Adherence to calcium channel blocker therapy in older adults: a comparison of amlodipine and felodipine.

The efficacy of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers for treating hypertension appears to be similar, but a variety of factors, including patient characteristics, tolerability and pharmacokinetic properties, may influence treatment adherence and outcome. We aimed to evaluate treatment adherence in clinical practice among older hypertensive adults (50+ years) prescribed amlodipine or felodipine for the first time as part of the California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program. We used a retrospective, matched, cohort-analysis design. Over 1 year, patients prescribed amlodipine were 21% less likely to discontinue study treatment than those prescribed felodipine. Discontinuation tended to occur early, with 20% and 30% of amlodipine and felodipine patients, respectively, discontinuing treatment after one prescription. A non-significant difference in favour of amlodipine was demonstrated for anti-anginal medication use among patients taking these drugs at baseline. This study suggests that use of amlodipine may be associated with improved adherence, compared with felodipine, among older out-patients in the Medi-Cal program.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in combination: theory and practice.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are commonly used to treat hypertension and/or a range of progressive end-organ diseases. The success of each of these drug classes in disease-state management is without dispute, and has led to speculation that given together the observed response would improve upon that observed with a member of each drug class individually given. Few studies are available, however, which carefully address the effect(s) of the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker. Review of available studies would seem not to strongly support combination therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker as preferred therapy in the broad base of general hypertensive patients with or without end-organ disease. Additional clarifying studies are needed to determine if specific patient subsets exist that might benefit from such combination therapy.

Safety of controlled-onset extended-release verapamil in middle-aged and older patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to study the safety of controlled-onset, extended-release (COER) verapamil in patients with hypertension or coronary artery disease, with a focus on elderly patients. METHODS: Adverse event data were pooled from 7 double-blind, multicenter, randomized trials including 1999 patients with hypertension or chronic stable angina pectoris. There were 1042 patients who received COER verapamil 180 to 540 mg once daily in the evening for up to 10 weeks, 373 patients who received placebo, and 584 who received an active comparator agent. Data were analyzed according to the following groups: all patients, patients with hypertension, patients with angina, older patients (>/=65 years old), and younger patients (<65 years old). Adverse event rates were compared across the treatment groups by the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: In all patients combined, the incidence of constipation (13% vs 2%), dizziness (6% vs 2%), and back pain (3% vs 1%) was higher in patients treated with COER verapamil than with placebo. Patients with hypertension had more back pain (4% vs 1%) and constipation (12% vs 1%) with COER verapamil than with placebo, whereas patients with angina had more bradycardia (2.6% vs 0%), dizziness (8% vs 2%), and constipation (15% vs 3%). Older patients treated with COER verapamil had more bradycardia, constipation, dizziness, and fatigue and had fewer headaches compared with younger patients treated with COER verapamil. Second- or third-degree atrioventricular block was not observed after administration of COER verapamil in any subgroup. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that COER verapamil has an acceptable safety profile that is largely unrelated to age in patients with hypertension or coronary artery disease.

One-year study of felodipine or placebo for stage 1 isolated systolic hypertension.

Asubstantial number of older hypertensive patients have stage 1 isolated systolic hypertension (systolic blood pressure between 140 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg), but there are currently no data showing that drug treatment is effective, safe, and/or beneficial. To compare the effects of active treatment compared with placebo on blood pressure, left ventricular hypertrophy, and quality of life among older stage 1 isolated systolic hypertensive patients, a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter clinical trial comparing felodipine (2.5, 5, or 10 mg once daily) and matching placebo was performed in 171 patients (49% male, average age 66+/-7 years, with 49% white and 30% Hispanic) with a baseline blood pressure of 149+/-7/83+/-6 mm Hg. During 52 weeks of treatment, patients randomized to active treatment achieved significantly lower blood pressures (137.0+/-11.7/80.2+/-7.6 mm Hg for extended-release felodipine versus 147.5+/-16.0/83.5+/-9.7 mm Hg for placebo, P<0.01 for each), a reduced incidence of left ventricular hypertrophy (7% for extended release felodipine versus 24% for placebo, P<0.04), and improved quality of life (change in Psychological General Well-Being index, 3.0+/-6.8 for extended-release felodipine versus -0.8+/-10.3 for placebo, P<0.01) versus baseline. There were no clinically significant differences between treatments in tolerability or adverse effects. Stage 1 isolated systolic hypertension can be effectively and safely treated pharmacologically. Treatment reduced progression to the higher stages of hypertension, reduced the incidence of left ventricular hypertrophy, and improved an overall measure of the quality of life. Larger and longer studies will be needed to document any long-term reduction in cardiovascular event rates associated with treating stage 1 systolic hypertension.

Losartan versus valsartan in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week trial.

BACKGROUND: Losartan, the first of the angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to be introduced, has been studied extensively in comparison with other classes of antihypertensive agents. Less research has been conducted on the efficacy and tolerability of losartan compared with that of other ARBs. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence study was conducted to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a once-daily regimen of losartan with that of valsartan. METHODS: Patients > or = 21 years of age with mild to moderate hypertension, defined as a trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg, were randomized to receive once-daily losartan (50 mg) or valsartan (80 mg) for 12 weeks. At the end of the sixth treatment week, patients in both groups with trough SiDBP > or = 90 mm Hg had their dose doubled for the remainder of the treatment period. Analysis of variance was used to compare treatment groups with respect to change in mean trough SiDBP from baseline to week 12. Within-treatment changes were analyzed using the paired t test. With at least 220 patients per treatment group, the study had 90% power to place a 90% CI on the difference between losartan and valsartan in SiDBP within the equivalence interval of +/- 2.5 mm Hg. RESULTS: A total of 495 patients were randomized, 247 to the losartan group and 248 to the valsartan group: 456 patients completed the study. Adjusted mean change from baseline values for trough SiDBP atthe end of 12 weeks of treatment were significantly different (P < 0.001) from zero in both the losartan group (-9.9 mm Hg) and the valsartan group (-10.1 mm Hg). At week 12, losartan was as effective as valsartan in lowering SiDBP, with a between-group difference of 0.2 mm Hg (90% CI, -1.3 to 1.7; P = 0.827). At week 6, the difference in SiDBP between groups was -1.3 mm Hg (90% CI, -2.7 to 0.0; P = 0.106). A similar pattern of results was obtained at weeks 6 and 12 for sitting systolic blood pressure. The percentage of patients reaching the SiDBP goal at week 6 (46% [112/2411 losartan; 42% [103/245] valsartan) and week 12 (57% [139/243] losartan; 59% [145/245] valsartan) was not significantly different between the treatment groups. Both losartan and valsartan were similarly well tolerated. Over the 12 weeks, the laboratory profiles of the 2 drugs were similar except for serum uric acid levels, which decreased from 6.0 to 5.7 mg/dL in the losartan group and increased from 5.9 to 6.0 mg/dL in the valsartan group (P = 0.001 for between-treatment difference). CONCLUSIONS: At starting and titrated doses, losartan and valsartan are similarly effective in reducing blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Losartan, but not valsartan, was associated with a decrease in serum uric acid levels.

Hypertensive emergencies.

In summary, patients presenting with a true hypertensive emergency should be diagnosed quickly and promptly started on effective parenteral therapy (typically nitroprusside 0.5 microgram/kg/min or fenoldopam 0.1 microgram/kg/min) in an intensive care unit. Blood pressure should be reduced about 25% gradually over 2 to 3 hours. Oral antihypertensive therapy (often with an immediate-release calcium antagonist) can be instituted after 6 to 12 hours of parenteral therapy, and consideration should be given to secondary causes of hypertension after transfer out of the intensive care unit. Because of advances in antihypertensive therapy and management, "malignant hypertension" should be truly malignant no longer.

Chronotherapeutic delivery of verapamil in obese versus non-obese patients with essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The effect of controlled-onset, extended-release (COER) verapamil on haemodynamic parameters in obese and non-obese patients is evaluated in this analysis. METHODS: Data were pooled from three clinical trials evaluating efficacy and tolerability of COER-verapamil. Hypertensive men and women (stage I to III) were randomised to COER-verapamil (180-540 mg at bedtime) or placebo for 4-8 weeks and stratified according to body mass index (BMI-obese > 28 kg/m2). Efficacy was assessed as change from baseline in blood pressure (BP), heart rate, and rate-pressure product during four time periods throughout the dosing interval. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring all adverse events and changes in metabolic laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Reductions in all haemodynamic parameters were significantly greater following COER-verapamil compared with placebo for all time periods. The haemodynamic effects of COER-verapamil in obese (n = 166, BMI = 32.8 kg/m2) and non-obese patients (n = 115, BMI = 25.0 kg/m2) were similar. COER-verapamil was well tolerated in both subgroups, but the incidence of constipation was significantly less in obese patients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: COER-verapamil is effective in reducing BP, heart rate, and rate-pressure product independently of BMI.

Gender and age effects on the ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate responses to antihypertensive therapy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess potential differences in the 24-h antihypertensive response to treatment with the controlled-onset, extended-release (COER) calcium antagonist, verapamil in men versus women and older versus younger patients with hypertension. METHODS: Meta-analyses were performed of three prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with COER-verapamil in patients with mid-stage I to stage III essential hypertension. The trials were conducted at medical clinics in the US and Canada in patients with a mean office diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95 to 115 mm Hg on 2 consecutive weeks and a mean daytime diastolic BP >90 mm Hg. Patients were randomized to treatment with 180 to 540 mg/day of COER-verapamil (N = 273) or placebo (N = 125). Changes from baseline in ambulatory BP and heart rate after COER-verapamil were compared in men versus women and in older versus younger patients. RESULTS: Treatment with COER-verapamil caused significant reductions in 24-h and early-morning systolic and diastolic BP in all of the subpopulations as compared with placebo (P < .001). COER-verapamil induced a greater reduction in both 24-h systolic (-15.1 v -10.0 mm Hg; P < .001) and diastolic (-10.4 v -8.2 mm Hg; P = .003) BP in women compared with men. Older patients showed a greater mean reduction in 24-h diastolic BP (-10.2 v -8.2 mm Hg; P < .05) and heart rate (-5.7 v -4.4 beats/min; P < .05) compared with younger patients. Side effects were similar in all of the COER-verapamil treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both gender and age were significant determinants of the response to COER-verapamil. The antihypertensive effect of verapamil is greater in women than in men and in older patients compared with younger patients.

Timing treatment to the rhythm of disease. A short course in chronotherapeutics.

The recognition of circadian rhythms in both normal human biologic function and disease has heightened the awareness that the timing of drug regimens may have an important impact on effectiveness of treatment. Outcomes in several diseases that have predictable circadian variations (e.g., arthritis, asthma, allergies, pepticulcer disease, dyslipidemia, cancer) have been improved by matching the timing of medication use to the circadian rhythm of the illness. Results of the ongoing CONVINCE study may provide evidence that chronotherapy for hypertension and angina pectoris may be more effective than traditional homeostatic treatment.

Preserving renal function in adults with hypertension and diabetes: a consensus approach. National Kidney Foundation Hypertension and Diabetes Executive Committees Working Group.

Over 11 million Americans have both diabetes and hypertension-comorbid diseases that strongly predispose people to both renal as well as cardiovascular (CV) injury. Hypertension substantially contributes to CV morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. Diabetes is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease in the United States. Furthermore, hypertension and diabetes are particularly prevalent in certain populations, such as African-Americans and Native Americans. Since the 1994 Working Group Report on Hypertension and Diabetes, a large body of clinical trial data has affirmed the original blood pressure goal of less than 130/85 mmHg recommended to preserve renal function and reduce CV events in people with hypertension and diabetes. Data that are more recent have emerged, however, to support an even lower diastolic blood pressure goal, ie, 80 mmHg, in order to optimally preserve renal function and reduce CV events in people with diabetic nephropathy. A review of clinical trials indicates that more than 65% of people with diabetes and hypertension will require two or more different antihypertensive medications to achieve the new suggested target blood pressure of 130/80 mmHg. The purpose of this report is to update the previous recommendations with a focus on level of blood pressure control, proteinuria reduction, and therapeutic approaches to achieve these goals. We provide an evidence-based approach, integrating data from the major clinical trials that were designed as randomized prospective, long-term studies that had as a primary endpoint either progression of diabetic nephropathy or reduction in CV events. This report also addresses socioeconomic and cultural barriers that hinder achievement of blood pressure goals. Lastly, the report discusses approaches to resolve cultural barriers, both physician- and patient-derived, that interfere with achievement of lower blood pressure goals.

Therapeutic trials comparing angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers.

Two independent pharmacologic methods of specifically interfering with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system have been brought to the marketplace: angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). These agents have the potential not only to be very widely used for a broad variety of clinical indications but also to compete against each other as treatments for hypertension, heart failure, renal impairment, and other conditions. Many short-term comparative studies of these two classes of drugs have now been completed. Most have focused on surrogate endpoints, such as blood pressure, renal function, or cough. These studies have generally concluded that ARBs are better tolerated but that the two drug classes otherwise have similar efficacy. The largest clinical trial comparing ARBs and ACE inhibitors thus far completed, Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE 2), failed to confirm the results of a smaller study; it did not demonstrate a significant improvement in outcomes (death or hospitalization for heart failure) with an ARB used alone, despite better tolerability. Many longer-term outcome studies with survival endpoints are under way, but most will compare the combination against an ACE inhibitor alone. These studies will define the optimal use of these agents in medicine for decades to come.

Cost-effectiveness of the lower treatment goal (of JNC VI) for diabetic hypertensive patients. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

BACKGROUND: The recommendation of the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI) to lower blood pressure (BP) in diabetic patients to less than 130/85 mm Hg may have negative economic consequences. A formal cost-effectiveness analysis was therefore performed, comparing the costs and potential benefits of a BP goal of less than 140/90 mm Hg (as recommended by JNC V) vs less than 130/85 mm Hg (as inJNC VI). METHODS: A 24-cell computer model was populated with costs (1996 dollars), relative risks, and age-specific base-line rates for death and 4 nonfatal adverse events (stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and end-stage renal disease), derived from published data. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: For 60-year-old diabetic persons with hypertension, treating to the lower BP goal increases life expectancy by 0.48 (discounted) years and lowers (discounted) lifetime medical costs by $1450 compared with treating BP to less than 140/90 mm Hg. The lower treatment BP goal results in an overall cost savings over a wide range of initial conditions, and for nearly all analyses for patients older than 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: Any incremental treatment for 60-year-olds that costs less than $414 annually and successfully lowers BP from below 140/90 to below 130/85 mm Hg would be cost saving in the long term, due to the reduction in attendant costs of future morbidity. The lower treatment goal recommended for high-risk hypertensive patients compares favorably in cost-effectiveness with many other frequently recommended treatment strategies, and saves money overall for patients aged 60 years and older.

Hypertension in patients with diabetes. Overcoming barriers to effective control.

The management of diabetic hypertension poses special problems for the medical community. Although patient adherence is often a major barrier to successful management, physicians' beliefs and prejudices also negatively impact treatment. In addition, healthcare organizations need to provide better support to physicians who feel isolated in their efforts to manage diabetic hypertension. Reductions of morbidity and mortality are achievable goals but require aggressive treatment and improved adherence if they are to be reached.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in secondary prevention of acute myocardial infarction.

The cost-effectiveness of each of the six hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors currently available was studied. For a cohort of patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years with coronary heart disease (CHD) who were taking atorvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin, the number of survivors, the annual direct cost per survivor, and the annual indirect cost saving per survivor associated with the predicted reduction in the rate of nonfatal myocardial infarction recurrences were projected. Percent reductions in excess mortality due to CHD were derived from the relative risks of cardiac mortality in treatment versus control groups in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Doses necessary to provide a long-term 35.57% reduction in low-density- lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, as seen in 4S, were estimated. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the importance of the baseline assumptions. The cost per year of life saved ranged from $5,421 with atorvastatin to $15,073 with lovastatin. The patient's age at time of diagnosis of CHD had a major impact on the cost-effectiveness of the drugs; cost-effectiveness per year of life saved was higher for older patients than younger patients. The six currently marketed HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors varied widely in cost and effectiveness in producing reductions in the LDL-cholesterol concentrations that have been shown to prevent recurrent MI; there was an approximately threefold difference in the cost per year of life saved between the most cost-effective and least cost-effective agents.