Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular mortality in over 170,000 cancer survivors.

AIMS: Cardiovascular health is acknowledged as a crucial concern among cancer survivors. Socioeconomic status (SES) is an essential but often neglected risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). We conducted this study to identify the relationship between SES and CVD mortality in cancer survivors. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the National Health Insurance Service-National Health Examinee database, we identified cancer survivors diagnosed and surviving beyond 5 years post-diagnosis. SES was assessed based on insurance premiums and classified into 5 groups. The primary outcome was overall CVD mortality. This study analyzed 170 555 individuals (mean age 60.7 ± 11.9 years, 57.8% female). A gradual increase in risk was observed across SES groups: adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for overall CVD mortality were 1.15 (1.04-1.26), 1.28 (1.15-1.44), 1.31 (1.18-1.46), and 2.13 (1.30-3.49) for the second, third, and fourth quartile, and medical aid group (the lowest SES group) compared to the highest SES group, respectively (p for trend < 0.001). The lowest SES group with hypertension exhibited a 3.4-fold higher risk of CVD mortality compared to the highest SES group without hypertension. Interaction analyses revealed that low SES synergistically interacts with hypertension, heightening the risk of CVD mortality (synergy index 1.62). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a significant correlation between low SES and increased CVD mortality among cancer survivors. Particularly, the lowest SES group, when combined with hypertension, significantly escalates CVD mortality. Our findings underscore the critical importance of recognizing SES as a significant risk factor for CVD mortality in this population of cancer survivors.

Our population-based cohort study, involving over 170 000 cancer survivors, demonstrates a significant association between socioeconomic status (SES) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality.

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography. FINDINGS: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).

Comparisons of an automated oscillometric device with a hybrid manual auscultatory device for the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

This study evaluated an oscillometric device (OD), Microlife WatchBP Office AFIB, and a hybrid manual auscultatory device (AD), Greenlight 300TM, to determine a suitable blood pressure (BP) measurement device for the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in a mercury-free context. Adhering to the 2018 Universal Standard's suggested consensus, the study involved 800 subjects (mean age 51.2 ± 17.5 years; 44.3% male), who underwent triplicate BP measurements following 5 min of rest in a randomized order (OD-first: 398 participants; AD-first: 402 participants). BP difference was calculated as OD value minus AD value, with results stratified by measurement sequence. The overall BP difference and tolerable error probability were -1.1 ± 6.5/-2.6 ± 4.9 mmHg and 89.2%/92.5% for systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP), respectively. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.907/0.844 for SBP/DBP (OD-first/AD-first: 0.925/0.892 for SBP, 0.842/0.845 for DBP). The overall agreement for hypertension (BP ≥ 140 and/or 90 mmHg) was 0.71 (p < 0.0001), and the OD underestimated the overall hypertension prevalence by 5.1%. Analysis of the AD-first data revealed a lower level of agreement compared to the OD-first data; however, the observed blood pressure difference adhered to Criterion 1 of the 2018 Universal Standard. Microlife met the Criterion 1 of 2018 Universal Standard but underestimated the prevalence of hypertension. The BP discrepancy increased with higher BP levels, male sex, and smaller AC. With increasing age, the discrepancy decreased for SBP and increased for DBP.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe in patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, therapeutic confirmatory, phase III clinical trial.

This study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficacy of the blood pressure (BP) control and cholesterol-lowering effects and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe versus rosuvastatin and ezetimibe double therapy or telmisartan single therapy in dyslipidemia patients with hypertension. After a wash-out/therapeutic lifestyle change period of ≥4 weeks, a total of 100 eligible patients were randomized and received one of three treatments for 8 weeks: (1) telmisartan 80 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (TRE), (2) rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (RE), or (3) telmisartan 80 mg (T). The primary endpoint was the efficacy evaluation of TRE by comparing changes in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and mean percentage change in low-density lipoprotein-C (LDL-C) from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment. The least square (LS) mean (SE) changes in msSBP at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -23.02 (3.04) versus -7.18 (3.09) mmHg in the TRE and RE groups, respectively (p < .0001), and -25.80 (2.74) versus -14.92 (2.65) mmHg in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p = .0005). The percentage changes in the mean (SD) LDL-C at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -54.97% (3.49%) versus -0.17% (3.23%) in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p < .0001). No serious adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions occurred among the three groups. TRE therapy significantly decreased msSBP and LDL-C compared to RE or T therapy with comparable safety and tolerability profiles.