The Promise of Cilnidipine in Hypertension with Comorbidities: National Consensus Statement: National Consensus Group Comprises Cardiologists, Nephrologists, and Diabetologists from India in a National Meet at New Delhi held on 22nd May 2022.

The rapidly increasing burden of hypertension is responsible for premature deaths from cardiovascular disease (CVD), renal disease, and stroke, with a tremendous public health and financial burden. Hypertension detection, treatment, and control vary worldwide; it is still low, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). High blood pressure (BP) and CVD risk have a strong, linear, and independent association. They contribute to alarming numbers of all-cause and CVD deaths. A major culprit for increased hypertension is sympathetic activity, and further complications of hypertension are heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, and renal failure. Now, antihypertensive interventions have emerged as a global public health priority to reduce BP-related morbidity and mortality. Calcium channel blockers (CCB) are highly effective vasodilators. and the most common drugs used for managing hypertension and CVD. Cilnidipine, with both L- and N-type calcium channel blocking activity, is a promising 4th generation CCB. It causes vasodilation via L-type calcium channel blockade and inhibits the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) via N-type calcium channel blockade. Cilnidipine, which acts as a dual L/N-type CCB, is linked to a reduced occurrence of pedal edema compared to amlodipine, which solely blocks L-type calcium channels. The antihypertensive properties of cilnidipine are very substantial, with low BP variability and long-acting properties. It is beneficial for hypertensive patients to deal with morning hypertension and for patients with abnormal nocturnal BP due to exaggerated sympathetic nerve activation. Besides its BP-lowering effect, it also exhibits organ protection via sympathetic nerve inhibition and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition; it controls heart rate and proteinuria. Reno-protective, neuroprotective, and cardioprotective effects of cilnidipine have been well-documented and demonstrated.

Polygenic Risk Score Assessment for Coronary Artery Disease in Asian Indians.

We evaluated the performance of various polygenic risk score (PRS) models derived from European (EU), South Asian (SA), and Punjabi Asian Indians (AI) studies on 13,974 subjects from AI ancestry. While all models successfully predicted Coronary artery disease (CAD) risk, the AI, SA, and EU + AI were superior predictors and more transportable than the EU model; the predictive performance in training and test sets was 18% and 22% higher in AI and EU + AI models, respectively than in EU. Comparing individuals with extreme PRS quartiles, the AI and EU + AI captured individuals with high CAD risk showed 2.6 to 4.6 times higher efficiency than the EU. Interestingly, including the clinical risk score did not significantly change the performance of any genetic model. The enrichment of diversity variants in EU PRS improves risk prediction and transportability. Establishing population-specific normative and risk factors and inclusion into genetic models would refine the risk stratification and improve the clinical utility of CAD PRS.

Comparison of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the FDC of telmisartan + bisoprolol with telmisartan + metoprolol succinate ER combination therapy for stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension: A double-blind, multicentric, phase-III clinical study.

AIM: The present study compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of the new fixed-dose combination (FDC) of telmisartan 40 mg + bisoprolol 5 mg (TBP) tablets with the existing comparator FDC telmisartan 40 mg + metoprolol succinate ER 50 mg (TMS) tablets in patients with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension. METHODOLOGY: The multicentric, double-blind, parallel-group, comparative, prospective, phase-III clinical study involved 264 subjects with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension from 10 centres across India. The selected subjects were randomized into two groups: group A received the TMS and group B received the new FDC TBP. The primary endpoint was the mean change in seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) and seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) from baseline to week 12 in both the control and study arms. The secondary endpoint was achieving the target of SeSBP <140 mmHg and SeDBP <90 mmHg from baseline to week 12 in both groups. Safety and tolerability parameters were evaluated in both groups based on adverse effects (AEs) reported by the patients and the physician. RESULTS: Both treatment groups exhibited a reduction in BP after 2 weeks of treatment, which was sustained until 12 weeks. The mean change in SeSBP and SeDBP at weeks 2, 6, and 12 compared to the previous visit showed statistical significance (p < 0.001) in all cases for both groups A and B. The mean changes in SeSBP and SeDBP from baseline to study end were numerically higher in group B than in group A. The mean difference in SeSBP from baseline to study end was significantly higher in group B compared to group A (p = 0.029). By week 12, 88.28 % and 89.84 % of subjects in group B achieved SeSBP <140 mmHg and SeDBP <90 mmHg respectively, while 86.71 % and 91.40 % of subjects in group A achieved the same targets. Reported AEs were mostly mild to moderate in both treatment groups, and no serious AEs or deaths were reported. Tolerability was rated as 'excellent' by 93.75 % of subjects in group B and 91.40 % of subjects in group A. CONCLUSION: Both the new FDC TBP and the existing comparator TMS combination therapy have comparable efficacy, tolerability, and safety for the management of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRY NAME: Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: CTRI/2021/11/037,926 PROTOCOL NO: MLBTL/05/2021 PROTOCOL URL: https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=62069&EncHid=&userName=bisoprolol.

Assessing the prediction of type 2 diabetes risk using polygenic and clinical risk scores in South Asian study populations.

Background: Genome-wide polygenic risk scores (PRS) have shown high specificity and sensitivity in predicting type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk in Europeans. However, the PRS-driven information and its clinical significance in non-Europeans are underrepresented. We examined the predictive efficacy and transferability of PRS models using variant information derived from genome-wide studies of Asian Indians (AIs) (PRSAI) and Europeans (PRSEU) using 13,974 AI individuals. Methods: Weighted PRS models were constructed and analyzed on 4602 individuals from the Asian Indian Diabetes Heart Study/Sikh Diabetes Study (AIDHS/SDS) as discovery/training and test/validation datasets. The results were further replicated in 9372 South Asian individuals from UK Biobank (UKBB). We also assessed the performance of each PRS model by combining data of the clinical risk score (CRS). Results: Both genetic models (PRSAI and PRSEU) successfully predicted the T2D risk. However, the PRSAI revealed 13.2% odds ratio (OR) 1.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63-1.97; p = 1.6 × 10-152] and 12.2% OR 1.38 (95% CI 1.30-1.46; p = 7.1 × 10-237) superior performance in AIDHS/SDS and UKBB validation sets, respectively. Comparing individuals of extreme PRS (ninth decile) with the average PRS (fifth decile), PRSAI showed about two-fold OR 20.73 (95% CI 10.27-41.83; p = 2.7 × 10-17) and 1.4-fold OR 3.19 (95% CI 2.51-4.06; p = 4.8 × 10-21) higher predictability to identify subgroups with higher genetic risk than the PRSEU. Combining PRS and CRS improved the area under the curve from 0.74 to 0.79 in PRSAI and 0.72 to 0.75 in PRSEU. Conclusion: Our data suggest the need for extending genetic and clinical studies in varied ethnic groups to exploit the full clinical potential of PRS as a risk prediction tool in diverse study populations.