[THE IMPACT OF A COMMUNITY INTERVENTION PROGRAM IN ISRAELI WORKSITES TO REDUCE THE RISK OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES].

INTRODUCTION: Atherosclerosis is the main cause of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in the western world. Detection and treatment of risk factors (such as hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus) reduce CV events. We have shown cost utility in reducing these CV risk factors in community clinics and community centers. AIMS: In this paper we focused on community workplaces. METHODS: We included 1011 workers in 15 worksites in the study. All workers were analyzed for CV risk factors and included in 6 months of intervention in their worksite in order to reduce the burden of CV risk factors. RESULTS: Significant reduction was noted in the percentage of high risk patients from 43.7% to 27.8% to 24.7% after 3 and 6 months respectively (p<0.05), in the percentage of workers with high weight circumference, high blood pressure, smokers, and in high body mass index (>30g/m2 ). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions in community workplaces can improve the CV risk factors profile and thus should be implemented as broadly as possible.

Cost-utility analysis of a national project to reduce hypertension in Israel.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to calculate the health effects and costs of a proposed national hypertension prevention and control program. METHODS: Interventions are based on experience from our two programs: 10-year period of Ashkelon Hypertension Detection and Control Program (AHDC Program) and the Israel Blood Pressure Control (IBPC) program. The costs of a nationwide program were calculated based on economic data, training staff levels, course frequency and unit costs. RESULTS: Over the next 20 years, the program should decrease the risk in one-half of the treated hypertensive cases of the following ailments: cardiovascular events such as Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) and Unstable Angina Pectoris (UAP) by 16.0%, stroke by 41.2%, End stage renal disease (ESRD) by 50.0% and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) by 42.6%. In total, around 2,242 lives, 35,117 years of life or 24,433 disability adjusted life years will be saved due to decreased mortality.Program costs amount to $352.7 million. However savings ($537.6 million), from reduced medical treatment ($444.3 million) and reduced pharmaceutical use ($93.3 million) as a result of morbidity decreases, exceed costs by $185.0 million. CONCLUSION: The project which saves both lives and resources should be extended nation-wide to reach as wide a population as possible.

Effects of valsartan compared to amlodipine on preventing type 2 diabetes in high-risk hypertensive patients: the VALUE trial.

CONTEXT: Type 2 diabetes is emerging as a major health problem, which tends to cluster with hypertension in individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To test for the first time the hypothesis that treatment of hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk with the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) valsartan prevents new-onset type 2 diabetes compared with the metabolically neutral calcium-channel antagonist (CCA) amlodipine. DESIGN: Pre-specified analysis in the VALUE trial. Follow-up averaged 4.2 years. The risk of developing new diabetes was calculated as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for different definitions of diabetes. PATIENTS: A sample of 9995 high-risk, non-diabetic hypertensive patients. INTERVENTIONS: Valsartan or amlodipine with or without add-on medication [hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and other add-ons, excluding other ARBs, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCAs]. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: New diabetes defined as an adverse event, new blood-glucose-lowering drugs and/or fasting glucose > 7.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: New diabetes was reported in 580 (11.5%) patients on valsartan and in 718 (14.5%) patients on amlodipine (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.87, P < 0.0001). Using stricter criteria (without adverse event reports) new diabetes was detected in 495 (9.8%) patients on valsartan and in 586 (11.8%) on amlodipine (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.93, P = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: Compared with amlodipine, valsartan reduces the risk of developing diabetes mellitus in high-risk hypertensive patients.

Nonpharmacologic treatment of resistant hypertensives by device-guided slow breathing exercises.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated the antihypertensive effect of slow breathing exercises, guided interactively by a device, in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) without changing medication. This study examined the response to the same treatment protocol in resistant hypertensives. METHODS: Seventeen resistant hypertensives exercised device-guided slow breathing for 8 weeks, 15 min daily, and self-monitored BP. Data stored in the devices were collected on a PC-based system. Clinical outcomes were office and home BP changes from baseline to end values. RESULTS: Significant reductions in both office BP (-12.9/-6.9 mm Hg, P <.001 and home BP (-6.4/-2.6 mm Hg, P <.01/P <.05) without side effects with 82% responders and good compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Resistant hypertensives can benefit from and are compliant with self-treatment by device-guided slow breathing.

Risk factor profile and achievement of treatment goals among hypertensive patients in general practice in Israel: baseline results from the Israeli Blood Pressure Control (IBPC) program.

BACKGROUND: The Israeli Blood Pressure Control program was initiated to enhance the control of modifiable risk factors among high risk hypertensive patients followed by general practitioners in Israel. OBJECTIVE: To report the baseline results of the state of the treatment regarding blood pressure management, lipid and glucose control as well as obesity and smoking cessation among the patients. METHODS: Hypertensive patients were screened in 30 general practice clinics supervised by family medicine specialists seeing 1,000-5,000 patients each. Between 50 and 250 hypertensive patints were diagnosed at each participating clinic. Blood pressure levels, body mass index, lipid and glucose levels, as well as target organ damage and medications were recorded for all patients. RESULTS: Of the 4,948 patients registered, 2,079 were males (42%). Mean age was 64.8 +/- 12. Blood pressure control was achieved in only 33.1% of total hypertensive patients. Low density lipoprotein control was achieved in 31.1% of all patients, and glucose control in only 28.5%% of diabetic patients (glucose < 126 mg/dl); 20.7% of the diabetics had glucose levels above 200 mg/dl. In this group of patients 38.9% were obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2). While there were more obese females than males (48.0% vs. 35.6%), no difference was found in blood pressure, lipid or glucose control between the genders. CONCLUSION: Risk factor management of hypertensive patients attending general practice clinics in Israel is not optimal, especially among those with diabetes or in need of secondary prevention measures. A long-term intervention program for high risk patients in the community is needed to improve the current situation.

Resistant arterial hypertension and hyperlipidemia: atorvastatin, not vitamin C, for blood pressure control.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is considered resistant if blood pressure cannot be reduced to <140/90 mmHg with an appropriate triple-drug regimen, including an oral diuretic, with all agents administered at maximal dosages. This definition has evolved with the development of new therapies and evidence-based data supporting treatment to lower BP goals. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether vitamin C and atorvastatin improve endothelial function and blood pressure control in subjects with resistant arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia. METHODS: Forty-eight hyperlipidemic subjects with RH (office systolic BP >140 mmHg and/or office diastolic BP >90 mmHg notwithstanding antihypertensive treatment with three medications in maximal doses) were randomized into three groups to receive additional medication for 8 weeks. Group VTC (n = 17)--mean 24 hour SBP 150.6 +/- 5.2 mmHg, DBP 86.1 +/- 3.3 mmHg, low density lipoprotein 158.1 +/- 24.5 mg/dl--received vitamin C 500 mg per day; Group ATR (n = 15)--mean 24 hour SBP 153.1 +/- 4.8 mmHg, DBP 87.1 +/- 6.7 mmHg, LDL 162.6 +/- 13.6 mg/dl--received atorvastatin 20 mg/day; and Group PLA (n = 16)--mean 24 hour SBP 151.1 +/- 7.4 mmHg, DBP 84.8 +/- 5.9 mmHg, LDL 156.7 +/- 26.1 mg/dl--received a placebo. High resolution ultrasound was used to calculate brachial artery flow-mediated dilation, and 24 hour ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at study entry and after 8 weeks. RESULTS: In the ATR group there were significant reductions of SBP (deltaSBP1-2: 13.7 +/- 5.6 mmHg, P 0.001), DBP (deltaDBP1-2: 7.8 +/- 5.7 mmHg, P 0.01), LDL (deltaLDL1-2: 67.7 +/- 28.3 mg/dl, P < 0.001) and improvement of brachial artery FMD (deltaFMD2-1: 4.2 +/- 2.6%). No significant changes in BP, LDL and FMD were observed in the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with RH and dyslipidemia, atorvastatin 20 mg/day compared to vitamin C 500 mg/day may help to achieve better BP control and improve endothelial function in a finite period. A larger trial is needed to assess the drug's efficacy in this population for longer periods.

Progressive effects of valsartan compared with amlodipine in prevention of diabetes according to categories of diabetogenic risk in hypertensive patients: the VALUE trial.

We have previously shown that the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan is associated with a lower incidence of new-onset type 2 diabetes than that with the calcium-channel antagonist amlodipine in the treatment of hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. We have now investigated the benefits of valsartan vs amlodipine in patients of different categories of diabetogenic risk. Some 9995 patients without diabetes at onset participated in VALUE, with average follow-up of 4.2 years. Predictors of new diabetes were analyzed by stepwise logistic regression. A diabetes risk score for each patient was calculated based on a multivariate model. The risk of developing new diabetes in quartiles of risk for the disease was calculated as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). New diabetes was reported in 580 (11.5%) patients on valsartan and in 718 (14.5%) patients on amlodipine (p<0.0001). There was a more than sevenfold rise in the development of new diabetes from the lowest to the highest quartile of risk. When study treatment was included in the risk model, the odds in favor of valsartan in preventing new diabetes progressively increased with higher risk. Fifty-two (4.03%) patients developed diabetes on valsartan and 50 (4.14%) patients on amlodipine in the lowest quartile of risk, 73 (5.70%) patients on valsartan and 83 (6.81%) patients on amlodipine in the second quartile, and 126 (10.27%) patients on valsartan and 160 (12.58%) patients on amlodipine in the third quartile. The difference between treatments was highly significant in quartile 4 with 329 (26.68%) patients developing new diabetes on valsartan vs 425 (33.57%) patients on amlodipine (OR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.86, p = 0.0002). The number of patients needed for treatment for the duration of the trial in order to gain the benefit of valsartan over amlodipine in preventing one new case of diabetes was 43 in the third quartile and 15 in the fourth quartile of risk categories. We conclude that valsartan compared with amlodipine reduces the risk of developing diabetes mellitus, particularly in hypertensive patients with the highest susceptibility for development of diabetes.

Rosiglitazone improves, while Glibenclamide worsens blood pressure control in treated hypertensive diabetic and dyslipidemic subjects via modulation of insulin resistance and sympathetic activity.

BACKGROUND: Type II diabetes is often associated with high blood pressure, elevated sympathetic activity, and high plasma insulin levels. Hypoglycemic agents may negatively interfere with blood pressure control, sympathetic activity, and plasma insulin level; therefore the choice of treatment in type II diabetes may be crucial. We aimed to compare the effects of two hypoglycemic drugs on blood glucose, blood pressure, sympathetic activity, and insulin levels in type II diabetic and hypertensive patients. METHODS: Forty-eight (24M, 24F) type II diabetic, hypertensive, and hyperlipidemic subjects were enrolled and treated for 4 weeks with an ACE inhibitor (Cilazapril) and a statin (Simvastatin). They were then randomized into two groups to receive a thiazolidinedione (Rosiglitazone; ROS) or a sulfonylurea (Glibenclamide; GLB) for 8 weeks. Blood biochemistry, blood pressure, plasma insulin, endothelial function, and sympathetic skin activity were measured before and after treatment. RESULTS: A significant drop in systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 6.1 +/- 4.1 mm Hg and 4.2 +/- 1.9 mm Hg respectively; a reduction in plasma insulin concentration by 4.3 +/- 1.9 mU/L and a decline in skin sympathetic activity were observed in the group receiving ROS. The GLB group showed an increase in systolic blood pressure by 3.1 +/- 2.5 mm Hg, no change in diastolic blood pressure, significant elevation in plasma insulin concentration by 2.3 +/- 1.4 mu/L, and augmentation of sympathetic activity. No significant changes in endothelial function were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone improved both plasma glucose and blood pressure levels, probably by attenuation of hyperinsulinemia and sympathetic activity, while Glibenclamide worsened blood pressure control possibly by elevation of insulin levels and activation of the sympathetic system.