Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Atorvastatin 40 mg/ω-3 Fatty Acids 4 g Fixed-dose Combination and Atorvastatin 40 mg Monotherapy in Hypertriglyceridemic Patients who Poorly Respond to Atorvastatin 40 mg Monotherapy: An 8-week, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: Residual cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertriglyceridemia, despite optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels being achieved with intensive statin treatment, is a global health issue. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with a combination of high-dose atorvastatin/Ω-3 fatty acid compared to atorvastatin + placebo in patients with hypertriglyceridemia who did not respond to statin treatment. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients who had residual hypertriglyceridemia after a 4-week run-in period of atorvastatin treatment were randomly assigned to receive UI-018 (fixed-dose combination atorvastatin/Ω-3 fatty acid 40 mg/4 g) or atorvastatin 40 mg + placebo (control). The primary efficacy end points were the percentage change from baseline in non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level at the end of treatment and the adverse events recorded during treatment. A secondary end point was the percentage change from baseline in triglyceride level. FINDINGS: After 8 weeks of treatment, the percentage changes from baseline in non-HDL-C (-4.4% vs +0.6%; p = 0.02) and triglycerides (-18.5% vs +0.9%; p < 0.01) were significantly greater in the UI-018 group (n = 101) than in the control group (n = 99). These changes were present in subgroups of advanced age (≥65 years), status (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2), or without diabetes. The prevalences of adverse events did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. IMPLICATIONS: In patients with residual hypertriglyceridemia despite receiving statin treatment, a combination of high-dose atorvastatin/Ω-3 fatty acid was associated with a greater reduction of triglyceride and non-HDL-C compared with atorvastatin + placebo, without significant adverse events.

The association of smoothness index of central blood pressure with ambulatory carotid femoral pulse wave velocity after 20-week treatment with losartan in combination with amlodipine versus hydrochlorothiazide.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify associations between the smoothness index of central SBP (CSBP) and changes of ambulatory carotid femoral pulse wave velocity in response to 20-week treatments with losartan and amlodipine vs. losartan and hydrochlorthiazide combinations. METHODS: For 142 (losartan and hydrochlorthiazide: 72, losartan and hydrochlorthiazide: 70) patients examined with ambulatory central blood pressure (BP) monitoring device, we calculated smoothness indices and trough-to-peak ratios of brachial SBP, CSBP, ambulatory pulse pressure amplification (APPA), ambulatory augmentation index at heart rate 75 beats per minute (AAIx75) and ambulatory carotid femoral pulse wave velocity (AcfPWV). RESULTS: Mean age was 58.9 ±â€Š12.3 years, and women accounted for 25.9%. Changes in office SBP/DBP were not different between groups (losartan and hydrochlorthiazide: -15.2 ±â€Š15.0/-7.8 ±â€Š8.0 vs. losartan and amlodipine: -14.9 ±â€Š13.7/-9.2 ±â€Š7.5 mmHg). Reduction of 24-h CSBP was not significantly different (losartan and hydrochlorthiazide: 6.4 ±â€Š1.1 vs. losartan and amlodipine: 9.2 ±â€Š1.1 mmHg, P = 0.074). Reduction in nocturnal AcfPWV was greater in the losartan and amlodipine group (losartan and hydrochlorthiazide: 0.09 ±â€Š0.05 vs. losartan and amlodipine: 0.26 ±â€Š0.05 m/s, P = 0.0216). Intraindividual SIs for CSBP were higher in the losartan and amlodipine group (0.40 ±â€Š0.57 vs. 0.65 ±â€Š0.74, P = 0.022). In multivariable regression analysis, smoothness index of CSBP was independently associated with the losartan and amlodipine group. In model additionally considering the changes in arterial stiffness, decrease in AcfPWV instead of the treatment group was independently associated with smoothness indices. In mediation analysis, smoothness index was fully mediated by reduction in night-time AcfPWV. CONCLUSION: Losartan and amlodipine combination was superior to the losartan and hydrochlorthiazide combination in terms of achieving higher smoothness index for CSBP after 20-week treatments. The effect of losartan and amlodipine on smoothness index was fully mediated by reduction of night-time AcfPWV.

Comparison of 24-Hour Ambulatory Central Blood Pressure Reduction Efficacy Between Fixed Amlodipine or Up-Titrated Hydrochlorothiazide Plus Losartan: The K-Central Study.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate non-inferiority of office mean systolic blood pressure (BP) reduction efficacy and superiority of 24-hour ambulatory central BP reduction efficacy between losartan combined with fixed dose amlodipine (L/A group) and dose up-titrated hydrochlorothiazide (L/H group) according to office BP. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter trial in 231 patients with hypertensive (mean age = 59.2 ± 12.2 years). Patients received losartan 50 mg monotherapy for 4 weeks, followed by additional use of amlodipine 5 mg or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for 20 weeks after randomization. The patients who did not achieve the BP goal after 4 weeks' randomization received an increased dose of 100 mg/5 mg for the L/A group and 100 mg/25 mg for L/H group, respectively. The 24-hour ambulatory central BP was measured at baseline and after 20 weeks' treatment. RESULTS: Office mean systolic BP reduction of L/A group was not inferior to L/H group after 4 weeks' treatment (-17.6 ± 13.3 vs. -14.4 ± 12.6 mm Hg, P = 0.0863) and was not significantly different after 20 weeks' treatment. (-15.7 ± 14.0 vs. -14.7 ± 15.1 mm Hg, P = 0.6130) The 24-hour ambulatory central systolic BP was significantly more reduced in the L/A group compared with that in the L/H group after 20 weeks' treatment (-9.37 ± 10.67 vs. -6.28 ± 10.50 mm Hg, P = 0.0407). The 24-hour ambulatory central systolic BP at the completion of the study and its reduction magnitude were independently associated with reductions in aortic pulse wave velocity, pulse pressure, and wave reflection magnitude. CONCLUSION: Office systolic BP reduction with L/A was not inferior to L/H after 4 week's treatment. The combination of losartan and amlodipine was more favorable in 24-hour ambulatory central hemodynamics beyond BP-lowering efficacy than the combination of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide, regardless of office BP. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02294539.

Erratum to: Prevalence of resistant hypertension and associated factors for blood pressure control status using Korean ambulatory blood pressure monitoring registry data.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s40885-016-0045-x.].

Discordance between ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure according to global cardiovascular risk group.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The detection of white coat hypertension (WCH), treated normalized hypertension, and masked hypertension (MH) is important to improve the effectiveness of hypertension management. However, whether global cardiovascular risk (GCR) profile has any effect on the discordance between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and clinic blood pressure (CBP) is unknown. METHODS: Data from 1,916 subjects, taken from the Korean Multicenter Registry for ABP monitoring, were grouped according to diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for CBP and ABP (140/90 and 135/85 mmHg, respectively). GCR was assessed using European Society of Hypertension 2007 guidelines. RESULTS: The mean subject age was 54.1 ± 14.9 years, and 48.9% of patients were female. The discordancy rate between ABP and CBP in the untreated and treated patients was 32.5% and 26.5%, respectively (p = 0.02). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension and MH was 14.4% and 16.0%, respectively. Discordance between ABP and CBP was lower in the very high added-risk group compared to the moderate added-risk group (odds ratio [OR], 0.649; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487 to 0.863; p = 0.003). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension was also lower in the very high added-risk group (OR, 0.451; 95% CI, 0.311 to 0.655). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between ABP and CBP was observed more frequently in untreated subjects than in treated subjects, and less frequently in the very high added-risk group, which was due mainly to the lower prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of the Lercanidipine/Valsartan Combination in Korean Patients With Essential Hypertension Not Adequately Controlled With Lercanidipine Monotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Parallel Design, Phase III Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the lercanidipine/valsartan combination compared with lercanidipine monotherapy in patients with hypertension. METHODS: Part 1 of this study was the randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, Phase III, 8-week clinical trial to compare superiority of lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 80 mg (L10/V80) and lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L10/V160) combinations with lercanidipine 10 mg (L10) monotherapy. At screening, hypertensive patients, whose diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was >90 mm Hg after 4 weeks with L10, were randomized to 3 groups of L10, L10/V80, and L10/V160. The primary end point was the change in the mean sitting DBP from baseline (week 0) after 8 weeks of therapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to L10/V160 and whose mean DBP was still ≥ 90 mm Hg in part 1 were enrolled to the up-titration extension study with lercanidipine 20 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L20/V160) (part 2). FINDINGS: Of 772 patients screened, 497 were randomized to 3 groups (166 in the L10 group, 168 in the L10/V80 group, and 163 in the L10/V160 group). Mean (SD) age was 55 (9.9) years, and male patients comprised 69%. The mean (SD) baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP were 148.4 (15.1)/94.3 (9.5) mm Hg. No significant differences were found between groups in baseline characteristics except the percentages of previous history of antihypertensive medication. The primary end points, the changes of mean (SD) DBP at week 8 from the baseline were -2.0 (8.8) mm Hg in the L10 group, -6.7 (8.5) mm Hg in L10/V80 group, and -8.1 (8.4) mm Hg in L10/V160 group. The adjusted mean difference between the combination groups and the L10 monotherapy group was -4.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -6.5 to -2.6; P < 0.001) in the L10/V80 group and -5.9 mm Hg (95% CI, -7.9 to -4.0, P < 0.001) in the L10/V160 group, which had significantly greater efficacy in BP lowering. A total of 74 patients were enrolled in the part 2 extension study. Changes of mean (SD) DBP and SBP from week 8 to week 12 and week 16 were -5.6 (7.9)/-8.0 (12.0) mm Hg and -5.5 (7.0)/-8.5 (11.3) mm Hg, respectively. For evaluation of the safety profile, the frequencies of adverse events between groups were also not significantly different. The most frequently reported adverse events were headache (6 cases, 20.7%) in the L10 group, dizziness (8 cases, 16.3%) in L10/V80 group, and nasopharyngitis (3 cases, 9.4%) in L10/V160 group, and the incidences of adverse events were not different between groups. IMPLICATIONS: Treatment of L10/V80 or L10/V160 combination therapy resulted in significantly greater BP lowering compared with L10 monotherapy. Moreover, the L20/V160 high dose combination had additional BP lowering effect compared with nonresponders with the L10/V160 combination. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01928628.

Efficacy of fimasartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by fimasartan monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The study reported here compared the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy of fimasartan alone with that of fimasartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination in patients whose BP goal was not achieved after 4 weeks of treatment with once-daily fimasartan 60 mg. METHODS: Patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (siDBP) ≥90 mmHg with 4 weeks of once-daily fimasartan 60 mg were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily fimasartan 60 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or fimasartan 60 mg for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, the dose was increased from fimasartan 60 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg to fimasartan 120 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or from fimasartan 60 mg to fimasartan 120 mg if siDBP was ≥90 mmHg. RESULTS: Of the 263 randomized patients, 256 patients who had available efficacy data were analyzed. The fimasartan/HCTZ treatment group showed a greater reduction of siDBP compared to the fimasartan treatment group at Week 4 (6.88±8.10 mmHg vs 3.38±7.33, P=0.0008), and the effect persisted at Week 8 (8.67±9.39 mmHg vs 5.02±8.27 mmHg, P=0.0023). Reduction of sitting systolic BP in the fimasartan/HCTZ treatment group was also greater than that in the fimasartan treatment group (at Week 4, 10.50±13.76 mmHg vs 5.75±12.18 mmHg, P=0.0069 and, at Week 8, 13.45±15.15 mmHg vs 6.84±13.57 mmHg, P=0.0007). The proportion of patients who achieved a reduction of siDBP ≥10 mmHg from baseline and/or a mean siDBP <90 mmHg after 4 weeks of treatment was higher in the fimasartan/HCTZ treatment group than in the fimasartan treatment group (53.6% vs 39.8%, P=0.0359). The overall incidence of adverse drug reaction was 11.79% with no significant difference between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The combination treatment of fimasartan and HCTZ achieved better BP control than fimasartan monotherapy, and had comparable safety and tolerance to fimasartan monotherapy.

Prevalence of resistant hypertension and associated factors for blood pressure control status with optimal medical therapy using Korean ambulatory blood pressure monitoring registry data.

BACKGROUND: Resistant hypertension (RH) may be one of the cause of the plateau in improving the control rate in hypertension (HT) management. The misdiagnosis of RH by clinic blood pressure (BP) is important clinical problem. Aim of the study were to investigate the prevalence of RH by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and the factor associated with control status of ambulatory BPs. METHODS: For 1230 subjects taking one or more antihypertensive medication (AHM) enrolled in the Korean Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (Kor-ABP) registry, the prevalence of RH was calculated which was defined as uncontrolled BP by three AHM classes including diuretic or BP in need of four or more AHM classes. The prevalence determined by clinic versus ambulatory BP was compared. RESULTS: The age was 59.3 ± 12.5 years, and 44.3 % were female (n = 1230). Among them 72 subjects were taking three AHM drugs including diuretics and 105 subjects were taking four or more AHM classes. With uncontrolled daytime ambulatory BP in 41 among 72 subjects, prevalence of RH was 11.9 % (146/1230). By using nighttime BP criteria, there was significant difference in the prevalence of RH for clinic versus nighttime BP (146/177 vs. 159/177, p = 0.0124). For control status of daytime BP, masked uncontrolled BP was 16.9 % and controlled BP with white-coat effect was 14.1 %. For nighttime BP control status, odd ratios for smoking (0.624), drinking (1.512), coronary artery disease (0.604), calcium antagonist (1.705), and loop diuretics (0.454) were all significant. CONCLUSION: The prevalence itself was 11.9 % by daytime BP and it was significantly higher when using nighttime BP criteria. Control status of daytime BP was misclassified in 31.0 %. Smoking, drinking, coronary artery disease, calcium antagonist, and loop diuretics were associated with nighttime BP control status.

Not nondipping but nocturnal blood pressure predicts left ventricular hypertrophy in the essential hypertensive patients: the Korean Ambulatory Blood Pressure multicenter observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether nocturnal blood pressure (BP), established on the basis of a single 24-h BP monitoring, is a stronger predictor of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) compared with nondipping status in the essential hypertensive patients. METHODS: A total of 682 hypertensive patients (mean age 56.1 ±â€Š14.5 years, 50.7% women) who underwent echocardiography were enrolled. 'Nondipping status' was defined as a nocturnal SBP fall less than 10% of daytime mean SBP. LVH was defined as a left ventricular mass index exceeding 54.0 g/m in men and 53.0 g/m in women. Each patient was categorized in three groups according to the total cardiovascular risk using 2007 European Society of Hypertension/ European Society of Cardiology guidelines as average or low, moderate, and high or very high added risk. RESULTS: Among 682 participants, 184 (26.9%) showed LVH on echocardiography. The proportion of individuals with high or very high added cardiovascular risk profile was 356 (52.1%). In multiple logistic regression analysis, age 56 years at least [odds ratio (OR) 1.047, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.031-1.063, P < 0.0001], female participants (OR 1.751, 95% CI 1.172-2.616, P = 0.0062), BMI higher than 24.6 kg/m (OR 1.178, 95% CI 1.110-1.250, P < 0.0001), smoking (OR 1.793, 95% CI 1.028-3.127, P = 0.0397), and nocturnal SBP at least 127 mmHg (OR 1.032, 95% CI 1.009-1.055, P = 0.0059) were significant independent predictors for LVH whereas nondipping was not (OR 0.857, 95% CI 0.481-1.528, P = 0.6013). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that nocturnal BP rather than nondipping may be a better predictor of LVH, especially in secondary or tertiary referral hospital setting targeting relatively high cardiovascular risk patients.

Characterization of recombinant FAD-independent catabolic acetolactate synthase from Enterococcus faecalis V583.

The catabolic acetolactate synthase (cALS) of Enterococcus faecalis V583 was cloned, expressed in Escherichia coli, and purified to homogeneity. The purified protein had a molecular weight of 60 kDa. The cALS of E. faecalis is highly homologous with other cALSs, while sharing low homology with its anabolic counterparts. The cALS of E. faecalis exhibits optimum activity at a temperature of 37°C and pH 6.8. Based on the enzyme characterization, the apparent K(m) for pyruvate was calculated to be 1.37 mM, while the K(c) for thiamin diphosphate (ThDP) and Mg(2+) were found to be 0.031 µM and 1.27 mM, respectively. Negligible absorbance at 450 nm and lack of activity enhancement upon addition of flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) to the assay buffer suggest that the cALS of E. faecalis is not FAD-dependent. The enzyme showed extreme stability against the organic solvent dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), whereas the activity decreased to less than 50% in the presence of acetone and ethanol.

Efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan, a new angiotensin receptor blocker, compared with losartan (50/100 mg): a 12-week, phase III, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose escalation clinical trial with an optional 12-week extension phase in adult Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) is an effective and well tolerated first-line antihypertensive drug. Fimasartan is a newly developed ARB that has not been compared with other ARBs with regard to its efficacy and tolerability. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the noninferiority of fimasartan to losartan with regard to its efficacy and tolerability in adult Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, dose escalation, Phase III, noninferiority clinical trial. Patients aged 18 to 70 years with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to receive either fimasartan 60/120 mg daily or losartan 50/100 mg daily with optional titration. Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability were evaluated for 12 weeks. The primary end point was noninferiority of improvement in mean siDBP from baseline to week 12 for fimasartan compared with losartan. The incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were evaluated to assess their tolerability. In addition, some patients whose blood pressure reached goal levels participated in a 24-week extension study for additional assessment of tolerability and efficacy. RESULTS: Five hundred six patients were randomly allocated to receive fimasartan (n = 256) or losartan (n = 250). There was no significant difference in baseline demographic characteristics between the 2 treatment groups (fimasartan-treated group-mean age, 53.96 [8.79] years; mean weight, 70.58 [11.73] kg; male, 68.02%; losartan-treated group-mean age, 53.58 [9.61] years; mean weight, 69.80 [11.08] kg; male, 70.17%). At week 12, siDBP was significantly decreased from baseline in both groups (-11.26 [7.53] mm Hg in the fimasartan group and -8.56 [7.72] mm Hg in the losartan group [P < 0.0001]). The between-group difference was 2.70 mm Hg (P = 0.0002), and the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI (1.27 mm Hg) was higher than the prespecified noninferiority margin (-2.5 mm Hg). The incidence of ADRs were 7.84% and 10.40% in the fimasartan and losartan groups, respectively (χ(2) test, P = 0.3181). The efficacy of fimasartan was maintained over 24 weeks, and its tolerability was comparable with losartan in the extension study. CONCLUSIONS: In this study with eligible adult Korean patients who had mild-to-moderate hypertension, the reduction of siDBP after 12 weeks of treatment with fimasartan 60/120 mg was noninferior to that of losartan 50/100 mg. By post hoc comparison, between-group differences in siDBP were significant in favor of fimasartan, suggesting superiority to losartan. There was no statistically significant difference in tolerability between the groups. This efficacy and tolerability were maintained throughout the additional 12-week extension study.

Type 2 myocardial infarction following generalized tonic-clonic seizure.

Myocardial infarction is diagnosed when blood levels of biomarkers are increased in the clinical setting of acute myocardial ischemia. Among the biomarkers, troponin I is the preferred biomarker indicative of myocardial necrosis. It is tissue specific for the heart. Myocardial infarction is rarely reported following seizure. We report a case of elevated troponin I in a patient after an episode of generalized tonic-clonic seizure. The diagnosis was type 2 myocardial infarction.

Recurrent infective endocarditis associated with pyogenic spondylodiskitis.

Infective endocarditis is a life-threatening condition caused by microbial infection of the heart's endocardial surface. This condition can also be associated with bacterial infections of other organs. We experienced an unusual case of recurrent infective endocarditis associated with pyogenic spondylodiskitis. A 70-year-old man presented with persistent fever and lower back pain visited our hospital. The patient had a past history of recurrent infective endocarditis. He was diagnosed with infective endocarditis again based on clinical symptoms and echocardiographic findings. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to evaluate lower back pain, which showed acute spondylodiskitis on L3 and L4 vertebrae. The patient completely recovered following four weeks of antibiotic therapy.

Development of acute myocardial infarction in a young female patient with essential thrombocythemia treated with anagrelide: a case report.

Essential thrombocythemia (ET) is a chronic myeloproliferative disorder with a prolonged clinical course. Since this disorder is considered to be at increased risk of thromboembolism, therapy is mainly focused on the decreased risk of thrombohemorrhagic events by use of cytotoxic agents. Anagrelide is a phosphodiesterase III inhibitor which is utilized in the treatment of ET for the reduction of platelets. However, patients treated with anagrelide might experience cardiovascular adverse effects including myocardial infarction (MI), although these events are rare. Herein, we report a case of a 30-year-old female with well controlled ET by anagrelide, who eventually developed an acute non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI). There has no found any cardiovascular risk factors in this ET patient, strongly suggesting that anagrelide might be the cause of MI. Therefore, cardiovascular function should be monitored in those patients prescribed with anagrelide.