Search

Competing Interests: Disclosures R.D. Brook is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. The other authors report no conflicts.

The greater antihypertensive responses to initial therapy with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or thiazide-type diuretics than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) adults was recognized in the US High BP guidelines from 1988 to 2003. The 2014 Report from Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (2014 aJNC8 Report) and the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association High Blood Pressure Guideline were the first to recommend CCBs or thiazide-type diuretics rather than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in NHB. We assessed the temporal relationship of these recommendations on self-reported CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy by NHB and NHW adults with hypertension absent compelling indications for β-blockers or renin-angiotensin system blockers in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to 2018 versus 2007 to 2012 (after versus before 2014 aJNC8 Report). CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy was unchanged in NHW adults (17.1% versus 18.1%, P =0.711) and insignificantly higher after 2014 among NHB adults (43.7% versus 38.2%, P =0.204), although CCB monotherapy increased (29.5% versus 21.0%, P =0.021) and renin-angiotensin system blocker monotherapy fell (44.5% versus 31.0%, P =0.008). Although evidence-based CCB monotherapy increased among NHB adults in 2015 to 2018, hypertension control declined as untreated hypertension and monotherapy increased. While a gap between recommended and actual monotherapy persists, evidence-based monotherapy appears insufficient to improve hypertension control in NHB adults, especially given evidence for worsening therapeutic inertia. Initiating treatment with single-pill combinations and timely therapeutic intensification when required to control hypertension are evidence-based, race-neutral options for improving hypertension control among NHB adults.

Randomized clinical trials have not shown an additional clinical benefit of renal artery stent placement over optimal medical therapy alone. However, studies of renal artery stent placement have not examined the relationship of albuminuria and treatment group outcomes. The CORAL study (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) is a prospective clinical trial of 947 participants with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis randomized to optimal medical therapy with or without renal artery stent which showed no treatment differences (3(5.8% and 35.1% event rate at mean 43-month follow-up). In a post hoc analysis, the study population was stratified by the median baseline urine albumin/creatinine ratio (n=826) and analyzed for the 5-year incidence of the primary end point (myocardial infarction, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, stroke, renal replacement therapy, progressive renal insufficiency, or cardiovascular disease- or kidney disease-related death), for each component of the primary end point, and overall survival. When baseline urine albumin/creatinine ratio was ≤ median (22.5 mg/g, n=413), renal artery stenting was associated with significantly better event-free survival from the primary composite end point (73% versus 59% at 5 years; P=0.02), cardiovascular disease-related death (93% versus 85%; P≤ 0.01), progressive renal insufficiency (91% versus 77%; P=0.03), and overall survival (89% versus 76%; P≤0.01), but not when baseline urine albumin/creatinine ratio was greater than median (n=413). These data suggest that low albuminuria may indicate a potentially large subgroup of those with renal artery stenosis that could experience improved event-free and overall-survival after renal artery stent placement plus optimal medical therapy compared with optimal medical therapy alone. Further research is needed to confirm these preliminary observations., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00081731., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

The objective of our study was to determine the effects of 2 antihypertensive drug dose schedules (PM dose and add-on dose) on nocturnal blood pressure (BP) in comparison with usual therapy (AM dose) in blacks with hypertensive chronic kidney disease and controlled office BP. In a 3-period, crossover trial, former participants of the African American Study of Kidney Disease were assigned to receive the following 3 regimens, each lasting 6 weeks, presented in random order: AM dose (once-daily antihypertensive medications taken in the morning), PM dose (once-daily antihypertensives taken at bedtime), and add-on dose (once-daily antihypertensives taken in the morning and an additional antihypertensive medication before bedtime [diltiazem 60-120 mg, hydralazine 25 mg, or additional ramipril 5 mg]). Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at the end of each period. The primary outcome was nocturnal systolic BP. Mean age of the study population (n=147) was 65.4 years, 64% were men, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 44.9 mL/min per 1.73 m(2). At the end of each period, mean (SE) nocturnal systolic BP was 125.6 (1.2) mm Hg in the AM dose, 123.9 (1.2) mm Hg in the PM dose, and 123.5 (1.2) mm Hg in the add-on dose. None of the pairwise differences in nocturnal, 24-hour, and daytime systolic BP was statistically significant. Among blacks with hypertensive chronic kidney disease, neither PM (bedtime) dosing of once-daily antihypertensive nor the addition of drugs taken at bedtime significantly reduced nocturnal BP compared with morning dosing of antihypertensive medications.

The combination of benazepril plus amlodipine was shown to be more effective than benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular events in the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. There was a small difference in clinic systolic blood pressure between the treatment arms favoring benazepril plus amlodipine. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring provides a more rigorous estimate of blood pressure effects. A subset of 573 subjects underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring during year 2. Readings were obtained every 20 minutes during a 24-hour period. Between-treatment differences (benazepril plus amlodipine versus benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide) in mean values were analyzed using ANOVA. Treatment comparisons with respect to categorical variables were made using Pearson's χ². At year 2, the treatment groups did not differ significantly in 24-hour mean daytime or nighttime blood pressures (values of 123.9, 125.9, and 118.1 mm Hg for benazepril plus amlodipine group versus 122.3, 124.1, and 116.9 for the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group), with mean between-group differences of 1.6, 1.8, and 1.2 mm Hg, respectively. Blood pressure control rates (24-hour mean systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring) were greater than 80% in both groups. Nighttime systolic blood pressure provided additional risk prediction after adjusting for the effects of drugs. The 24-hour blood pressure control was similar in both treatment arms, supporting the interpretation that the difference in cardiovascular outcomes favoring a renin angiotensin system blocker combined with amlodipine rather than hydrochlorothiazide shown in the ACCOMPLISH trial was not caused by differences in blood pressure, but instead intrinsic properties (metabolic or hemodynamic) of the combination therapies.

Since the first International Society on Hypertension in Blacks consensus statement on the "Management of High Blood Pressure in African American" in 2003, data from additional clinical trials have become available. We reviewed hypertension and cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment guidelines, pharmacological hypertension clinical end point trials, and blood pressure-lowering trials in blacks. Selected trials without significant black representation were considered. In this update, blacks with hypertension are divided into 2 risk strata, primary prevention, where elevated blood pressure without target organ damage, preclinical cardiovascular disease, or overt cardiovascular disease for whom blood pressure consistently <135/85 mm Hg is recommended, and secondary prevention, where elevated blood pressure with target organ damage, preclinical cardiovascular disease, and/or a history of cardiovascular disease, for whom blood pressure consistently <130/80 mm Hg is recommended. If blood pressure is ≤10 mm Hg above target levels, monotherapy with a diuretic or calcium channel blocker is preferred. When blood pressure is >15/10 mm Hg above target, 2-drug therapy is recommended, with either a calcium channel blocker plus a renin-angiotensin system blocker or, alternatively, in edematous and/or volume-overload states, with a thiazide diuretic plus a renin-angiotensin system blocker. Effective multidrug therapeutic combinations through 4 drugs are described. Comprehensive lifestyle modifications should be initiated in blacks when blood pressure is ≥115/75 mm Hg. The updated International Society on Hypertension in Blacks consensus statement on hypertension management in blacks lowers the minimum target blood pressure level for the lowest-risk blacks, emphasizes effective multidrug regimens, and de-emphasizes monotherapy.

The objective of the study was to demonstrate that reduction in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure with 160 mg valsartan and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide was not inferior to 10 mg amlodipine in hypertensive blacks. A total of 482 blacks with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension (mean seated blood pressure 140 to 180/90 to 110 mm Hg) were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, prospective study. After a placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 160 mg valsartan or 5 mg amlodipine for 2 weeks, then force-titrated to 160 mg valsartan and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide or 10 mg amlodipine for an additional 10 weeks. Blood pressure was assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Other assessments included quality of life, peripheral edema, and safety. Noninferiority of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide to amlodipine was demonstrated by comparable reductions in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure with both treatments (-10.2+/-8.6 mm Hg versus -9.1+/-8.3 mm Hg, respectively; P<0.001 for noninferiority), as well as in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (-15.9+/-12.1 mm Hg versus -14.5+/-12.2 mm Hg; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The proportion of patients reporting adverse events and the incidence of most events were similar in both treatment groups, although more patients treated with amlodipine reported peripheral edema (5.8% versus 1.7%; P=0.03) and joint swelling (2.9% versus 0%; P=0.008) compared with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. We conclude that a starting dose of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (160/12.5 mg) is as effective as high-dose amlodipine (10 mg) in reducing blood pressure in blacks with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide is better tolerated.