Search

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce major cardiovascular events, but are not tolerated by about 20% of patients. We therefore assessed whether the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan would be effective in patients intolerant to ACE inhibitors with cardiovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damage. METHODS: After a 3-week run-in period, 5926 patients, many of whom were receiving concomitant proven therapies, were randomised to receive telmisartan 80 mg/day (n=2954) or placebo (n=2972) by use of a central automated randomisation system. Randomisation was stratified by hospital. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101. FINDINGS: The median duration of follow-up was 56 (IQR 51-64) months. All randomised patients were included in the efficacy analyses. Mean blood pressure was lower in the telmisartan group than in the placebo group throughout the study (weighted mean difference between groups 4.0/2.2 [SD 19.6/12.0] mm Hg). 465 (15.7%) patients experienced the primary outcome in the telmisartan group compared with 504 (17.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-1.05, p=0.216). One of the secondary outcomes-a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke-occurred in 384 (13.0%) patients on telmisartan compared with 440 (14.8%) on placebo (0.87, 0.76-1.00, p=0.048 unadjusted; p=0.068 after adjustment for multiplicity of comparisons and overlap with primary outcome). 894 (30.3%) patients receiving telmisartan were hospitalised for a cardiovascular reason, compared with 980 (33.0%) on placebo (relative risk 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99; p=0.025). Fewer patients permanently discontinued study medication in the telmisartan group than in the placebo group (639 [21.6%] vs 705 [23.8%]; p=0.055); the most common reason for permanent discontinuation was hypotensive symptoms (29 [0.98%] in the telmisartan group vs 16 [0.54%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Telmisartan was well tolerated in patients unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors. Although the drug had no significant effect on the primary outcome of this study, which included hospitalisations for heart failure, it modestly reduced the risk of the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

An excessive blood pressure (BP) reduction might be dangerous in high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease. In the Studio Italiano Sugli Effetti CARDIOvascolari del Controllo della Pressione Arteriosa SIStolica (Cardio-Sis), 1111 nondiabetic patients with systolic BP ≥150 mm Hg were randomly assigned to a systolic BP target P for interaction=0.82). The main secondary end point, a composite of cardiovascular events and all-cause death, occurred less frequently in the tight than in the standard control group both in patients without (1.47 versus 3.68 patient-years; P =0.016) and with (7.87 versus 11.22 patient-years; P =0.049) previous cardiovascular disease. In a multivariable Cox model, allocation to tight BP control reduced the risk of cardiovascular events to a similar extent in patients with or without overt cardiovascular disease at randomization ( P for interaction=0.43). In conclusion, an intensive treatment aimed to lower systolic BP

The level to which systolic blood pressure should be controlled in hypertensive patients without diabetes remains unknown. We tested the hypothesis that tight control compared with usual control of systolic blood pressure would be beneficial in such patients.In this randomised open-label trial undertaken in 44 centres in Italy, 1111 non-diabetic patients with systolic blood pressure 150 mm Hg or greater were randomly assigned to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg (usual control; n=553) or less than 130 mm Hg (tight control; n=558). After stratification by centre, we used a computerised random function to allocate patients to either group. Observers who were unaware of randomisation read electrocardiograms and adjudicated events. Open-label agents were used to reach the randomised targets. The primary endpoint was the rate of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy 2 years after randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00421863.Over a median follow-up of 2.0 years (IQR 1.93-2.03), systolic and diastolic blood pressure were reduced by a mean of 23.5/8.9 mm Hg (SD 10.6/7.0) in the usual-control group and by 27.3/10.4 mm Hg (11.0/7.5) in the tight-control group (between-group difference 3.8 mm Hg systolic [95% CI 2.4-5.2], p0.0001; and 1.5 mm Hg diastolic [0.6-2.4]; p=0.041). The primary endpoint occurred in 82 of 483 patients (17.0%) in the usual-control group and in 55 of 484 patients (11.4%) of the tight-control group (odds ratio 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.91; p=0.013). A composite cardiovascular endpoint occurred in 52 (9.4%) patients in the usual-control group and in 27 (4.8%) in the tight-control group (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.79; p=0.003). Side-effects were rare and did not differ significantly between the two groups.Our findings lend support to a lower blood pressure goal than is recommended at present in non-diabetic patients with hypertension.Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer.