Influence of Hypersensitive C-Reactive Protein on the Effect of Continuous Antihypertensive Pharmacological Therapy.

ABSTRACT: Systemic chronic inflammation, represented by hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP), is an essential contributing factor to hypertension. However, the influence of hsCRP levels on the effect of antihypertensive pharmacological therapy remains unknown. We evaluated hsCRP levels in 3756 newly diagnosed, untreated hypertensive subjects. Participants were grouped by tertiles of hsCRP and were randomly treated with nitrendipine + captopril, nitrendipine + spironolactone hydrochlorothiazide + captopril, and hydrochlorothiazide + spironolactone. Blood pressure (BP) was recorded every 2 weeks. A multivariate mixed linear model was used to evaluate the impact of baseline hsCRP levels on the continuous antihypertensive effect. After 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of continuous antihypertensive treatment, no significant difference was observed in BP decline among the different hsCRP groups. We identified interactions between baseline hsCRP levels and follow-up time. After adjusting for conventional risk factors and the interactions between hsCRP and follow-up time, there was no significant association between baseline hsCRP level and antihypertensive effects at 0-6 months of follow-up. However, from 6 to 12 months, subjects with higher baseline hsCRP levels exhibited a more marked BP-lowering effect ( P < 0.001 at 9 months, P = 0.002 at 12 months). Overall, there exist interaction effects between baseline hsCRP levels and follow-up time. Individuals with higher baseline hsCRP levels may exhibit a better response to antihypertensive therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide or metoprolol to treat hypertension in rural community health centers in China.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to compare blood pressure (BP)-lowing effects of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine and metoprolol, and estimate the economic effect of these therapies on hypertension. METHODS: Outpatients (N = 793) 18-70 years of age with stage 2 or severe hypertension (SBP ≥ 160 mmHg and/or DBP ≥ 100 mmHg) were recruited from four randomly selected rural community health centers in Beijing and Jilin. After drug wash out, they were randomly divided into nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group or nitrendipine and metoprolol group. The costs of drug treatment for hypertension were calculated and general estimation, whereas effectiveness was measured as a reduction in SBP and DBP at the end of a 24-week study period. RESULTS: Overall, 623 patients were eligible for the study and after a 24-week follow-up, SBP and DBP were 131.2/82.2 mmHg for the nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group and 131.4/82.9 mmHg for the nitrendipine and metoprolol group and these were not significantly different (P = 0.7974 SBP and P = 0.1166 DBP). Comparing with nitrendipine and metoprolol, the cost of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide was less, and its effectiveness was similar. The cost/effect ratio (US$/mmHg) was 1.4 for SBP and 2.8 for DBP for the nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group, and 1.9 and 3.8 for the nitrendipine and metoprolol group's SBP and DBP values, respectively. The incremental cost per patient for achieving target BP was 5.1. Adverse events were mild or moderate and there were no differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Treating hypertension with nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide was cost-effective than nitrendipine and metoprolol, and these data will allow more reasonable and efficient allocation of limited resources in low-income countries.

Anti-arrhythmic and hemodynamic effects of oxy nifedipine, oxy nimodipine, oxy nitrendipine and oxy nisoldipine.

Our previous studies have established cardio-protective effects of furnidipine and its active metabolites. We therefore decided to compare the influence of oral and intravenous administration of furnidipine, nifedipine, nitrendipine and nimodipine to examine their effects on hemodynamics and arrhythmias. Since dihydropyridines are oxidatively metabolized in the body and the oxidized metabolites are among the final products, we studied the influence of four oxidized dihydropyridines (oxy nifedipine, oxy nimodipine, oxy nitrendipine and oxy nisoldipine) on the same parameters. In vivo model of ischemia- and reperfusion-induced arrhythmias of rats was used. Dihydropyridines were administered 5 mg/kg orally (24 and 1 h before ischemia) or 5 µg/kg intravenously (10 min before ischemia). 20 mg/kg of the oxidized dihydropyridines was given orally (24 and 1 h before ischemia). The dihydropyridines exhibited significant anti-arrhythmic actions after both forms of administration but their influence on blood pressure was differential and contrasting and depended on route of administration. The oxidized dihydropyridines imparted strong protection against lethal arrhythmias while exerting differential influences on blood pressure with oxy nifedipine and oxy nisoldipine being hypertensive and oxy nitrendipine being most normotensive. The differential effects observed with the dihydropyridines after the two routes of administration lend strength to the hypothesis that their metabolites may have a significant role in mediating the actions of the parent drug. The strong anti-arrhythmic action of the oxidized dihydropyridines along with their differential effect on blood pressure could indicate their potential use as cardio-protective drugs in certain groups of patients.

[Analysis of therapeutic effects of rural patients with hypertension by combination administration of low dosage of hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the therapeutic effects of combination administration of hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine at low dosage in the treatment of rural hypertension patients. METHODS: By the method of cluster random sampling, 5292 primary hypertension patients from Fuxin, Liaoning Province were divided into health education group (control group) and drug intervention group in June 2006. The drug intervention group were treated with hydrochlorothiazide, nitrendipine and captopril by stepwise approach and we observe the antihypertensive effect of drug and the effect on the onset of stroke. RESULTS: The average follow-up time was 15 months. At last, 308 patients were lost to follow-up (the lost follow-up rate was 5.8 percent). The 4984 in cohort, including 2530 of intervention group and 2454 of control group, had examination of all indicators. Through health education and drug intervention, the average blood pressure in drug intervention group decreased by 16.1/9.4 mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa) while the average blood pressure in control group decreased by 6.7/3.5 mm Hg. The control rate of blood pressure in drug intervention group was higher than control group (33.1% vs. 15.1%, P < 0.001). Through drug intervention, the morbidity risk of nonfatal stroke in drug intervention group decreased by 57.3% compared to control group, the total morbidity risk of stroke decreased by 59.4%. The results had significant statistical difference. And, the morbidity of severe hypopotassaemia (K(+) < 3.0 mmol/L) and diabetes mellitus had no significant statistical difference between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The low-cost antihypertensive program based on thiazide had good antihypertensive effect, high safety and good cost-effect ratio. The program could be used in rural areas of China.

Morbidity and mortality on combination versus monotherapy: a posthoc analysis of the Systolic Hypertension in Europe trial.

BACKGROUND: The current literature supports the immediate use of combinations of antihypertensive drugs in terms of ease of use and adherence, but the key issue whether combination therapy is more effective than monotherapy in the prevention of cardiovascular complications remains unproven. METHODS: We analysed the double-blind (median follow-up 2.0 years) and open follow-up (6.0 years) phases of the Systolic Hypertension in Europe trial. Patients were 60 years or more with an entry systolic/diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 160-219/less than 95 mmHg. Antihypertensive treatment started immediately after randomization in the active-treatment group, but only after completion of the double-blind trial in control patients. Treatment consisted of nitrendipine (10-40 mg/day) with the possible addition of enalapril (5-20 mg/day). We adjusted our analyses for sex, age, history of cardiovascular complications, baseline systolic BP and previous antihypertensive treatment. RESULTS: During the double-blind trial, adding enalapril to nitrendipine (n = 515), compared with the equivalent combination of placebos (n = 559), decreased systolic BP by a further 9.5 mmHg and reduced all cardiovascular events by 51% (P = 0.0035) and heart failure by 66% (P = 0.032), with similar trends for stroke (-51%; P = 0.066) and cardiac events (-44%; P = 0.075). Over the whole duration of follow-up, combination therapy (n = 871), compared with nitrendipine monotherapy (n = 1552), decreased systolic BP by 3.1 mmHg and reduced total mortality (-32%; P = 0.023), with similar trends for all cardiovascular events (-23%; P = 0.081) and stroke (-42%; P = 0.054). CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of a posthoc analysis, but congruent with the stronger BP reduction, our results suggest that combination therapy with nitrendipine plus enalapril might improve outcome over and beyond the benefits seen with nitrendipine monotherapy.

Eprosartan: a review of its use in hypertension.

Eprosartan is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (angiotensin II receptor blocker [ARB]) used in the treatment of hypertension. In large, randomized trials, eprosartan (with or without hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ]) demonstrated superior antihypertensive efficacy to that of placebo and, when administered at comparable dosage regimens, had similar blood pressure-lowering effects to enalapril. Eprosartan was generally well tolerated in clinical trials and had a lower incidence of persistent dry cough than enalapril. Eprosartan has a neutral effect on metabolic parameters, such as serum lipid levels and glucose homeostasis, and a low propensity for pharmacokinetic drug interactions. The use of eprosartan or other ARBs in combination with HCTZ tends to reverse the potassium loss associated with thiazide diuretics. Independent of its antihypertensive effects, eprosartan was associated with improved clinical outcomes (primary composite endpoint of all causes of mortality and all cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, including all recurrent events) compared with nitrendipine in a randomized, secondary prevention trial in hypertensive patients with previous cerebrovascular events (MOSES trial). Eprosartan also reduced blood pressure and was associated with a modest improvement in cognitive function in a large observational study in patients > or =50 years of age with newly diagnosed hypertension (OSCAR study). In both of these trials, additional antihypertensive therapy, such as HCTZ, was permitted. Therefore, eprosartan is a useful treatment option in the management of a broad range of patients with hypertension, and its use with HCTZ provides a rational combination regimen.

Effect of metformin on weight gain during antihypertensive treatment with a beta-blocker in Chinese patients.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study was designed to investigate whether combined use of nitrendipine and atenolol has any effect on body weight (BW) and whether metformin can prevent antihypertensive medication-induced weight gain and has any effect on blood glucose (BG). METHODS: Included in the present study were 94 hypertensive patients with a body mass index (BMI) > or =25 kg/m(2), of whom 45 patients were treated with nitrendipine plus atenolol (N/A group), and the remaining 49 patients were treated with nitrendipine, atenolol, and metformin (N/A/M group). The mean follow-up duration was 14 months. BW and glucose tolerance were measured. RESULTS: In N/A group, BW and fasting BG significantly increased from 73.5 +/- 9.6 kg to 74.2 +/- 9.7 kg (P < 0.05) and from 94.2 +/- 10.5 mg/dl to 97.9 +/- 11.3 mg/dl (P < 0.01), respectively, whereas postprandial BG did not change significantly. In N/A/M group, BW slightly decreased from 72.7 +/- 10.1 kg to 72.3 +/- 10.2 kg (P = 0.30), and fasting BG did not change significantly (93.5 +/- 10.4 mg/dl vs. 92.7 +/- 10.2 mg/dl, P = 0.59), whereas 2-h postprandial BG significantly decreased from 133.7 +/- 30.5 mg/dl to 124.0 +/- 29.6 mg/dl (P < 0.05). Furthermore, a significant difference was observed in difference value of BW before and after treatment between the two groups (0.7 (95% confidence interval, 0.1-1.3) kg in N/A group vs. -0.4 (95% confidence interval, -1.3 to 0.4) kg in N/A/M group, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy of nitrendipine and atenolol may significantly increase BW and fasting BG in overweight or obese patients with hypertension. Metformin may prevent BW gain and improve BG levels in hypertensive patients who received combination therapy of nitrendipine and atenolol.

Effectiveness and tolerability of fixed-dose combination enalapril plus nitrendipine in hypertensive patients: results of the 3-month observational, post-marketing, multicentre, prospective CENIT study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Monotherapy with any class of antihypertensive drug effectively controls blood pressure (BP) in only about 50% of patients. Consequently, the majority of patients with hypertension require combined therapy with two or more medications. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness (systolic BP [SBP]/diastolic BP [DBP] control) and tolerability of the fixed-dose combination enalapril/nitrendipine 10 mg/20 mg administered as a single daily dose in hypertensive patients. METHODS: This was a post-authorization, multicentre, prospective, observational study conducted in primary care with a 3-month follow-up. Patients throughout Spain with uncontrolled hypertension (> or =140/90 mmHg for patients without diabetes mellitus, or > or =130/85 mmHg for patients with diabetes) on monotherapy or with any combination other than enalapril + nitrendipine, or who were unable to tolerate their previous antihypertensive therapy, were recruited. Change from previous to study treatment was according to usual clinical practice. BP was measured once after 5 minutes of rest in the sitting position. Therapeutic response was defined as follows: 'controlled' meant controlled BP (<140/90 mmHg for nondiabetic patients, or <130/85 mmHg for diabetic patients); 'response' meant controlled BP, or a decrease in SBP of > or =20 mmHg and in DBP of > or =10 mmHg. The main laboratory test parameters were documented at baseline and after 3 months. Patients aged >65 years, with diabetes, with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH; SBP > or =140 mmHg for patients without diabetes, SBP > or =130 mmHg for patients with diabetes) and who were obese (body mass index [BMI] > or =30 kg/m2) were analysed separately. RESULTS: Of 6537 patients included, 5010 and 6354 patients were assessed in effectiveness and tolerability analyses, respectively. In the tolerability analysis population, there were 3023 men (47.6%) and 3321 women (52.4%). The mean (+/- SD) age of the tolerability analysis group was 62.8 (+/- 10.7) years. A total of 71.1% of the patients presented at least one clinical cardiovascular risk factor other than hypertension, with the most frequent being dyslipidaemia (42.3%), obesity (29.2%) and diabetes (23.9%). After 3 months of treatment, SBP and DBP showed mean (+/- SD) decreases of 26.5 (+/- 14.4) mmHg and 14.9 (+/- 9.0) mmHg, respectively, and 73.0% of patients responded to treatment while 40.9% achieved BP control (70.8%/36.1% in 2658 patients aged >65 years; 61.7%/46.8% in 1521 patients with diabetes; 55.3%/44.2% in 731 patients with ISH; 72.0%/36.4% in 1762 obese patients). Adverse events were reported in 10.8% of patients (n = 689). During the follow-up period, ten patients died and seven patients had serious adverse events; in no case was a causal relationship attributed to the study product. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of SBP/DBP control achieved demonstrates the effectiveness of the fixed-dose enalapril/nitrendipine 10 mg/20 mg combination administered as a single daily dose in patients with essential hypertension not adequately controlled with monotherapy or with any combination other than enalapril + nitrendipine. The proportion and type of adverse events reported were as expected and have already been described for both components of the enalapril/nitrendipine 10 mg/20 mg combination. These results confirm the effectiveness of a strategy based on a fixed-dose enalapril/nitrendipine 10 mg/20 mg combination in reducing BP and achieving BP control goals.

Angiotensin receptor blockers and secondary stroke prevention: the MOSES study.

Hypertension control is critical to prevent stroke. With several clinical trials conducted over the last decade, it seems that the use of an angiotensin-modulating antihypertensive agent conveys benefits beyond blood pressure reduction. Currently, there is evidence supporting the use of either an angiotensin receptor blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the primary-prevention context. However, in the secondary prevention of stroke, the choice of agent is less clear. There is evidence that intensive blood pressure reduction with a combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a diuretic can reduce stroke recurrence, but do angiotensin receptor blockers have the same ability? The Morbidity and Mortality after Stroke, Eprosartan Compared with Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention (MOSES) trial endeavors to answer this question and strives to demonstrate the benefit of angiotensin receptor blockers in the secondary prevention of stroke.

Calcium entry inhibition during resuscitation from shock attenuates inflammatory lung injury.

Trauma and hemorrhagic shock (T/HS) induce a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). Neutrophils (polymorphonuclear leukocytes [PMN]) and other cells involved in acute lung injury (ALI) are activated by Ca2+ entry. Thus, inhibiting Ca2+ entry might attenuate post-traumatic lung injury. Inhibiting voltage-operated (L-type) Ca2+ channels during shock could cause cardiovascular collapse, but PMN are "nonexcitable" cells, lack L-type channels, and mobilize Ca2+ via nonspecific channels. We previously showed that PMN Ca2+ entry requires sphingosine 1-phosphate synthesis by sphingosine kinase and that both sphingosine kinase inhibition and blockade of nonspecific channels attenuate ALI when begun before shock. Pretreatment for clinical injuries, however, is impractical. Therefore, we now studied whether Ca2+ entry inhibition that begun during resuscitation from T/HS could attenuate SIRS and ALI without causing hemodynamic compromise. Male Sprague-Dawley rats underwent laparotomy and fixed-pressure shock (mean arterial pressure, 35 +/- 5 mmHg; 90 min). Sphingosine kinase inhibition or nonspecific Ca2+ channel inhibition was begun after resuscitation with 10% of shed blood. We then studied in vivo PMN activation and associated lung injury in the presence or absence of Ca2+ entry inhibition. Neither treatment worsened shock. Each treatment decreased CD11b expression, respiratory burst, PMN p38 MAP-kinase phosphorylation, PMN sequestration, and lung capillary leak in vivo. The similar results seen with two different forms of inhibition strengthen the conclusion that the biological effects seen were specific for calcium entry inhibition. Ca2+ entry inhibition is a candidate therapy for management of lung injury after shock.

Systolic blood pressure reduction with olmesartan medoxomil versus nitrendipine in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is high in the elderly, and the objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil with that of nitrendipine in elderly (65-74 years) and very elderly (>/= 75 years) male and female patients with ISH. METHODS: Patients were randomized to 24 weeks of treatment with either olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg daily (n = 256) or nitrendipine 20 mg (n = 126) twice daily, with possible dose increase (to 40 mg daily) and addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 or 25 mg daily if required. RESULTS: On the primary endpoint [reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) after 12 weeks of treatment], the two treatments were similar (olmesartan medoxomil, -30.0 mmHg; nitrendipine, -31.4 mmHg). No significant difference between the treatment groups was observed, and non-inferiority of olmesartan medoxomil to nitrendipine was demonstrated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Reductions in mean sitting and standing SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) up to week 24 were also similar with both treatments. Blood pressure (BP) goal attainment rates (sitting SBP

Adjunctive treatment with moxonidine versus nitrendipine for hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic hypertension often accompanies chronic renal failure and can accelerate its progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Adjunctive moxonidine appeared to have benefits versus adjunctive nitrendipine, in a randomised double-blind six-month trial in hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure. To understand the longer term effects and costs of moxonidine, a decision analytic model was developed and a cost-effectiveness analysis performed. METHODS: A Markov model was used to extrapolate results from the trial over three years. All patients started in a non-ESRD state. After each cycle, patients with a glomerular filtration rate below 15 ml/min had progressed to an ESRD state. The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare perspective. The main outcome measure was incremental cost per life-year gained. The percentage of patients progressing to ESRD and cumulative costs were also compared after three years. In the base case analysis, all patients with ESRD received dialysis. RESULTS: The model predicted that after three years, 38.9% (95%CI 31.8-45.8) of patients treated with nitrendipine progressed to ESRD compared to 7.5% (95%CI 3.5-12.7) of patients treated with moxonidine. Treatment with standard antihypertensive therapy and adjunctive moxonidine was predicted to reduce the number of ESRD cases by 81% over three years compared to adjunctive nitrendipine. The cumulative costs per patient were significantly lower in the moxonidine group 9,858 euro (95% CI 5,501-16,174) than in the nitrendipine group 37,472 euro (95% CI 27,957-49,478). The model showed moxonidine to be dominant compared to nitrendipine, increasing life-years lived by 0.044 (95%CI 0.020-0.070) years and at a cost-saving of 27,615 euro (95%CI 16,894-39,583) per patient. Probabilistic analyses confirmed that the moxonidine strategy was dominant over nitrendipine in over 98.9% of cases. The cumulative 3-year costs and LYL continued to favour the moxonidine strategy in all sensitivity analyses performed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with standard antihypertensive therapy and adjunctive moxonidine in hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure was predicted to reduce the number of new ESRD cases over three years compared to adjunctive nitrendipine. The model showed that adjunctive moxonidine could increase life-years lived and provide long term cost savings.

Circadian blood pressure variation and antihypertensive medication adjustment in normoalbuminuric type 2 diabetes patients.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of the study was to assess the effect of an antihypertensive treatment adjustment on 24-hour blood pressure variation in type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: The study group included 59 hypertensive type 2 diabetes patients subjected to a single one-step antihypertensive agent dose adjustment (increase or decrease). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at baseline and 4-6 weeks after the treatment modification. Controls were 41 matched patients, in whom antihypertensive treatment remained unchanged. RESULTS: At baseline, 45 (76%) study group patients and 29 (71%) controls were 'non-dippers'; a similar number of patients in both groups converted to 'dipping' or vice versa: 11 (19%) from the study group and 7 (17%) controls. 'Converters' from the study group were significantly younger (47.5 +/- 3.9 vs. 56.4 +/- 12.2 years; p < 0.05) and had lower 24-hour systolic blood pressure than 'non-converters': 113.7 +/- 7.2 vs. 127.7 +/- 20.3 mm Hg (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: A single one-step antihypertensive medication adjustment does not affect 'dipping' status in type 2 diabetes patients. However, the assessment of blood pressure variation should be made with greater caution in younger type 2 diabetes subjects with low systolic blood pressure.

Effects of eprosartan on target organ protection.

Hypertension is the most important cardiovascular risk factor for stroke. Blood pressure reduction by antihypertensive treatment is clearly efficacious in the prevention of stroke (both primary and secondary), although no clear differences have yet been observed between antihypertensive drug classes. However, a recent study reported the clear superiority of the angiotensin-receptor blocker eprosartan over the calcium channel blocker nitrendipine in cardiovascular protection of hypertensive patients with a previous stroke. Comparative studies using angiotensin-receptor blockers have also suggested the superiority of this class of drugs on primary stroke prevention. This effect may be linked to their beneficial actions on left ventricular hypertrophy, atrial enlargement, and supraventricular arrhythmias, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and remodelling, as well as a direct neuroprotective effect mediated through the stimulation of the angiotensin II type-2 receptor. In addition, a sympathoinhibition observed with the renin-angiotensin system blockers and particularly demonstrated with eprosartan, may help to explain the better cardiovascular and cerebrovascular protection in comparison with the calcium antagonist nitrendipine.