-
1.
Effectiveness of using long-acting angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker in Japanese obese patients with metabolic syndrome on morning hypertension monitoring by using telemedicine system (FUJIYAMA study).
Kinoshita, S, Ryuzaki, M, Sone, M, Nishida, E, Nakamoto, H, ,
Clinical and experimental hypertension (New York, N.Y. : 1993). 2014;(7):508-16
Abstract
AIM: Recently, obesity patients have been diagnosed as metabolic syndrome. The aim of this study was to evaluate which angiotensin type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs), telmisartan or candesartan, is superior for the control of home blood pressure (BP) in the morning when the outpatient clinic BP was well controlled in the patients with metabolic syndrome. METHODS The patients with metabolic syndrome were enrolled. Home BP was monitored by using a telemedicine system. After a 2- to 4-week control period to establish baseline home BP values, these patients were randomly divided into telmisartan (20-80 mg) and candesartan (4-12 mg) groups. These end points were evaluated by using the telemedicine system during steady-state active therapy. A total of 356 patients attending 60 outpatient Japanese centers were recruited. RESULTS On a day of active therapy, telmisartan significantly lowered both systolic and diastolic home BP in the morning to a greater extent compared to candesartan. At the end of the study, reductions in systolic and diastolic home BP in the morning, in telmisartan group were significantly larger compared to the changes in the candesartan group (systolic; Tel: 12.0 ± 8.9 versus Can: 8.1 ± 17.1 mmHg, p = 0.0292, diastolic; Tel: 7.4 ± 6.1 versus Can: 3.7 ± 6.8 mmHg, p = 0.0053). Additionally in the telmisartan treated group, LDL-cholesterol showed significant reduction (p = 0.037), but candesartan did not. CONCLUSION The present study by using the telemedicine system clearly demonstrated that telmisartan has a strong effect on reducing morning home BP, and a good effect on lipid metabolism in patients with metabolic syndrome.
-
2.
Comparative efficacy and safety of aliskiren and irbesartan in patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome.
Krone, W, Hanefeld, M, Meyer, HF, Jung, T, Bartlett, M, Yeh, CM, Rajman, I, Prescott, MF, Dole, WP
Journal of human hypertension. 2011;(3):186-95
Abstract
Metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors that increase the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, is common in patients with hypertension. Chronic renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation, shown by elevated plasma renin activity (PRA), is implicated in many of the features of metabolic syndrome. The direct renin inhibitor aliskiren may be of benefit in this patient group as aliskiren targets the RAAS at the rate-limiting step. In this double-blind study, 141 patients with hypertension (mean baseline BP 155/93 mm Hg) and metabolic syndrome (modified National Cholesterol Education Program ATP III criteria) were randomized to aliskiren 300 mg or irbesartan 300 mg once daily. Patients treated with aliskiren 300 mg had their mean sitting blood pressure (BP) lowered by 13.8/7.1 mm Hg after 12 weeks, significantly greater (P≤0.001) than the 5.8/2.8 mm Hg reduction observed in patients treated with irbesartan 300 mg. A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with aliskiren achieved BP control to <135/85 mm Hg (29.2 vs 16.7% with irbesartan; P=0.019). Aliskiren treatment led to a 60% decrease in PRA from baseline, whereas irbesartan increased PRA by 99% (both P<0.001). Aliskiren and irbesartan had similar effects on glucose and lipid profiles and on a panel of biomarkers of inflammation and cardiovascular risk. Both aliskiren and irbesartan were well tolerated. Collectively, these results suggest that aliskiren 300 mg may offer treatment benefits compared with irbesartan 300 mg for BP reduction in patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome.
-
3.
Blood pressure control by the nifedipine GITS-telmisartan combination in patients at high cardiovascular risk: the TALENT study.
Mancia, G, Parati, G, Bilo, G, Choi, J, Kilama, MO, Ruilope, LM, ,
Journal of hypertension. 2011;(3):600-9
Abstract
BACKGROUND Guidelines on hypertension regard combinations between two antihypertensive drugs to be the most important treatment strategy. Because of the complementary mechanism of action and the evidence of cardiovascular protective effects they include the combination of a calcium antagonist and an angiotensin receptor antagonist among the priorital ones to employ. AIMS To determine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk whether combining Nifedipine GITS at low dose and telmisartan reduced ambulatory and clinic blood pressure (BP) more than the combination components, controlled BP early after treatment initiation and allowed to also obtain a better long-term BP control compared to initiating treatment with the combination components and moving to the combination later. METHODS Four hundred and five patients with a clinic SBP ≥ 135 mmHg and with diabetes, a metabolic syndrome or organ damage were randomized to once-a-day telmisartan 80 mg, nifedipine GITS 20 mg or the combination of the two drugs in a 1: 1: 2 ratio for 8 weeks in the context of a multicenter double-blind study design. Patients on monotherapy were then moved to combination treatment and all three groups were followed for an additional 16-week period. Both 24-h and clinic BP were measured before treatment and at various times during treatment. RESULTS In the per-protocol patients (n = 327), baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the three groups. Baseline 24-h SBP values were 136.2 ± 11.6 mmHg (mean ± SD), 137.2 ± 12.5 mmHg and 136.8 ± 11.7 mmHg in the telmisartan monotherapy, nifedipine GITS monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. The corresponding clinic values were 151.7 ± 11.8, 151.3 ± 11.9 and 151.1 ± 11.8 mmHg, respectively. All treatments lowered 24-h SBP significantly (P < 0.0001) but combination treatment (8 weeks) reduced it significantly more than monotherapies (10.8 ± 0.8 vs. 6.6 ± 1.1 mmHg and 8.0 ± 1.2 mmHg; P = 0.001 and 0.037). Similar data were obtained for clinic SBP for which the combination showed a significantly greater BP reduction (12.6 ± 0.6 vs. 8.6 ± 0.7 mmHg and 9.3 ± 0.8 mmHg; P = 0.003 and 0.024) also after 2 weeks of treatment. Moving from monotherapy to combination therapy increased the antihypertensive effect and made both ambulatory and clinic SBP superimposable in the three groups after 16 and 24 weeks of treatment. Similar findings were obtained for DBP. CONCLUSION Combination treatment with nifedipine GITS low dose and telmisartan provides a greater and earlier clinic and ambulatory BP reduction than the combination components in monotherapy. Initiating treatment with the combination did not result in any better longer term BP control compared to starting treatment with monotherapy and moving to the combination later.
-
4.
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.
-
5.
[Basic and metabolic therapy of hypertensive disease in pregnant women].
Leshchinskiĭ, LA, Gaĭsin, IR, Maksimov, NI
Klinicheskaia meditsina. 2008;(9):25-8
Abstract
This open non-randomized study had the objective to analyse the course of pregnancy and labor as well as their outcomes in 62 women with hypertensive disease (essential hypertention). The patients were allocated to two groups, one (group 1) comprising 32 the other (group 2, control) 30 women. All patients in group 1 underwent pregravid preparation and remained under observation throughout the pregnancy period in specialized cardiological departments. They were given treatment that included intake of antihypertensive drugs (methyldopa, long-acting nifedipin, metoprolol), desaggregant (dipyridamole, pentoxifllin), and metabolically active agent (vitamin E, folic acid, magnesium orotate, actovegin, cocarboxylase, and inosin). Gestosis developed in 25% of the patients in group 1 within 37 weeks and in 56.7% of the women (p < 0.05) in group 2 within 23-37 weeks of pregnancy. Circulatory disturbances in the mother-placenta-fetus system were recorded in 25% and 50% of the women in groups 1 and 2 respectively (p < 0.05), intrauterine fetal hypoxia in 18.8 and 50% (p < 0.05), chronic fetoplacental insufficiency in and fetal growth retardation syndrome in 12.5 and 40% (p < 0.05). In group 2, the perinatal mortality rate was 66.7% and perinatal losses amounted to 100.0% compared with their absence in group 1 (p < 0.05). Premature delivery occurred in 30% of the women in group 2 and was absent in group 1 (p < 0.05). In group 1, 9.4 of the newborn infants had low birth weight compared with 33.3% of the live full-term infants in group 2 (p < 0.05). Conjugated jaundice prevailed among the diseases affecting newborns in group 1 whereas intrauterine infections and posthypoxic encephalopathies were most common in group 2 It is concluded than combined therapy of hypertensive disease in women delayed the development of gestosis and made it possible to maintain pregnancy till normal outcome for both the mother and the child.
-
6.
Effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker irbesartan on metabolic parameters in clinical practice: the DO-IT prospective observational study.
Parhofer, KG, Münzel, F, Krekler, M
Cardiovascular diabetology. 2007;:36
Abstract
AIMS: A number of intervention studies have shown that therapy with angiotensin receptor blockers, such as irbesartan, can improve metabolic parameters and reduce the incidence of diabetes mellitus. It is unknown whether this observation also holds true in routine clinical settings. METHODS We evaluated the effect of irbesartan (150 mg or 300 mg/d) together with or without hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg/d) in 3259 German patients. A total of 750 primary care physicians evaluated up to 5 subsequent patients with metabolic syndrome (58.9% diabetic), in whom irbesartan therapy was newly initiated (87%) or continued (13%). RESULTS Six months of irbesartan therapy decreased systolic blood pressure by 14% (157.4 +/- 14.7 vs. 135.0 +/- 10.7 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure by 13% (92.9 +/- 9.2 vs. 80.8 +/- 6.8 mmHg). This was associated with a decrease in body weight (-2.3%), fasting glucose (-9.5%), HbA1c (-4.6%), LDL-cholesterol (-11%), triglycerides (-16%) and gamma-GT (-12%) and an increase in HDL-cholesterol (+5%). These changes were somewhat more pronounced in male than in female patients and in obese than in lean patients. Changes in glucose concentration and HbA1c were much more prominent in diabetic patients. CONCLUSION Irbesartan therapy improves metabolic parameters in routine clinical settings. Thus, our study confirms previously published results from large intervention trials and extends the findings to routine clinical practice.
-
7.
Efficacy and tolerability of rilmenidine compared with isradipine in hypertensive patients with features of metabolic syndrome.
Widimský, J, Sirotiaková, J
Current medical research and opinion. 2006;(7):1287-94
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A high prevalence of associated metabolic cardiovascular risk factors is often observed among hypertensive subjects. The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of 1-2 mg/day of rilmenidine, a centrally acting antihypertensive agent with selectivity for I(1) imidazoline receptors, vs. 2.5-5 mg/twice daily of isradipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, in hypertensive patients with features of the metabolic syndrome. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this 6-month multicentre, comparative, double-blind, parallel group study, the primary objective was to assess the effects of the treatments on blood pressure (BP); the secondary endpoints were to assess glucose and lipid metabolism, in addition to clinical and biological tolerability. In non-responder patients, dose adjustment was possible from the first month and adding a diuretic from the third month. RESULTS Of an intention-to-treat population of 93 patients, 84 per protocol patients completed the study: 42 in the rilmenidine group and 42 in the isradipine group. BP decreased significantly (p < 0.001) and similarly in both groups (systolic blood pressure, SBP: -16.0 +/- 17.2 mmHg and -15.0 +/- 13.0 mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure, DBP: -9.0 +/- 9.4 mmHg and -9.0 +/- 8.7 mmHg with rilmenidine and isradipine, respectively). Normalisation (DBP < 90 mmHg and SBP < 140 mmHg) and response (normalisation or decrease in SBP >or= 20 mmHg or decrease in DBP >or= 10 mmHg) rates were respectively 57% and 72% with rilmenidine and 64% and 79% with isradipine (NS between groups). The effects of the treatments on both glucose and lipid metabolism were comparable: no significant difference from baseline was observed on the main parameters including insulin sensitivity indexes. The two treatments appeared to be well tolerated throughout the study, with no serious adverse reaction reported in the rilmenidine group and one serious adverse event in the isradipine group (a perimalleolar oedema), leading to withdrawal from the study for the affected patient. CONCLUSION This study suggests that in hypertensive patients with metabolic disorders, rilmenidine is an effective antihypertensive treatment, comparable to isradipine, with metabolic neutrality and a good tolerance profile.
-
8.
Moxonidine improves glycaemic control in mildly hypertensive, overweight patients: a comparison with metformin.
Chazova, I, Almazov, VA, Shlyakhto, E
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2006;(4):456-65
Abstract
AIM: To compare the effects of moxonidine and metformin on glycaemic control in patients with impaired glucose tolerance and signs of the metabolic syndrome. METHODS A multicentre, prospective, randomized, open-label study design was adopted with blinded endpoint evaluation. Patients > or =40 years old, with impaired glucose tolerance (or diabetes mellitus treated with diet alone) and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m2 were treated twice daily with moxonidine 0.2 mg or metformin 500 mg for 16 weeks. Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed at baseline and end-of-study; plasma insulin and plasma glucose levels were measured at 0, 60, 120 and 180 min after administration. RESULTS With regard to effects on insulin [mean area under the curve (AUC) for insulin], the primary efficacy endpoint of the study, both drugs did not show equivalence. On the contrary, in the per protocol (PP) population, moxonidine statistically significantly (p = 0.025) decreased the AUC for insulin from baseline in the PP population; for metformin, the treatment effect on insulin was a small, net increase resulting in a statistically significant between-group difference of 16.2% (95% CI = 0.1-35.0). The change in mean insulin AUC was most marked in the subgroup of patients with higher sympathetic activity (heart rate >80 bpm). Mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels and HbA1c levels were largely unchanged by moxonidine treatment but significantly decreased by metformin treatment. The difference between the groups was 14.7% (p = 0.0523) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) sample. By study end, both treatments had significantly increased the Matsuda Insulin Sensitivity Index (ISI) from baseline to a comparable extent: moxonidine by reducing plasma insulin after a glucose challenge, metformin by reducing FPG. BMI fell significantly in both groups and blood pressure normalized; both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Moxonidine improved insulin sensitivity in response to glucose challenge in patients with evidence of metabolic syndrome. This improvement resulted from a reduction in plasma insulin levels and was most marked in patients with high sympathetic drive at baseline. By enhancing insulin sensitivity, moxonidine treatment may help prevent the development of diabetes and thereby ameliorate the risk for cardiovascular disease.
-
9.
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.