Search

Stefano Omboni,1 Ettore Malacco,2 Jean-Michel Mallion,3 Massimo Volpe4,5 1Clinical Research Unit, Italian Institute of Telemedicine, Solbiate Arno, Varese, Italy; 2Department of Internal Medicine, Ospedale L Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; 3Cardiology and Arterial Hypertension, CHU de Grenoble, Grenoble, France; 4Division of Cardiology, II Faculty of Medicine, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy; 5IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, Isernia, Italy Abstract: In this paper, we present the results of a reanalysis of the data of two large randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies with a similar design, comparing the efficacy of an angiotensin-receptor blocker (olmesartan medoxomil) with that of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril), by applying two different blood pressure targets recently recommended by hypertension guidelines for all patients, irrespective of the presence of diabetes (

BACKGROUND: The appearance and progression of essential hypertension is associated with increasing age. Older patients also frequently have an abnormally elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) [>/=140 mmHg] without an elevated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) [/=65 years) was assessed in two separate randomized, double-blind studies. One study assessed DBP changes in 251 patients with essential hypertension (mean seated DBP [seDBP] 100-114 mmHg and mean seated SBP [seSBP] >150 mmHg); the other study evaluated SBP changes in 256 patients with isolated systolic hypertension (mean seSBP >160 mmHg and mean seDBP <90 mmHg). Safety and tolerability were assessed in each study and in an Integrated Summary of Safety, which comprised data from 1646 hypertensive patients aged >/=65 years. RESULTS: In patients with essential hypertension, 12 weeks of treatment reduced mean seDBP (primary efficacy parameter) by 17.9 mmHg; mean seSBP was also significantly reduced. At study end (week 52), the proportion of diastolic responders (seDBP /=75 years) patients. CONCLUSION: Olmesartan medoxomil provides effective and well tolerated control of hypertension in elderly patients with either essential hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess whether nocturnal blood pressure dipping status in type 1 diabetes is correlated with specific sleep characteristics and differences in nocturnal glycemic profiles.Research Design and Methods: Twenty type 1 diabetic adult patients underwent sleep studies with simultaneous 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and continuous nocturnal glucose monitoring.Results: Altogether, 55% of patients exhibited blunted blood pressure dipping. They did not differ from the dipper group in age, BMI, or systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure. Total sleep period (TSP) was higher in the dipper group (497 +/- 30 vs. 407 +/- 44 min for dippers and nondippers, respectively, P < 0.001). TSP was correlated with SBP and DBP day-night differences (r = 0.44 and 0.49, respectively). Periods of nocturnal hypoglycemia (i.e., % of TSP with glycemia <70 mg/dl) were longer in the dipper group (8.1 +/- 10.7 vs. 0.1 +/- 0.4% for dippers and nondippers, respectively, P = 0.02).Conclusions: Dipping status in type 1 diabetes was associated with longer sleep duration and with hypoglycemia unawareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-invasive methods allow the evaluation of structural and functional arterial abnormalities. So far, no study has focused on the comparison of vascular parameters by type of cardiovascular event., Methods: In this pilot study, cardiovascular risk factors, carotid parameters, carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), brachial flow-mediated dilation and ambulatory blood pressure were assessed in patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or ischaemic atherothrombotic stroke (IAS). Groups were matched for age and gender., Results: Prevalences of hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia and heredity, smoking and body mass index were similar in the ACS (n=50) and IAS (n=50) groups. Carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and PWV were significantly higher in the IAS vs. ACS group (769±180 vs. 701±136 μm; P=0.039 and 12.5±3.5 vs. 10.7±2.4 m/s; P=0.006). Carotid distensibility was significantly lower in the IAS vs. ACS group (16.2±3.2 vs. 18.9±7.6 10(-3)/kPa; P=0.02). These differences persisted after adjustment for blood pressure for carotid distensibility but not for PWV. The prevalences of endothelial dysfunction and carotid plaques were not significantly different in the ACS and IAS groups (86% and 74%; 80% and 78%). In a multivariable model, carotid distensibility remained associated with ACS (odds ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.38; P=0.016)., Conclusions: Stiffness and carotid wall thickness were higher in IAS than in ACS patients. These differences may support the interest in new therapeutic targets for cardiovascular secondary prevention., Nct No: NCT00926874., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Given the increasing use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in both clinical practice and hypertension research, a group of scientists, participating in the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on blood pressure monitoring and cardiovascular variability, in year 2013 published a comprehensive position paper dealing with all aspects of the technique, based on the available scientific evidence for ABPM. The present work represents an updated schematic summary of the most important aspects related to the use of ABPM in daily practice, and is aimed at providing recommendations for proper use of this technique in a clinical setting by both specialists and practicing physicians. The present article details the requirements and the methodological issues to be addressed for using ABPM in clinical practice, The clinical indications for ABPM suggested by the available studies, among which white-coat phenomena, masked hypertension, and nocturnal hypertension, are outlined in detail, and the place of home measurement of blood pressure in relation to ABPM is discussed. The role of ABPM in pharmacological, epidemiological, and clinical research is also briefly mentioned. Finally, the implementation of ABPM in practice is considered in relation to the situation of different countries with regard to the reimbursement and the availability of ABPM in primary care practices, hospital clinics, and pharmacies.

Hypertension is a frequent condition among individuals over 65 years of age worldwide and is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) disease. Effective drug treatment of elderly hypertensives is usually associated with a marked reduction in CV morbidity and mortality. Among the different classes of antihypertensive agents, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE-inhibitors are supposed to provide the best efficacy in lowering blood pressure (BP) and protecting target organ damage while featuring a good tolerability profile. However, up to date, few randomized clinical studies have directly compared the activity and safety of ARBs and ACE-inhibitors in elderly hypertensive patients. Aim of this review of published and unpublished pooled data from two recent randomized, double-blind, controlled trials, is to offer a comprehensive head-to-head comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy of the ARB olmesartan medoxomil vs. the ACE-inhibitor ramipril in a large study population including more than 1,400 hypertensive subjects aged 65-89 years with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. The efficacy of the two drugs was separately evaluated in subgroups of patients classified according to the presence of metabolic syndrome, reduced renal function, CV risk level, gender, class of age, type of arterial hypertension and previous antihypertensive treatments. Olmesartan showed a greater efficacy than ramipril both in terms of clinic BP reduction and rate normalization. Olmesartan appeared significantly superior to ramipril in providing a more homogeneous and long-lasting 24-h BP control and maintaining an effective antihypertensive action in the last 6-h period from drug intake. In subgroups of patients with additional clinical conditions, olmesartan gave comparable, and in some cases greater, BP responses than those achieved with the ACE-inhibitor. The incidence of adverse events was similar for both drugs. Olmesartan may thus represent an effective alternative to ACE-inhibitors among first-line drug treatments for hypertension in older people.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is being used increasingly in both clinical practice and hypertension research. Although there are many guidelines that emphasize the indications for ABPM, there is no comprehensive guideline dealing with all aspects of the technique. It was agreed at a consensus meeting on ABPM in Milan in 2011 that the 34 attendees should prepare a comprehensive position paper on the scientific evidence for ABPM.This position paper considers the historical background, the advantages and limitations of ABPM, the threshold levels for practice, and the cost-effectiveness of the technique. It examines the need for selecting an appropriate device, the accuracy of devices, the additional information and indices that ABPM devices may provide, and the software requirements.At a practical level, the paper details the requirements for using ABPM in clinical practice, editing considerations, the number of measurements required, and the circumstances, such as obesity and arrhythmias, when particular care needs to be taken when using ABPM.The clinical indications for ABPM, among which white-coat phenomena, masked hypertension, and nocturnal hypertension appear to be prominent, are outlined in detail along with special considerations that apply in certain clinical circumstances, such as childhood, the elderly and pregnancy, and in cardiovascular illness, examples being stroke and chronic renal disease, and the place of home measurement of blood pressure in relation to ABPM is appraised.The role of ABPM in research circumstances, such as pharmacological trials and in the prediction of outcome in epidemiological studies is examined and finally the implementation of ABPM in practice is considered in relation to the issue of reimbursement in different countries, the provision of the technique by primary care practices, hospital clinics and pharmacies, and the growing role of registries of ABPM in many countries.

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II antagonist olmesartan medoxomil and the ACE inhibitor ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension, grouped according to renal function., Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of pooled data from two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre studies. After a 2-week placebo wash-out period, 1453 mild to moderate hypertensive subjects were randomized to a 12-week treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 10 mg/day or ramipril 2.5 mg/day. After 2 and 6 weeks, doses were increased up to a maximum of 40 mg/day (olmesartan medoxomil) and 10 mg/day (ramipril) in non-normalized subjects (office systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] ≥90 mmHg in non-diabetic subjects and office SBP ≥ 130 mmHg or DBP ≥80 mm Hg in diabetic patients). Office blood pressure (BP) was measured at 0, 2, 6 and 12 weeks, 24-hour ambulatory BP at 0 and 12 weeks. 284 patients treated with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/day at the end of the double-blind period entered a 36-week, open-label follow-up. Renal function (Cockroft-Gault equation) was evaluated as normal or increased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) [≥90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)], mild eGFR reduction (60-90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and moderate or severe eGFR reduction (<60 mL/min/1.73 m(2))., Results: 181 (12.7%) subjects had normal or increased eGFR, 840 (58.9%) mild eGFR reduction, and 405 (28.4%) moderate or severe eGFR reduction. Baseline-adjusted office BP reductions were superior with olmesartan medoxomil than with ramipril in normal or increased (olmesartan medoxomil - ramipril difference SBP: 5.0 mmHg [95% CI 9.1, 0.9], p = 0.018; DBP: 2.7 mmHg [4.8, 0.6], p = 0.011) and mildly reduced eGFR patients (SBP: 1.6 mmHg [3.5, 0.2], p = 0.080; DBP: 1.2 mmHg [2.3, 0.2], p = 0.022). In the group with moderately or severely reduced eGFR the two treatments were comparable (SBP: 1.9 mmHg [4.6, 0.9], p = 0.185; DBP: 0.8 mmHg [2.3, +0.7]; p = 0.296). At 12 weeks, the rate of normalized patients was 46.1 % with olmesartan medoxomil versus 23.9% with ramipril (p = 0.002) in the normal, and 49.9% versus 42.7% (p = 0.037) in the mild eGFR reduction group. No significant differences in normalization rate were observed in the moderately or severely reduced eGFR group (olmesartan medoxomil 49.5% vs ramipril 46.3%, p = 0.519). eGFR did not show any significant change during treatment., Conclusions: Olmesartan medoxomil provides a more effective BP control, similar if not superior to that of ramipril, independently from the patient's renal function status.