Search

Abstract Background Patients with type 2 diabetes have 2–4 times greater risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than those without, and this is even further aggravated if they also suffer from hypertension. Unfortunately, less than one third of hypertensive diabetic patients meet blood pressure targets, and more than half fail to achieve target HbA1c values. Thus, appropriate blood pressure and glucose control are of utmost importance. Since treatment sometimes fails in clinical practice while clinical trials generally suggest good efficacy, data from daily clinical practice, especially with regard to the use of newly developed anti-diabetic and anti-hypertensive compounds in unselected patient populations, are essential. The DIALOGUE registry aims to close this important gap by evaluating different treatment approaches in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients with respect to their effectiveness and tolerability and their impact on outcomes. In addition, DIALOGUE is the first registry to determine treatment success based on the new individualized treatment targets recommended by the ADA and the EASD. Methods DIALOGUE is a prospective observational German multicentre registry and will enrol 10,000 patients with both diabetes and hypertension in up to 700 sites. After a baseline visit, further documentations are scheduled at 6, 12 and 24 months. There are two co-primary objectives referring to the most recent guidelines for the treatment of diabetes and hypertension: 1) individual HbA1c goal achievement with respect to anti-diabetic pharmacotherapy and 2) individual blood pressure goal achievement with different antihypertensive treatments. Among the secondary objectives the rate of major cardio-vascular and cerebro-vascular events (MACCE) and the rate of hospitalizations are the most important. Conclusion The registry will be able to gain insights into the reasons for the obvious gap between the demonstrated efficacy and safety of anti-diabetic and anti-hypertensive drugs in clinical trials and their real world balance of effectiveness and safety.

Aim: Patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at high risk of cardiovascular events, accentuated in the presence of hypertension. At present, it is unclear to what extent the guidelines for the management of T2DM, advocating reduction in HbA1c levels to below target levels, are being adhered to in clinical practice. Methods: DIALOGUE was a prospective, observational, non-interventional registry performed across multiple centres in Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older who had T2DM and hypertension for whom the treating physician considered blood glucose lowering medication as inadequate and/or not safe/tolerable and chose to add a further oral drug or switch drug treatment were included. Patients were assigned a treatment target HbA1c value (≤ 6.5% [strict]; > 6.5 to ≤ 7.0% [intermediate]; > 7.0 to ≤ 7.5% [lenient]). Results: 8568 patients with T2DM and hypertension were enrolled. 6691 (78.1%) had 12-month follow-up. Patients who were assigned a strict HbA1c treatment target (n = 2644) were younger, had shorter diabetes duration, and less comorbidity in comparison to those with intermediate (n = 2912) or lenient targets (n = 1135). Only 53.1% of patients achieved their HbA1c treatment target (46.2% [strict], 56.8% [intermediate], 59.4% [lenient]). There was little sign of treatment intensification for patients that had not achieved their HbA1c target. Conclusions: Achievement of treatment targets was poor, leaving many patients with sub-optimal blood glucose levels. The apparent reluctance of physicians to intensify antidiabetic drug therapy is alarming, especially considering the evidence pointing to an association of hyperglycaemia and microvascular complications in patients with T2DM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), has been demonstrated to be more effective than the other sartans currently in use; however, there is insufficient information available comparing it with ACE-inhibitors. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZL-M with that of ACE-inhibitors in a real life clinical setting.Methods: The EARLY registry is a prospective, observational, national, multicentre registry with a follow-up period of 12 months. There were two principal objectives: 1) documentation of the achievement of target BP values set according to recent national and international guidelines, and 2) description of the safety profile of AZL-M.Results: A total of 3 849 patients with essential arterial hypertension were recruited from primary care offices in Germany. Patients who initiated monotherapy at baseline comprising either AZL-M or an ACE-inhibitor were included at a ratio of seven to three. Results demonstrated that a blood pressure target of <140/90 mmHg was achieved by a significantly greater proportion of patients in the AZL-M group (61.1 %) compared with the ACE-inhibitor group (56.4 %; p < 0.05; OR, 1.21; 95 % CI, 1.03-1.42), with this finding maintained after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics. AZL-M appeared to have an equivalent safety profile to the ACE-inhibitors, with a similar incidence of adverse events in the two patient groups (p = 0.73).Conclusions: These data add to the results of previous randomized controlled clinical trials suggesting that, compared with other agents that target the renin-angiotensin system, AZL-M provides statistically significant albeit small improvements in blood pressure control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient characteristics and blood pressure-related outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) differ from clinical practice because of stringent selection criteria. The present study aimed to explore the relationship between clinical trials and clinical practice. We analyzed data from patients enrolled in the "Treatment with Azilsartan Compared to ACE-Inhibitors in Anti-Hypertensive Therapy" (EARLY) registry comparing blood pressure (BP) effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril between patients who met the eligibility criteria of a previous RCT and those who did not.Methods: Patients with primary arterial hypertension were consecutively enrolled from primary care offices in Germany into the EARLY registry in a 7:3 ratio for treatment with AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor, provided that they met the following criteria at baseline: 1) no antihypertensive treatment prior to inclusion or a non-renin-angiotensin system (RAS) based monotherapy; 2) initiation of treatment with either AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor alone. Analyses were performed to evaluate BP effects for patients in the EARLY registry who met the selection criteria of a prior RCT (RCT+) versus those who did not (RCT-).Results: Out of 3,698 patients considered, 1,644 complied with the RCT criteria (RCT+) while 2,054 did not (RCT-). RCT- patients (55.5%) displayed a higher risk profile in terms of age and comorbidities, and a wider spectrum of BP values at baseline, as highlighted by the grades of hypertension and mean BP values. The proportion of patients who achieved target blood pressure control in the RCT+ group was significantly higher for AZL-M versus ramipril (64.1 versus 56.1%; P<0.01), in accordance with the result of the clinical trial. In the RCT- AZL-M group, the proportion of patients who met BP targets was lower (58.1%) than in the RCT+ AZL-M group (64.1%), whereas the proportion of patients with target BP values in the RCT- ramipril and the RCT+ ramipril groups was similar (57.7 versus 56.1%). Thus, in contrast to results for the RCT+ group, in the RCT- group, the target BP attainment rate for AZL-M was not significantly superior to that for ramipril. However, the tolerability profile of AZL-M and ramipril was comparable in both populations. At the 12-month follow-up, death and stroke rates were low (≤0.5%) and adverse events did not differ between the AZL-M and ramipril groups, irrespective of RCT eligibility.Conclusions: These data confirm that the EARLY population comprised a broader spectrum of hypertensive patients than RCTs, and the differences in patient characteristics were accompanied by disparate rates of blood pressure goal attainment. Overall, the validity of the RCT was demonstrated and confirmed in clinical practice with a broader range of patients with various comorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are usually the first-line therapies. There is, however, no real-life data regarding the relative clinical effectiveness and tolerability of either drug class. The prospective registry, Treatment With Azilsartan Compared to ACE Inhibitors in Antihypertensive Therapy (EARLY), was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the ARB azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) vs ACE inhibitors in real-world patients. Of the 1153 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension who were included in the registry, 789 were prescribed AZL-M and 364 were prescribed an ACE inhibitor. After multivariate adjustment, AZL-M was found to provide superior blood pressure reduction and better target blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg) achievement. The proportion of patients with adverse events was not statistically different between groups. The authors conclude that in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients, AZL-M provides superior blood pressure control with a similar safety profile compared with ACE inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension have increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We studied individualized treatment targets and their achievement in clinical practice. Methods: DIALOGUE is a prospective, multi-center registry in patients with both T2DM and hypertension. Results: Patients (n = 6,586) had a baseline fasting glucose (8.5 ± 2.8 mmol/l), postprandial glucose (10.9 ± 3.4 mmol/l), and HbA1c (7.8 ±2.1%) levels indicated poor glycemic control. Baseline systolic and diastolic BP were 140.3 ± 15.7 and 82.6 ± 9.5, respectively. Patients were categorized by HbA1 c treatment goals: ≤6.5% (strict), >6.5 to ≤7.0% (medium), and >7.0 to ≤7.5% (loose). When considering systolic BP (SBP) targets (≤130 mmHg [strict], >130 to ≤135 mmHg [medium], and >135 to ≤140 mmHg [loose]), patients with strict SBP treatment goals displayed similar characteristics to those with strict HbA1c targets. Although approximately 70% of patients received both strict HbA1c and SBP targeting, overall treatment goals remained unmet in all HbA1c target groups at the 6-month follow-up. SBP targets were not reached in the strict and medium groups, but were achieved in the loose treatment group. Specific predictors for choosing loose SBP or HbA1c treatment goals were identified, including SBP/HbA1c levels and various comorbidities. Conclusions: Individualized glucose and BP targets were selected by treating physicians based on patient characteristics and overall comorbidity. While treatment goals were not consistently met using various antidiabetic and antihypertensive therapies, our analyses indicated that the strictly targeted patient populations maintained lower overall HbA1c and SBP levels at 6 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Type-2 diabetes mellitus has a major impact on health related quality of life (HRQoL). We aimed to identify patient and treatment related variables having a major impact. Methods: DiaRegis is a prospective diabetes registry. The EQ-5D was used to describe differences in HRQoL at baseline. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined from univariable regression analysis. For the identification of independent predictors of a low score on the EQ-5D, multivariable unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: A total of 2,760 patients were available for the present analysis (46.7% female, median age 66.2 years). Patients had considerable co-morbidity (18.3% coronary artery disease, 10.6% heart failure, 5.9% PAD and 5.0% stroke/TIA). Baseline HbA1c was 7.4%, fasting- and postprandial plasma glucose 139 mg/dl and 183 mg/dl. The median EQ-5D was 0.9 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.8-1.0). Independent predictors for a low EQ-5D were age > 66 years (OR 1.49; 95%CI 1.08-2.06), female gender (2.11; 1.55-2.86), hypertension (1.73; 1.03-2.93), peripheral neuropathy (1.62; 0.93- 2.84) and clinically relevant depression (11.01; 3.97-30.50). There was no influence of dysglycaemia on the EQ-5D score. Conclusion: The present study suggests, that co-morbidity but not average glycaemic control reduces health related quality of life in type 2 diabetes mellitus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the hypothesis that risk factors may be differently related to severity of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), with ST elevation used as a marker of severe ACS. Design: Cross sectional study of patients with ACS. Setting: 103 hospitals in 25 countries in Europe and the Mediterranean basin. Patients: 10 253 patients with a discharge diagnosis of ACS in the Euro heart survey of ACS. Main outcome measures: Presenting with ST elevation ACS. Results: Patients with ACS who were smokers had an increased risk to present with ST elevation (age adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.84, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 1.67 to 2.02). Hypertension (OR 0.65,95% CI 0.60 to 0.70) and high body mass index (BMI) (p for trend 0.0005) were associated with less ST elevation ACS. Diabetes mellitus was also associated with less ST elevation, but only among men. Prior disease (infarction, chronic angina, revascularisation) and treatment with aspirin, β blockers, or statins before admission were also associated with less ST elevation. After adjustment for age, sex, prior disease, and prior medication, smoking was still significantly associated with increased risk of ST elevation (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.69), whereas hypertension was associated with reduced risk (OR 0.75, 95% Cl 0.69 to 0.82). Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m² versus < 25 kg/m²) was independently associated with less risk of presenting with ST elevation among women, but not among men. Conclusion: Among patients with ACS, presenting with ST elevation is strongly associated with smoking, whereas hypertension and high BMI (in women) are associated with less ST elevation, independently of prior disease and medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]