Search

Purpose of Review: The population of older adults 60-79 years globally is projected to double from 800 million to 1.6 billion between 2015 and 2050, while adults ≥ 80 years were forecast to more than triple from 125 to 430 million. The risk for cardiovascular events doubles with each decade of aging and each 20 mmHg increase of systolic blood pressure. Thus, successful management of hypertension in older adults is critical in mitigating the projected global health and economic burden of cardiovascular disease., Recent Findings: Women live longer than men, yet with aging systolic blood pressure and prevalent hypertension increase more, and hypertension control decreases more than in men, i.e., hypertension in older adults is disproportionately a women's health issue. Among older adults who are healthy to mildly frail, the absolute benefit of hypertension control, including more intensive control, on cardiovascular events is greater in adults ≥ 80 than 60-79 years old. The absolute rate of serious adverse events during antihypertensive therapy is greater in adults ≥ 80 years older than 60-79 years, yet the excess adverse event rate with intensive versus standard care is only moderately increased. Among adults ≥ 80 years, benefits of more intensive therapy appear non-existent to reversed with moderate to marked frailty and when cognitive function is less than roughly the twenty-fifth percentile. Accordingly, assessment of functional and cognitive status is important in setting blood pressure targets in older adults. Given substantial absolute cardiovascular benefits of more intensive antihypertensive therapy in independent-living older adults, this group merits shared-decision making for hypertension targets., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Recent European Guidelines for Diabetes, Prediabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases introduced a shift in managing patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for or established cardiovascular (CV) disease by recommending GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial glucose-lowering therapy. This is questioned since outcome trials of these drug classes had metformin as background therapy. In this post hoc analysis, the effect of dulaglutide on CV events was investigated according to the baseline metformin therapy by means of a subgroup analysis of the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial., Research Design and Methods: Patients in REWIND (n = 9901; women: 46.3%; mean age: 66.2 years) had type 2 diabetes and either a previous CV event (31%) or high CV risk (69%). They were randomized (1:1) to sc. dulaglutide (1.5 mg/weekly) or placebo in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the first of a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Key secondary outcomes included a microvascular composite endpoint, all-cause death, and heart failure. The effect of dulaglutide in patients with and without baseline metformin was evaluated by a Cox regression hazard model with baseline metformin, dulaglutide assignment, and their interaction as independent variables. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by a Cox regression model with adjustments for factors differing at baseline between people with vs. without metformin, identified using the backward selection., Results: Compared to patients with metformin at baseline (n = 8037; 81%), those without metformin (n = 1864; 19%) were older and slightly less obese and had higher proportions of women, prior CV events, heart failure, and renal disease. The primary outcome occurred in 976 (12%) participants with baseline metformin and in 281 (15%) without. There was no significant difference in the effect of dulaglutide on the primary outcome in patients with vs. without metformin at baseline [HR 0.92 (CI 0.81-1.05) vs. 0.78 (CI 0.61-0.99); interaction P = 0.18]. Findings for key secondary outcomes were similar in patients with and without baseline metformin., Conclusion: This analysis suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dulaglutide is unaffected by the baseline use of metformin therapy., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is associated with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. However, in populations with both hypertension and diabetes mellitus, its prevalence, the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure (BP) targets on incident OH, and its prognostic significance are unclear. In 4266 participants in the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial, seated BP was measured 3×, followed by readings every minute for 3 minutes after standing. Orthostatic BP change, calculated as the minimum standing minus the mean seated systolic BP and diastolic BP, was assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 48 months. The relationship between OH and clinical outcomes (total and cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, heart failure hospitalization or death and the primary composite outcome of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) was assessed using proportional hazards analysis. Consensus OH, defined by orthostatic decline in systolic BP ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg, occurred at ≥1 time point in 20% of participants. Neither age nor systolic BP treatment target (intensive, <120 mm Hg versus standard, <140 mm Hg) was related to OH incidence. Over a median follow-up of 46.9 months, OH was associated with increased risk of total death (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.36) and heart failure death/hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.85, 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.93), but not with the primary outcome or other prespecified outcomes. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension, OH was common, not associated with intensive versus standard BP treatment goals, and predicted increased mortality and heart failure events., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Managing cardiovascular (CV) risk is an important part of caring for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, as the disease itself confers CV risk. Many CV risk factors (such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity) have been found to be more common among individuals with diabetes than in the general population. A growing body of evidence provides guidance for clinicians on how to balance control of hyperglycemia with management of these risk factors. Newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents have been associated with beneficial effects on several CV risk factors; several studies evaluating the effect of these newer diabetic medications on CV outcomes have been published, and several more are in progress. While evidence continues to unfold about the benefits of risk factor control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, this article reviews evidence related to risk-factor control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as recent findings on the effect of newer drug classes on CV risk factors and outcomes. Favorably altering CV risk factors appears to improve outcomes, and is more important now than ever before.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) significantly increases morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD). Treatments for patients with T2DM have the potential to reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk. This review focuses on the potential of a new class of antidiabetic agents, the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, to reduce CV risk in patients with T2DM through reductions in hyperglycemia, blood pressure (BP), and body weight. The results of clinical trials of SGLT2 inhibitors are summarized and discussed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events., Methods: A total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years., Results: After 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensive-therapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P=0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P=0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P=0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P<0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.), (2010 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a worldwide epidemic with considerable health and economic consequences. Diabetes is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in diabetic patients, and decreasing the incidence of diabetes may potentially reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease. This article discusses the clinical trial evidence for modalities associated with a reduction in the risk of new-onset diabetes, with a focus on the role of antihypertensive agents that block the renin-angiotensin system. Lifestyle interventions and the use of antidiabetic, anti-obesity, and lipid-lowering drugs are also reviewed. An unresolved question is whether decreasing the incidence of new-onset diabetes with non-pharmacologic or pharmacologic intervention will also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. A large ongoing study is investigating whether the treatment with an oral antidiabetic drug or an angiotensin-receptor blocker will reduce the incidence of new-onset diabetes and cardiovascular disease in patients at high risk for developing diabetes.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is becoming increasingly prevalent in the US and worldwide, eventually progresses to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), requiring renal replacement therapy. Diabetes and hypertension, the two leading causes of CKD, are themselves reaching near epidemic proportions. Hypertension can cause both the development and progression of CKD, and CKD is a significant risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease. Indeed, CKD patients are more likely to die of cardiovascular complications than progress to ESRD. However, data indicate that early recognition and management of CKD can have a significant positive impact on disease outcome. This creates an important interventional opportunity for the primary care physician. This report describes the major risk factors and comorbidities associated with the development and progression of CKD and offers suggestions for timely diagnosis and management of CKD in the primary care setting.

Insulin resistance underlies most glucose disorders in adults and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Alpha blockers decrease insulin resistance, whereas diuretics increase insulin resistance. The authors studied the effects of these two classes of hypertension medications (doxazosin, an a blocker, and chlorthalidone, a diuretic) on cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults aged >55 years with hypertension and glucose disorders who were participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (8749 had known diabetes mellitus and 1690 had a newly diagnosed glucose disorder [fasting glucose >/=110 mg/dL]). There was no difference in either group between the chlorthalidone- and doxazosin-based treatments with regard to fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality. There was, however, a difference for combined cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, revascularization procedures, angina, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease) in favor of the diuretic. This difference was due primarily to an increased heart failure risk in those treated with doxazosin (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.19) in the known diabetes mellitus group and a relative risk of 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.55) in those with a newly diagnosed glucose disorder despite lower glucose levels on follow-up in those treated with a blockers. The authors conclude that treatment of hypertension with doxazosin in adults with glucose disorders incurs the same risk of coronary heart disease as treatment with chlorthalidone; however, treatment with doxazosin increases the risk of combined cardiovascular disease and heart failure despite lower glucose levels.

Patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors benefit from having them all controlled, but this rarely occurs. Fifty-seven primary care providers were enrolled in a program to monitor cardiovascular risk factor control. Data were obtained on 7315 hypertensives. This analysis focuses on 3460 high-risk hypertensives including 2199 with diabetes and 1261 with clinical cardiovascular disease. Blood pressures were <140/90 mm Hg and <130/80 mm Hg in only 44.3% and 20.4% of diabetics and 49.6% and 26.6% nondiabetics, respectively, despite the use of an average of 2.7+/-1.8 antihypertensive medications. Among high-risk dyslipidemic hypertensives, the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was <100 mg/dL in only 34% of diabetic and 33% of nondiabetic patients. Among 1696 diabetic hypertensives, the most recent glycosylated hemoglobin value averaged 7.5%, with 46.6% less than 7%. Among 805 diabetic, dyslipidemic hypertensives, all three risk factors were controlled to goal in only 6.6% with higher rates in whites than in African Americans (14.8% vs. 1.6%, p<0.001). An angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or both were prescribed in 89.9% of diabetic and 70.8% of nondiabetic patients, p<0.05. Primary care providers use evidence-based combination therapy in high-risk hypertensive patients with and without diabetes. These findings confirm the low rates of multiple risk factor control and highlight challenges of reaching evidence-based goals in primary care.

Beta-blockers are an established class in the management of hypertension, and numerous randomized, controlled trials have shown that these drugs can prevent cardiovascular events in this population. However, beta-blockers are underutilized in managing the general hypertensive population. This phenomenon may stem in part from concerns about side effects. On the contrary, beta-blockers demonstrate comparable efficacy, safety, and tolerability compared with other classes of antihypertensive drugs. Because beta-blockers offer unique cardiovascular protection, they should be considered an integral part of the treatment regimen for patients with hypertension who are at risk for cardiovascular events.