Search

The authors previously reported that addition of valsartan ameliorated the negative metabolic effects of hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients through an enhanced postprandial insulin response. In this secondary analysis, the authors tested whether this enhanced insulin response to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide was influenced by serum potassium levels, which were reduced to a lesser extent, when compared with amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide. Results showed that the early insulin response with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide occurred regardless of serum potassium levels. Heightened insulin response was, however, not significantly different when patients with normal potassium (>3.9 mEq/L) at baseline and low potassium (≤3.9 mEq/L) at the end of the study were compared with the amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide group. Despite the influence of serum potassium on insulin secretory response to a glucose challenge, the addition of valsartan maintained normoglycemia in patients given hydrochlorothiazide. Thus, the metabolic response to hydrochlorothiazide was improved with addition of valsartan through an enhanced insulin response that was not greatly affected by changes in potassium levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertensive patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS) are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The authors examined effects of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combined and alone on insulin sensitivity (using homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance [HOMA-IR]), and inflammatory/metabolic biomarkers in prediabetic hypertensive persons with CMS. Eligible patients entered 16-week therapy with valsartan 320 mg/d (n=189), HCTZ 25 mg/d (n=190), or valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg/d (n=187). At the end point, there were no statistically significant differences in HOMA-IR among the 3 groups. HCTZ significantly increased hemoglobin A(1c) and triglyceride concentrations and lowered serum potassium levels vs valsartan. HCTZ also increased plasma aldosterone and C-reactive protein levels. Blood pressure reduction and blood pressure control rates were highest with valsartan/HCTZ. There were no differences between combination valsartan/HCTZ or monotherapies on a measure of insulin sensitivity; however, the negative metabolic effects of HCTZ (increase in triglyceride and hemoglobin A(1c) values) were absent with valsartan/HCTZ, indicating an ameliorating effect of valsartan on these measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the effect of intensive lipid lowering with high-dose atorvastatin on the incidence of major cardiovascular events compared with low-dose atorvastatin in patients with coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes, with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD).Patients and Methods: Following 8 weeks' open-label therapy with atorvastatin (10 mg/d), 10,001 patients with coronary artery disease were randomized to receive double-blind therapy with either 80 mg/d or 10 mg/d of atorvastatin between July 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999. Of 1501 patients with diabetes, renal data were available for 1431. Patients with CKD were defined as having a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation.Results: After a median follow-up of 4.8 years, 95 (17.4%) of 546 patients with diabetes and CKD experienced a major cardiovascular event vs 119 (13.4%) of 885 patients with diabetes and normal eGFRs (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.72; P<.05). Compared with 10 mg of atorvastatin, 80 mg of atorvastatin reduced the relative risk of major cardiovascular events by 35% in patients with diabetes and CKD (20.9% [57/273] vs 13.9% [38/273]; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43-0.98; P=.04) and by 10% in patients with diabetes and normal eGFR (14.1% [62/441] vs 12.8% [57/444]; HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.63-1.29; P=.56). The absolute risk reduction in patients with diabetes and CKD was substantial, yielding a number needed to treat of 14 to prevent 1 major cardiovascular event over 4.8 years. Both treatments were well tolerated.Conclusion: Patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and mild to moderate CKD experience marked reduction in cardiovascular events with intensive lipid lowering, in contrast to previous observations in patients with diabetes and end-stage renal disease.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00327691. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: A low plasma level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). A secondary prevention study, the Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Intervention Trial (VA-HIT), demonstrated that CHD events were significantly reduced during a median follow-up of 5.1 years by treating patients with the fibric acid derivative gemfibrozil when the predominant lipid abnormality was low HDL-C.Objective: To determine if the reduction in major CHD events with gemfibrozil in VA-HIT could be attributed to changes in major plasma lipid levels.Design: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from September 1991 to August 1998.Setting: The Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, in which 20 VA medical centers were participating sites.Participants: A total of 2531 men with a history of CHD who had low HDL-C levels (mean, 32 mg/dL [0.83 mmol/L] ) and low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (mean, 111 mg/dL [2.88 mmol/L]).Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive gemfibrozil, 1200 mg/d (n = 1264), or matching placebo (n = 1267).Main Outcome Measure: Relation of lipid levels at baseline and averaged during the first 18 months of gemfibrozil treatment with the combined incidence of nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death.Results: Concentrations of HDL-C were inversely related to CHD events. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that CHD events were reduced by 11% with gemfibrozil for every 5-mg/dL (0.13-mmol/L) increase in HDL-C (P =.02). Events were reduced even further with gemfibrozil beyond that explained by increases in HDL-C values, particularly in the second through fourth quintiles of HDL-C values during treatment. During gemfibrozil treatment, only the increase in HDL-C significantly predicted a lower risk of CHD events; by multivariable analysis, neither triglyceride nor LDL-C levels at baseline or during the trial predicted CHD events.Conclusions: Concentrations of HDL-C achieved with gemfibrozil treatment predicted a significant reduction in CHD events in patients with low HDL-C levels. However, the change in HDL-C levels only partially explained the beneficial effect of gemfibrozil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo lead-in, placebo-controlled study compared the antianginal and anti-ischemic effects of once-daily bedtime dosing of controlled-onset extended-release (COER-24) verapamil to a once-daily morning dosing of amlodipine +/- atenolol in patients with chronic stable angina. A total of 551 patients with exercise-induced myocardial ischemia and evidence of coronary artery disease were randomized to a 4-week, forced-dose titration treatment period with (1) COER-24 verapamil 240 mg titrated to 480 mg at bedtime (n = 173), (2) amlodipine 5 mg titrated to 10 mg/day (n = 149), (3) amlodipine 5 mg (titrated to 10 mg) plus atenolol 50 mg/day in the A.M. (n = 154), or (4) placebo (n = 75). Treadmill exercise tolerance testing (standard Bruce protocol), and 48-hour ambulatory electrocardiographic (Holter) monitoring were performed at the end of placebo lead-in and double-blind treatment. Each active treatment significantly improved symptom-limited exercise duration and time to moderate angina (p < or = 0.01 vs placebo). For patients with baseline ischemia, amlodipine resulted in a statistically significant increase in total duration of ischemic episodes compared with placebo, whereas COER-24 verapamil and amlodipine plus atenolol resulted in statistically significant decreases compared with placebo and amlodipine. Heart rate at onset of ischemic episodes and ST product were also significantly increased with amlodipine (p < 0.05) compared with either COER-24 or amlodipine plus atenolol. COER-24 and amlodipine alone or in combination with atenolol improved exercise capacity in patients with angina pectoris. COER-24 verapamil monotherapy or amlodipine plus atenolol combination therapy were more effective than amlodipine monotherapy in decreasing ambulatory myocardial ischemia, especially during the hours of 6 A.M. to 12 noon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To determine whether specific angiotensin II receptor blockade with losartan offers safety and efficacy advantages in the treatment of heart failure over angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibition with captopril, the ELITE study compared losartan with captopril in older heart-failure patients.Methods: We randomly assigned 722 ACE inhibitor naive patients (aged 65 years or more) with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure and ejection fractions of 40% or less to double-blind losartan (n = 352) titrated to 50 mg once daily or captopril (n = 370) titrated to 50 mg three times daily, for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the tolerability measure of a persisting increase in serum creatinine of 26.5 mumol/L or more (> or = 0.3 mg/dL) on therapy; the secondary endpoint was the composite of death and/or hospital admission for heart failure; and other efficacy measures were total mortality, admission for heart failure, NYHA class, and admission for myocardial infarction or unstable angina.Findings: The frequency of persisting increases in serum creatinine was the same in both groups (10.5%). Fewer losartan patients discontinued therapy for adverse experiences (12.2% vs 20.8% for captopril, p = 0.002). No losartan-treated patients discontinued due to cough compared with 14 in the captopril group. Death and/or hospital admission for heart failure was recorded in 9.4% of the losartan and 13.2% of the captopril patients (risk reduction 32% [95% CI -4% to + 55%], p = 0.075). This risk reduction was primarily due to a decrease in all-cause mortality (4.8% vs 8.7%; risk reduction 46% [95% CI 5-69%], p = 0.035). Admissions with heart failure were the same in both groups (5.7%), as was improvement in NYHA functional class from baseline. Admission to hospital for any reason was less frequent with losartan than with captopril treatment (22.2% vs 29.7%).Interpretation: In this study of elderly heart-failure patients, treatment with losartan was associated with an unexpected lower mortality than that found with captopril. Although there was no difference in renal dysfunction, losartan was generally better tolerated than captopril and fewer patients discontinued losartan therapy. A further trial, evaluating the effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in a larger number of patients with heart failure, is in progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]