Search

Epidemiological studies have revealed that hypertensive heart disease is a major risk factor for heart failure, and its heart failure burden is growing rapidly. The need to act in the face of this threat requires first an understanding of the multifactorial origin of hypertensive heart disease and second an exploration of new mechanistic pathways involved in myocardial alterations critically involved in cardiac dysfunction and failure (eg, myocardial interstitial fibrosis). Increasing evidence shows that alterations of gut microbiota composition and function (ie, dysbiosis) leading to changes in microbiota-derived metabolites and impairment of the gut barrier and immune functions may be involved in blood pressure elevation and hypertensive organ damage. In this review, we highlight recent advances in the potential contribution of gut microbiota alterations to myocardial interstitial fibrosis in hypertensive heart disease through blood pressure-dependent and blood pressure-independent mechanisms. Achievements in this field should open a new path for more comprehensive treatment of myocardial interstitial fibrosis in hypertensive heart disease and, thus, for the prevention of heart failure., Competing Interests: Disclosures B. Pitt reports being a consultant for Bayer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lexicon, CEVA Animale, Anacardia, Corteria Therapeutics, and SC Vifor (Relypsa). B. Pitt has stock options in Pharmaceuticals, SQ Innovations, G3 Pharmaceuticals, KBP Biosciences, Sarfez, Cereno Scientific, and Brainstorm Medical. B. Pitt has stocks in SeaStar Medical, Cereno Scientific, and Protonintel. US patent 9931412 site-specific delivery of eplerenone to the myocardium. US patent pending 63/045783 Histone Modulating Agents for the Prevention and Treatment of Organ Injury. Data Safety Monitoring Board: Millennial Pharmaceutics (Lorundrostat). J. Diez reports no conflicts.

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Pitt has served as a consultant for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, KBP Biosciences, Astra Zeneca, Sarfez, SC Pharmaceuticals, SQ Innovation, G-3 Pharmaceuticals, Vifor, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intel, Brainstorm Medical, and Lexicon, and holds stock options for US patent 9931412 (site-specific delivery of eplerenone to the myocardium) and US patent pending 63/045,783 (histone acetylation modulating agents for the prevention and treatment of organ damage). Dr Williams has served as a consultant for KBP Biosciences, Relapsa, Unicycive, Damian, Crinetics, Cereno Scientific, and Alnylam.

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest SEK reports lecture honoraria from Getz, Emcure, JB Pharma, Merck KGaA, Vector-Intas, and Zydus. BP is receiving consulting fees from and owning stock options in Relypsa/Vifor, KBP Pharmaceuticals, Sarfez, SCPharmaceuticals, SQinnovations, G3 Pharmaceuticals, and Tricida, receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and PhaseBio, and holding patent US 9,931,412 on site-specific delivery of eplerenone to the myocardium and pending patent US 63/045,784 on histone-acetylation modulating agents for the treatment and prevention of organ damage. MB reports honoraria from Bayer, Menarini, Sanofi, and Servier. RK reports support for research by Bayer, and honoraria for lectures from Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, Daiichi Sankyo, Ferrer, Merck, Menarini, Sanofi, and Servier. GM reports honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Recordati, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Servier. FZ reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Boston Scientific, Amgen, CVRx, AstraZeneca, Vifor Fresenius, Cardior, Cereno Pharmaceutical, Applied Therapeutics, Merck, Bayer, and Cellprothera, other than from CVCT, and Cardiorenal. AR, KS, KW, RBD, GPA, OAS, SJ, and SO declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest B.P. acknowledges the following disclosures: consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brainstorm Medical, Cereno Scientific, G3 Pharmaceuticals, KBP Biosciences, PhaseBio, Proton Intel, Sanofi/Lexicon, Sarfez, scPharmaceuticals, SQ Innovation, Tricida, and Vifor/Relypsa, holding a patent for site-specific delivery of eplerenone to the myocardium (US patent no. 9931412) and a provisional patent for histone acetylation–modulating agents for the treatment and prevention of organ injury (provisional US patent no. 63/045,784), and stocks or options in Brainstorm Medical, Cereno Scientific, G3 Pharmaceuticals, KBP Biosciences, Proton Intel, Sarfez, scPharmaceuticals, SQ Innovation, Tricida, and Vifor/Relypsa. G.L.B. acknowledges consultant fees from Bayer, Janssen, KBP Biosciences, Ionis, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Janssen, and inRegen.

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Auchus reports receiving consulting fees from PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals and contracted research support from Mineralys Pharmaceuticals. Dr Pitt reports receiving consulting fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Lexicon; consulting fees and stock options from Vifor, ScPharmaceuticals, Sqinovations, G3 Pharmaceuticals, Cereno Scientific, KBP Biosciences, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Protonintel, and Brainstorm Medical; and US Patents 9931412 for site-specific delivery of eplerenone to the myocardium and 63/045,783 (pending) for histone acetylation-modulating agents for the prevention and treatment of organ damage.

Background: More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension., Methods: HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors., Results: For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications., Conclusions: Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.)

Introduction: Resistant hypertension (RH) is more prevalent in the advanced stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and contributes to a greater likelihood of poor cardiovascular and renal outcomes. However, RH often goes untreated in this population as the currently available recommended add-on therapy, steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone and eplerenone, may lead to unacceptable side effects, mainly hyperkalemia in a cohort with reduced kidney function. KBP-5074 is a novel non-steroidal MRA that addresses the unmet need of treating RH in the CKD population without hyperkalemia., Areas Covered: We provide an overview of the current state of RH treatment in stage 3B/4 CKD as it relates to available steroidal MRAs and the current limitations of this treatment. We then explore the emerging data on nonsteroidal MRAs, particularly the novel agent KBP-5074 and its applicability to treatment in this context., Expert Opinion: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial, the novel nonsteroidal MRA KBP-5074 demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety in treating RH in stage 3B/4 CKD and offers a potential new treatment option in this population at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CKD progression.

[Figure: see text].

Aims: The described association of low diastolic blood pressure (DBP) with increased cardiovascular outcomes could be due to reduced coronary perfusion or is simply due to reverse causation. If DBP is physiologically relevant, coronary reperfusion after myocardial infarction (MI) might influence DBP-risk association., Methods and Results: The relation of achieved DBP with cardiovascular death or cardiovascular hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death was explored in 5929 patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with impaired left ventricular function, signs and symptoms of heart failure, or diabetes in the EPHESUS trial according to their reperfusion status. Cox regression models were used to assess the impact of reperfusion status on the association of DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) with outcomes in an adjusted fashion. In patients without reperfusion, lower DBP <70 mmHg was associated with increased risk for all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41-2.30; P < 0.001], cardiovascular death (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.3-3.22; P < 0.001), cardiovascular death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.26-1.87; P < 0.001). In patients with reperfusion, the risk increase at low DBP was not observed. At low SBP, risk increased independently of reperfusion. A sensitivity analysis in the subgroup of patients with optimal SBP of 120-130 mmHg showed again risk reduction of reperfusion at low DBP. Adding the treatment allocation to eplerenone or placebo into the models had no effects on the results., Conclusion: Patients after AMIs with a low DBP had an increased risk, which was sensitive to reperfusion therapy. Low blood pressure after MI identifies in patients with particular higher risk. These data support the hypothesis that low DBP in patients with stenotic coronary lesions is associated with risk, potentially involving coronary perfusion pressure and the recommendations provided by guidelines suggesting lower DBP boundaries for these high-risk patients., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Visit-to-visit office blood pressure variation (BPV) has prognostic implications independent from mean BP across several populations in the cardiovascular field. The association of BPV with outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) with systolic dysfunction and/or heart failure is yet to be determined., Methods: Two independent cohorts were assessed: the EPHESUS and the OPTIMAAL trials with a total of more than 12 000 patients. The primary outcome was all-cause death. BPV was calculated as a coefficient of variation, that is, the ratio of the SD to the mean BP along the postbaseline follow-up. Cox regression models were used to determine the associations between BPV and events., Results: Compared with the middle and lower BPV tertiles, patients in the upper BPV tertile were older, more often women, hypertensive, diabetic, with peripheral artery disease, and had more frequent use of loop diuretics and ACEi/ARBs. They also had lower LVEF, hemoglobin, and eGFR (all P < 0.001). BPV was independently associated with worse prognosis in a U-shaped manner. In the EPHESUS trial, both low and high BPV were associated with higher rates of death (and also cardiovascular death and the composite of cardiovascular death/ cardiovascular hospitalization): adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) for the outcome of death is 1.99 (1.68-2.36) for high BPV and is 1.60 (1.35-1.90) for low BPV. Similar results were observed in the OPTIMAAL trial population., Conclusion: In two independent cohorts of MI patients with systolic dysfunction and/or heart failure, BPV was associated with worse prognosis in a U-shaped manner independently of the mean BP.

Background: Recent evidence suggests that the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone should be the preferred fourth-line antihypertensive treatment in resistant hypertension (RHTN). Whether spironolactone improves blood pressure (BP) control in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and RHTN is unknown., Methods: We identified patients with RHTN, defined as baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) between 140 and 160 mm Hg on 3 or more medications, in the Americas cohort of the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist trial, in which patients with HFpEF were randomized to spironolactone vs. placebo. We evaluated the effects of spironolactone vs. placebo on BP reduction in this group and related this to the primary composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for heart failure., Results: We identified 403 participants in the Americas with RHTN. Compared to people without RHTN, those with RHTN were more frequently women, non-White, diabetics, with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction and body mass index, and a lower hemoglobin concentration. In the RHTN group, spironolactone resulted in a decrease of SBP: -6.1 (-8.9, -3.3); P < 0.001 and diastolic BP: -2.9 (-4.6, -1.2); P = 0.001 mm Hg during the first 8 months. BP became controlled after 4 weeks in 63% of patients receiving spironolactone vs. 46% receiving placebo (P = 0.003), with similar responses at 8 weeks, 4 and 8 months. Patients with RHTN derived similar overall benefit from spironolactone on the primary outcomes as those without., Conclusions: In HFpEF patients with RHTN, spironolactone lowered BP substantially and was associated with similar benefit as those without RHTN., Clinical Trials Registration: Trial Number NCT00094302 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: The ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial demonstrated that combination therapy using amlodipine, rather than hydrochlorothiazide, in conjunction with benazepril provided greater cardiovascular risk reduction among high-risk hypertensive patients. Few trials have evaluated the effect of prior antihypertensive therapy used among participants on the study outcomes., Methods and Results: In a post hoc observational analysis, we examined the characteristics of the drug regimens taken before trial enrollment in the context of the primary composite outcome (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac death, and coronary revascularization). In the "primary subgroup" (n=4475), patients previously taking any renin-angiotensin system blockade plus either a diuretic or a calcium channel blocker alone or as part of their antihypertensive regimen, there were 206 of 2193 (9.4%) versus 281 of 2282 (12.3%) primary composite events among those randomized to combination therapy involving amlodipine versus hydrochlorothiazide, respectively (adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.89; P =0.0015). All other participants (n=6975) previously taking any antihypertensive regimen not included in the primary subgroup also benefited from randomization to amlodipine plus benazepril (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.98; P =0.024). Outcomes among most other subgroups, including patients previously taking lipid-lowering medications or dichotomized by prior blood pressure control status, showed similar results., Conclusions: When combined with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, amlodipine provides cardiovascular risk reduction superior to hydrochlorothiazide, largely regardless of prior medication use. These findings add further support for the initial use of this combination regimen among high-risk hypertensive patients., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

While much emphasis, and some controversy, centers on recommendations for sodium intake, there has been considerably less interest in recommendations for dietary potassium intake, in both the general population and patients with medical conditions, particularly acute and chronic kidney disease. Physiology literature and cohort studies have noted that the relative balance in sodium and potassium intakes is an important determinant of many of the sodium-related outcomes. A noteworthy characteristic of potassium in clinical medicine is the extreme concern shared by many practitioners when confronted by a patient with hyperkalemia. Fear of this often asymptomatic finding limits enthusiasm for recommending potassium intake and often limits the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers in patients with heart failure and chronic kidney diseases. New agents for managing hyperkalemia may alter the long-term management of heart failure and the hypertension, proteinuria, and further function loss in chronic kidney diseases. In this jointly sponsored effort between the American Society of Hypertension and the National Kidney Foundation, 3 panels of researchers and practitioners from various disciplines discussed and summarized current understanding of the role of potassium in health and disease, focusing on cardiovascular, nutritional, and kidney considerations associated with both hypo- and hyperkalemia., (Copyright © 2017 Published jointly in American Journal of Kidney Diseases and the Journal of the American society of Hypertension by Elsevier Inc, on behalf of the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

: To treat hypertension, combining two or more antihypertensive drugs from different classes is often necessary. β-Blockers and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, when combined, have been deemed 'less effective' based on partially overlapping mechanisms of action and limited evidence. Recently, the single-pill combination (SPC) of nebivolol (Neb) 5 mg - a vasodilatory β1-selective antagonist/β3 agonist - and valsartan 80 mg, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, was US Food and Drug Administration-approved for hypertension. Pharmacological profiles of Neb and valsartan, alone and combined, are well characterized. In addition, a large 8-week randomized trial in stages I-II hypertensive patients (N = 4161) demonstrated greater blood pressure-reducing efficacy for Neb/valsartan SPCs than component monotherapies with comparable tolerability. In a biomarkers substudy (N = 805), Neb/valsartan SPCs prevented valsartan-induced increases in plasma renin, and a greater reduction in plasma aldosterone was observed with the highest SPC dose vs. valsartan 320 mg/day. This review summarizes preclinical and clinical evidence supporting Neb/valsartan as an efficacious and well tolerated combination treatment for hypertension.

To evaluate the effects of achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) during treatment on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, the authors measured event rates of a composite primary endpoint (CV death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke) at on-treatment SBPs of ≥140 mm Hg and the 10 mm Hg intervals of <140 mm Hg, <130 mm Hg, and <120 mm Hg in 6459 patients with diabetes (mean age, 67) and 4246 patients without diabetes (mean age, 69) from the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. In the diabetic cohort, the primary endpoint was 49% lower (P<.001) at <140 mm Hg than at ≥140 mm Hg, and the separate components of this endpoint were also significantly reduced. Further SBP reductions did not improve outcomes, and at <120 mm Hg they were no longer different (except for stroke) from ≥140 mm Hg. In contrast, in the nondiabetic cohort, the primary endpoint event rate fell steadily (although not significantly) through the decreasing SBP categories until it was reduced by 45% (P=.0413) at <120 mm Hg. Total stroke rates for both the diabetic (-56%, P=.0120) and nondiabetic (-68%, P=.0067) cohorts were lowest at <120 mm Hg, and adverse renal events (serum creatinine increase ≥50%) were significantly lowest in the range of 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg for both cohorts. Diabetic patients (<140 mm Hg or <130 mm Hg) and nondiabetic patients (<120 mm Hg) may require different SBP targets for optimal CV protection, although stroke and renal considerations should also influence the selection of blood pressure targets., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: Prior studies indicate that hypertension is associated with mechanical systolic dysfunction, even in the presence of a normal ejection fraction, but whether this cardiac dysfunction may be ameliorated by antihypertensive treatment is unknown., Methods: To test the hypothesis that mechanical systolic dysfunction in hypertension may respond to blood pressure-lowering therapy, we studied 182 patients with uncontrolled hypertension who underwent a 24-week trial of intensive versus standard antihypertensive therapy (titrated to a goal SBP <130 versus <140 mmHg) and had both baseline and follow-up echocardiography. We examined changes in left ventricular systolic function, reflected by systolic global longitudinal strain (GLS), in the entire cohort and in the subset of patients with systolic dysfunction at baseline (defined as GLS >-15%)., Results: Despite all patients having a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%), almost a third (32%) had mechanical systolic dysfunction at baseline. In the total sample, GLS significantly improved in response to antihypertensive therapy (-16.8 ± 3.8 to -18.7 ± 3.4%; P < 0.0001), and this improvement was especially evident in patients with baseline dysfunction (13.1 ± 2.2 to -17.0 ± 2.9%; P < 0.0001). Improvement in GLS was associated with lower BMI (P = 0.015) and was greater in women than in men (P = 0.003). Although uncorrelated with blood pressure change, GLS improvement was related to having received high doses of antihypertensive therapy during the study (P = 0.040)., Conclusion: In patients with hypertensive heart disease and normal left ventricular ejection fraction, abnormalities in left ventricular mechanical systolic function can be ameliorated in the setting of targeted antihypertensive treatment.

Clinical trials have demonstrated morbidity and mortality benefits of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in patients with heart failure. These studies have used either spironolactone or eplerenone as the MRA. It is generally believed that these two agents have the same effects, and the data from studies using one drug could be extrapolated for the other. National and international guidelines do not generally discriminate between spironolactone and eplerenone, but strongly recommend using an MRA for patients with heart failure due to LV systolic dysfunction and post-infarct LV systolic dysfunction. There are no major clinical trials directly comparing the efficacy of these two drugs. This article aims to compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of spironolactone and eplerenone, and to analyse the available data for their cardiovascular indications and adverse effects. We have also addressed the role of special circumstances including co-morbidities, concomitant drug therapy, cost, and licensing restrictions in choosing an appropriate MRA for a particular patient, thus combining an evidence-based approach with personalized medicine., (© 2013 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2013 European Society of Cardiology.)

Objective: Diastolic dysfunction is associated with adverse outcomes and is highly prevalent among older adults with hypertension. Lowering SBP with antihypertensive therapy has been shown to improve diastolic function, but whether or not age influences this effect is unknown., Methods: In the Exforge Intensive Control of Hypertension to Evaluate Efficacy in Diastolic Dysfunction trial, 189 patients (age range 45-93 years) with hypertension and diastolic dysfunction underwent echocardiography before and after 24 weeks of intensive versus standard antihypertensive therapy titrated to a goal SBP below 135 versus below 140  mmHg. We performed linear regression analyses to examine the association between age and improvement in diastolic function achieved with SBP reduction., Results: Antihypertensive therapy reduced SBP by 28 ± 19  mmHg overall, and this was not significantly different across age strata. However, percentage improvement in diastolic relaxation velocity (lateral E' peak velocity) for every 10  mmHg reduction in SBP was lower in older compared to younger patients. In analyses adjusting for age stratum, sex, treatment arm, baseline relaxation velocity, and baseline blood pressure, older age was associated with reduced improvement in diastolic relaxation velocity per 10  mmHg of SBP reduction (β -1.64, P = 0.009). In contrast, the degree of change in left ventricular mass index per 10  mmHg reduction in SBP was not influenced by age (P = 0.89)., Conclusions: In our sample of individuals with hypertension and diastolic dysfunction, older compared to younger adults experienced less improvement in diastolic function in response to similar reductions in SBP.

Combination therapy with benazepril 40 mg and amlodipine 10 mg (B+A) has been shown to be more effective than benazepril 40 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg (B+H) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in high-risk patients with stage 2 hypertension with similar blood pressure reductions. In the present post hoc analysis, we evaluated whether B+A is more effective than B+H for reducing CV events in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD) at baseline in a subgroup analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) study. The main trial randomized 11,506 patients. Of those, 5,744 received B+A and 5,762 received B+H. Of the 11,506 patients, 5,314 (46%) were classified as having CAD at baseline. The mean patient follow-up period was 35.7 months for the B+A group and 35.6 months for the B+H group. The primary end point was the interval to the first event of composite CV morbidity and mortality. At baseline, significant differences were present between the 5,314 with CAD and the 6,192 without CAD. The patients with CAD had a lower systolic blood pressure and heart rate, a lower incidence of diabetes, and greater incidence of dyslipidemia. However, no baseline differences were found between the randomized B+A and B+H groups. In the patients with CAD, an 18% reduction occurred in the hazard ratio for CV events (primary end point) with B+A versus B+H (p = 0.0016). In a prespecified secondary analysis of the composite end point, including only CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, the hazard ratio in the patients with CAD was reduced by 25% (p = 0.0033) in the B+A group compared with the B+H group. B+A was more effective than B+H at comparable blood pressure reductions for reducing CV events in patients, regardless of the presence of CAD. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the combination of B+A should be preferentially used for older patients with high-risk, stage 2 hypertension., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Randomized controlled trials in hypertension demonstrate cardiovascular benefits when systolic blood pressures are reduced from higher values to<160 mm Hg. The value of lower targets has not been fully defined, although major guidelines recommend achieving systolic blood pressures of<140 mm Hg. This study was conducted to explore cardiovascular outcomes at differing on-treatment blood pressure levels., Methods: On the basis of a prespecified plan to explore relationships between clinical outcomes and systolic blood pressures, the pooled cohort of high-risk hypertensive patients (N=10,705) in the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension trial were divided into 4 strata of systolic blood pressure levels: >140 mm Hg, 130 to <140 mm Hg, 120 to <130 mm Hg, and 110 to <120 mm Hg. The primary end point was cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. Outcomes comparisons between the blood pressure groups were by Cox regression., Results: The mean patient age was 68 years, and the study duration was 35.7 months. The primary end point occurred in 171 of 3429 patients (5.0%) with systolic blood pressure in the 10 mm Hg range<140 and in 179 of 2354 patients (7.6%) with systolic blood pressure≥140 mm Hg (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.77; P=.0001). Likewise, cardiovascular death decreased by 36% (P=.0147), total myocardial infarction (fatal+nonfatal) decreased by 37% (P=.0028), and stroke decreased by 47% (P=.0002). Cardiovascular event rates in those with systolic blood pressure<130 mm Hg were not different from those with systolic blood pressure<140 mm Hg. However, compared with systolic blood pressure<130 mm Hg, stroke incidence in those with systolic blood pressure<120 mm Hg was lower (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.01; P=.0529), but myocardial function was higher (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.00-2.29; P=.0437), as were composite coronary events (myocardial infarction, hospitalized angina, or sudden death) (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.18-2.24; P=.0023). The renal end point of a sustained>50% increase in serum creatinine was significantly lower in those with systolic blood pressure<140 mm Hg than in any of the other higher or lower blood pressure ranges., Conclusions: In high-risk hypertensive patients, major cardiovascular events are significantly lower in those with systolic blood pressures<140 mm Hg and<130 mm Hg than in those with levels>140 mm Hg. There are stroke benefits at levels<120 mm Hg, but they are offset by increased coronary events. Renal function is best protected in the 130 to 139 mm Hg range., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To investigate the effect of antihypertensive therapy on ventricular-arterial mechanics, coupling, and efficiency in early-stage hypertension., Methods and Results: We studied 527 participants from two clinical trials assessing the effect of blood pressure lowering on diastolic function. Participants were aged ≥45 years with early-stage hypertension, no heart failure, ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%, and diastolic dysfunction using Doppler echocardiography. Effective arterial afterload and its components were assessed along with measures of left ventricular (LV) structure and function prior to and after 24-38 weeks of antihypertensive therapy. Systolic blood pressure decreased from 154 ± 18 to 137 ± 15 mmHg at follow-up. Blood pressure reduction was associated with decreases in ventricular and arterial stiffness, improvements in systemic arterial compliance and resistance, enhanced LV ejection, and reduction in cardiac work (all P < 0.001). Changes in Ea/Ees ratio were inversely correlated with those in EF (r = -0.25; P < 0.001), stroke work index (r = -0.13; P = 0.007), and LV efficiency (r = -0.98; P < 0.001); and directly related to changes in mitral E/e' (r = 0.12; P = 0.01). Adjusting for age and blood pressure change, women and obese individuals had less enhancement in ventricular-arterial coupling and efficiency compared with men and non-obese individuals (P = 0.04 and 0.007, respectively)., Conclusion: Antihypertensive therapy reduces arterial and ventricular stiffness, enhances ventricular-arterial coupling, reduces cardiac work, and improves LV efficiency, systolic, and diastolic function. Attenuated responses in women and among obese subjects suggest that structure-function changes may be less reversible in these groups, possibly explaining their greater susceptibility to ultimately develop heart failure.

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., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The ACCOMPLISH Trial investigated intensive antihypertensive combination treatment with benazepril + amlodipine (B+A) or benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide (B+H) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with systolic hypertension. We analyzed the baseline predictors of achieving a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mmHg and achieved SBP level by the end of 12 months in both treatment groups., Methods: Baseline and 12-month SBP was available in 10,506 patients, of whom 6250 had diabetes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for SBP control at 12 months and multivariable regression models were used for the prediction of SBP at 12 months. A stepwise procedure was used to select significant (p < 0.001) predictors in multivariate analyses., Results: Mean (± SD) BP fell from 145.4/80.1 (± 18.3/10.7) mmHg at randomization to 132.8/74.7 (± 16.0/9.6) mmHg at 12 months. The main baseline predictors of SBP control <140 mmHg were region (USA >Nordic region) and Caucasian ethnicity in both randomization arms. A higher diastolic BP and the use of lipid lowering agents indicated favorable effects in the B+H arm only. The predictors of uncontrolled SBP were: (i) higher baseline SBP values, (ii) higher number of previous antihypertensive medications in both arms, (iii) the previous use of insulin in the B+A arm, and (iv) pre-trial calcium channel blocker (CCB) use in the B+H arm. Additionally, pre-trial use of thiazides and electrocardiogram (ECG)-left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) at baseline predicted higher, and smoking lower absolute SBP in the B+A arm and the use of thiazides and proteinuria a higher SBP in the B+H arm., Conclusion: Irrespective of treatment, patients in the USA and Caucasians achieved better SBP control, whereas higher baseline SBP and more previous antihypertensive medications indicated less control. Concomitant use of lipid lowering treatment indicated a better SBP control in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm. Lastly, insulin use and ECG-LVH in the benazepril + amlodipine arm and proteinuria in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm indicated poor control.

The ACCOMPLISH trial (Avoiding Cardiovascular events through Combination therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) was a 3-year multicenter, event-driven trial involving patients with high cardiovascular risk who were randomized in a double-blinded manner to benazepril plus either hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine and titrated in parallel to reach recommended blood pressure goals. Of the 8125 participants in the United States, 1414 were of self-described Black ethnicity. The composite kidney disease end point, defined as a doubling in serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, or death was not different between Black and non-Black patients, although the Blacks were significantly more likely to develop a greater than 50% increase in serum creatinine to a level above 2.6 mg/dl. We found important early differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) due to acute hemodynamic effects, indicating that benazepril plus amlodipine was more effective in stabilizing eGFR compared to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in non-Blacks. There was no difference in the mean eGFR loss in Blacks between therapies. Thus, benazepril coupled to amlodipine was a more effective antihypertensive treatment than when coupled to hydrochlorothiazide in non-Black patients to reduced kidney disease progression. Blacks have a modestly higher increased risk for more advanced increases in serum creatinine than non-Blacks.

Objectives: Our objective was to define the relationship between renal dysfunction--both albuminuria and reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)--and cardiac structure and diastolic dysfunction among patients with chronic hypertension., Methods: Both albuminuria and eGFR were measured in 540 asymptomatic patients with hypertension and diastolic dysfunction assessed by reduced early mitral annular relaxation velocity (E'). The majority of patients were white, mean age was 60 ± 10 years, mean SBP was 149 ± 18 mmHg, and there was a low prevalence comorbid conditions. Albuminuria was undetectable in 148 (27%), within the normal to low range [urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) 1-25 mg/g for men, 1-17 mg/g for women] in 292 (54%), and high or very high (UACR >25 mg/g for men, >17 mg/g for women) in 100 (19%). Estimated GFR was 60 ml/min per 1.73 m² or less in 75 (14%), 61-90 ml/min per 1.73 m² in 244 (45%), and more than 90 ml/min per 1.73 m² in 221 (41%)., Results: Albuminuria, even within the normal range, was associated with greater left ventricular wall thickness (P = 0.01), higher relative wall thickness (P = 0.004), worse diastolic function reflected in lower E' (P = 0.01), greater arterial and left ventricular end-systolic stiffness (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.003, respectively), and higher N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level (P = 0.0025), even after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. In contrast, no independent relationship was observed between eGFR and parameters of cardiac structure or function., Conclusion: Among asymptomatic hypertensive patients with evidence of diastolic dysfunction, the presence of albuminuria, even within the normal range, is associated with greater concentric remodeling, greater left ventricular end-systolic stiffness, and worse diastolic function.

Combination therapy may reduce racial/ethnic differences in response to antihypertensives. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated treatment response by race/ethnicity among hypertensive adults enrolled in a 12-week, double-blind study in which patients previously uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] ≥150 and <200 mm Hg) on angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy (other than valsartan) for 28 days or more (n = 728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan 10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate). Treatment-naïve patients (in previous 28 days) or those who failed on a non-ARB first underwent a 28-day run-in period with olmesartan 20 mg or 40 mg, respectively. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was added to both arms at week 4; optional up-titration to 25 mg at week 8 (if MSSBP >140 mm Hg). Intensive treatment provided greater BP lowering versus moderate treatment throughout the study, regardless of race/ethnicity (474 white, 198 African American, 165 Hispanic individuals). Least-square mean reductions from baseline to week 4 in MSSBP (primary outcome) ranged from 20.4 to 23.5 mm Hg (intensive) versus 17.5 to 19.0 mm Hg (moderate), across racial/ethnic subgroups. Both regimens were well tolerated. Amlodipine/valsartan/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious across racial/ethnic subgroups. Maximal efficacy was obtained with intensive treatment., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has greater predictive value than office blood pressure (BP) with respect to hypertension-related target-organ damage and morbidity. ABPM in a subset of 80 patients from the Exforge Target Achievement trial (N=728) was used to compare the efficacy of intensive-treatment and moderate-treatment regimens of amlodipine/valsartan, and to determine whether treatment differences could be better assessed with ABPM than with office or home BP. Home BP was measured on the morning of clinic visits to minimize differences that timing might have on home versus office BP measures., Methods: A 12-week randomized, double-blind study in which hypertensive patients earlier uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic BP≥150 and <200 mmHg) on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (other than valsartan) after 28 days or more (N=728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan treatment [10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate)]. Treatment-naive patients (in previous 28 days) or patients who failed on a nonangiotensin receptor blocker agent underwent a 28-day run-in period with a 20-mg or 40-mg dose of olmesartan, respectively., Results: Significantly greater 24-h ABP reductions from baseline to week 4 (primary time point) were observed with intensive versus moderate treatment (least-square mean systolic/diastolic BP reduction of -16.2/-10.1 vs. -9.5/-6.5 mmHg; P=0.0024/P=0.010 for least-square mean difference). Similarly, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving an intensive treatment achieved ambulatory BP goal (<130/80 mmHg) at week 4 than did those receiving a moderate treatment (P=0.040). Treatment-group differences did not reach statistical significance for these end points when measured by office and home BP., Conclusion: In this first randomized trial evaluating the effects of intensive versus moderate dosing of the combination of amlodipine/valsartan, our data suggest that ABPM was a better method for assessing between-treatment differences than clinic or home BP recordings, although measurement of home BP as a single recording was a limitation of our trial.

Objectives: Many angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy patients need at least two agents to control blood pressure (BP). We investigated whether initiating intensive treatment with combination amlodipine/valsartan was superior to moderate treatment with amlodipine/valsartan in patients previously uncontrolled on ARB monotherapy., Methods: In this 12-week study, patients aged at least 18 years on ARB (other than valsartan) for at least 28 days (with treatment-naïve patients or those not controlled on agents other than an ARB treated with open-label olmesartan 20 or 40 mg, respectively, for 28 days) and with uncontrolled mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP; ≥ 150-<200 mmHg) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan 5/320 mg (n = 369) or 5/160 mg (n = 359). At week 2, the dose was increased to 10/320 mg in the intensive arm. Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added to both arms at week 4. Optional up-titration with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg at week 8 was allowed if MSSBP was more than 140 mmHg., Results: At baseline, mean office sitting BP was comparable in the intensive (163.9/95.5 mmHg) and moderate (163.3/95.0 mmHg) groups. Intensive treatment provided greater BP reductions versus moderate treatment (P < 0.05) from week 4 (-23.0/-10.4 versus -19.2/-8.7 mmHg; primary endpoint) to week 12 (-29.0/-14.8 versus -25.3/-12.3 mmHg). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients in both groups (36.3% intensive, 37.6% moderate); peripheral edema was more common with intensive versus moderate treatment (8.7 versus 4.5%; P = 0.025)., Conclusions: Initiating treatment with an intensive dose of amlodipine/valsartan provides significantly greater BP lowering versus moderate treatment in hypertensive patients unresponsive to ARB monotherapy. Both treatment regimens were generally well tolerated based on adverse event reports, but the lack of routine laboratory testing after screening limits conclusions on tolerability.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine which combination therapy in patients with hypertension and diabetes most effectively decreases cardiovascular events., Background: The ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through COMbination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension) trial compared the outcomes effects of a renin-angiotensin system blocker, benazepril, combined with amlodipine (B+A) or hydrochlorothiazide (B+H). A separate analysis in diabetic patients was pre-specified., Methods: A total of 6,946 patients with diabetes were randomized to treatment with B+A or B+H. A subgroup of 2,842 diabetic patients at very high risk (previous cardiovascular or stroke events) was also analyzed, as were 4,559 patients without diabetes. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitated arrest, and coronary revascularization., Results: In the full diabetes group, the mean achieved blood pressures in the B+A and B+H groups were 131.5/72.6 and 132.7/73.7 mm Hg; during 30 months, there were 307 (8.8%) and 383 (11.0%) primary events (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 0.92, p = 0.003). For the diabetic patients at very high risk, there were 195 (13.6%) and 244 (17.3%) primary events (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.93, p = 0.007). In the nondiabetic patients, there were 245 (10.8%) and 296 (12.9%) primary events (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.97, p = 0.020). In the diabetic patients, there were clear coronary benefits with B+A, including both acute clinical events (p = 0.013) and revascularizations (p = 0.024). There were no unexpected adverse events., Conclusions: In patients with diabetes and hypertension, combining a renin-angiotensin system blocker with amlodipine, compared with hydrochlorothiazide, was superior in reducing cardiovascular events and could influence future management of hypertension in patients with diabetes. (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through COMbination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension [ACCOMPLISH]; NCT00170950)., (Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 m(2) 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., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Diastolic dysfunction may precede development of heart failure in hypertensive patients. We randomized 228 patients with uncontrolled hypertension, preserved ejection fraction, and diastolic dysfunction to 2 targeted treatment strategies: intensive, with a systolic blood pressure target of <130 mm Hg, or standard, with a systolic blood pressure target of <140 mm Hg, using a combination of valsartan, either 160 or 320 mg, plus amlodipine, either 5 or 10 mg, with other antihypertensive medications as needed. Echocardiographic assessment of diastolic function was performed at baseline and after 24 weeks in a prospective, open-label, blinded end point design. Blood pressure was reduced significantly in both groups, from 161.2+/-13.9/90.1+/-12.0 to 130.8+/-12.3/74.9+/-9.1 mm Hg (P<0.0001) in the intensive arm and from 162.1+/-13.2/93.7+/-12.2 to 137.0+/-12.9/79.6+/-11.0 mm Hg (P<0.0001) in the standard arm (P<0.003 for between-group comparisons). Myocardial relaxation velocity improved from 7.6+/-1.1 to 9.2+/-1.7 cm/s (Delta 1.54+/-1.4 cm/s; P<0.0001) in the intensive arm and from 7.5+/-1.3 to 9.0+/-1.9 cm/s (Delta 1.48+/-1.6 cm/s; P<0.0001) in the standard arm, with no difference between the 2 strategies in the achieved improvement (P=0.58). The degree of improvement in annular relaxation velocity was associated with the extent of systolic blood pressure reduction, and patients with the lowest achieved systolic blood pressure had the highest final diastolic relaxation velocities.

Left ventricular hypertrophy, a major cardiovascular risk factor for morbidity and mortality, is commonly caused by arterial hypertension. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may contribute to the pathogenesis of left ventricular hypertrophy. The Assessment of Lotrel in Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Hypertension Study compared a single-pill combination of amlodipine/benazepril at doses 5.0/20.0 mg, 5.0/40.0 mg, and 10.0/40.0 mg with hydrochlorothiazide/benazepril at doses 12.5/20.0 mg, 12.5/40.0 mg, and 25.0/40.0 mg on the reduction of left ventricular mass index measured by cardiac MRI in stage 2 hypertensive patients over 52 weeks of treatment in a randomized clinical trial. A total of 125 male and female patients, > or =55 years of age, with echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy and high-risk hypertension defined as blood pressure > or =160/100 mm Hg or current antihypertensive treatment were enrolled. After 52 weeks of treatment, left ventricular mass index was significantly reduced from baseline with amlodipine/benazepril (mean: 10.16 g/m(2)) or hydrochlorothiazide/benazepril (mean: 6.74 g/m(2); both P<0.0001), with a mean difference between treatment groups of 3.36 g/m(2) (P=0.16). No significant treatment differences were observed in subgroups defined by age, male gender, race, diabetes status, or dose level. However, in female patients, left ventricular mass index reduction was greater with amlodipine/benazepril (P=0.02). Both treatments were well tolerated.

The associations of a history of hypertension with subsequent outcomes after acute myocardial infarction have not been examined in propensity-matched studies. Of the 6,632 patients with acute myocardial infarctions and left ventricular systolic dysfunction in the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (EPHESUS), 4,407 had histories of hypertension. Propensity scores for a history of hypertension, estimated for each patient using 64 baseline characteristics, were used to match 1,990 pairs of patients with and without hypertension. Matched Cox regression models were used to estimate associations between hypertension and outcomes during a mean of 16 months of follow-up. Heart failure (HF) hospitalization occurred in 11.9% and 8.8% of patients, respectively, with and without hypertension (hazard ratio [HR] for hypertension vs no hypertension 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 1.68, p = 0.004). The association between a history of hypertension and HF hospitalization was significant only in patients without previous HF (n = 3,495, HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.84, p = 0.001), but not in those with previous HF (n = 485, HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.62, p = 0.688, p for interaction = 0.179). A history of hypertension was not associated with all-cause mortality (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22, p = 0.790) or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.27, p = 0.339). In conclusion, a history of hypertension was associated with subsequent HF hospitalization after acute myocardial infarction, especially in patients without histories of HF, suggesting that hypertension increased the risk for hospitalization with incident HF but did not affect hospitalization for worsening HF symptoms in those with prevalent HF.

Background: The optimal combination drug therapy for hypertension is not established, although current U.S. guidelines recommend inclusion of a diuretic. We hypothesized that treatment with the combination of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker would be more effective in reducing the rate of cardiovascular events than treatment with an ACE inhibitor plus a thiazide diuretic., Methods: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 11,506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events to receive treatment with either benazepril plus amlodipine or benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac arrest, and coronary revascularization., Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The trial was terminated early after a mean follow-up of 36 months, when the boundary of the prespecified stopping rule was exceeded. Mean blood pressures after dose adjustment were 131.6/73.3 mm Hg in the benazepril-amlodipine group and 132.5/74.4 mm Hg in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group. There were 552 primary-outcome events in the benazepril-amlodipine group (9.6%) and 679 in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group (11.8%), representing an absolute risk reduction with benazepril-amlodipine therapy of 2.2% and a relative risk reduction of 19.6% (hazard ratio, 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.90; P<0.001). For the secondary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke, the hazard ratio was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.92; P=0.002). Rates of adverse events were consistent with those observed from clinical experience with the study drugs., Conclusions: The benazepril-amlodipine combination was superior to the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide combination in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension who were at high risk for such events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00170950.), (2008 Massachusetts Medical Society)

In the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (n=6632), eplerenone-associated reduction in all-cause mortality was significantly greater in those with a history of hypertension (Hx-HTN). There were 4007 patients with Hx-HTN (eplerenone: n=1983) and 2625 patients without Hx-HTN (eplerenone: n=1336). Propensity scores for eplerenone use, separately calculated for patients with and without Hx-HTN, were used to assemble matched cohorts of 1838 and 1176 pairs of patients. In patients with Hx-HTN, all-cause mortality occurred in 18% of patients treated with placebo (rate, 1430/10 000 person-years) and 14% of patients treated with eplerenone (rate, 1058/10 000 person-years) during 2350 and 2457 years of follow-up, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.85; P<0.0001). Composite end point of cardiovascular hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality occurred in 33% of placebo-treated patients (3029/10 000 person-years) and 28% of eplerenone-treated patients (2438/10 000 person-years) with Hx-HTN (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94; P=0.003). In patients without Hx-HTN, eplerenone reduced heart failure hospitalization (HR: 73; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.97; P=0.028) but had no effect on mortality (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.15; P=0.435) or on the composite end point (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.10; P=0.331). Eplerenone should, therefore, be prescribed to all of the post-acute myocardial infarction patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure regardless of Hx-HTN.

Background: Loss of negative feedback inhibition of renin release during chronic treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor leads to a compensatory rise in renin secretion and downstream components of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone (RAAS) cascade. This may overcome ACE inhibition but should be blocked by a direct renin inhibitor. We studied the effects of adding the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren to an ACE inhibitor in patients with heart failure., Methods and Results: Patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure, current or past history of hypertension, and plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration >100 pg/mL who had been treated with an ACE inhibitor (or angiotensin receptor blocker) and beta-blocker were randomized to 3 months of treatment with placebo (n=146) or aliskiren 150 mg/d (n=156). The primary efficacy outcome was the between-treatment difference in N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP). Patients' mean age was 68 years, mean ejection fraction was 31%, and mean+/-SD systolic blood pressure was 129+/-17.4 mm Hg. Sixty-two percent of the patients were in New York Heart Association functional class II, and 33% were taking an aldosterone antagonist. Plasma NT-proBNP rose by 762+/-6123 pg/mL with placebo and fell by 244+/-2025 pg/mL with aliskiren (P=0.0106). BNP and urinary (but not plasma) aldosterone were also reduced by aliskiren. Clinically important differences in blood pressure and biochemistry were not seen between aliskiren and placebo., Conclusions: Addition of aliskiren to an ACE inhibitor (or angiotensin receptor blocker) and beta-blocker had favorable neurohumoral effects in heart failure and appeared to be well tolerated.

Background: Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) is an outcome study investigating aggressive antihypertensive combination treatment. It has achieved a larger fraction of overall patients with blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mmHg (73.3%) and diabetic patients <130/80 mmHg (43.3%) at 12 months of follow-up than any other large outcomes trial. We have analyzed baseline predictors of BPs and BP control at 12 months., Methods: Blinded baseline and 12-month BP was available in 10,173 patients of whom 6132 had diabetes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for BP control at 12 months; simple and multiple regression models were used for absolute BP value at 12 months. A stepwise procedure was used to select significant predictors in multivariate analyses., Results: Mean (SD) BP fell from 145.5/80.2 mmHg (18.2/10.7 mmHg) at randomization to 132.7/74.7 mmHg (16/9.6 mmHg) at 12 months. The main baseline predictors of achieving BP control were region (USA), Caucasian race and taking lipid-lowering drugs. The predictors of uncontrolled BP were higher baseline systolic BP values, more previous antihypertensive medications, proteinuria and previous thiazide use., Conclusion: Patients in the USA, Caucasians and patients taking lipid-lowering therapy were most likely to reach BP targets with combination therapy. Strong predictors of uncontrolled hypertension were more severe hypertension, an established need for more antihypertensive drugs and target organ damage.

Angiotensin receptor blockers have been hypothesized to have synergistic effects with statins. We evaluated the effects of valsartan alone or combined with simvastatin on blood pressure (BP) and indexes of inflammation and oxidant stress in hypertensive patients with hyperlipidemia. In this double-blind trial, 404 patients were randomized to 12 weeks valsartan 160 mg (V) or valsartan 160 mg plus simvastatin 20 mg (V/S20) or 80 mg (V/S80). Twenty-four-hour mean ambulatory BP and biochemical marker measurements were recorded at baseline and study end. There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences for least-square mean reductions from baseline in systolic BP (V, -9.22; V/S20, -9.25; V/S80, -9.58 mm Hg; p <0.0001 for all within-treatment changes vs baseline). Plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein decreased with the combinations but not with V alone (least-square mean median change from baseline, -0.16, -0.20, -0.70 mg/L; p = 0.0001 for V/S80 vs baseline; p = 0.045 for V/S20 vs baseline; p = 0.0023 for V/S80 vs V/S20; p = 0.0045 for V/S80 vs V). Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 was reduced by V, with no evidence for additional lowering with V/S combinations. In conclusion, addition of simvastatin to valsartan did not incrementally lower BP. However, V/S80 was superior to V and V/S20 in reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

An historical perspective on the role of aldosterone in the pathophysiology of hypertension and heart disease, and data supporting the advantages of blocking the mineralocorticoid receptor with anti-aldosterone agents.

Background: ACCOMPLISH is a "new-generation" hypertension trial assessing single-tablet combination therapy for initial treatment of high-risk hypertension. At baseline, 97% of subjects were treated with anti-hypertensive medication at entry, but only 37% of participants had blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mmHg). Single-tablet combination therapy may improve control rates., Methods: The mean BP change from baseline at the end of 6 months (the time point when subjects should have had all of the drug titrations to achieve BP control) was examined for 10,704 randomized patients. Within-group changes were examined using t-tests. Comparisons between subgroups were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and covariance (ANCOVA)., Results: Mean (+/-SD) BP fell from 145+/-18/80+/-11 mmHg at randomization to 132+/-16/74+/-10 mmHg. The 6-month BP control rate was 73% in the overall trial (78% in the US), 43% in diabetics and 40% in patients with renal disease. Of the patients uncontrolled, 61% were not on maximal medications, suggesting potential increases in control rates. Serious hypotensive events occurred in 1.8% of participants., Conclusion: ACCOMPLISH BP control rates are the highest of any multi-national trial to date. Whereas current guidelines recommend combination therapy only for stage 2 hypertension, in this trial it is expedient and safe for both stage 1 and 2 hypertension.

ACCOMPLISH is the first trial designed to compare the effects on major fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular endpoints of two forms of antihypertensive combination therapy: benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine plus benazepril in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. Enrollment for this trial is now complete and this report describes the clinical characteristics of the study cohort. Patients with hypertension and a previous history of cardiovascular events, strokes or diabetes mellitus were randomized to double-blind treatment with either of the two combination regimens. The data in this report detail the clinical history and demographic characteristics in patients immediately prior to randomization to study drugs. A total of 11,454 patients were randomized. Mean age (+/-SD) was 68.4+/-6.9 years, 60% were men, and 1360 (12%) were African American. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.0+/-6.3 kg/m(2). At study entry, 46% of patients had a history of acute coronary syndromes, coronary artery bypass grafts or percutaneous coronary interventions; 13% had a history of stroke. A history of diabetes mellitus was reported in 6928 (60%) of patients. Mean blood pressure at baseline (on prior hypertension therapy) was 145.4/80.0 mmHg; only 38% of patients had a BP less than 140/90 mmHg. Overall, 97% of patients had received previous antihypertensive treatment (74% on at least two drugs); 53% were on oral diabetes therapy or insulin, 68% on anti-lipid therapy and 63% on anti-platelet agents. In summary, the ACCOMPLISH trial has recruited hypertensive patients at high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It is noteworthy that the mean BMI of 31 in this cohort is clearly above the accepted diagnostic criterion of obesity and that 60% of patients are diabetic, possibly reflecting secular trends in clinical disease.

Drospirenone (DRSP), a progestin with antialdosterone activity, has been developed for hormone therapy in combination with 17-beta-estradiol (E2) in postmenopausal women. We evaluated the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of various doses of DRSP and E2 and estradiol alone in postmenopausal women with hypertension using ambulatory and clinic blood pressure (BP) monitoring. This was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 3 doses of DRSP combined with estradiol, estradiol alone, and placebo in 750 postmenopausal women with stage 1 to 2 hypertension between 45 to 75 years. Ambulatory and clinic BPs, potassium, aldosterone, and lipid measurements and adverse events were evaluated in postmenopausal women with stages 1 to 2 hypertension during 8 weeks of double-blind therapy. DRSP and E2 induced dose-related reductions in the ambulatory and clinic systolic BP with physiological increases in serum aldosterone. Significant decreases in 24-hour systolic pressure were observed at doses of 2 and 3 mg of DRSP combined with estradiol but not by estradiol alone or 1 mg of DRSP with estradiol. There were no significant changes from baseline in potassium in any treatment group. Small, significant reductions in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol occurred on all of the active treatments, and serum triglycerides did not change. Adverse event rates were low and similar across treatment groups. In conclusion, these data show that DRSP combined with E2 significantly reduces BP in postmenopausal women with hypertension and did not induce significant increases in serum potassium. These characteristics may lead to a new benefit for this novel hormone therapy in postmenopausal women with hypertension.

Background: Drospirenone (DRSP) is a novel progestin with antimineralocorticoid activity that has been developed for hormone therapy in combination with 17beta-estradiol (E2) in postmenopausal women. In prior studies with DRSP in postmenopausal women that were focused on relief of menopausal symptoms, DRSP/E2 yielded significant reductions in blood pressure (BP)., Methods and Results: The effects of 3 mg DRSP/1 mg E2 on clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BP as well as potassium homeostasis were evaluated in postmenopausal women with stage 1 hypertension (systolic, 140 to 159 and/or diastolic, 90 to 99 mm Hg) in a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Clinic BPs were measured at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks of therapy, whereas potassium was measured at 2, 6, and 12 weeks of therapy. Ambulatory BP was performed in a substudy at baseline and at the end of the trial. In the intention-to-treat population of 213 women, the clinic BP was reduced significantly on DRSP/E2 (clinic BP, -14.1/-7.9 for DRSP/E2 versus -7.1/-4.3 mm Hg for placebo, P<0.0001). In the subgroup of 43 women with ambulatory BP monitoring, the 24-hour BP fell by -8.5/-4.2 mm Hg versus -1.8/-1.6 mm Hg on placebo (P=0.002/0.07). There were no significant changes from baseline in potassium levels or in the incidence of hyperkalemia (> or =5.5 meq/L) on DRSP/E2 compared with placebo., Conclusions: Combination therapy with DRSP/E2 significantly lowered both clinic and 24-hour systolic BP in postmenopausal women with stage 1 systolic hypertension. This characteristic may lead to benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction in this population.