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).

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.

Double-chambered left ventricle with a thrombus in an asymptomatic patient: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Double-chambered left ventricle (DCLV) is an extremely rare congenital disease in which the left ventricle (LV) is divided by abnormal muscle tissue. Due to its rarity, there is a lack of data on the disease, including its diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Accordingly, we report a case in which DCLV was diagnosed and followed up. CASE SUMMARY: A 45-year-old man presented to our hospital due to abnormal findings on an electrocardiogram recorded during a health check. He had no specific cardiac symptoms, comorbidities or relevant past medical history. Echocardiography revealed that the LV was divided into two by muscle fibers. There were no findings of ischemia on coronary angiography and coronary computed tomography angiography performed to exclude differential diagnoses. After comprehensive analysis of the images, DCLV was diagnosed. As it seemed to be asymptomatic DCLV, we decided the patient was to be observed without administering any medication. However, follow-up echocardiography revealed a thrombus in the accessory chamber (AC). Anticoagulant medication was initiated, the thrombus resolved, and the patient is currently undergoing follow-up without any specific symptoms. CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic, uncomplicated DCLV was diagnosed through multimodal imaging; however, a thrombus in the AC occurred during the follow-up. The findings highlight that multimodal imaging is essential in diagnosing DCLV, and that anticoagulation is important in its management.

Efficacy and Safety of a Single-Pill Triple Combination of Olmesartan, Amlodipine, and Rosuvastatin in Hypertensive Patients with Low-to-Moderate Cardiovascular Risk: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Active-Control, Phase IV Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single-pill triple-combination of olmesartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin (Olme/Amlo/Rosu) in comparison with a single-pill dual-combination of olmesartan/amlodipine (Olme/Amlo) in hypertensive patients with low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk. METHODS: This multicenter, active-control, randomized study included 106 hypertensive patients at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk who were randomly assigned to receive either Olme/Amlo/Rosu 20/5/5 mg (Treatment 1), Olme/Amlo/Rosu 20/5/10 mg (Treatment 2), or Amlo/Olme 20/5 mg (Control) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the difference of the percent change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level at 8 weeks from baseline in the 3 groups. RESULTS: The difference in the least square mean percent change (standard deviation) of LDL-C in the Treatment 1 and 2 groups compared with the Control group at 8 weeks was -32.6 (3.7) % and -45.9 (3.3) %, respectively (P < .001). The achievement rates of LDL-C level <100 mg/dL at 8 weeks were significantly different between the 3 groups (65.8%, 86.7%, and 6.3% for Treatment 1, 2, and Control groups, respectively, P < .001). The results of total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A1 were superior in the Treatment 1 and 2 groups compared with the Control group. Serious adverse drug reaction did not occur in the 3 groups. Medication adherence rates were excellent in the 3 groups (98.0% for Treatment 1 group, 99.7% for Treatment 2 group, and 96.3% for the Control group, P > .05). CONCLUSION: Single-pill triple-combination of olmesartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin was superior to the single-pill dual-combination of amlodipine/olmesartan in LDLC-lowering effects, with excellent safety profiles and adherence rates, in hypertensive patients at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk.Trial Registration: CLinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04120753.

Statement on chronotherapy for the treatment of hypertension: consensus document from the Korean society of hypertension.

Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) has been shown to have a significant predictive value for cardiovascular disease. In some cases, it has a superior predictive value for future cardiovascular outcomes than daytime BP. As efficacy of BP medications wanes during nighttime and early morning, control of nocturnal hypertension and morning hypertension can be difficult. As such, chronotherapy, the dosing of BP medication in the evening, has been an ongoing topic of interest in the field of hypertension. Some studies have shown that chronotherapy is effective in reducing nocturnal BP, improving non dipping and rising patterns to dipping patterns, and improving cardiovascular prognosis. However, criticism and concerns have been raised regarding the design of these studies, such as the Hygia study, and the implausible clinical benefits in cardiovascular outcomes considering the degree of BP lowering from bedtime dosing. Studies have shown that there is no consistent evidence to suggest that routine administration of antihypertensive medications at bedtime can improve nocturnal BP and early morning BP control. However, in some cases of uncontrolled nocturnal hypertension and morning hypertension, such as in those with diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea, bedtime dosing has shown efficacy in reducing evening and early morning BP. The recently published the Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study failed to demonstrate benefit of bedtime dosing in reducing cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension. With issues of the Hygia study and negative results from the TIME study, it is unclear at this time whether routine bedtime dosing is beneficial for reducing cardiovascular outcomes.

Adherence and clinical outcomes for twice-daily versus once-daily dosing of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: Is dosing frequency important?

BACKGROUND: Twice-daily dosing of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) may reduce drug adherence compared with once-daily dosing of NOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), thus worsening clinical outcomes. We evaluated adherence to apixaban and dabigatran requiring twice-daily dosing compared with edoxaban or rivaroxaban with a once-daily dosing regimen and the subsequent clinical outcomes in patients with AF. METHODS: Adherence to each NOAC and outcomes were compared between patients who were diagnosed with AF and initiated NOACs between 2016 and 2017 using Korean claims data. High adherence was defined as the proportion of days covered (PDC) of the index NOAC ≥80%. The clinical outcomes included stroke, acute myocardial infarction, death, and composite outcome. RESULTS: A total of 33,515 patients were analyzed (mean follow-up, 1.7 ± 1.3 years). The proportion of patients with high adherence to NOACs was 95%, which did not significantly differ according to the dosing regimen. The mean PDC for NOACs was as high as ~96%, which was the highest for apixaban users, intermediate for edoxaban or rivaroxaban users, and lowest for dabigatran users, regardless of the dosing regimen. Adverse outcomes in low adherence patients for each NOAC were higher than that of high adherence patients, regardless of the dosing frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence between once- and twice-daily dosing NOACs in patients with AF was high and similar among both dosing regimens. Patients with low NOAC adherence had poorer clinical outcomes, regardless of the dosing frequency.

Advancing Cardio-Oncology in Asia.

Cardio-oncology is an emerging multi-disciplinary field, which aims to reduce morbidity and mortality of cancer patients by preventing and managing cancer treatment-related cardiovascular toxicities. With the exponential growth in cancer and cardiovascular diseases in Asia, there is an emerging need for cardio-oncology awareness among physicians and country-specific cardio-oncology initiatives. In this state-of-the-art review, we sought to describe the burden of cancer and cardiovascular disease in Asia, a region with rich cultural and socio-economic diversity. From describing the uniqueness and challenges (such as socio-economic disparity, ethnical and racial diversity, and limited training opportunities) in establishing cardio-oncology in Asia, and outlining ways to overcome any barriers, this article aims to help advance the field of cardio-oncology in Asia.

Solid-State Reaction Heterogeneity During Calcination of Lithium-Ion Battery Cathode.

During solid-state calcination, with increasing temperature, materials undergo complex phase transitions with heterogeneous solid-state reactions and mass transport. Precise control of the calcination chemistry is therefore crucial for synthesizing state-of-the-art Ni-rich layered oxides (LiNi1-x-y Cox Mny O2 , NRNCM) as cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries. Although the battery performance depends on the chemical heterogeneity during NRNCM calcination, it has not yet been elucidated. Herein, through synchrotron-based X-ray, mass spectrometry microscopy, and structural analyses, it is revealed that the temperature-dependent reaction kinetics, the diffusivity of solid-state lithium sources, and the ambient oxygen control the local chemical compositions of the reaction intermediates within a calcined particle. Additionally, it is found that the variations in the reducing power of the transition metals (i.e., Ni, Co, and Mn) determine the local structures at the nanoscale. The investigation of the reaction mechanism via imaging analysis provides valuable information for tuning the calcination chemistry and developing high-energy/power density lithium-ion batteries.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose antihypertensive combination of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone: A randomized, double-blind, parallel, phase II trial.

The aim of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose triple combinations of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone in patients with essential hypertension. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, 176 patients were randomized to seven treatment groups (placebo, quarter-dose combination, third-dose combination, half-dose combination, amlodipine 5 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, and telmisartan 80 mg) and administered the assigned study drug orally for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the mean sitting systolic blood pressure (BP) (MSSBP) at Week 8. The MSSBP and mean sitting diastolic BP in the quarter-dose and half-dose groups were significantly lower compared to the placebo and amlodipine 5 mg groups, with similar BP-lowering effects observed compared to the amlodipine 10 mg and telmisartan 80 mg groups. However, the third-dose group showed significant BP improvement only compared to the placebo group. A similar pattern was observed for the control rate of hypertension and response rates. Additional analysis was conducted after correcting for gender and age effects, and, as a result, the third-dose group showed similar results with regard to the BP-lowering effect as the quarter-dose and half-dose groups. In terms of safety, no special adverse events and clinically significant results were noted, and all dose groups of the triple combination are considered safe for use in essential hypertension patients. The current findings indicated that low-dose triple combination of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone over 8 weeks effectively improved the BP-lowering effect in patients with essential hypertension without any safety concerns.

PRE-OPerative ECHOcardiograhy for prevention of cardiovascular events after non-cardiac surgery in intermediate- and high-risk patients: protocol for a low-interventional, mixed-cohort prospective study design (PREOP-ECHO).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac evaluation using transthoracic echocardiography before noncardiac surgery is common in real-world practice. However, evidence supporting preoperative echocardiography is lacking. This study aims to evaluate the additional benefit of preoperative echocardiography in predicting postoperative cardiovascular events (CVE) in noncardiac surgery. METHODS: This study is designed as a multicenter, prospective study to assess the utility of preoperative echocardiography in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery. This trial comprises two studies: (1) a randomized controlled trial (RCT) for patients undergoing intermediate-risk surgery with fewer than three clinical risk factors from the revised cardiac risk index (intermediate-risk group) and (2) a prospective cohort study for patients undergoing intermediate-risk surgery with three or more clinical risk factors, or who undergo high-risk surgery regardless of the number of clinical risk factors (high-risk group). We hypothesize that the use of preoperative echocardiography will reduce postoperative CVEs in patients undergoing intermediate- to high-risk surgery through discovery of and further intervention for unexpected cardiac abnormalities before elective surgery. A total of 2330 and 2184 patients will be enrolled in the two studies. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death; aborted sudden cardiac arrest; type I acute myocardial infarction; clinically diagnosed unstable angina; stress-induced cardiomyopathy; lethal arrhythmia, such as sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation; and/or newly diagnosed or acutely decompensated heart failure within 30 days after surgery. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first large-scale prospective study examining the benefit of preoperative echocardiography in predicting postoperative CVE. The PREOP-ECHO trial will help doctors identify patients at risk of postoperative CVE using echocardiography and thereby reduce postoperative CVEs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinical Research Information Service KCT0006279 for RCT and KCT0006280 for prospective cohort study. Registered on June 21, 2021.

Elevated On-Treatment Diastolic Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Outcomes in the Presence of Achieved Systolic Blood Pressure Targets.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the association between cardiovascular events and 2 different levels of elevated on-treatment diastolic blood pressures (DBP) in the presence of achieved systolic blood pressure targets (SBP). METHODS: A nation-wide population-based cohort study comprised 237,592 patients with hypertension treated. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Elevated DBP was defined according to the Seventh Report of Joint National Committee (JNC7; SBP <140 mmHg, DBP ≥90 mmHg) or to the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) definitions (SBP <130 mmHg, DBP ≥80 mmHg). RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 9 years, elevated on-treatment DBP by the JNC7 definition was associated with an increased risk of the occurrence of primary endpoint compared with achieved both SBP and DBP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.24) but not in those by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition. Elevated on-treatment DBP by the JNC7 definition was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.18-1.70) and stroke (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30). Elevated on-treatment DBP by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition was only associated with stroke (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.16). Similar results were seen in the propensity-score-matched cohort. CONCLUSION: Elevated on-treatment DBP by the JNC7 definition was associated a high risk of major cardiovascular events, while elevated DBP by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition was only associated with a higher risk of stroke. The result of study can provide evidence of DBP targets in subjects who achieved SBP targets.

Clinical impact of guideline-based practice and patients' adherence in uncontrolled hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases like hypertension need comprehensive lifetime management. This study assessed clinical and patient-reported outcomes and compared them by treatment patterns and adherence at 6 months among uncontrolled hypertensive patients in Korea. METHODS: This prospective, observational study was conducted at 16 major hospitals where uncontrolled hypertensive patients receiving anti-hypertension medications (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg) were enrolled during 2015 to 2016 and studied for the following 6 months. A review of medical records was performed to collect data on treatment patterns to determine the presence of guideline-based practice (GBP). GBP was defined as: (1) maximize first medication before adding second or (2) add second medication before reaching maximum dose of first medication. Patient self-administered questionnaires were utilized to examine medication adherence, treatment satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were included in the study. Overall, 23% of patients were treated based on GBP at 3 months, and the GBP rate increased to 61.4% at 6 months. At baseline and 6 months, 36.7 and 49.2% of patients, respectively, were medication adherent. The proportion of blood pressure-controlled patients reached 65.5% at 6 months. A higher blood pressure control rate was present in patients who were on GBP and also showed adherence than those on GBP, but not adherent, or non-GBP patients (76.8% vs. 70.9% vs. 54.2%, P < 0.001). The same outcomes were found for treatment satisfaction and QoL (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the importance of physicians' compliance with GBP and patients' adherence to hypertensive medications. GBP compliance and medication adherence should be taken into account when setting therapeutic strategies for better outcomes in uncontrolled hypertensive patients.

Real-world evidence on the strategy of olmesartan-based triple single-pill combination in Korean hypertensive patients: a prospective, multicenter, observational study (RESOLVE-PRO).

BACKGROUND: In this prospective, multicenter, non-comparative observational study, the effectiveness and safety of the triple single-pill combination (SPC) of olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (OM/AML/HCTZ) were evaluated in a real clinical practice setting in Korean patients with essential hypertension. METHODS: A total of 3752 patients were enrolled and followed for 12 months after administration of OM/AML/HCTZ. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to month 6 in the mean systolic blood pressure (SBP). Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in the mean SBP at month 3, 9, 12 and the mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at month 3, 6, 9, 12; changes in the mean SBP/DBP according to age and underlying risk factors; and blood pressure control rate (%) at different time points. Adherence to and satisfaction with OM/AML/HCTZ treatment among patients and physicians were assessed by medication possession ratio (MPR) and numeric rating scale, respectively, as exploratory endpoints. Safety was evaluated by the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) as well as the discontinuation rate due to AEs. RESULTS: OM/AML/HCTZ administration led to significant reductions in the mean SBP/DBP by 11.5/6.6, 12.3/7.0, 12.3/7.2, and 12.8/7.4 mmHg from baseline to month 3, 6, 9 and 12, respectively (P < 0.0001). The BP reductions were maintained throughout the 1-year observation period in all patients with different age groups and risk factors (diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and renal disease). The BP control rate (%) of < 140/90 mmHg was 65.9, 67.9, 68.9, and 70.6% at month 3, 6, 9, and 12, respectively. The mean MPR during the observation period was 0.96. The safety results were consistent with the previously reported safety profile of OM/AML/HCTZ. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the triple SPC of OM/AML/HCTZ demonstrated significant effectiveness in reducing SBP/DBP and achieving target BP control with high adherence over the 1-year observation period in Korean hypertensive patients and was well-tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRIS, KCT0002196 , Registered 3 May 2016.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Two Parallel-Group, Optional Titration, Multicenter, Phase IIIb Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fimasartan Versus Perindopril Monotherapy With and Without a Diuretic Combination in Elderly Patients With Essential Hypertension.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan in elderly patients have not been fully evaluated. This study was therefore conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan compared with perindopril in elderly Korean patients aged >70 years with essential hypertension (defined by a mean sitting systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 2 parallel-group, optional titration, multicenter, Phase IIIb trial (FITNESS [Fimasartan in the Senior Subjects]) enrolled 241 patients from 23 cardiac centers in the Republic of Korea between August 2017 and December 2019. After the placebo run-in period, treatment started with fimasartan 30 mg or perindopril arginine 2.5 mg once daily at a 1:1 ratio; if BP was not controlled at week 4, the dose was doubled. If BP was not controlled at week 8, a diuretic combination (fimasartan 60 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or perindopril arginine 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg) was administered. After 16 weeks of the double-blind treatment, the patients with controlled BP participated in an 8-week open-label extension study, with the 2 groups unified by fimasartan 60 mg with or without hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in SBP for 8 weeks. The secondary outcomes included a change in sitting diastolic BP (DBP) for 8 weeks and changes in SBP and DBP for 4, 16, and 24 weeks. FINDINGS: At week 8, mean SBP significantly decreased from baseline in both groups: -14.2 (14.4) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and -9.0 (16.1) mm Hg in the perindopril group. The difference between the 2 groups was 5.4 (2.1) mm Hg, indicating the noninferiority of fimasartan to perindopril. Moreover, fimasartan exhibited a higher BP-lowering effect than perindopril (P = 0.0108). In addition, reductions in SBP and DBP from baseline to weeks 4, 8, and 16 were significantly greater in the fimasartan group than in the perindopril group, although the SBP reduction was comparable at week 16. Both groups reported an excellent mean compliance rate of 97.4% (4.7%) through week 16. During the study period, 82 adverse events were reported in 52 patients, 40 in the fimasartan group and 42 in the perindopril group (P = 0.4647). Dizziness was the most commonly reported adverse event (7 cases). Remarkably, only 1 case of orthostatic hypotension was reported during the study period. IMPLICATIONS: In elderly patients with essential hypertension, fimasartan 30 to 60 mg with a possible hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-mg combination was noninferior to perindopril 2.5 to 5 mg with a possible indapamide 1.25-mg combination. Furthermore, fimasartan exhibited higher BP-lowering efficacy than perindopril. There was no difference in tolerability between the 2 groups. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246555.

Suboptimal Management Status of Younger Hypertensive Population in Korea.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hypertension (HTN) is the most contributable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. May Measurement Month (MMM) is a global initiative to raise awareness of HTN and act as a temporary solution to the lack of screening programs worldwide. METHODS: An opportunistic cross-sectional survey of participants aged ≥18 was carried out in May 2019. Over 10,000 participants were recruited in the MMM 2019 Korea, with a slogan of "A simple measure to save lives - #checkyourpressure." RESULTS: A total of 9,950 participants with valid clinical blood pressure (BP) data were used for analysis. All participants were Korean in ethnicity. The mean age was 57.2±21.2 years, 57.8% were females, and the mean body mass index was 23.4±3.3 kg/m². Among the enrolled population, 20.1% were less than 30 years old, and 5.0% were 30-39 years old. 37.0% of the participants reported a previous diagnosis of HTN, and 91.3% of those diagnosed were on antihypertensive medications. Notably, more than 20% of the participants had not measured their BP during the last 12 months, and the awareness rate in the young hypertensive participants (aged <40) was less than 10%. Among hypertensive participants, the treatment rate was 69.3%, and the control rate among those taking medications was 61.2%. CONCLUSION: MMM 2019 Korea campaign reported high BP control rates in individuals with HTN, reaching 60%. However, the awareness rate in young hypertensive participants was less than 10% along with suboptimal management status. The MMM 2019 Korea again raised the importance of regular BP measurement in the younger population.

May Measurement Month 2019: an analysis of blood pressure screening results from Korea.

Hypertension is the biggest contributing risk factor to cerebrovascular disease and is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease. The May Measurement Month (MMM) campaign is a global initiative aimed at raising awareness of hypertension and acting as a temporary solution to the lack of screening programs worldwide. An opportunistic cross-sectional survey of participants aged ≥18 was carried out during May 2019 in Korea. Over 10 000 participants were recruited in the MMM campaign in Korea, with a slogan of 'A simple measure to save lives-#checkyourpressure'. A total of 9975 participants with valid clinical and blood pressure (BP) data were used for analysis. All participants were Korean in ethnicity, mean age was 57.2 (SD ± 21.2) years, 57.7% were females, and the mean body mass index was 23.4 kg/m2 (SD ± 3.3). In total, 37.7% of the participants reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension, and 91.3% of those diagnosed were on antihypertensive medications. For other comorbidities, 11.6% reported having diabetes mellitus, 2.0% had previous stroke, and 1.0% had previous myocardial infarction. Mean BP was 130.0/81.0 mmHg in the overall population. After multiple imputation, 47.6% of participants were classified as hypertensive (systolic BP ≥140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg or on treatment for raised BP). Among all hypertensive participants, the awareness rate, the treatment rate, and the control rate (systolic BP <140 mmHg and diastolic BP <90 mmHg) were 76.2%, 74.0%, and 50.5%, respectively. Of those on antihypertensive medication, the control rate was 68.2%. While awareness and treatment rates were relatively high in the MMM19 campaign, the BP control rate of the total hypertensive population was still only ∼50%, which demands more emphasis on strict BP control.

Disparities in Mortality and Cardiovascular Events by Income and Blood Pressure Levels Among Patients With Hypertension in South Korea.

Background Socioeconomic status is associated with differences in risk factors of cardiovascular disease and increased risks of cardiovascular disease and mortality. However, it is unclear whether an association exists between cardiovascular disease and income, a common measure of socioeconomic status, among patients with hypertension. Methods and Results This population-based longitudinal study comprised 479 359 patients aged ≥19 years diagnosed with essential hypertension. Participants were categorized by income and blood pressure levels. Primary end point was all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and secondary end points were cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Low income was significantly associated with high all-cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.29, lowest versus highest income) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.25-1.38) as well as cardiovascular events (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) in patients with hypertension after adjusting for age, sex, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, fasting glucose, total cholesterol, and the use of aspirin or statins. In each blood pressure category, low-income levels were associated with high all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events. The excess risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events associated with uncontrolled blood pressure were more prominent in the lowest income group. Conclusions Low income and uncontrolled blood pressure are associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension. These findings suggest that income is an important aspect of social determinants of health that has an impact on cardiovascular outcomes in the care of hypertension.