Bloqueadores do Receptor de Angiotensina Avaliados por Medida de Consultório e Residencial da Pressão Arterial. Estudo TeleMRPA / Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Evaluated by Office and Home Blood Pressure Measurements. TeleHBPM Study

Resumo Fundamento O tratamento adequado e a obtenção das metas na hipertensão arterial são importantes na redução dos desfechos cardiovasculares. Objetivos Descrever os bloqueadores do receptor de angiotensina (BRA) em monoterapia ou combinação dupla e a taxa de controle da hipertensão arterial. Métodos Estudo transversal que avaliou pacientes em uso de BRA entre 2017 e 2020. Foram excluídos aqueles em uso de três ou mais anti-hipertensivos. As variáveis analisadas foram: sexo, idade, índice de massa corporal, medidas válidas da medida residencial da pressão arterial (MRPA); pressão arterial sistólica (PAS) e diastólica (PAD) obtidas pela MRPA e de forma casual; variabilidade pressórica; classe dos anti-hipertensivos e dos BRAs. Foram utilizados testes de t pareado, qui-quadrado e Fisher, além de sobreposição dos intervalos de confiança de 95% com nível de significância de 5% (p < 0,05). Resultados Foram selecionados 17.013 pacientes; destes, 12.813 preencheram os critérios, dos quais 62,1% eram do sexo feminino. O número médio de medidas válidas foi de 23,3 (±2,0), com médias para a PAS de 126,8±15,8 mmHg e 133,5±20,1 mmHg (p < 0,001) e para a PAD de 79,1±9,7 mmHg e 83,6±11,9 mmHg (p < 0,001) pela MRPA e medida casual, respectivamente. Losartana foi o BRA mais utilizado e o que apresentou comportamentos mais elevados da pressão arterial. As combinações de BRA com diuréticos ou com antagonistas de canal de cálcio tiveram menores valores de pressão arterial. Conclusões Losartana foi utilizada em mais da metade dos pacientes, apesar de ser a menos eficiente na redução e no controle da pressão arterial.

Abstract Background Adequate treatment of arterial hypertension and achieving arterial hypertension goals in are important in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. Objectives To describe angiotensin receptor blockers in monotherapy or double combination therapy and the rate of arterial hypertension control. Methods This cross-sectional study evaluated patients who were using angiotensin receptor blockers between 2017 and 2020. Those using three or more antihypertensive drugs were excluded. The analyzed variables included sex, age, body mass index, valid home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) measurements, casual and HBPM systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements, blood pressure variability, and antihypertensive and angiotensin receptor blocker class. Paired t, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests were used, as well as overlapping 95% confidence intervals and a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). Results Of 17,013 patients, 12,813 met the inclusion criteria, 62.1% of whom were female. The mean number of valid measurements was 23.3 (SD, 2.0). The mean HBPM and casual measurements for systolic blood pressure were 126.8 (SD, 15.8) mmHg and 133.5 (SD, 20.1) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively, while those for diastolic blood pressure were 79.1 (SD, 9.7 mmHg) and 83.6 (SD, 11.9) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively. Losartan was the most common angiotensin receptor blocker and resulted in the highest blood pressure values. Combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers with diuretics or calcium channel antagonists resulted in lower blood pressure values. Conclusions More than half of the patients used losartan, although it was the least efficient drug for reducing and controlling blood pressure.

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish Adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than 10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Statement of the Spanish Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular Prevention Committee (CEIPC) on the 2012 European Cardiovascular Prevention Guidelines]. / Comentarios del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular (CEIPC) a las guías europeas de prevención cardiovascular 2012.

Based on the two main frameworks for evaluating scientific evidence--SEC and GRADE--European cardiovascular prevention guidelines recommend interventions across all life stages using a combination of population-based and high-risk strategies with diet as the cornerstone of prevention. The evaluation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) incorporates HDL levels and psychosocial factors, a very high risk category, and the concept of age-risk. They also recommend cognitive-behavioural methods (e.g., motivational interviewing, psychological interventions, led by health professionals and with the participation of the patient's family, to counterbalance psychosocial stress and reduce CVR through the institution of positive habits such as a healthy diet, physical activity, smoking cessation, and adherence to treatment. Additionally, public health interventions--such as smoking ban in public areas or the elimination of trans fatty acids from the food chain--are also essential. Other innovations include abandoning antiplatelet therapy in primary prevention and the recommendation of maintaining blood pressure (BP) within the 130-139/80-85 mmHg range in diabetic patients and individuals with high CVR. Finally, due to the significant impact on patient progress and medical costs, special emphasis is given to the low therapeutic adherence levels observed. In sum, improving cardiovascular prevention requires a true partnership among the political class, public administrations, scientific and professional associations, health foundations, consumer associations, patients and their families. Such partnership would promote population-based and individual strategies by taking advantage of the broad spectrum of scientific evidence available, from clinical trials to observational studies and mathematical models to evaluate population-based interventions, including cost-effectiveness analyses.

[Statement of the Spanish Interdisciplinary Cardiovascular Prevention Committee (CEIPC for its Spanish acronym) on the 2012 European Cardiovascular Prevention Guidelines]. / Comentarios del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular (CEIPC) a las Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular 2012.

Based on the two main frameworks for evaluating scientific evidence (SEC and GRADE) European cardiovascular prevention guidelines recommend interventions across all life stages using a combination of population-based and high-risk strategies with diet as the cornerstone of prevention. The evaluation of cardiovascular risk (CVR) incorporates HDL levels and psychosocial factors, a very high risk category, and the concept of age-risk. They also recommend cognitive-behavioural methods (e.g., motivational interviewing, psychological interventions) led by health professionals and with the participation of the patient's family, to counterbalance psychosocial stress and reduce CVR through the institution of positive habits such as a healthy diet, physical activity, smoking cessation, and adherence to treatment. Additionally, public health interventions - such as smoking ban in public areas or the elimination of trans fatty acids from the food chain - are also essential. Other innovations include abandoning antiplatelet therapy in primary prevention and the recommendation of maintaining blood pressure within the 130-139/80-85mmHg range in diabetic patients and individuals with high CVR. Finally, due to the significant impact on patient progress and medical costs, special emphasis is given to the low therapeutic adherence levels observed. In sum, improving cardiovascular prevention requires a true partnership among the political class, public administrations, scientific and professional associations, health foundations, consumer associations, patients and their families. Such partnership would promote population-based and individual strategies by taking advantage of the broad spectrum of scientific evidence available, from clinical trials to observational studies and mathematical models to evaluate population-based interventions, including cost-effectiveness analyses.

Implementation of Spanish adaptation of the European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The successful implementation of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines relies heavily on primary care physicians (PCPs) providing risk factor evaluation, intervention and patient education. The aim of this study was to ascertain the degree of awareness and implementation of the Spanish adaptation of the European guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice (CEIPC guidelines) among PCPs. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of PCPs was conducted in Spain between January and June 2011. A random sample of 1,390 PCPs was obtained and stratified by region. Data were collected by means of a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: More than half (58%) the physicians were aware of and knew the recommendations, and 62% of those claimed to use them in clinical practice, with general physicians (without any specialist accreditation) being less likely to so than family doctors. Most PCPs (60%) did not assess cardiovascular risk, with the limited time available in the surgery being cited as the greatest barrier by 81%. The main reason to be sceptical about recommendations, reported by 71% of physicians, was that there are too many guidelines. Almost half the doctors cited the lack of training and skills as the greatest barrier to the implementation of lifestyle and behavioural change recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Most PCPs were aware of the Spanish adaptation of the European guidelines on CVD prevention (CEIPC guidelines) and knew their content. However, only one third of PCPs used the guidelines in clinical practice and less than half CVD risk assessment tools.

[Impact of anti-diabetic therapy based on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on the cardiovascular risk of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus]. / Impacto del tratamiento antidiabético con fármacos agonistas del receptor de péptido de tipo 1 similar al glucagón en el riesgo cardiovascular de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2.

Anti-diabetic drugs have, in addition to their well-known glucose lowering-effect, different effects in the rest of cardiovascular factors that are associated with diabetes mellitus. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have recently been incorporated to the therapeutic arsenal of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The objective of this review is to summarize the available evidence on the effect of the GLP-1 receptor agonists on different cardiovascular risk factors, mediated by the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the control of hyperglycaemia and the GLP-1 receptor agonists effect on other cardiovascular risk factors (weight control, blood pressure control, lipid profile and all other cardiovascular risk biomarkers). In addition, we present the emerging evidence with regards to the impact that GLP-1 receptor agonists therapy could have in the reduction of cardiovascular events and the currently ongoing studies addressing this issue.

[Dyslipidemias: a pending challenge in cardiovascular prevention. Consensus document from CEIPC/SEA Committee]. / Dislipidemias: un reto pendiente en prevención cardiovascular. Documento de consenso CEIPC/SEA.

In Spain, where cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death, hypercholesterolemia, one of the most prevalent risk factors in adults, is poorly controlled. Dyslipidemia should not be approached in isolation, but in the context of overall cardiovascular risk (CVR). Measurement of CVR facilitates decision making, but should not be the only tool nor should it take the place of clinical judgment, given the limitations of the available calculation methods. This document, prepared by the Interdisciplinary Spanish Committee on Cardiovascular Prevention, at the proposal of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis, reviews the cardiovascular prevention activities of the regional health authorities, scientific societies and medical professionals. An initiation of a national strategy on cardiovascular prevention is proposed based on lifestyle modification (healthy diet, physical activity and smoking cessation) through actions in different settings. At the population level, regulation of food advertising, elimination of trans fats and reduction of added sugar are feasible and cost-effective interventions to help control dyslipidemias and reduce CVR. In the health setting, it is proposed to facilitate the application of guidelines, improve training for medical professionals, and include CVR assessment among the quality indicators. Scientific societies should collaborate with the health authorities and contribute to the generation and transmission of knowledge. Finally, it is in the hands of professionals to apply the concept of CVR, promote healthy lifestyles, and make efficient use of available pharmacological treatments.

[Integral control of risk factors in patients of high and very high cardiovascular risk in Spain. CIFARC project]. / Control integral de los factores de riesgo en pacientes de alto y muy alto riesgo cardiovascular en España. Estudio CIFARC.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the percentage of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk, with their risk factors globally well controlled (hypertension, dyslipemia, diabetes mellitus, tobacco and obesity). PATIENTS AND METHOD: Transversal study of ambulatory patients of internal medicine with an estimated cardiovascular risk high or very high (Framingham stratification scale over 20% in ten years). We evaluated the degree of control of their cardiovascular risk factors attending to the recommendations provided by recent international guidelines (WHO/ISH, JNC-VI, NCEP-ATP-III, ADA). RESULTS: We studied 2,264 patients (53.7% males; mean age: 66.1 +/- 11.5 years; 74.6% hypertensive, 61.1% dyslipidemic, 59.8% type 2 diabetes, 31.1% smokers, 38.0% obese and 36.7% in secondary prevention). Control of hypertension was achieved in 34.5%, dyslipidemia in 50.3% and diabetes in 35.5%. Global control of every risk factor was achieved in 6.9% (in 10.2% if we exclude obesity since it is not a risk factor used for cardiovascular stratification). Factors independently associated with a bad integral control were: diabetes (OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.23-0.47), dyslipidemia (OR = 0.34; 95%CI: 0.24-0.48), proteinuria (OR = 0.36; 95%CI: 0.18-0.71). Factors independently associated with a better cardiovascular control were: male sex (OR = 1.67; 95%CI: 1.18-2.38), ventricular hypertrophy (OR = 1.62; 95%CI: 1.15-2.30) and the number of exploratory tests (OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 1.01-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Only 6.9% of patients with a high or very high cardiovascular risk have all their principal risk factors under control. The presence of diabetes, dyslipidemia or proteinuria predisposed to a worse control and the number of complementary tests performed to the patients was related to a better control.