Search

The cardiovascular disease continuum (CVDC) is a sequence of cardiovascular events, which begins from a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors consisting of diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking and visceral obesity. If these factors are not intervened with early, they will, inexorably, progress to atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, left ventricular hypertrophy, left ventricular dilatation leading to left ventricular diastolic or systolic dysfunction and eventually end stage heart failure and death. For this concise review, a Medline search of the English language literature between the years 2000 and 2009 was conducted and 33 pertinent publications were selected. Based on the evidence contained in these publications, it is possible that early intervention and treatment of the various cardiovascular risk factors, which initiate and perpetuate the CVDC, could prevent it or arrest its further progress. Therefore, this concise review will emphasize the early detection and treatment of the various cardiovascular risk factors, which initiate and perpetuate the CVDC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-lowering efficacy of low-dose combinations of cholestyramine and fluvastatin.Design: Randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial with a 24-week double-blind treatment period divided into three phases.Setting: Office-based clinics.Patients: Hypercholesterolemic, with LDL cholesterol of 4.14 mmol/L or greater (> or = 160 mg/dL) and plasma triglycerides of 3.39 mmol/L or less (< or = 300 mg/dL). Four hundred sixty patients were screened; 224 patients were randomized into a double-blind treatment period; 203 completed the study; 6 dropped out because of adverse events.Intervention: Patients were treated with 10 mg or 20 mg of fluvastatin alone, 8 g or 16 g of cholestyramine alone, or combinations of these fluvastatin and cholestyramine dosages (six treatment groups).Measurements: Changes in lipid variables, particularly LDL cholesterol.Results: The 10-mg and 20-mg fluvastatin monotherapy groups showed considerable reductions in LDL cholesterol initially (-20.1% [SD, 8.8%] and -20.2% [SD, 10.1%], respectively); these reductions were maintained. Reductions in LDL cholesterol that resulted from the addition of cholestyramine, 8 g/d, to 10 mg of fluvastatin and 20 mg of fluvastatin were greater than those observed with monotherapy (10-mg fluvastatin--[10-mg fluvastatin plus cholestyramine], 9.1%; 95% CI, 3.8% to 14.4%) and 20-mg fluvastatin--[20-mg fluvastatin plus cholestyramine], 11.6%; CI, 6.5% to 16.8%). The increase in cholestyramine dose to 16 g/d in the three combination groups provided only a modest additional response.Conclusions: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reductions of about 25% to 30% can be achieved with low-dose combination therapy with fluvastatin and cholestyramine. The addition of low-dose resin appears to produce greater overall cholesterol reduction than does a simple doubling of the fluvastatin dosage. The low-dose combination treatment was highly successful in achieving the goals of the National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The comparative antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine were evaluated in an 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, forced-titration study in 251 adult patients (45% women, 16% black) with mild hypertension (stage 1). Following a 4- to 5-week placebo run-in period, patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 90 to 99 mm Hg received candesartan cilexetil 16 mg (n = 123) or amlodipine 5 mg (n = 128) once daily. After 4 weeks of double-blind treatment, patients were uptitrated to candesartan cilexetil 32 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily. There were no significant differences between the candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine regimens for reducing BP; mean systolic BP/diastolic BP reductions were -15.2/-10.2 mm Hg versus -15.4/-11.3 mm Hg, respectively (p = 0.88/0.25). Overall, 79% of patients on candesartan cilexetil and 87% of those on amlodipine were controlled (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). A total of 3.3% of patients on candesartan cilexetil discontinued treatment, compared with 9.4% of patients on amlodipine, including 2.4% versus 4.7% for adverse events and 0% versus 1.6% for peripheral edema, respectively. Peripheral edema, the prespecified primary tolerability end point, occurred with significantly greater frequency in patients on amlodipine (22.1%; mild 8.7%, moderate 11.8%, severe 1.6%) versus patients on candesartan cilexetil (8.9%; mild 8.1%, moderate 0.8%) (p = 0.005). Candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine are both highly effective in controlling BP in patients with mild hypertension. Candesartan cilexetil offers a significant tolerability advantage with respect to less risk of developing peripheral edema. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diuretics are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of hypertension, either alone or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs. Of all diuretics, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and chlorthalidone (CTD) are the most commonly used, with HCTZ being the most widely prescribed diuretic. Recent studies have shown that CTD is a better diuretic with superior antihypertensive effectiveness and cardiovascular protection. Although these diuretics are chemically, pharmacokinetically and pharmacodynamically different, CTD continues to be called a "thiazide-like" diuretic. The only common features they both share are a sulfhydryl group in their molecules and their common mechanism and site of diuretic action. In order to get a better understanding of the true pharmacologic actions as well as the benefits and risks of these diuretics, a MEDLINE search of the English language literature between 1964 and January 2021 was conducted, using the terms "diuretics", "hydrochlorothiazide", "chlorthalidone", "hypertension", "cardiovascular disease" and "treatment". From this search, 28 pertinent papers were selected and they will be discussed in this review together with collateral literature. The analysis of results revealed that CTD is superior to HCTZ in antihypertensive effectiveness and cardioprotection and should be the preferred diuretic for the treatment of hypertension., (Copyright 2021 Clarivate Analytics.)

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease and stroke. Therefore, its early detection and treatment are very important according to blood pressure (BP) treatment guidelines issued by the various scientific societies. Over the years, BP treatment guidelines have changed from strict control of BP to more relaxed control, and lately to a strict BP control influenced by the results of the SPRINT trial. The recently published BP treatment guidelines by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend a systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP reduction to less than 130 mmHg and less than 80 mmHg, respectively, for all ages, and have also changed the classification of hypertension by changing the term "prehypertension" of the JNC 7 (7th Joint National Committee) guidelines to "stage 1 hypertension". These changes could have significant social and economic consequences for the patients. In order to get a better perspective of the current status of SBP control, we conducted a MEDLINE search of the English language literature from 2014 to 2018 in connection with recent (2014-2018) BP treatment guidelines, using the terms 'hypertension', 'blood pressure control', 'intensive blood pressure control', 'blood pressure treatment guidelines', and 'benefits and risks of intensive blood pressure control', and 26 pertinent papers were retrieved. These papers together with collateral literature, which goes beyond the year 2014, will be discussed in this review., (Copyright 2019 Clarivate Analytics.)

Testosterone (T) levels decline with the advancement of age and have been associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Indeed, several epidemiologic and prospective cohort studies have suggested that low T levels (lower tertile or quartile) are associated with increased incidence of CVD, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity and dyslipidemia. In contrast, correction of low T levels with testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is associated with a decrease in the incidence of CVD, T2DM and dyslipidemia as has been demonstrated by several randomized, controlled trials as well as prospective cohort studies. However, recent studies have shown that TRT is associated with an increased incidence of adverse CV events and these studies have created a great controversy regarding the CV benefits of TRT. In order to get a better perspective on the current status of TRT, a focused MEDLINE and Cochrane database search of the recent English language literature between 2010 and 2017 was conducted and 29 pertinent papers were retrieved. The studies reviewed could not definitely confirm the beneficial or adverse CV effects of TRT. Therefore, on the basis of the current stage of knowledge, older male subjects with low T levels could continue to receive TRT, but this decision should be discussed with their physicians., (Copyright 2018 Clarivate Analytics.)

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) exhibit an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events. Treatment of these patients with traditional as well as newer glucose-lowering drugs has not demonstrated superiority in CV outcomes compared to placebo, despite effective control of diabetes. However, the recently FDA-approved sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for the treatment of T2DM have demonstrated promising CV-protecting and blood pressure-lowering effects in addition to their effectiveness in glucose lowering, making them a novel class of drugs for the treatment of T2DM. So far, there are three SGLT2 inhibitors approved by the FDA and EMA for the treatment of T2DM: canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. They exert their antihyperglycemic effect through inhibition of SGLT2 in the kidney and significantly reduce glucose reabsorption from the proximal renal tubule. By blocking glucose reabsorption, they lead to loss of calories, weight, abdominal and total body fat, blood pressure and CV complications. One CV outcomes randomized trial and several short-term studies have shown reductions in CV events and blood pressure in patients with T2DM. It is the hope that large ongoing long-term outcome studies will provide further much-needed information, when they are completed., (Copyright 2017 Clarivate Analytics.)

Blood pressure (BP) control is associated with a significant decrease in the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and U.S. treatment guidelines in 2003 and 2007 recommended a BP reduction to <140/90 mmHg for uncomplicated hypertension and to <130/80 mmHg for hypertension complicated by CAD, diabetes mellitus (DM) or CKD. In hopes of further decreasing the adverse effects of hypertension, more aggressive lowering of systolic blood pressure (SBP) was tested. However, this aggressive control of SBP did not materialize in additional cardiac benefits, and in fact resulted in worsening of cardiovascular and renal complications with the exception of stroke. These findings led national committees in 2014 and 2015 to draw up new guidelines recommending a relaxation of BP control based on recent clinical evidence, until publication of SPRINT. This National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored study showed that aggressive SBP lowering to <120 mmHg was beneficial in further decreasing the risk of CVD, CVD mortality and strokes. The results of this study will most likely lead to the revision of current guidelines and to the recommendation of stricter BP control. However, the results of SPRINT are not final and still are in contrast with other recent studies. Until new guidelines become available, we should follow the current ones, or move closer to older guidelines depending on the clinical situation. A return to BP <140/90 mmHg for older subjects or uncomplicated hypertension and to <130/80 mmHg for hypertension complicated by CAD, DM and CKD may be appropriate., (Copyright 2016 Prous Science, S.A.U. or its licensors. All rights reserved.)

β-Adrenoceptor blockers (β-blockers) are one of the oldest classes of cardiovascular drugs still in use. Several short- and long-term clinical outcomes studies have demonstrated their effectiveness and safety for the treatment of hypertension, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure and sudden cardiac death. Due to their safety and efficacy, β-blockers have been recommended by several national and international committees as first-line therapy of hypertension. However, despite their proven benefits, their use as first-line treatment for hypertension has come under criticism lately. Because of these recent developments, several authors have recommended that β-blockers no longer be used as first-line therapy for hypertension. In this review, evidence-based information will be presented, which will demonstrate that β-blockers are an effective and safe class of antihypertensive and cardiovascular drugs for most patients with the exception of black and elderly hypertensive patients in whom the β-blockers are less effective compared to other classes of drugs. In addition, evidence will be presented from several major meta-analyses that β-blockers are equally effective in reducing blood pressure and cardiovascular complications. This review will also discuss differences in the mechanism of action of older and newer (third-generation) β-blockers and provide evidence that newer agents should be preferred over the older ones in the treatment of hypertensive patients with certain comorbidities., (Copyright 2012 Prous Science, S.A.U. or its licensors. All rights reserved.)