Search

African Americans have the highest overall mortality rate from coronary heart disease (CHD) of any ethnic group in the United States, particularly out-of-hospital deaths, and especially at younger ages. Although all of the reasons for the excess CHD mortality among African Americans have not been elucidated, it is clear that there is a high prevalence of certain coronary risk factors, delay in the recognition and treatment of high-risk individuals, and limited access to cardiovascular care. The clinical spectrum of acute and chronic CHD in African Americans is similar to that in whites. However, African Americans have a higher risk of sudden cardiac death and present more often with unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction than whites. African Americans have less obstructive coronary artery disease on angiography, but may have a similar or greater total burden of coronary atherosclerosis. Ethnic differences in the clinical manifestations of CHD may be explained largely by the inherent heterogeneity of the coronary syndromes, and the disproportionately high prevalence and severity of hypertension and type 2 diabetes in African Americans. Identification of high-risk individuals for vigorous risk factor modification-especially control of hypertension, regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, control of diabetes, treatment of dyslipidemia, and smoking cessation--is key for successful risk reduction.

To assess the efficacy and safety of 2.5, 5, and 10 mg bisoprolol/6. 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), 2.5, 5, and 10 mg amlodipine; and 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg enalapril in subjects (n = 541) with a sitting diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 114 mm Hg, data from two comparative studies were pooled. All drugs were titrated to a diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or less. Both studies were double-blind, randomized, parallel dose escalation trials with similar designs and included three active treatments. The second study also had a placebo group. The mean change from baseline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure for placebo (n = 79) was -0. 1/-2.2 mm Hg; amlodipine (n = 154), -12.4/-10.3 mm Hg; enalapril (n = 155), -9.4/-8.2 mm Hg; and bisoprolol/HCTZ (n = 155), -14.0/-12.0. Overall efficacy analyses documented a statistically significant decrease in sitting diastolic blood pressure for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ compared with placebo, amlodipine, and enalapril. There was a significant reduction in sitting systolic blood pressure for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ compared with placebo and enalapril but not amlodipine. Also, there was a significant decrease in sitting heart rate for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ (-6.2 beats/min) compared with placebo (+0.1 beats/min), amlodipine (+1.2 beats/min), and enalapril (+0.5 beats/min). The control rate (diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ (66.5%) was significantly better than for placebo (21.8%) and enalapril (47.1%) but not amlodipine (58.4%). Of those patients achieving and maintaining control, 49% of the bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ subjects were on the lowest two doses compared with 30% of the amlodipine and 26% of the enalapril subjects. Percentages of patients reporting at least one drug-related adverse event through week 12 were 27%, 24%, 28%, and 25% for placebo, bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ, amlodipine, and enalapril (not significant). Lower doses of two drugs in fixed combination can provide as good or better blood pressure control compared with higher doses of a single drug with similar tolerability and safety.

The safety and efficacy of captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) were compared to nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) in 145 randomly assigned black patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Following a 4-week placebo lead-in, patients received captopril plus HCTZ 25/15 mg or nifedipine GITS 30 mg for up to 12 weeks. Upward dose titration was permitted at weeks 3 and 6. Mean seated systolic and diastolic blood pressures decreased 16.1 ± 13.5 mm Hg and 11.5 ± 7.4 mm Hg, respectively, with captopril plus HCTZ. Statistically similar decreases were observed with nifedipine GITS: systolic, 19.3 ± 12.2 mm Hg; diastolic, 13.8 ± 7.2 mm Hg. There were no clinically significant between-group differences in serum chemistries. Edema was reported in 20.3% of nifedipine GITS patients versus 1.4% of captopril plus HCTZ patients (p = 0.001). The two regimens were equally effective in controlling blood pressure in black patients; however, a higher incidence of edema occurred with nifedipine GITS compared to captopril plus HCTZ.

Hypertensive end-stage renal disease is about 10-fold more common nationwide in African-Americans than in Caucasians and 17-fold higher in some sections of the United States. These figures are alarming and require a much greater effort in understanding the causes of this disparity and improving blood pressure control in this population to prevent catastrophic renal damage. More information is also needed about the renovascular status of other minorities. Financial obstacles to antihypertensive care appear to be an important contributing factor to the disparities of end-stage renal disease in African-Americans and perhaps other minorities.