horizon.
Soukoulis, V, Boden, WE, Smith, SC, O'Gara, PT
Circulation research. 2014;(12):1944-58
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitute a spectrum of clinical presentations ranging from unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to ST-segment myocardial infarction. Myocardial ischemia in this context occurs as a result of an abrupt decrease in coronary blood flow and resultant imbalance in the myocardial oxygen supply-demand relationship. Coronary blood flow is further compromised by other mechanisms that increase coronary vascular resistance or reduce coronary driving pressure. The goals of treatment are to decrease myocardial oxygen demand, increase coronary blood flow and oxygen supply, and limit myocardial injury. Treatments are generally divided into disease-modifying agents or interventions that improve hard clinical outcomes and other strategies that can reduce ischemia. In addition to traditional drugs such as β-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, newer agents have expanded the number of molecular pathways targeted for treatment of ACS. Ranolazine, trimetazidine, nicorandil, and ivabradine are medications that have been shown to reduce myocardial ischemia through diverse mechanisms and have been tested in limited fashion in patients with ACS. Attenuating the no-reflow phenomenon and reducing the injury compounded by acute reperfusion after a period of coronary occlusion are active areas of research. Additionally, interventions aimed at ischemic pre- and postconditioning may be useful means by which to limit myocardial infarct size. Trials are also underway to examine altered metabolic and oxygen-related pathways in ACS. This review will discuss traditional and newer anti-ischemic therapies for patients with ACS, exclusive of revascularization, antithrombotic agents, and the use of high-intensity statins.
-
3.
The effect of nebivolol treatment on oxidative stress and antioxidant status in patients with cardiac syndrome-X.
Erdamar, H, Sen, N, Tavil, Y, Yazici, HU, Turfan, M, Poyraz, F, Topal, S, Okuyan, H, Cemri, M, Cengel, A
Coronary artery disease. 2009;(3):238-4
Abstract
BACKGROUND Free radical-mediated oxidative stress has been implicated in the etiopathogenesis of several disorders. The aim of this study was to elucidate the effect of treatment with nebivolol on the metabolic state of oxidative stress, and antioxidant status markers in patients with cardiac syndrome-X (CSX), additionally, to compare with the effect of metoprolol treatment. METHODS Thirty patients, 17 female and 13 male, with CSX were enrolled in the study. Nebivolol (5 mg/day) or metoprolol (50 mg/day) was administrated for 12 weeks. Twelve hour fasting blood samples, taken at the initiation and on the third month of therapy, were analyzed for the levels of malondialdehyde (MDA), nitrite+nitrate (NOx), and the activity of myeloperoxidase (MPO), superoxide dismutase (SOD). No patient presented additional risk factors for increased reactive oxygen species levels. RESULTS Compared with sixteen control participants, patients with CSX had significantly higher activity of MPO and levels of MDA, but significantly lower SOD activity and levels of NOx before treatment. After treatment, MPO activity and MDA levels were significantly reduced; SOD activity and NOx levels were significantly increased with nebivolol but remained unchanged with metoprolol. CONCLUSION We have shown that patients with CSX who taken nebivolol have lower serum MPO activity, levels of MDA and higher serum SOD activity, NOx levels when compared with metoprolol treatment. Exercise stress test parameters were also ameliorated in patients who had taken nebivolol in contrast to metoprolol. Nebivolol treatment may be a novel treatment strategy in cases with CSX in the future.
-
4.
Metabolic effects of carvedilol vs metoprolol in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: a randomized controlled trial.
Bakris, GL, Fonseca, V, Katholi, RE, McGill, JB, Messerli, FH, Phillips, RA, Raskin, P, Wright, JT, Oakes, R, Lukas, MA, et al
JAMA. 2004;(18):2227-36
Abstract
CONTEXT Beta-blockers have been shown to decrease cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); however, some components of the metabolic syndrome are worsened by some beta-blockers. OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of beta-blockers with different pharmacological profiles on glycemic and metabolic control in participants with DM and hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade, in the context of cardiovascular risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial (The Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives [GEMINI]) conducted between June 1, 2001, and April 6, 2004, at 205 US sites that compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate on glycemic control. The 1235 participants were aged 36 to 85 years with hypertension (>130/80 mm Hg) and type 2 DM (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 6.5%-8.5%) and were receiving RAS blockers. Participants were followed up for 35 weeks. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to receive a 6.25- to 25-mg dose of carvedilol (n = 498) or 50- to 200-mg dose of metoprolol tartrate (n = 737), each twice daily. Open-label hydrochlorothiazide and a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist were added, if needed, to achieve blood pressure target. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Difference between groups in mean change from baseline HbA1c following 5 months of maintenance therapy. Additional prespecified comparisons included change from baseline HbA1c in individual treatment groups, treatment effect on insulin sensitivity, and microalbuminuria. RESULTS The 2 groups differed in mean change in HbA1c from baseline (0.13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22% to -0.04%; P = .004; modified intention-to-treat analysis). The mean (SD) HbA1c increased with metoprolol (0.15% [0.04%]; P<.001) but not carvedilol (0.02% [0.04%]; P = .65). Insulin sensitivity improved with carvedilol (-9.1%; P = .004) but not metoprolol (-2.0%; P = .48); the between-group difference was -7.2% (95% CI, -13.8% to -0.2%; P = .004). Blood pressure was similar between groups. Progression to microalbuminuria was less frequent with carvedilol than with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS Both beta-blockers were well tolerated; use of carvedilol in the presence of RAS blockade did not affect glycemic control and improved some components of the metabolic syndrome relative to metoprolol in participants with DM and hypertension. The effects of the 2 beta-blockers on clinical outcomes need to be compared in long-term clinical trials.
-
5.
Recent developments in microvascular angina.
Ali, O, Smart, FW, Nguyen, T, Ventura, H
Current atherosclerosis reports. 2001;(2):149-55
Abstract
Microvascular angina (Syndrome X) is an extremely heterogeneous clinical entity that is the product of genetic, coronary microvascular, metabolic, and clinical factors, which combine together to produce distinct cardiac manifestations and complications. The interactions of these abnormalities remain poorly understood. The diagnosis is considered in patients with anginal symptoms and no epicardial coronary narrowing. Therapy is also problematic, with beta-blockers as first-line pharmacotherapy followed by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers.