RNA Interference With Zilebesiran for Mild to Moderate Hypertension: The KARDIA-1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Angiotensinogen is the most upstream precursor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, a key pathway in blood pressure (BP) regulation. Zilebesiran, an investigational RNA interference therapeutic, targets hepatic angiotensinogen synthesis. Objective: To evaluate antihypertensive efficacy and safety of different zilebesiran dosing regimens. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study of zilebesiran vs placebo was performed at 78 sites across 4 countries. Screening initiation occurred in July 2021 and the last patient visit of the 6-month study occurred in June 2023. Adults with mild to moderate hypertension, defined as daytime mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) of 135 to 160 mm Hg following antihypertensive washout, were randomized. Interventions: Randomization to 1 of 4 subcutaneous zilebesiran regimens (150, 300, or 600 mg once every 6 months or 300 mg once every 3 months) or placebo (once every 3 months) for 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was between-group difference in least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to month 3 in 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP. Results: Of 394 randomized patients, 377 (302 receiving zilebesiran and 75 receiving placebo) comprised the full analysis set (93 Black patients [24.7%]; 167 [44.3%] women; mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years). At 3 months, 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP changes from baseline were -7.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -10.3 to -4.4) with zilebesiran, 150 mg, once every 6 months; -10.0 mm Hg (95% CI, -12.0 to -7.9) with zilebesiran, 300 mg, once every 3 months or every 6 months; -8.9 mm Hg (95% CI, -11.9 to -6.0) with zilebesiran, 600 mg, once every 6 months; and 6.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.6-9.9) with placebo. LSM differences vs placebo in change from baseline to month 3 were -14.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -19.2 to -9.0; P < .001) with zilebesiran, 150 mg, once every 6 months; -16.7 mm Hg (95% CI, -21.2 to -12.3; P < .001) with zilebesiran, 300 mg, once every 3 months or every 6 months; and -15.7 mm Hg (95% CI, -20.8 to -10.6; P < .001) with zilebesiran, 600 mg, once every 6 months. Over 6 months, 60.9% of patients receiving zilebesiran had adverse events vs 50.7% patients receiving placebo and 3.6% had serious adverse events vs 6.7% receiving placebo. Nonserious drug-related adverse events occurred in 16.9% of zilebesiran-treated patients (principally injection site reactions and mild hyperkalemia) and 8.0% of placebo-treated patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with zilebesiran across a range of doses at 3-month or 6-month intervals significantly reduced 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP at month 3. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04936035.

The burden of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the comparative economic and humanistic burden of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in the United States. The objective was to examine the burden of disease comparing NASH to a representative sample of the general population and separately to a type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cohort by assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures, healthcare resource use (HRU) and work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI). METHODS: Data came from the 2016 National Health and Wellness Survey, a nationally representative patient-reported outcomes survey conducted in the United States. Respondents with physician-diagnosed NASH, physician-diagnosed T2DM, and respondents from the general population were compared. Humanistic burden was examined with mental (MCS) and physical (PCS) component summary scores from the Short-Form (SF)-36v2, concomitant diagnosis of anxiety, depression, and sleep difficulties. Economic burden was analysed based on healthcare professional (HCP) and emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations in the past six months; absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment scores on WPAI questionnaire. Bivariate and multivariable analysis were conducted for each outcome and matched comparative group. RESULTS: After adjusting for baseline demographics and characteristics, NASH (N = 136) compared to the matched general population cohort (N = 544), reported significantly lower (worse) mental (MCS 43.19 vs. 46.22, p = 0.010) and physical (PCS 42.04 vs. 47.10, p < 0.001) status, higher % with anxiety (37.5% vs 25.5%, p = 0.006) and depression (43.4% vs 30.1%, p = 0.004), more HCP visits (8.43 vs. 5.17), ER visits (0.73 vs. 0.38), and hospitalizations (0.43 vs. 0.2) all p's < 0.05, and higher WPAI scores (e.g. overall work impairment 39.64% vs. 26.19%, p = 0.011). NASH cohort did not differ from matched T2DM cohort (N = 272) on mental or work-related WPAI scores, but had significantly worse physical status (PCS 40.52 vs. 44.58, p = 0.001), higher % with anxiety (39.9% vs 27.8%, p = 0.043), more HCP visits (8.63 vs. 5.68, p = 0.003) and greater activity impairment (47.14% vs. 36.07%, p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: This real-world study suggests that burden of disease is higher for all outcomes assessed among NASH compared to matched general controls. When comparing to T2DM, NASH cohort has comparable mental and work-related impairment but worse physical status, daily activities impairment and more HRU.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

PURPOSE: Available data of event-based clinical outcomes trials show that little evidence supports the guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients (n = 5250) were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥ 75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline demographic differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP achieved <140/90 mmHg accompanied a progressive increase in the risk of CV mortality and morbidity as well as of cause-specific events such as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. A progressive reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced <130/80 mmHg did not have any effect on CV risks. CONCLUSION: In mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the VALUE trial, achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg showed a marked protective effect on overall and all cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes. This was not the case for a more frequent achievement of the more intensive BP target, i.e. <130/80 mmHg.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to all middle-aged and elderly hypertensive study patients with high cardiovascular risk.

PURPOSE: Event-based clinical outcome trials have shown limited evidence to support guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus or with general high cardiovascular (CV) risk. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of CV events in patients who participated in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and compared the hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with all high-risk hypertensive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. Patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 5250) were compared with the entire VALUE population with high CV risk (n = 15,245). RESULTS: After adjustments for baseline differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 mmHg, but not to <130/80 mmHg, was accompanied by a progressive increase in the risk of CV morbidity and mortality as well as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure in both diabetes mellitus and in all high-risk patients. Target BP <130/80 mmHg reduced stroke risk in the main population but not in the diabetes mellitus patients. Patients with diabetes mellitus had higher event rates for the primary cardiac endpoint and all-cause mortality driven by a higher rate of heart failure. CONCLUSION: In the high-risk hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg, but not <130/80 mmHg, showed principally the same protective effect on overall and cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and in the general high-risk hypertensive population.

Efficacy and Safety of Crystalline Valsartan/Sacubitril (LCZ696) Compared With Placebo and Combinations of Free Valsartan and Sacubitril in Patients With Systolic Hypertension: The RATIO Study.

We compared the systolic blood pressure (SBP)-lowering efficacy and safety of crystalline valsartan/sacubitril (LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor) 400 mg daily against valsartan (320 mg once daily) alone or coadministered with placebo or increasing doses of free sacubitril (50, 100, 200, or 400 mg once daily) to identify the optimal antihypertensive combination dose. This multicenter, double-blinded, 7-arm parallel-group study recruited patients with mild-to-moderate systolic hypertension (office SBP 150-179 mm Hg). Primary-dependent variable was change in office SBP from baseline to week 8. At entry (n = 907), mean age was 61.5 years, sitting office BP 160/90.2 mm Hg, and mean 24-hour ambulatory BP 142/82.1 mm Hg; 852 participants completed the study. At week 8, there were greater reductions in sitting office SBP and 24-hour ambulatory SBP with LCZ696 400 mg than with valsartan 320 mg (-5.7 and -3.4 mm Hg, respectively, P < 0.05 each). The SBP reduction with LCZ696 400 daily was similar to coadministered free valsartan 320 mg and sacubitril 200 mg. Effects were similar in those older and younger than 65 years, and active therapies had adverse event rates similar to placebo. We conclude that crystalline valsartan/sacubitril 400 mg daily (1) is superior to valsartan 320 mg daily for lowering SBP, (2) has similar efficacy to the combination of free valsartan 320 mg plus free sacubitril 200 mg, (3) represents the optimal dosage for systolic hypertension in patients of any age, and (4) is safe and well tolerated.

Cardiovascular outcomes at different on-treatment blood pressures in the hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial.

AIMS: Recent hypertension guidelines recommend that also in high cardiovascular (CV) risk, hypertensive patients blood pressure (BP) is lowered to <140/90 mmHg as no evidence is available supporting the lower target of <130/80 mmHg recommended in previous guidelines. Whether this represents the optimal treatment strategy is debated, however. METHODS AND RESULTS: The high CV risk hypertensive patients of the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term use Evaluation (VALUE) trial were divided into subgroups according to (i) the percentage of on-treatment visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg or (ii) the mean systolic or diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) values achieved during the entire treatment period or up to the occurrence of an event. A progressive increase from <25 to ≥75% of the visits in which BP was <140/90 mmHg was accompanied by a significant, progressive marked decrease in the covariate adjusted risk of CV morbidity and mortality, cause specific CV events (myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke), and all-cause mortality. Except for a persistent progressive decrease in stroke, no significant trend to a risk decrease occurred for a similar progressive increment of the proportion of visits with BP <130/80 mmHg. Increasing the proportion of visits with a BP <140/90 mmHg (but not <130/80 mmHg) was accompanied by a decreased risk of events also when differences in baseline risk were adjusted using a propensity score. Finally, compared with patients remaining at a mean on-treatment SBP ≥140 or DBP ≥90 mmHg, the risk of all events was markedly reduced when on-treatment mean SBP was lowered to a mean SBP of 130-139 mmHg or a mean DBP of 80-89 mmHg, whereas at on-treatment mean SBP <130 mmHg or DBP <80 mmHg, an additional risk reduction was found for stroke but for any other type of event, the risk of which remained similar or only slightly greater than that seen at the higher BP target. CONCLUSIONS: In the high CV risk, hypertensives of the VALUE trial reducing BP consistently to <140/90 mmHg had marked beneficial effects both when data were calculated as proportion of visits at BP target or as on-treatment mean BP. Reducing BP to <130/80 mmHg led only to some possible further benefit on stroke, whereas the risk of other outcomes remained substantially similar to or slightly greater than that seen at the higher target. Thus, aggressive BP reductions when CV risk is high may not offer substantial advantages, except perhaps in patients or conditions in which stroke risk is particularly common.

No evidence for a J-shaped curve in treated hypertensive patients with increased cardiovascular risk: The VALUE trial.

Previous studies have debated the notion that low blood pressure (BP) during treatment, particularly diastolic (DBP), is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. We evaluated the impact of low BP on cardiovascular outcomes in a high-risk population of 15,244 hypertensive patients, almost half of whom had a history of coronary artery disease (CAD). In the prospective Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, patients were randomized to valsartan or amlodipine regimens and followed for 4.2 years (mean) with no difference in the primary cardiovascular endpoint. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between average on-treatment BP and clinical outcomes. The relationship between BP and cardiovascular events was adjusted for age, gender and body mass index, and baseline qualifying risk factors and diseases (smoking, high total cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, proteinuria, CAD, previous stroke and left ventricular hypertrophy). DBP ≥ 90 mmHg, compared with < 90 mmHg, was associated with increased incidence of the primary cardiovascular endpoint (all cardiac events); however, DBP < 70 mmHg, compared with ≥ 70 mmHg, was not associated with increased incidence after covariate adjustment (no J-shaped curve). Similar results were observed for death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure and stroke, considered separately. Nadir for MI was at DBP of 76 mmHg and for stroke 60 mmHg. The ratio of MI to stroke increased with lower DBP. In CAD patients the MI to stroke ratio was more pronounced than in patients without CAD but there was no significant J-curve in either group. Systolic BP ≥ 150 but not < 130 mmHg, compared with 130-149 mmHg, similarly was associated with increased risk for primary outcome. In conclusion, patients in BP strata ≥ 150/90 mmHg, but not patients in BP strata < 130/70 mmHg, were at increased risk for adverse outcomes in this hypertensive, high-risk population. Although benefit in preventing MI in relation to preventing stroke levels off for the lowest BPs, these data provide no support for a J-curve in the treatment of high-risk hypertensive patients . The increase in the ratio of MI to stroke with lower DBP indicates target organ heterogeneity in that the optimal on-treatment DBP for cerebroprotection is below that for cardioprotection.

Effects of body size and hypertension treatments on cardiovascular event rates: subanalysis of the ACCOMPLISH randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous clinical trials in high-risk hypertensive patients, paradoxically higher cardiovascular event rates have been reported in patients of normal weight compared with obese individuals. As a prespecified analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial, we aimed to investigate whether the type of hypertension treatment affects patients' cardiovascular outcomes according to their body size. METHODS: On the basis of body-mass index (BMI), we divided the full ACCOMPLISH cohort into obese (BMI ≥30, n=5709), overweight (≥25 to <30, n=4157), or normal weight (<25, n=1616) categories. The ACCOMPLISH cohort had already been randomised to treatment with single-pill combinations of either benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide or benazepril and amlodipine. We compared event rates (adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, previous cardiovascular events, stroke, or chronic kidney disease) for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke. The analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950. FINDINGS: In patients allocated benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide, the primary endpoint (per 1000 patient-years) was 30·7 in normal weight, 21·9 in overweight, and 18·2 in obese patients (overall p=0·0034). However, in those allocated benazepril and amlodipine, the primary endpoint did not differ between the three BMI groups (18·2, 16·9, and 16·5, respectively; overall p=0·9721). In obese individuals, primary event rates were similar with both benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide and benazepril and amlodipine, but rates were significantly lower with benazepril and amlodipine in overweight patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·59-0·94; p=0·0369) and those of normal weight (0·57, 0·39-0·84; p=0·0037). INTERPRETATION: Hypertension in normal weight and obese patients might be mediated by different mechanisms. Thiazide-based treatment gives less cardiovascular protection in normal weight than obese patients, but amlodipine-based therapy is equally effective across BMI subgroups and thus offers superior cardiovascular protection in non-obese hypertension. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Antihypertensive and metabolic effects of Angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination therapy in obese, hypertensive African American and white patients.

A clinical trial showed comparable blood pressure (BP) lowering by valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients. Relative to amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide reduced the hyperglycemic response to glucose challenge. An objective of this post hoc analysis was to determine whether this benefit extended to African Americans and whites. Treatments (160/12.5 mg of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 320/25 mg of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide at week 4 or 12.5 mg of hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide at week 4 with 5 and 10 mg of amlodipine added at weeks 8 and 12, respectively) were administered once daily. Both treatments reduced clinic BP from baseline to all visits (P < 0.0001), regardless of race/ethnicity (126 African Americans, 212 whites). In African Americans, there were no significant between-treatment differences in clinic or ambulatory BP lowering at weeks 8 or 16. Whites responded better to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. In both racial/ethnic subgroups, the addition of valsartan but not amlodipine mitigated the hyperglycemic response to hydrochlorothiazide through enhanced insulin secretion. Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide was as effective as amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide was in reducing BP in obese, hypertensive African Americans and better than amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in whites. In both racial/ethnic subgroups, the addition of valsartan to hydrochlorothiazide reduced the negative metabolic effects associated with thiazide therapy.

Antihypertensive response to thiazide diuretic or angiotensin receptor blocker in elderly hypertensives is not influenced by pretreatment plasma renin activity.

PURPOSE: Renin profiling has been proposed as a method to guide antihypertensive drug selection. This prespecified post-hoc analysis examined the influence of baseline plasma renin activity (PRA) on blood pressure (BP) responses. METHODS: A 16-week, randomized, double-blind, prompted-titration trial evaluated initial valsartan (V)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy versus initial HCTZ or V monotherapy in individuals aged ≥ 70 years with systolic hypertension. Sitting PRA was measured at baseline, Week 4, and Week 16. Subjects were stratified into 2 groups for analysis: low renin (baseline PRA < 0.65 ng/mL/h) or normal-high renin (baseline PRA ≥ 0.65 ng/mL/h). RESULTS: PRA data were available in 322/384 subjects: 178 had low PRA and 144 had normal-high PRA. At Week 4, V/HCTZ was more effective than HCTZ or V at reducing mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP), independent of baseline PRA, with reductions of -16.9, -12.6, and -9.5 mmHg, respectively, in low-renin subjects and -19.4, -11.5, and -8.6 mmHg in normal-high renin subjects. Baseline PRA was similar in responders (subjects not uptitrated at Week 4) and nonresponders (subjects uptitrated at Week 4). In responders, the reactive rise in PRA at Week 4 was related to change in MSSBP, with the greatest increases in PRA observed in the V/HCTZ group. Higher baseline PRA was associated with a greater reactive rise in PRA. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PRA is not a useful guide to the BP responses of initial combination V/HCTZ in elderly individuals with systolic hypertension.

Predictors of systolic BP <140 mmHg and systolic BP level by randomly assigned treatment group (benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide) in the ACCOMPLISH Study.

BACKGROUND: The ACCOMPLISH Trial investigated intensive antihypertensive combination treatment with benazepril + amlodipine (B+A) or benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide (B+H) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with systolic hypertension. We analyzed the baseline predictors of achieving a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mmHg and achieved SBP level by the end of 12 months in both treatment groups. METHODS: Baseline and 12-month SBP was available in 10,506 patients, of whom 6250 had diabetes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for SBP control at 12 months and multivariable regression models were used for the prediction of SBP at 12 months. A stepwise procedure was used to select significant (p < 0.001) predictors in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) BP fell from 145.4/80.1 (± 18.3/10.7) mmHg at randomization to 132.8/74.7 (± 16.0/9.6) mmHg at 12 months. The main baseline predictors of SBP control <140 mmHg were region (USA >Nordic region) and Caucasian ethnicity in both randomization arms. A higher diastolic BP and the use of lipid lowering agents indicated favorable effects in the B+H arm only. The predictors of uncontrolled SBP were: (i) higher baseline SBP values, (ii) higher number of previous antihypertensive medications in both arms, (iii) the previous use of insulin in the B+A arm, and (iv) pre-trial calcium channel blocker (CCB) use in the B+H arm. Additionally, pre-trial use of thiazides and electrocardiogram (ECG)-left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) at baseline predicted higher, and smoking lower absolute SBP in the B+A arm and the use of thiazides and proteinuria a higher SBP in the B+H arm. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of treatment, patients in the USA and Caucasians achieved better SBP control, whereas higher baseline SBP and more previous antihypertensive medications indicated less control. Concomitant use of lipid lowering treatment indicated a better SBP control in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm. Lastly, insulin use and ECG-LVH in the benazepril + amlodipine arm and proteinuria in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm indicated poor control.

The burden of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) among patients from Europe: A real-world patient-reported outcomes study.

Data on the economic and humanistic burden of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are scarce. This study assessed the comparative burden of NASH, relative to a representative sample from the general population and a type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cohort, in terms of health-related quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI), and healthcare resource use. METHODS: Data across 5 European countries came from the 2016 National Health and Wellness Survey, a nationally representative patient-reported outcomes survey. Outcomes included mental (MCS) and physical (PCS) component scores from the Short-Form (SF)-36v2, WPAI scores, self-reported physician diagnosis of sleep difficulties, anxiety, and depression, and healthcare resource use: healthcare professional visits, hospital visits, and emergency room visits in the previous 6 months. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted for each outcome and comparative group. RESULTS: After adjusting for matching criteria and covariates, patients with NASH (n = 184) reported significantly worse health-related quality of life, worse WPAI scores, and more healthcare resource use than the general population (n = 736) (MCS 39.22 vs. 45.16, PCS 42.84 vs. 47.76; overall work impairment 49.15% vs. 30.77%, healthcare professional visits 10.73 vs. 6.01, emergency room visits 0.57 vs. 0.22, hospitalizations 0.47 vs. 0.17, p ≪0.05 for all). Patients with NASH did not differ from patients with T2DM (n = 368) on PCS and WPAI scores, suggesting a similar impairment on work and daily activities, but did report significantly worse mental status (MCS 39.64 vs. 43.64, p ≪0.05) and more healthcare resource use than those with T2DM (healthcare professional visits 10.85 vs. 7.86, emergency room visits 0.65 vs. 0.23, hospitalizations 0.39 vs. 0.19, p ≪0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the burden of NASH may be underestimated, highlighting the unmet needs of patients with NASH. LAY SUMMARY: These findings show that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) experience a significant burden of illness, in terms of health-related quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment, and healthcare resource use. As there is currently no approved treatment for NASH, these findings highlight the unmet medical need of patients with NASH.

Improving blood pressure control: increase the dose of diuretic or switch to a fixed-dose angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic? the valsartan hydrochlorothiazide diuretic for initial control and titration to achieve optimal therapeutic effect (Val-DICTATE) trial.

To assess the strategy of increasing the dose of a diuretic compared with using an angiotensin receptor blocker in combination with a diuretic, the authors performed a multicenter, randomized, parallel group trial in hypertensive patients (baseline blood pressure [BP], 153/97 mm Hg) whose BP remained uncontrolled on initial low-dose diuretic monotherapy (hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 12.5 mg Hg). Patients with stage 1 and 2 hypertension were randomized to treatment with valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) or to doubling of the HCTZ dose (25 mg). The primary end point was the percentage of patients whose clinic BP values were <140/90 mm Hg following 4 weeks of double-blind therapy. A significantly higher proportion (P<.001) of hypertensive patients met BP control levels in the valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) group compared with the HCTZ 25 mg group (37% vs 16%). Changes from baseline in BP were significantly greater (P<.001) for both systolic BP and diastolic BP in the combination therapy arm compared with the diuretic monotherapy arm (-12. 4/-7.5 mm Hg in valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg group vs -5.6/-2.1 mm Hg in HCTZ 25 mg group). Tolerability and adverse events were similar in the 2 treatment groups. This study suggests that in the management of hypertension, utilizing an angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination was more effective in lowering BP and achieving BP goals when compared with increasing the dose of the diuretic.

Metabolic and antihypertensive effects of combined angiotensin receptor blocker and diuretic therapy in prediabetic hypertensive patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome.

Hypertensive patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS) are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The authors examined effects of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combined and alone on insulin sensitivity (using homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance [HOMA-IR]), and inflammatory/metabolic biomarkers in prediabetic hypertensive persons with CMS. Eligible patients entered 16-week therapy with valsartan 320 mg/d (n=189), HCTZ 25 mg/d (n=190), or valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg/d (n=187). At the end point, there were no statistically significant differences in HOMA-IR among the 3 groups. HCTZ significantly increased hemoglobin A(1c) and triglyceride concentrations and lowered serum potassium levels vs valsartan. HCTZ also increased plasma aldosterone and C-reactive protein levels. Blood pressure reduction and blood pressure control rates were highest with valsartan/HCTZ. There were no differences between combination valsartan/HCTZ or monotherapies on a measure of insulin sensitivity; however, the negative metabolic effects of HCTZ (increase in triglyceride and hemoglobin A(1c) values) were absent with valsartan/HCTZ, indicating an ameliorating effect of valsartan on these measures.

Prior Medications and the Cardiovascular Benefits From Combination Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition Plus Calcium Channel Blockade Among High-Risk Hypertensive Patients.

BACKGROUND: The ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial demonstrated that combination therapy using amlodipine, rather than hydrochlorothiazide, in conjunction with benazepril provided greater cardiovascular risk reduction among high-risk hypertensive patients. Few trials have evaluated the effect of prior antihypertensive therapy used among participants on the study outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a post hoc observational analysis, we examined the characteristics of the drug regimens taken before trial enrollment in the context of the primary composite outcome (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac death, and coronary revascularization). In the "primary subgroup" (n=4475), patients previously taking any renin-angiotensin system blockade plus either a diuretic or a calcium channel blocker alone or as part of their antihypertensive regimen, there were 206 of 2193 (9.4%) versus 281 of 2282 (12.3%) primary composite events among those randomized to combination therapy involving amlodipine versus hydrochlorothiazide, respectively (adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.89; P=0.0015). All other participants (n=6975) previously taking any antihypertensive regimen not included in the primary subgroup also benefited from randomization to amlodipine plus benazepril (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.98; P=0.024). Outcomes among most other subgroups, including patients previously taking lipid-lowering medications or dichotomized by prior blood pressure control status, showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, amlodipine provides cardiovascular risk reduction superior to hydrochlorothiazide, largely regardless of prior medication use. These findings add further support for the initial use of this combination regimen among high-risk hypertensive patients.

Influence of Age and Race on 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Responses to Valsartan, Hydrochlorothiazide, and Their Combination: Implications for Clinical Practice.

The effects of race and age on 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) responses to sequential 4-week periods of angiotensin receptor blocker therapy (valsartan [VAL] 160 mg/d then 320 mg/d and combination VAL/hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 320/12.5 mg/d) were compared in 304 patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension. There were lesser blood pressure (BP) responses from baseline with VAL monotherapy in black than Caucasian patients (-2.9 and -4.0 mm Hg vs -8.2 and -9.3 mm Hg, respectively; P<.001 each) but VAL/HCTZ BP responses were similar in both groups (-12 vs -15 mm Hg). Participants 65 years and older had lower BP responses with VAL 160 mg/d and 320 mg/d than those younger than 65 years (-2.8 and -4.5 mm Hg vs -6.5 and -7.5 mm Hg, respectively; P<.001) but similar responses to VAL/HCTZ (-14 vs -17 mm Hg). No BP response differences were found between those older than and those younger than 55 years. The authors conclude that: (1) adding low-dose HCTZ (12.5 mg daily) to VAL is more effective than VAL titration, irrespective of age or race, (2) VAL BP efficacy is lower in blacks than Caucasians, and (3) ARB responses are diminished in patients older than 65 years. Guidelines for stage 1 or 2 hypertension that suggest age 55 should determine initial monotherapy choice (eg, ARB vs thiazide diuretic) or that fail to recommend initial ARB-thiazide combination therapy should be reconsidered.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Olmesartan on Central Hemodynamics in the Elderly With Systolic Hypertension: The PARAMETER Study.

Effective treatment of systolic hypertension in elderly patients remains a major therapeutic challenge. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, was conducted to determine its effects versus olmesartan (angiotensin receptor blocker) on central aortic pressures, in elderly patients (aged ≥60 years) with systolic hypertension and pulse pressure >60 mm Hg, indicative of arterial stiffness. Patients (n=454; mean age, 67.7 years; mean seated systolic blood pressure, 158.6 mm Hg; mean seated pulse pressure, 69.7 mm Hg) were randomized to receive once-daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg, force titrated to double the initial doses after 4 weeks, before primary assessment at 12 weeks. The study extended double-blind treatment for 12 to 52 weeks, during which amlodipine (2.5-5 mg) and subsequently hydrochlorothiazide (6.25-25 mg) were added-on for patients not achieving blood pressure target (<140/90). At week 12, sacubitril/valsartan reduced central aortic systolic pressure (primary assessment) greater than olmesartan by -3.7 mm Hg (P=0.010), further corroborated by secondary assessments at week 12 (central aortic pulse pressure, -2.4 mm Hg, P<0.012; mean 24-hour ambulatory brachial systolic blood pressure and central aortic systolic pressure, -4.1 mm Hg and -3.6 mm Hg, respectively, both P<0.001). Differences in 24-hour ambulatory pressures were pronounced during sleep. After 52 weeks, blood pressure parameters were similar between treatments (P<0.002); however, more patients required add-on antihypertensive therapy with olmesartan (47%) versus sacubitril/valsartan (32%; P<0.002). Both treatments were equally well tolerated. The PARAMETER study (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Measuring Arterial Stiffness in the Elderly), for the first time, demonstrated superiority of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in reducing clinic and ambulatory central aortic and brachial pressures in elderly patients with systolic hypertension and stiff arteries.

Long-term safety of high-dose angiotensin receptor blocker therapy in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Reducing urinary protein excretion in patients with renal disease is an important therapeutic target to prevent the progression of renal and cardiovascular disease. Drugs such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which block the actions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, are recommended because they reduce blood pressure and proteinuria. Recently, the use of higher doses of ARBs, up to three times the maximal approved dose, resulted in further reductions in protein excretion. Despite the effectiveness of this therapeutic approach, no long-term safety analysis has been conducted in patients receiving high-dose ARB treatment. OBJECTIVE: To study the long-term safety of high-dose ARB treatment. METHODS: We observed 48 patients [44 men and 4 women; ages 64 +/- 15 years (mean +/- SD), weight 88 +/- 28 kg, estimated glomerular filtration rate 53 +/- 23 ml/min] receiving treatment with high doses (1.5-5 times greater than the maximum approved dose) of ARBs, for 40 +/- 24 months (range 6-98 months). RESULTS: The average ARB dose tended to increase over time and was 3.2 +/- 1.2 times greater at the end of the study than that at the start. Systolic blood pressure was similar at the beginning and end of the study period (132 +/- 20 and 125 +/- 20 mmHg, respectively), but diastolic blood pressure showed a decrease throughout the study and was significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in association with 1.5x and 2x the maximum ARB dose (73 +/- 11 and 72 +/- 10 mmHg, respectively) when compared with baseline (78 +/- 11 mm Hg). There was a trend (P > 0.05) for increases in concentrations of serum potassium (0.2 +/- 0.9 mmol/l) and creatinine (0.3 +/- 0.7 mg/dl) with increases in dose from baseline to the end of the study. Serum creatinine concentration was greater (P < 0.05) at the periods of 3x and 4x the maximum dose, but this represented increases of only 12 and 20% from baseline, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose ARB treatment in patients with chronic renal disease is not associated with any clinically significant long-term negative effects on serum creatinine or potassium and is thus a important therapeutic modality with which to achieve further reductions in urinary protein excretion.

Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients With and Without Diabetes: An ACCOMPLISH Substudy.

To evaluate the effects of achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) during treatment on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, the authors measured event rates of a composite primary endpoint (CV death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke) at on-treatment SBPs of ≥140 mm Hg and the 10 mm Hg intervals of <140 mm Hg, <130 mm Hg, and <120 mm Hg in 6459 patients with diabetes (mean age, 67) and 4246 patients without diabetes (mean age, 69) from the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. In the diabetic cohort, the primary endpoint was 49% lower (P<.001) at <140 mm Hg than at ≥140 mm Hg, and the separate components of this endpoint were also significantly reduced. Further SBP reductions did not improve outcomes, and at <120 mm Hg they were no longer different (except for stroke) from ≥140 mm Hg. In contrast, in the nondiabetic cohort, the primary endpoint event rate fell steadily (although not significantly) through the decreasing SBP categories until it was reduced by 45% (P=.0413) at <120 mm Hg. Total stroke rates for both the diabetic (-56%, P=.0120) and nondiabetic (-68%, P=.0067) cohorts were lowest at <120 mm Hg, and adverse renal events (serum creatinine increase ≥50%) were significantly lowest in the range of 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg for both cohorts. Diabetic patients (<140 mm Hg or <130 mm Hg) and nondiabetic patients (<120 mm Hg) may require different SBP targets for optimal CV protection, although stroke and renal considerations should also influence the selection of blood pressure targets.

Time of administration important? Morning versus evening dosing of valsartan.

OBJECTIVE: Studies suggest that bedtime dosing of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker shows a more sustained and consistent 24-h antihypertensive profile, including greater night-time blood pressure (BP) reduction. We compared the antihypertensive effects of morning (a.m.) and evening (p.m.) dosing of valsartan on 24-h BP. METHODS: This 26-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of valsartan 320 mg, dosed a.m. or p.m., versus lisinopril 40 mg (a.m.), a long-acting ACE-inhibitor, in patients with grade 1-2 hypertension and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients (n = 1093; BP = 156 ±â€Š11/91 ±â€Š8 mmHg; 62 years, 56% male, 99% white) received (1 : 1 : 1) valsartan 160 mg a.m. or p.m. or lisinopril 20 mg a.m. for 4 weeks, then force-titrated to double the initial dose for 8 weeks. At Week 12, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was added for 14 weeks if office BP was more than 140/90 mmHg and/or ambulatory BP more than 130/80 mmHg. RESULTS: Mean 24-h ambulatory SBP change from baseline to Weeks 12 and 26 was comparable between valsartan a.m. (-10.6 and -13.3 mmHg) and p.m. (-9.8 and -12.3 mmHg) and lisinopril (-10.7 and -13.7 mmHg). There was no benefit of valsartan p.m. versus a.m. on night-time BP, early morning BP and morning BP surge. Evening dosing also did not improve BP lowering in patients requiring add-on HCTZ or in nondippers at baseline. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Once-daily dosing of valsartan 320 mg results in equally effective 24-h BP efficacy, regardless of dosing time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00241124.