Effect of angiotensin receptor blockade on central haemodynamics in essential hypertension: results of a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been shown to lower central augmentation index (cAI), an index of arterial wave reflection, more than beta-blockers. We tested whether this is also true for long-term treatment with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). METHODS: One-hundred and fifty-six subjects with essential hypertension were randomised to treatment with either irbesartan or atenolol. cAI and central blood pressure (BP) were determined by pulse wave analysis from the radial and the carotid artery after six and after 18 months treatment. RESULTS: Peripheral and central systolic and diastolic BP were reduced to a similar extent in the two groups. cAI was reduced with irbesartan, but increased with atenolol (derived from the carotid artery: -6+/-10 vs. -4+/-12% after six months, p<0.001; -4+/-12 vs. +1+/-11% after 18 months; p=0.011). Furthermore, central to peripheral pulse pressure (PP) amplification was unaffected by treatment with irbesartan, but decreased with atenolol. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment with irbesartan and atenolol similarly decreased peripheral and central BP, only treatment with irbesartan had beneficial effects on arterial wave reflection and preserved PP amplification. These haemodynamic effects may at least partly explain the reported differential effects of ARB versus beta-blocker treatment on cardiovascular mortality in patients with essential hypertension.

Efficacy of eplerenone versus enalapril as monotherapy in systemic hypertension.

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of eplerenone and enalapril in 499 patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension who were randomized to receive eplerenone or enalapril for 6 months in a 3-step titration-to-effect study. After 6 months, patients whose diastolic blood pressure (BP) was <90 mm Hg had their dosages down-titrated were followed for an additional 6 months. Diastolic BP was the primary end point. Eplerenone was as effective as enalapril in reducing both systolic BP (eplerenone, -14.5 mm Hg; enalapril, -12.7 mm Hg; p = 0.199) and diastolic BP (eplerenone, -11.2 mm Hg; enalapril, -11.3 mm Hg; p = 0.910) at 6 months. BP reductions at 12 months were also similar between groups (-16.5/-13.3 mm Hg for eplerenone, -14.8/-14.1 mm Hg for enalapril; p = 0.251 and 0.331, respectively). Withdrawal rates for adverse events (eplerenone 7.9%, enalapril 9.3% at 6 months) and treatment failures (eplerenone 23.3%, enalapril 22.8% at 6 months) were also equivalent. Approximately 2/3 of each group had normal BP with monotherapy treatment at 6 months. BP response was independent of renin levels in the eplerenone group, but not in the enalapril group. Both agents reduced albuminuria in patients who had an elevated value at baseline, with significantly greater improvement in patients treated with eplerenone versus enalapril (-61.5% vs -25.7%; p = 0.01). Both agents were similarly well tolerated, and there was no increased incidence of any sexual adverse events in the eplerenone group. Patients taking enalapril had a higher rate of cough. Both agents increased serum potassium levels, but <1% in each group reported adverse events from hyperkalemia. Eplerenone was as effective as enalapril as monotherapy in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension, was more effective in reducing albuminuria, and was well tolerated for 12 months.

Design of the Omapatrilat in Persons with Enhanced Risk of Atherosclerotic events (OPERA) trial.

The Omapatrilat in Persons with Enhanced Risk of Atherosclerotic events (OPERA) trial is a large clinical trial of omapatrilat, a vasopeptidase inhibitor, in patients with stage 1 isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). OPERA is the first study to examine whether effective antihypertensive treatment can provide survival and clinical end point benefits in older persons with this common condition. This 5-year multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, forced-titration study will be conducted in approximately 12,600 subjects randomized by approximately 1100 study centers worldwide over a recruitment period of approximately 2 years. The primary objective of OPERA is to determine whether treatment with once-daily omapatrilat (target dose 40 mg) will reduce cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in older (> or = 65 years) men and women with enhanced risk for atherosclerotic events due to stage 1 ISH plus other risk factors for which currently there is no evidence-based requirement for treatment. Blood pressure inclusion criteria are systolic blood pressure (SBP) 140 to 159 mm Hg (SBP 125 to 139 mm Hg in diabetic individuals) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mm Hg. The primary end point is defined as the composite of fatal/nonfatal stroke, fatal/nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal/nonfatal heart failure, and other CV mortality. Secondary end points include the individual components of the primary end point, CV mortality, and major cardiovascular end points, as well as effects on cognitive function and initiation of treatment for diabetes. Additional analyses will be conducted in men and women, in diabetic patients, in different risk classes and according to prior evidence of vascular disease.

Long-term safety and tolerability of the oral direct renin inhibitor aliskiren with optional add-on hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension: a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, dose-escalation study with an extension phase.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with hypertension will require combination therapy with at least two agents from different antihypertensive classes to achieve blood pressure (BP) control. Thiazide diuretics, such as hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), are widely used in combination therapy. The volume reduction with these agents stimulates the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), making RAS inhibitors such as the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren a logical choice for combination therapy with HCTZ. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, with or without addition of the diuretic HCTZ. METHODS: In the 12-month core study, patients with hypertension (mean sitting diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg and <110 mmHg) were randomized in a 3 : 2 ratio to once-daily aliskiren 150 mg or 300 mg. At months 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9, treatment was adjusted in patients not achieving a BP goal of <140/90 mmHg. Patients not at goal on aliskiren 150 mg once daily were up-titrated to aliskiren 300 mg once daily. Patients not at goal with aliskiren 300 mg once daily received add-on HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily, which was up-titrated to 25 mg once daily if BP remained inadequately controlled. At month 12, patients who received aliskiren/HCTZ 300 mg/25 mg once daily for at least 8 months in the core study were eligible to enter a 4-month extension study. RESULTS: Overall, 1625/1955 patients completed the core study, and 870/1955 patients received add-on HCTZ; 189/198 patients completed the 4-month extension. Aliskiren, with or without add-on HCTZ, was generally well tolerated; the incidence of adverse events (AEs) during the core study was similar among the four final treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs in the core and extension studies were mild and transient cases of nasopharyngitis, headache and dizziness. Few patients exhibited laboratory abnormalities. Overall, aliskiren, with or without add-on HCTZ, reduced mean BP by 18.0/12.7 mmHg at core study endpoint, and 61.2% of patients achieved BP control. BP reductions with aliskiren/HCTZ 300 mg/25 mg combination therapy at the core study endpoint were maintained during the extension study. CONCLUSION: In patients with hypertension, long-term treatment with aliskiren, with or without add-on HCTZ, is well tolerated and provides effective BP lowering that is sustained over 12 months.

Predictors of adverse outcome among patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine predictors for adverse outcomes in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: Factors leading to adverse outcomes in hypertensive patients with CAD are poorly understood. The INternational VErapamil-trandolapril STudy (INVEST) compared outcomes in hypertensive patients with CAD that were assigned randomly to either a verapamil sustained-release (SR)- or an atenolol-based strategy for blood pressure (BP) control. Trandolapril and hydrochlorothiazide were used as added agents. During follow-up (61,835 patient-years), BP control and the primary outcome (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) were not different between strategies. METHODS: We investigated risk for adverse outcome associated with baseline factors, follow-up BP, and drug treatments using Cox modeling. RESULTS: Previous heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.96), as well as diabetes (HR 1.77), increased age (HR 1.63), U.S. residency (HR 1.61), renal impairment (HR 1.50), stroke/transient ischemic attack (HR 1.43), smoking (HR 1.41), myocardial infarction (HR 1.34), peripheral vascular disease (HR 1.27), and revascularization (HR 1.15) predicted increased risk. Follow-up systolic BP <140 mm Hg or diastolic BP <90 mm Hg (HRs 0.82 or 0.70, respectively) and trandolapril with verapamil SR (HRs 0.78 and 0.79) were associated with reduced risk. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with CAD, increased risk for adverse outcomes was associated with conditions related to the severity of CAD and diminished left ventricular function. Lower follow-up BP and addition of trandolapril to verapamil SR each were associated with reduced risk.

[Systolic hypertension-treat or not to treat?]. / Systolische Hypertonie-Treat or Not to Treat?

UNLABELLED: HEMODYNAMICS: Elevated diastolic as well as elevated systolic blood pressure substantially contribute to the increase of cardiovascular risk. Conclusive results have proven that lowering diastolic and/or systolic blood pressure can reduce cardiovascular risk. There is evidence that not only the absolute values for diastolic and systolic blood pressure alone but also the pulse pressure as an additional indicator of cardiovascular risk have to be considered. The prevalence of isolated systolic hypertension increases with age. Remodeling of the arterial wall with increase of collagen and decrease of elastic fibers are leading to an impaired arterial compliance. Decreased compliance and acceleration of the pulse wave velocity can elevate systolic and lower diastolic blood pressure. In consequence cardiac stress and pulse pressure will rise. CONCLUSION: There is a strong correlation in elderly patients between cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and systolic blood pressure. Antihypertensive therapy is able to lower cardiovascular event rate in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension with a predominant risk reduction for stroke.

Effect of irbesartan versus atenolol on left ventricular mass and voltage: results of the CardioVascular Irbesartan Project.

Regression of hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is associated with improved prognosis. The aim of this trial was to compare the effects of irbesartan versus atenolol on LVH in subjects with essential hypertension. Because electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters of LVH carry disparate prognostic information, both methods were applied in this trial. In the randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial CardioVascular Irbesartan Project, 240 patients with essential hypertension were treated with irbesartan or atenolol for 18 months. Voltage criteria used for LVH were Sokolow index, Cornell index, Cornell voltage x QRS duration product and Lewis index. In parallel, left ventricular mass (LVM) was determined by 2-dimensional guided M-mode echocardiography. After 6 and 18 months, reductions of LVM and voltage criteria for LVH were only found in subjects treated with irbesartan. However, a reduction of LVM was only detectable in subjects within the highest quartile of baseline LVM but not overall. In contrast, reductions of voltage criteria for LVH were detectable after 6 and 18 months even within commonly used normal limits. In conclusion, treatment of hypertension with irbesartan resulted in a significant reduction in the voltage criteria for LVH, although an effect on LVM was only seen in subjects with high baseline LVM. In contrast, atenolol did not lead to reductions in electrocardiographic or echocardiographic parameters of LVH. Because voltage criteria for LVH have been shown to predict cardiovascular outcome independently from LVM, we suggest that both methods should be used to accurately assess the benefits of antihypertensive treatment.