1.
Anti-hypertensive strategies in patients with MEtabolic parameters, DIabetes mellitus and/or NephropAthy (the M E D I N A study).
Spinar, J, Vitovec, J, Soucek, M
Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia. 2014;(3):412-21
Abstract
AIMS: The primary questions asked by the MEDINA (MEtabolic parameters, DIabetes mellitus and NephropAthy) study are: 1) Do angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) have any advantages over angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB)? 2) Should the other drug for combination be a diuretic or a calcium-channel blocker (CCB)? 3) How are the risks reduced by the co administration of a statin? METHODS A total of 439 hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome and/or diabetes mellitus were randomized to 2 groups: group 1--ramipril (ACE-I) or perindopril and group 2--losartan (ARB). Hydrochlorothiazide (diuretic) or amlodipine (CCB) were added to both groups. As a third step, a statin was added. RESULTS Blood pressure decreased 24.1/13.3 mmHg in the ACE inhibitor group and 25.9/13.5 in the losartan group. The difference was insignificant. Adding either hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipin was equally effective. There were no significant differences on metabolic parameters in the trial arms. Cholesterol level decreased by 0.95 mmol/L in the ACE-I group and 1.02 mmol/L in the ARB group (ns). CONCLUSION MEDINA has so far confirmed the equivalence of ACE-I and ARB in hypertension treatment. Adding either diuretic or CCB was equally effective. Our data support the current recommendations on adding a statin to reduce cardiovascular risk.
2.
ALLHAT findings revisited in the context of subsequent analyses, other trials, and meta-analyses.
Wright, JT, Probstfield, JL, Cushman, WC, Pressel, SL, Cutler, JA, Davis, BR, Einhorn, PT, Rahman, M, Whelton, PK, Ford, CE, et al
Archives of internal medicine. 2009;(9):832-42
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) is reevaluated considering information from new clinical trials, meta-analyses, and recent subgroup and explanatory analyses from ALLHAT, especially those regarding heart failure (HF) and the association of drug treatment with new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM) and its cardiovascular disease (CVD) consequences. Chlorthalidone was superior to (1) doxazosin mesylate in preventing combined CVD (CCVD) (risk ratio [RR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.27), especially HF (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.40-2.22) and stroke (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.46); (2) lisinopril in preventing CCVD (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16), including stroke (in black persons only) and HF (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.34); and (3) amlodipine besylate in preventing HF, overall (by 28%) and in hospitalized or fatal cases (by 26%). Central independent blinded reassessment of HF hospitalizations confirmed each comparison. Results were consistent by age, sex, race (except for stroke and CCVD), DM status, metabolic syndrome status, and renal function level. Neither amlodipine nor lisinopril was superior to chlorthalidone in preventing end-stage renal disease overall, by DM status, or by renal function level. In the chlorthalidone arm, new-onset DM was not significantly associated with CCVD (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-2.42). Evidence from subsequent analyses of ALLHAT and other clinical outcome trials confirm that neither alpha-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, nor calcium channel blockers surpass thiazide-type diuretics (at appropriate dosage) as initial therapy for reduction of cardiovascular or renal risk. Thiazides are superior in preventing HF, and new-onset DM associated with thiazides does not increase CVD outcomes.
3.
Comparison of rilmenidine and lisinopril on ambulatory blood pressure and plasma lipid and glucose levels in hypertensive women with metabolic syndrome.
Anichkov, DA, Shostak, NA, Schastnaya, OV
Current medical research and opinion. 2005;(1):113-9
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In previous studies, the I1 imidazoline specific agonist rilmenidine effectively lowered office blood pressure (BP) in patients with metabolic syndrome, improved glucose metabolism and did not demonstrate unfavourable effects on plasma lipids. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of 12weeks therapy with rilmenidine compared with the ACE inhibitor lisinopril on ambulatory BP, plasma lipid and fasting glucose levels in women with metabolic syndrome. RESEARCH DESIGN Prospective randomised open-label, blinded end-points study. METHODS Female patients (n = 51) with hypertension and other components of metabolic syndrome were treated with 1 mg rilmenidine (n = 24) or 10 mg lisinopril (n = 27), once- or twice-daily. Anthropometric measurements, office BP and heart rate (HR) measurements, ambulatory BP monitoring, lipid and fasting glucose assessment were performed before and after 12weeks of treatment MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Changes in ambulatory BP and HR, including 24-h, daytime and night-time values, and in lipids and glucose levels. All changes were adjusted for baseline values using the analysis of covariance method. RESULTS Ambulatory 24-h systolic BP and diastolic BP were decreased significantly in the rilmenidine group (-11.9 +/- 1.9 and -7.7 +/- 0.8 mm Hg, p < 0.001) respectively and the lisinopril group (-11.0 +/- 1.8 and -6.7 +/- 0.7 mm Hg respectively, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups. Rilmenidine reduced 24-h ambulatory HR (-3.6 +/- 0.8 bpm versus 0.3 +/- 0.8 bpm with lisinopril; p = 0.002). The reductions of day-time and night-time BP were also significant for both treatment groups, but the rilmenidine group demonstrated a greater decrease in night-time diastolic BP (p = 0.046). Rilmenidine significantly increased HDL cholesterol and decreased fasting glucose levels (p = 0.009 and p = 0.012, respectively). HDL cholesterol tended to increase and fasting glucose tended to decrease in the lisinopril group. However, differences between groups were not significant. CONCLUSION Rilmenidine has similar effects on ambulatory BP patterns in hypertensive women with metabolic syndrome as lisinopril. Rilmenidine compared with lisinopril significantly reduces ambulatory HR. In this study, rilmenidine and lisinopril demonstrate similar effects on plasma lipid and fasting glucose levels.