Summary Background The mechanisms by which hypertension causes vascular events are unclear. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment focus only on underlying mean blood pressure. We aimed to reliably ...establish the prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure, maximum blood pressure reached, untreated episodic hypertension, and residual variability in treated patients. Methods We determined the risk of stroke in relation to visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure (expressed as standard deviation SD and parameters independent of mean blood pressure) and maximum blood pressure in patients with previous transient ischaemic attack (TIA; UK-TIA trial and three validation cohorts) and in patients with treated hypertension (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Blood Pressure Lowering Arm ASCOT-BPLA). In ASCOT-BPLA, 24-h ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring (ABPM) was also studied. Findings In each TIA cohort, visit-to-visit variability in systolic blood pressure (SBP) was a strong predictor of subsequent stroke (eg, top-decile hazard ratio HR for SD SBP over seven visits in UK-TIA trial: 6·22, 95% CI 4·16–9·29, p<0·0001), independent of mean SBP, but dependent on precision of measurement (top-decile HR over ten visits: 12·08, 7·40–19·72, p<0·0001). Maximum SBP reached was also a strong predictor of stroke (HR for top-decile over seven visits: 15·01, 6·56–34·38, p<0·0001, after adjustment for mean SBP). In ASCOT-BPLA, residual visit-to-visit variability in SBP on treatment was also a strong predictor of stroke and coronary events (eg, top-decile HR for stroke: 3·25, 2·32–4·54, p<0·0001), independent of mean SBP in clinic or on ABPM. Variability on ABPM was a weaker predictor, but all measures of variability were most predictive in younger patients and at lower (<median) values of mean SBP in every cohort. Interpretation Visit-to-visit variability in SBP and maximum SBP are strong predictors of stroke, independent of mean SBP. Increased residual variability in SBP in patients with treated hypertension is associated with a high risk of vascular events. Funding None.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed that initial antihypertensive therapy with ...benazepril plus amlodipine was superior to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effects of these drug combinations on progression of chronic kidney disease. Methods ACCOMPLISH was a double-blind, randomised trial undertaken in five countries (USA, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland). 11 506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events were randomly assigned via a central, telephone-based interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive benazepril (20 mg) plus amlodipine (5 mg; n=5744) or benazepril (20 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12·5 mg; n=5762), orally once daily. Drug doses were force-titrated for patients to attain recommended blood pressure goals. Progression of chronic kidney disease, a prespecified endpoint, was defined as doubling of serum creatinine concentration or end-stage renal disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1·73 m2 or need for dialysis). Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00170950. Findings The trial was terminated early (mean follow-up 2·9 years SD 0·4) because of superior efficacy of benazepril plus amlodipine compared with benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. At trial completion, vital status was not known for 143 (1%) patients who were lost to follow-up (benazepril plus amlodipine, n=70; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, n=73). All randomised patients were included in the ITT analysis. There were 113 (2·0%) events of chronic kidney disease progression in the benazepril plus amlodipine group compared with 215 (3·7%) in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (HR 0·52, 0·41–0·65, p<0·0001). The most frequent adverse event in patients with chronic kidney disease was peripheral oedema (benazepril plus amlodipine, 189 of 561, 33·7%; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, 85 of 532, 16·0%). In patients with chronic kidney disease, angio-oedema was more frequent in the benazepril plus amlodipine group than in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group. In patients without chronic kidney disease, dizziness, hypokalaemia, and hypotension were more frequent in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group than in the benazepril plus amlodipine group. Interpretation Initial antihypertensive treatment with benazepril plus amlodipine should be considered in preference to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide since it slows progression of nephropathy to a greater extent. Funding Novartis.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background In blinded randomised controlled trials, statin therapy has been associated with few adverse events (AEs). By contrast, in observational studies, larger increases in many different ...AEs have been reported than in blinded trials. Methods In the Lipid-Lowering Arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, patients aged 40–79 years with hypertension, at least three other cardiovascular risk factors, and fasting total cholesterol concentrations of 6·5 mmol/L or lower, and who were not taking a statin or fibrate, had no history of myocardial infarction, and were not being treated for angina were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 10 mg daily or matching placebo in a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase. In a subsequent non-randomised non-blind extension phase (initiated because of early termination of the trial because efficacy of atorvastatin was shown), all patients were offered atorvastatin 10 mg daily open label. We classified AEs using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. We blindly adjudicated all reports of four prespecified AEs of interest—muscle-related, erectile dysfunction, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment—and analysed all remaining AEs grouped by system organ class. Rates of AEs are given as percentages per annum. Results The blinded randomised phase was done between February, 1998, and December, 2002; we included 101 80 patients in this analysis (5101 50% in the atorvastatin group and 5079 50% in the placebo group), with a median follow-up of 3·3 years (IQR 2·7–3·7). The non-blinded non-randomised phase was done between December, 2002, and June, 2005; we included 9899 patients in this analysis (6409 65% atorvastatin users and 3490 35% non-users), with a median follow-up of 2·3 years (2·2–2·4). During the blinded phase, muscle-related AEs (298 2·03% per annum vs 283 2·00% per annum; hazard ratio 1·03 95% CI 0·88–1·21; p=0·72) and erectile dysfunction (272 1·86% per annum vs 302 2·14% per annum; 0·88 0·75–1·04; p=0·13) were reported at a similar rate by participants randomly assigned to atorvastatin or placebo. The rate of reports of sleep disturbance was significantly lower among participants assigned atorvastatin than assigned placebo (149 1·00% per annum vs 210 1·46% per annum; 0·69 0·56–0·85; p=0·0005). Too few cases of cognitive impairment were reported for a statistically reliable analysis (31 0·20% per annum vs 32 0·22% per annum; 0·94 0·57–1·54; p=0·81). We observed no significant differences in the rates of all other reported AEs, with the exception of an excess of renal and urinary AEs among patients assigned atorvastatin (481 1·87% per annum vs 392 1·51% per annum; 1·23 1·08–1·41; p=0·002). By contrast, during the non-blinded non-randomised phase, muscle-related AEs were reported at a significantly higher rate by participants taking statins than by those who were not (161 1·26% per annum vs 124 1·00% per annum; 1·41 1·10–1·79; p=0·006). We noted no significant differences between statin users and non-users in the rates of other AEs, with the exception of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (992 8·69% per annum vs 831 7·45% per annum; 1·17 1·06–1·29; p=0·001) and blood and lymphatic system disorders (114 0·88% per annum vs 80 0·64% per annum; 1·40 1·04–1·88; p=0·03), which were reported more commonly by statin users than by non-users. Interpretation These analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect, with an excess rate of muscle-related AE reports only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used and not when its use was blinded. these results will help assure both physicians and patients that most AEs associated with statins are not causally related to use of the drug and should help counter the adverse effect on public health of exaggerated claims about statin-related side-effects. Funding Pfizer, Servier Research Group, and Leo Laboratories.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Summary Background Drugs that inhibit the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system benefit patients at risk for or with existing cardiovascular disease. However, evidence for this effect in Asian ...populations is scarce. We aimed to investigate whether addition of an angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan, to conventional cardiovascular treatment was effective in Japanese patients with cardiovascular disease. Methods We initiated a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial of 3081 Japanese patients, aged 20–79 years, (mean 65 SD 10 years) who were undergoing conventional treatment for hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, or a combination of these disorders. In addition to conventional treatment, patients were assigned either to valsartan (40–160 mg per day) or to other treatment without angiotensin receptor blockers. Our primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was registered at clintrials.gov with the identifier NCT00133328. Findings After a median follow-up of 3·1 years (range 1–3·9) the primary endpoint was recorded in fewer individuals given valsartan than in controls (92 vs 149; absolute risk 21·3 vs 34·5 per 1000 patient years; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·47–0·79, p=0·0002). This difference was mainly attributable to fewer incidences of stroke and transient ischaemic attack (29 vs 48; 0·60, 0·38–0·95, p=0·028), angina pectoris (19 vs 53; 0·35, 0·20–0·58, p<0·0001), and heart failure (19 vs 36; 0·53, 0·31–0·94, p=0·029) in those given valsartan than in the control group. Mortality or tolerability did not differ between groups. Interpretation The addition of valsartan to conventional treatment prevented more cardiovascular events than supplementary conventional treatment. These benefits cannot be entirely explained by a difference in blood pressure control.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background In previous clinical trials in high-risk hypertensive patients, paradoxically higher cardiovascular event rates have been reported in patients of normal weight compared with obese ...individuals. As a prespecified analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial, we aimed to investigate whether the type of hypertension treatment affects patients' cardiovascular outcomes according to their body size. Methods On the basis of body-mass index (BMI), we divided the full ACCOMPLISH cohort into obese (BMI ≥30, n=5709), overweight (≥25 to <30, n=4157), or normal weight (<25, n=1616) categories. The ACCOMPLISH cohort had already been randomised to treatment with single-pill combinations of either benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide or benazepril and amlodipine. We compared event rates (adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, previous cardiovascular events, stroke, or chronic kidney disease) for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke. The analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00170950. Findings In patients allocated benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide, the primary endpoint (per 1000 patient-years) was 30·7 in normal weight, 21·9 in overweight, and 18·2 in obese patients (overall p=0·0034). However, in those allocated benazepril and amlodipine, the primary endpoint did not differ between the three BMI groups (18·2, 16·9, and 16·5, respectively; overall p=0·9721). In obese individuals, primary event rates were similar with both benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide and benazepril and amlodipine, but rates were significantly lower with benazepril and amlodipine in overweight patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·59–0·94; p=0·0369) and those of normal weight (0·57, 0·39–0·84; p=0·0037). Interpretation Hypertension in normal weight and obese patients might be mediated by different mechanisms. Thiazide-based treatment gives less cardiovascular protection in normal weight than obese patients, but amlodipine-based therapy is equally effective across BMI subgroups and thus offers superior cardiovascular protection in non-obese hypertension. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Load filters
No result was selected!
Please select the results that you wish to export.
The search was successfully saved.
Editing
The search could not be saved.
Saved searches can be viewed in the list My searches.
The changes made to the saved search were saved successfully.
Save search
Shelf entry
No result was selected!
Adding material to shelf was successful.
Adding material to shelf was partly successful.
Adding material to shelf failed completely.
It was not necessary to add the material to the shelf.
Please select the results that you want to put on shelf!
On shelf the following records have been successfully added:
On shelf the following records have been successfully added:
PDF