Lars H Lindholm

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in the Community A Statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community: a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension.

Michael A. Weber, MD; Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD; William B. White, MD; Samuel Mann, MD; Lars H. Lindholm, MD; John G. Kenerson, MD; John M. Flack, MD; Barry L. Carter, Pharm D; Barry J. Materson, MD; C. Venkata S. Ram, MD; Debbie L. Cohen, MD; Jean-Claude Cadet, MD; Roger R. Jean-Charles, MD; Sandra Taler, MD; David Kountz, MD; Raymond R. Townsend, MD; John Chalmers, MD; Agustin J. Ramirez, MD; George L. Bakris, MD; Jiguang Wang, MD; Aletta E. Schutte, MD; John D. Bisognano, MD; Rhian M. Touyz, MD; Dominic Sica, MD; Stephen B. Harrap, MD

A selective endothelin-receptor antagonist to reduce blood pressure in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUNDnHypertension cannot always be adequately controlled with available drugs. We investigated the blood-pressure-lowering effects of the new vasodilatory, selective endothelin type A antagonist, darusentan, in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension.nnnMETHODSnThis randomised, double-blind study was undertaken in 117 sites in North and South America, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia. 379 patients with systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or more (>/=130 mm Hg if patient had diabetes or chronic kidney disease) who were receiving at least three blood-pressure-lowering drugs, including a diuretic, at full or maximum tolerated doses were randomly assigned to 14 weeks treatment with placebo (n=132) or darusentan 50 mg (n=81), 100 mg (n=81), or 300 mg (n=85) taken once daily. Randomisation was made centrally via an automated telephone system, and patients and all investigators were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoints were changes in sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressures. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00330369.nnnFINDINGSnAll randomly assigned participants were analysed. The mean reductions in clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 9/5 mm Hg (SD 14/8) with placebo, 17/10 mm Hg (15/9) with darusentan 50 mg, 18/10 mm Hg (16/9) with darusentan 100 mg, and 18/11 mm Hg (18/10) with darusentan 300 mg (p<0.0001 for all effects). The main adverse effects were related to fluid accumulation. Oedema or fluid retention occurred in 67 (27%) patients given darusentan compared with 19 (14%) given placebo. One patient in the placebo group died (sudden cardiac death), and five patients in the three darusentan dose groups combined had cardiac-related serious adverse events.nnnINTERPRETATIONnDarusentan provides additional reduction in blood pressure in patients who have not attained their treatment goals with three or more antihypertensive drugs. As with other vasodilatory drugs, fluid management with effective diuretic therapy might be needed.nnnFUNDINGnGilead Sciences.

Regression of Electrocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy During Antihypertensive Therapy and Reduction in Sudden Cardiac Death The LIFE Study

Background— Sudden cardiac death (SCD) occurs more often in patients with ECG left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. However, whether LV hypertrophy regression is associated with a reduced risk of SCD remains unclear. Methods and Results— The Losartan Intervention for End Point Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study included 9193 patients 55 to 80 years of age with essential hypertension and ECG LV hypertrophy by gender-adjusted Cornell product (CP) (RaVL+SV3 [+6 mm in women]) · QRS duration>2440 mm · ms) and/or Sokolow-Lyon voltage (SLV) (SV1+RV5/6>38 mm). During follow-up (mean, 4.8 years), 190 patients (2%) experienced SCD. In time-dependent Cox analyses, absence of in-treatment LV hypertrophy was associated with a decreased risk of SCD: every 1-SD-lower in-treatment CP (1050 mm · ms) was associated with a 28% lower risk of SCD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.79) and 1-SD-lower SLV (10.5 mm) with a 26% lower risk (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84). After adjustment for time-varying systolic and diastolic blood pressures, treatment allocation, age, gender, baseline Framingham risk score, ECG strain, heart rate, urine albumin/creatinine ratio, smoking, diabetes, congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and occurrence of myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and noncardiovascular death, both in-treatment CP and SLV remained predictive of SCD: each 1-SD-lower CP was associated with a 19% lower risk of SCD (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.90) and 1-SD-lower SLV with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98). Absence of in-treatment LV hypertrophy by both SLV and CP was associated with a 30% lower risk of SCD (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.92). Conclusions— Absence of in-treatment ECG LV hypertrophy is associated with reduced risk of SCD independently of treatment modality, blood pressure reduction, prevalent coronary heart disease, and other cardiovascular risk factors in hypertensive patients with LV hypertrophy.

Systolic pressure is all that matters

B lood pressure is usually expressed as two com po-nentsNdiastolic and systolic pressures. Systolic hypertension is much more common than diastolic hypertension, and systolic blood pressure contributes more of the huge global disease burden attributable to hypertension than does diastolic pressure.

Divergent Results Using Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressures: Report of a Darusentan-Resistant Hypertension Trial

Patients with resistant hypertension are at increased risk for cardiovascular events. The addition of new treatments to existing therapies will help achieve blood pressure (BP) goals in more resistant hypertension patients. In the current trial, 849 patients with resistant hypertension receiving ≥3 antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic, at optimized doses were randomized to the selective endothelin A receptor antagonist darusentan, placebo, or the central &agr;-2 agonist guanfacine. The coprimary end points of the study were changes from baseline to week 14 in trough, sitting systolic BP, and diastolic BP measured in the clinic. Decreases from baseline to week 14 in systolic BP for darusentan (−15±14 mm Hg) were greater than for guanfacine (−12±13 mm Hg; P<0.05) but not greater than placebo (−14±14 mm Hg). Darusentan, however, reduced mean 24-hour systolic BP (−9±12 mm Hg) more than placebo (−2±12 mm Hg) or guanfacine (−4±12 mm Hg) after 14 weeks of treatment (P<0.001 for each comparison). The most frequent adverse event associated with darusentan was fluid retention/edema at 28% versus 12% in each of the other groups. More patients withdrew because of adverse events on darusentan as compared with placebo or guanfacine. We conclude that darusentan provided greater reduction in systolic BP in resistant hypertension patients as assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring, in spite of not meeting its coprimary end points. The results of this trial highlight the importance of ambulatory BP monitoring in the design of hypertension clinical studies.

Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years and older: the lower the better? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background Results of randomized controlled trials are consistent in showing reduced rates of stroke, heart failure and cardiovascular events in very old patients treated with antihypertensive drugs. However, inconsistencies exist with regard to the effect of these drugs on total mortality. Methods We performed a meta-analysis of available data on hypertensive patients 80 years and older by selecting total mortality as the main outcome. Secondary outcomes were coronary events, stroke, cardiovascular events, heart failure and cause-specific mortality. The common relative risk (RR) of active treatment versus placebo or no treatment was assessed using a random-effect model. Linear meta-regression was performed to explore the relationship between intensity of antihypertensive therapy and blood pressure (BP) reduction and the log-transformed value of total mortality odds ratios (ORs). Results The overall RR for total mortality was 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.89–1.25), with significant heterogeneity between hypertension in the very elderly trial (HYVET) and the other trials. This heterogeneity was not explained by differences in the follow-up duration between trials. The meta-regression suggested that a reduction in mortality was achieved in trials with the least BP reductions and the lowest intensity of therapy. Antihypertensive therapy significantly reduced (P < 0.001) the risk of stroke (35%), cardiovascular events (27%) and heart failure (50%). Cause-specific mortality was not different between treated and untreated patients. Conclusion Treating hypertension in very old patients reduces stroke and heart failure with no effect on total mortality. The most reasonable strategy is the one associated with significant mortality reduction; thiazides as first-line drugs with a maximum of two drugs.

Effects of telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, candesartan, and losartan on cancers in 15 trials enrolling 138 769 individuals The ARB Trialists Collaboration

Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but a recent meta-analysis of selected studies suggested that ARBs may increase cancer risks. Objective Candesartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, valsartan, and losartan were assessed for incident cancers in 15 large parallel long-term multicenter double-blind clinical trials of these agents involving 138 769 participants. Patients and methods Individuals at high CVD risk were randomized to telmisartan (three trials, n = 51 878), irbesartan (three trials, n = 14 859), valsartan (four trials, n = 44 264), candesartan (four trials, n = 18 566), and losartan (one trial, n = 9193) and followed for 23–60 months. Incident cancer cases were compared in patients randomized to ARBs versus controls. In five trials (n = 42 403), the ARBs were compared to ACEi and in 11 trials (n = 63 313) to controls without ACEi. In addition, in seven trials (n = 47 020), the effect of ARBs with ACEi was compared to ACEi alone and in two trials ARBs with ACEi versus ARB alone (n = 25 712). Results Overall, there was no excess of cancer incidence with ARB therapy compared to controls in the 15 trials [4549 (6.16%) cases of 73 808 allocated to ARB versus 3856 (6.31%) of 61 106 assigned to non-ARB controls; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95–1.04] overall or when individual ARBs were examined. ORs comparing combination therapy with ARB along with ACEi versus ACEi was 1.01 (95% CI 0.94–1.10), combination versus ARB alone 1.02 (95% CI 0.91–1.13), ARB alone versus ACEi alone 1.06 (95% CI 0.97–1.16) and ARB versus placebo/control without ACEi 0.97 (95% CI 0.91–1.04). There was no excess of lung, prostate or breast cancer, or overall cancer deaths associated with ARB treatment. Conclusion There was no significant increase in the overall or site-specific cancer risk from ARBs compared to controls.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in the Community

Michael A. Weber, MD; Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD; William B. White, MD; Samuel Mann, MD; Lars H. Lindholm, MD; John G. Kenerson, MD; John M. Flack, MD; Barry L. Carter, Pharm D; Barry J. Materson, MD; C. Venkata S. Ram, MD; Debbie L. Cohen, MD; Jean-Claude Cadet, MD; Roger R. Jean-Charles, MD; Sandra Taler, MD; David Kountz, MD; Raymond R. Townsend, MD; John Chalmers, MD; Agustin J. Ramirez, MD; George L. Bakris, MD; Jiguang Wang, MD; Aletta E. Schutte, MD; John D. Bisognano, MD; Rhian M. Touyz, MD; Dominic Sica, MD; Stephen B. Harrap, MD

In-Treatment Resolution or Absence of Electrocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Is Associated With Decreased Incidence of New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus in Hypertensive Patients The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Study

Treatment of hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy with losartan-based therapy is associated with lower incidence of diabetes mellitus and greater regression of hypertrophy than atenolol-based therapy. However, whether in-treatment resolution or continued absence of electrocardiographic hypertrophy is independently associated with decreased incidence of diabetes is unclear. Electrocardiographic hypertrophy was evaluated over time in 7998 hypertensive patients without diabetes at baseline in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study who were treated with losartan- or atenolol-based regimens and followed with serial electrocardiograms and blood pressure determinations. Electrocardiographic hypertrophy was defined using gender-adjusted Cornell voltage-duration product criteria >2440 mm·ms. During mean follow-up of 4.6±1.2 years, diabetes developed in 562 patients (7.0%). In a Cox model adjusting for treatment assignment, in-treatment resolution or continued absence of Cornell product hypertrophy was associated with a 38% lower risk of new diabetes (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.78). After adjusting for the association of new diabetes with prior antihypertensive treatment, baseline glucose, and Framingham risk score, baseline and in-treatment systolic and diastolic pressure, HDL, uric acid, and body mass index, and the decreased incidence associated with losartan-based therapy, in-treatment continued absence, or resolution of Cornell product hypertrophy remained associated with a 26% lower risk of new diabetes (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.93). Thus, compared with presence of hypertrophy by Cornell product criteria during antihypertensive treatment, resolution or continued absence of Cornell product hypertrophy is associated with a lower incidence of diabetes, even after adjusting for the impact of treatment with losartan and other risk factors for diabetes.