Search

Purpose: Hypertension is a mechanism-based toxicity of sorafenib and other cancer therapeutics that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathway. This prospective, single-center, cohort study characterized ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as an early pharmacodynamic biomarker of VEGF signaling pathway inhibition by sorafenib.Experimental Design: Fifty-four normotensive advanced cancer patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring before and between days 6 and 10 of sorafenib therapy. After blood pressure changes were detected among the first cohort within 10 days, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was done during the first 24 hours of treatment for the second cohort.Results: For the entire patient population, the blood pressure increase [mean systolic, +10.8 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 8.6-13.0; range, −5.2 to +28.7 mm Hg; mean diastolic, +8.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, 6.3-9.7; range, −4.4 to +27.1 mm Hg] was detected between days 6 and 10 (P < 0.0001 for both) and plateaued thereafter. Variability in blood pressure change did not associate with: age, body size, sex, self-reported race, baseline blood pressure, or steady-state sorafenib plasma concentrations. In the second cohort, the blood pressure elevation was detected during the first 24 hours (mean systolic, +8.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, 5.0-11.3; mean diastolic, +6.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.7-8.3; P < 0.0001 for both).Conclusions: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring detects the blood pressure response to VEGF signaling pathway inhibition by sorafenib during the first 24 hours of treatment. The magnitude of blood pressure elevation is highly variable and unpredictable but could be important in optimizing the therapeutic index of VEGF signaling pathway inhibitor therapy. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(19):6250–7)

CCR Translation for the Article from Ambulatory Monitoring Detects Sorafenib-Induced Blood Pressure Elevations on the First Day of Treatment

Background The effects of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals aged 70 years and older, particularly when blood pressure is not substantially increased, is uncertain. We compared the effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events in groups of patients stratified by age and blood pressure at baseline. Methods We did a meta-analysis using individual participant-level data from randomised controlled trials of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering versus placebo or other classes of blood-pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment strategies, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each treatment group. Participants with previous history of heart failure were excluded. Data were obtained from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Triallists' Collaboration. We pooled the data and categorised participants into baseline age groups (Findings We included data from 358 707 participants from 51 randomised clinical trials. The age of participants at randomisation ranged from 21 years to 105 years (median 65 years [IQR 59–75]), with 42 960 (12·0%) participants younger than 55 years, 128 437 (35·8%) aged 55–64 years, 128 506 (35·8%) 65–74 years, 54 016 (15·1%) 75–84 years, and 4788 (1·3%) 85 years and older. The hazard ratios for the risk of major cardiovascular events per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure for each age group were 0·82 (95% CI 0·76–0·88) in individuals younger than 55 years, 0·91 (0·88–0·95) in those aged 55–64 years, 0·91 (0·88–0·95) in those aged 65–74 years, 0·91 (0·87–0·96) in those aged 75–84 years, and 0·99 (0·87–1·12) in those aged 85 years and older (adjusted pinteraction=0·050). Similar patterns of proportional risk reductions were observed for a 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure. Absolute risk reductions for major cardiovascular events varied by age and were larger in older groups (adjusted pinteraction=0·024). We did not find evidence for any clinically meaningful heterogeneity of relative treatment effects across different baseline blood pressure categories in any age group. Interpretation Pharmacological blood pressure reduction is effective into old age, with no evidence that relative risk reductions for prevention of major cardiovascular events vary by systolic or diastolic blood pressure levels at randomisation, down to less than 120/70 mm Hg. Pharmacological blood pressure reduction should, therefore, be considered an important treatment option regardless of age, with the removal of age-related blood-pressure thresholds from international guidelines. Funding British Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford Martin School.

Background: Despite existing therapy, successful control of hypertension in the United States is estimated at less than 50%. In blacks, hypertension occurs earlier, is more severe, controlled less often and has a higher morbidity and mortality than in whites. Blacks are also less responsive to monotherapy with angiotensin-I converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-II receptor type 1 blockers. Obesity, higher salt-sensitivity and low plasma renin activity are possible reasons of this poor blood pressure (BP) control, especially in blacks. The aim of the study was to assess efficacy and safety of firibastat, a first-in-class aminopeptidase A inhibitor preventing conversion of brain angiotensin-II into angiotensin-III, in BP lowering in a high-risk diverse hypertensive population. Methods: Two hundred fifty-six overweight or obese hypertensive patients, including 54% black and Hispanic individuals, were enrolled in a multicenter, open-label, phase II study. After a 2-week wash-out period, subjects received firibastat for 8 weeks (250 mg BID orally for 2 weeks, then 500 mg BID if automated office blood pressure (AOBP) >140/90 mm Hg; hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg QD was added after 1 month if AOBP ≥160/110 mm Hg). The primary end point was change from baseline in systolic AOBP after 8 weeks of treatment, and secondary end points include diastolic AOBP, 24-hour mean ambulatory BP and safety. Results: Firibastat lowered systolic AOBP by 9.5 mm Hg ( P P P P P Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the efficacy of firibastat in lowering BP in a high-risk diverse population where monotherapy with angiotensin-I converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-II receptor type 1 blockers may be less effective and support the strategy to further investigate firibastat in subjects with difficult-to-treat or potentially resistant hypertension. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT03198793.

Background The effects of pharmacological blood pressure lowering at normal or high-normal blood pressure ranges in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease remains uncertain. We analysed individual participant data from randomised trials to investigate the effects of blood pressure lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. Methods We did a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised trials of pharmacological blood pressure lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment regimens, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively done with participants with heart failure or short-term interventions in participants with acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. Data from 51 studies published between 1972 and 2013 were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We pooled the data to investigate the stratified effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment in participants with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease (ie, any reports of stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic heart disease before randomisation), overall and across seven systolic blood pressure categories (ranging from

One of the most common reasons that physicians and other health care providers refer a patient to a hypertension specialist is because that patient’s blood pressure (BP) is not at goal. The term that has become most commonly used now to classify and define these patients is ‘‘resistant hypertension,’’ but some still refer to these patients as having refractory hypertension. A resistant hypertensive patient as defined by the Seventh Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7), is one whose properly measured BP in the office is above goal on three or more appropriately chosen antihypertensive agents administered at appropriate doses, that the patient is taking. One of these agents must be a diuretic. There are several elements to this definition that bear emphasis

The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of future stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. The guideline is addressed to all clinicians who manage secondary prevention for these patients. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for control of risk factors, intervention for vascular obstruction, antithrombotic therapy for cardioembolism, and antiplatelet therapy for noncardioembolic stroke. Recommendations are also provided for the prevention of recurrent stroke in a variety of specific circumstances, including aortic arch atherosclerosis, arterial dissection, patent foramen ovale, hyperhomocysteinemia, hypercoagulable states, antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, sickle cell disease, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and pregnancy. Special sections address use of antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy after an intracranial hemorrhage and implementation of guidelines.

Although hypertension guidelines define treatment-resistant hypertension as blood pressure uncontrolled by ≥3 antihypertensive medications, including a diuretic, it is unknown whether patient prognosis differs when a diuretic is included.Participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) were randomly assigned to first-step therapy with chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril. At a Year 2 follow-up visit, those with average blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg systolic or ≥90 mm Hg diastolic on ≥3 antihypertensive medications, or blood pressure140/90 mm Hg on ≥4 antihypertensive medications were identified as having apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. The prevalence of treatment-resistant hypertension and its association with ALLHAT primary (combined fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction) and secondary (all-cause mortality, stroke, heart failure, combined coronary heart disease, and combined cardiovascular disease) outcomes were identified for each treatment group.Of participants assigned to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril, 9.6%, 11.4%, and 19.7%, respectively, had treatment-resistant hypertension. During mean follow-up of 2.9 years, primary outcome incidence was similar for those assigned to chlorthalidone compared with amlodipine or lisinopril (amlodipine- vs chlorthalidone-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.39; P = .53; lisinopril- vs chlorthalidone-adjusted HR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.70-1.60; P = .78). Secondary outcome risks were similar for most comparisons except coronary revascularization, which was higher with amlodipine than with chlorthalidone (HR 1.86; 95% CI, 1.11-3.11; P = .02). An as-treated analysis based on diuretic use produced similar results.In this study, which titrated medications to a goal, participants assigned to chlorthalidone were less likely to develop treatment-resistant hypertension. However, prognoses in those with treatment-resistant hypertension were similar across treatment groups.

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;00:00–00. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. In a prespecified subgroup analysis of a 12‐week multinational, randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group trial, self‐identified Hispanic/Latino adult men and women with systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg to 179 mm Hg received combination aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) 150/12.5 mg or aliskiren 150 mg (force‐titrated to 300/25 mg and 300 mg, respectively, at week 1). At week 12, combination aliskiren/HCT provided greater reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure from baseline, the primary efficacy variable, compared with aliskiren monotherapy (−32.6 mm Hg vs −19.6 mm Hg; P

Background— Thiazide-type diuretics are associated with an increased incidence of diabetes compared with other antihypertensive medications. In this study, we determined the long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD) consequences of incident diuretic-associated diabetes compared with the effects of incident diabetes associated with calcium channel blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use. Methods and Results— A total of 22 418 participants from the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) with baseline diabetes, incident diabetes (7.5% with chlorthalidone, 5.6% with amlodipine, and 4.3% with lisinopril), or no diabetes at 2 years of in-trial follow-up were followed for a mean total of 6.9 years (2.9 years in-trial and 4 additional years posttrial) through the use of national databases. The primary outcome was CVD mortality (death from coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke, heart failure, or other CVD). Among other outcomes were all-cause mortality, non-CVD mortality, and CHD (nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal CHD). Participants on chlorthalidone with incident diabetes versus no diabetes had consistently lower, nonsignificant risk for CVD mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74–1.47), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82–1.30), and non-CVD mortality (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.77–1.42) than participants on amlodipine or lisinopril with incident diabetes (HR range, 1.22–1.53). Participants with incident diabetes had elevated CHD risk compared with those with no diabetes (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.09–1.96), but those on chlorthalidone had significantly lower risk than those on lisinopril (HR, 1.18 versus 2.57; P =0.04 for interaction). Conclusions— The findings suggest that thiazide-related incident diabetes has less adverse long-term CVD impact than incident diabetes that develops while on other antihypertensive medications. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00000542.

This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study compared efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan/amlodipine (T/A) single-pill combination (SPC) vs the respective monotherapies in 858 patients with severe hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP] ≥180/95 mm Hg). At 8 weeks, T/A provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP/DBP (-47.5 mm Hg/-18.7 mm Hg) vs T (P

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial assigned 32,804 participants aged 55 years and older with hypertension and ≥ 1 other coronary heart disease risk factors to receive chlorthalidone (n=15,002), amlodipine (n=8898), or lisinopril (n=8904) for 4 to 8 years, when double-blinded therapy was discontinued. Passive surveillance continued for a total follow-up of 8 to 13 years using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations. During the post-trial period, fatal outcomes and nonfatal outcomes were available for 98% and 65% of participants, respectively, due to lack of access to administrative databases for the remainder. This paper assesses whether mortality and morbidity differences persisted or new differences developed during the extended follow-up. Primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality and secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal disease. For the post-trial period, data are not available on medications or blood pressure levels. No significant differences (P

Background: Diastolic dysfunction (DD) is associated with myocardial fibrosis mediated by inflammation. Higher levels of inflammation found in African Americans (AAs) may predict DD among asymptomatic individuals. We tested the hypothesis that high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), a biomarker of inflammation, is associated with DD in asymptomatic AAs. Methods: We prospectively recruited 107 asymptomatic AAs without any history of cardiac, renal or inflammatory diseases or alcoholism. We measured hs-CRP and B-type Natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels and estimated left ventricular end diastolic pressure (LVEDP), mass and systolic function with echocardiography. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to define whether hs-CRP is an independent predictor of LVEDP. Results: Among 107 subjects: the mean age was 48±10 yrs, 58 (54%) were men, 59 (55%) had diabetes (DM), 48 (45%) had hypertension (HTN), the mean BMI was 30.5±4.8 and the mean ejection fraction was 63.1±5.8%. DD was present in 56(52%) subjects, 38 (36%) of whom also had a high LVEDP. On multivariate analysis, hs-CRP was independently associated with DD [odds ratio 3.36 (95% CI= 1.07 - 10.5, p = 0.04]. There was a 61% and 133% increase in the prevalence of any DD and DD with high LVEDP, respectively, between the lowest and the highest hs-CRP quartiles. Conclusion: Diastolic dysfunction is prevalent among asymptomatic African Americans and it is independently associated with elevated level of hs-CRP, an inflammation marker.

Initial multiple drug therapy for hypertension achieves greater and quicker reductions and higher blood pressure (BP) control rates than monotherapy. This 8-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of the initial combination of aliskiren/amlodipine with amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension. After a 1- to 4-week washout, patients received aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week and then were force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. At week 8, greater reductions in mean sitting systolic BP were obtained with aliskiren/amlodipine (n = 220) than with amlodipine (n = 223) (least squares mean change [standard error of the mean], -34.1 [1.14] mm Hg vs -28.9 [1.12] mm Hg; P

Nonadherence and poor or no persistence with taking antihypertensive medications results in uncontrolled high blood pressure, poor clinical outcomes and preventable health care costs. Factors associated with nonadherence are multilevel and relate not only to the patient, but also to the provider, health care system, health care organization, and community. National guideline committees have called for more aggressive approaches to implement strategies known to improve adherence and technologies known to enable changes at the systems level including improved communication among providers and patients. Improvements in adherence and persistence are likely to be achieved by supporting patient self-management, a team approach to patient care, technology-supported office practice systems, better methods to measure adherence, and less clinical inertia. Integrating high blood pressure control into health care policies that emphasize and improve prevention and management of chronic illness remains a challenge. Four strategies are proposed: focusing on clinical outcomes; empowering informed, activated patients; developing prepared proactive practice teams; and advocating for health care policy reform. With hypertension remaining the most common reason for office visits, the time is now.

Patients with resistant hypertension are at increased risk for cardiovascular events. The addition of new treatments to existing therapies will help achieve blood pressure (BP) goals in more resistant hypertension patients. In the current trial, 849 patients with resistant hypertension receiving ≥3 antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic, at optimized doses were randomized to the selective endothelin A receptor antagonist darusentan, placebo, or the central α-2 agonist guanfacine. The coprimary end points of the study were changes from baseline to week 14 in trough, sitting systolic BP, and diastolic BP measured in the clinic. Decreases from baseline to week 14 in systolic BP for darusentan (−15±14 mm Hg) were greater than for guanfacine (−12±13 mm Hg; P P

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). Several studies reported racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) response to antihypertensive monotherapy. In a 10-week study of stage 2 hypertension, 320/25 mg valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) reduced ambulatory BP (ABP) significantly more effectively than 10/25 mg amlodipine/HCTZ. Results (post hoc analysis) are described in Caucasians (n=256), African Americans (n=79), and Hispanics (n=86). Compared with clinic-measured BP (no significant treatment-group differences in ethnic subgroups), least-squares mean reductions from baseline to week 10 in mean ambulatory systolic BP (MASBP) and mean ambulatory diastolic BP (MADBP) favored valsartan/HCTZ over amlodipine/HCTZ in Caucasians (−21.9/−12.7 mm Hg vs −17.6/−9.5 mm Hg; P=.0004/P

This American Society of Hypertension position paper focuses on the importance of out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement for the clinical management of patients with hypertension and its complications. Studies have supported direct and independent associations of cardiovascular risk with ambulatory BP and inverse associations with the degree of BP reduction from day to night. Self-monitoring of the BP (or home BP monitoring) also has advantages in evaluating patients with hypertension, especially those already on drug treatment, but less is known about its relation to future cardiovascular events. Data derived from ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) allow the identification of high-risk patients, independent from the BP obtained in the clinic or office setting. While neither ABPM nor self-BP monitoring are mandatory for the routine diagnosis of hypertension, these modalities can enhance the ability for identification of white-coat and masked hypertension and evaluate the extent of BP control in patients on drug therapy.

Editor’s Note: The American Society of Hypertension is publishing a series of Position Papers in their official journals throughout the 2008–2011 years. The following Position Paper originally appeared: JASH. 2010;4:42–50. The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to abolish the risks associated with blood pressure (BP) elevation without adversely affecting quality of life. Drug selection is based on efficacy in lowering BP and in reducing cardiovascular (CV) end points, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Although the choice of initial drug therapy exerts some effect on long‐term outcomes, it is evident that BP reduction per se is the primary determinant of CV risk reduction. Available data suggest that at least 75% of patients will require combination therapy to achieve contemporary BP targets, and increasing emphasis is being placed on the practical tasks involved in consistently achieving and maintaining goal BP in clinical practice. It is within this context that the American Society of Hypertension presents this Position Paper on Combination Therapy for Hypertension. It will address the scientific basis of combination therapy, present the pharmacologic rationale for choosing specific drug combinations, and review patient selection criteria for initial and secondary use. The advantages and disadvantages of single‐pill (fixed) drug combinations and the implications of recent clinical trials involving specific combination strategies will also be discussed. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:146–154. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Darusentan treatment significantly decreases blood pressure and results in better systolic blood pressure control when added to multi-drug therapy in patients with resistant hypertension

The review assesses the evidence for the benefit of lower blood pressure (BP) targets in hypertension management.The current consensus target for the treatment of hypertension is a BP of below 140/90 mmHg for all patients, and a BP of below 130/80 mmHg for those with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Recently added to the list of conditions warranting the lower BP target are coronary artery disease and coronary artery disease equivalents (stroke, carotid disease, aortic aneurysm, and peripheral vascular disease), as well as those individuals with a Framingham Risk Score of at least 10%. One theoretical issue with lower BP targets may be the existence of a J-shaped curve of BP versus cardiovascular event rate, implying a greater risk, especially of myocardial ischemia, of lowering diastolic BP, which is also the filling pressure of the coronary arteries, below the lower limit of coronary autoregulation. The evidence that this is not a compelling concern is provided by animal studies, clinical trials with both surrogate and hard endpoints, and epidemiologic data.There is at present no proof that more aggressive treatment is harmful and much indirect evidence that it may be beneficial, although the clinical trials that specifically address this question are still in progress.

In this issue of Hypertension , Calhoun et al1 report on a large (n=2271), short (9 weeks of treatment after 4 weeks of washout and placebo), well-designed, properly controlled, international randomized trial of a triple combination of a diuretic (D; hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ]), a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (DHPCCB; amlodipine [A]), and an angiotensin reception blocker (ARB; valsartan [V]) in volunteers who had a mean sitting (MS) diastolic blood pressure (BP; MSDBP) of ≥100 mm Hg. The results support what all would have anticipated: the use of 3 antihypertensive medications with different mechanisms of action would lead to a greater drop in BP than would combinations of any 2 of the 3 drugs given as 2-drug combinations. In fact, any other result would have been news, because combination therapy has many obvious advantages and some disadvantages compared with single-drug therapy (Tables 1 to 3⇓⇓). View this table: Table 1. Advantages of Multidrug Therapy in Hypertension View this table: Table 2. Advantages of a Fixed-Dose Combination as Antihypertensive Therapy View this table: Table 3. Disadvantages of a Fixed-Dose Combination as Antihypertensive Therapy The main result was that the triple combination reduced MS BP by 40/25 mm Hg, whereas the 2-drug combination of the ARB/D achieved a 32/20-mm Hg reduction, and the ARB/DHPCCB combination lowered MSBP by 34/22 mm Hg, whereas the DHPCCB/D combination dropped MSBP by 31/19 mm Hg. All of these differences were highly statistically significant, thanks in part to the large sample size. More important, the differences between these regimens, a minimum of 8/5 mm Hg for ARB/D versus the triple therapy, 6/3 mm Hg for ARB/DHPCCB versus the triple therapy, and 8/5 mm Hg for D/DHPCCB versus the triple therapy, are also clinically relevant. The study was large enough for a reliable comparison of prespecified subgroups: age (≥65 years versus

OBJECTIVES: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor medications have the potential to preserve skeletal muscle and thus may be targets to prevent frailty in older adults. Our objective was to examine the associations between current use, duration, and potency of ACE inhibitors and incident frailty in women ages 65 and older who are not frail at baseline. DESIGN: Data are from the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI-OS), a prospective study conducted at 40 United States clinical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Women between the ages of 65-79 years at baseline who were not frail (n=27,378).

We evaluated the relationship between age and treatment response from pooled data from two randomized trials in which 1,464 patients with Stage 2 hypertension were treated with valsartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Multivariate models were constructed for two response variables: systolic blood pressure (SBP) achieved at week 8 and change from baseline in SBP at week 8. Increasing age and higher baseline SBP were associated with proportionally higher final SBP values. The highly significant age-related decline in treatment response was substantially reduced with valsartan plus HCTZ compared with valsartan alone. Adverse event rates were generally comparable across the treatment groups. This analysis indicates that both age and baseline SBP should be considered when selecting antihypertensive therapy for patients with Stage 2 hypertension; for many older patients, initial therapy with both valsartan and HCTZ may be necessary, but in younger patients, one drug may be appropriate. However, because >87% of the study participants were White, it is unclear whether these results are applicable to other ethnic groups.

Experimental and epidemiological studies suggest that calcium and vitamin D supplements may lower blood pressure. We examined the effect of calcium plus vitamin D supplementation on blood pressure and the incidence of hypertension in postmenopausal women. The Women’s Health Initiative Calcium/Vitamin D Trial randomly assigned 36 282 postmenopausal women to receive 1000 mg of elemental calcium plus 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily or placebo in a double-blind fashion. Change in blood pressure and the incidence of hypertension were ascertained. Over a median follow-up time of 7 years, there was no significant difference in the mean change over time in systolic blood pressure (0.22 mm Hg; 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.49 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (0.11 mm Hg; 95% CI: −0.04 to 0.27 mm Hg) between the active and placebo treatment groups. This null result was robust in analyses accounting for nonadherence to study pills and in baseline subgroups of interest, including black subjects and women with hypertension or high levels of blood pressure, with low intakes of calcium and vitamin D or low serum levels of vitamin D. In 17 122 nonhypertensive participants at baseline, the hazard ratio for incident hypertension associated with calcium/vitamin D treatment was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.06.) In postmenopausal women, calcium plus vitamin D3 supplementation did not reduce either blood pressure or the risk of developing hypertension over 7 years of follow-up.

A panel was convened on February 18, 2008, to discuss the challenges to the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and management of clustered cardiometabolic risk factors. Peter W.F. Wilson, MD of Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, moderated the panel. Henry R. Black, MD, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, Anthony N. Fabricatore, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, and Ira J. Goldberg, MD, Columbia University, New York, NY, participated in the discussion. This expert panel discussion was supported by and each author received an honorarium from Pfizer Inc for time and effort spent participating in the discussion and reviewing the transcript for important intellectual content before publication. The authors maintained full control of the discussion and the resulting content of this article.

OBJECTIVE—Optimal initial antihypertensive drug therapy in people with the metabolic syndrome is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted a subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) to compare metabolic, cardiovascular, and renal outcomes in individuals assigned to initial hypertension treatment with a thiazide-like diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), or an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril) in nondiabetic individuals with or without metabolic syndrome. RESULTS—In participants with metabolic syndrome, at 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dl) was 17.1% for chlorthalidone, 16.0% for amlodipine (P = 0.49, chlorthalidone vs. amlodipine) and 12.6% for lisinopril (P < 0.05, lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone). For those without metabolic syndrome, the rate of newly diagnosed diabetes was 7.7% for chlorthalidone, 4.2% for amlodipine, and 4.7% for lisinopril (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). There were no differences in relative risks (RRs) for outcomes with amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone in those with metabolic syndrome; in those without metabolic syndrome, there was a higher risk for heart failure (RR 1.55 [95% CI 1.25–1.35]). In comparison with lisinopril, chlorthalidone was superior in those with metabolic syndrome with respect to heart failure (1.31 [1.04–1.64]) and combined cardiovascular disease (CVD) (1.19 [1.07–1.32]). No significant treatment group–metabolic syndrome interaction was noted. CONCLUSIONS—Despite a less favorable metabolic profile, thiazide-like diuretic initial therapy for hypertension offers similar, and in some instances possibly superior, CVD outcomes in older hypertensive adults with metabolic syndrome, as compared with treatment with CCBs and ACE inhibitors.

The prevalence of hypertension continues to rise across the world, and most patients who receive medical intervention are not adequately treated to goal. A Working Group including representatives of nine international health-care organizations was convened to review the barriers to more effective blood pressure control and propose actions to address them. The group concluded that tackling the global challenge of hypertension will require partnerships among multiple constituencies, including patients, health-care professionals, industry, media, health-care educators, health planners and governments. Additionally, health-care professionals will need to act locally with renewed impetus to improve blood pressure goal rates. The Working Group identified five core actions, which should be rigorously implemented by practitioners and targeted by health systems throughout the world: (1) detect and prevent high blood pressure; (2) assess total cardiovascular risk; (3) form an active partnership with the patient; (4) treat hypertension to goal and (5) create a supportive environment. These actions should be pursued with vigour in accordance with current clinical guidelines, with the details of implementation adapted to the economic and cultural setting.

On April 9, 2007, a panel discussion was held to discuss the role of therapeutic inertia and the value of using fixed‐dose combination therapy in the management of hypertension. The panel was moderated by Jan Basile, MD, Professor of Medicine, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC. Discussants included Henry R. Black, MD, Clinical Professor Internal Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, John A. Flack, MD, MPH, Professor and Interim Chair and Chief, Division of Translational Research and Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, and Joseph L. Izzo, Professor and Vice Chair, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. This expert panel discussion was supported by Novartis and each author received an honorarium from Novartis for time and effort spent participating in the discussion and reviewing the transcript for important intellectual content prior to publication. The authors maintained full control of the discussion and the resulting content of this article.

In March 2007, a panel discussion was held following a hypertension symposium in New York, New York. The panel was moderated by Marvin Moser, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine at the Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Serving on the panel were James R. Sowers, MD, Professor of Medicine and Physiology at the University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, and Henry R. Black, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine at the New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. This expert panel discussion was supported by Novartis and each author received an honorarium from Novartis for time and effort spent participating in the discussion and reviewing the transcript for important intellectual content prior to publication. The authors maintained full control of the discussion and the resulting content of this article; Novartis had no input in the choice of topic, speakers, or content.

r. Roberts has received honoraria for speaking from erck, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey; Schering Plough, enilworth, New Jersey; Pfizer, New York, New York; straZeneca, Wilmington, Delaware; and Novartis, Annanale, New Jersey. Dr. Black has received honoraria for peaking and consulting from Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myrs Squibb, New York, New York; Sanofi-Aventis, Bridgeater, New Jersey; Forest, New York, New York; Boehrnger-Ingelheim, Ridgefield, Connecticut; Merck, Gilead, oster City, California; Myogen, and Intercure, Fort Lee, ew Jersey. Dr. Bakris has received honoraria for speaking nd consulting from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Abbott Park, llinois; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithline, Research Triange Park, North Carolina; Merck, Noartis, Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana; Walgreens, and Myoen. He has received grants from the National Institutes of ealth, Abbott, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithline, Novartis, and Myogen. Dr. Mason has received inestigator-initiated research grants and honoraria for speakng or consulting from sanofi-aventis, Bristol-Myers quibb, Pfizer, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. Giles has reeived honoraria for speaking and consulting from Boehrnger-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis, ovartis, Forest Laboratories, and Pfizer. He has received rant funding from Novartis and AstraZeneca. All other ndividuals in a position to control content disclosed no elevant financial relationships.

Epidemiological studies have established a strong association between hypertension and coronary artery disease (CAD). Hypertension is a major independent risk factor for the development of CAD, stroke, and renal failure. The optimal choice of antihypertensive agents remains controversial, and there are only partial answers to important questions in the treatment of hypertension in the prevention and management of ischemic heart disease (IHD), such as: ● What are the appropriate systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) targets in patients at high risk of developing CAD or in those with established CAD? ● Are the beneficial effects of treatment simply a function of blood pressure (BP) lowering, or do particular classes of drugs have uniquely protective actions in addition to lowering BP? ● Are there antihypertensive drugs that have shown particular efficacy in the primary and secondary prevention of IHD? ● Which antihypertensive drugs should be used in patients who have established CAD with stable or unstable angina pectoris, in those with non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and in those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)?

Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the possible benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Background Dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus aspirin has been validated in the settings of acute coronary syndromes and coronary stenting. The value of this combination was recently evaluated in the CHARISMA (Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilization, Management, and Avoidance) trial, where no statistically significant benefit was found in the overall broad population of stable patients studied. Methods We identified the subgroup in the CHARISMA trial who were enrolled with documented prior MI, ischemic stroke, or symptomatic PAD. Results A total of 9,478 patients met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. The median duration of follow-up was 27.6 months. The rate of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was significantly lower in the clopidogrel plus aspirin arm than in the placebo plus aspirin arm: 7.3% versus 8.8% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 0.96, p = 0.01). Additionally, hospitalizations for ischemia were significantly decreased, 11.4% versus 13.2% (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference in the rate of severe bleeding: 1.7% versus 1.5% (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.53, p = 0.50); moderate bleeding was significantly increased: 2.0% versus 1.3% (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.20, p = 0.004). Conclusions In this analysis of the CHARISMA trial, the large number of patients with documented prior MI, ischemic stroke, or symptomatic PAD appeared to derive significant benefit from dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus aspirin. Such patients may benefit from intensification of antithrombotic therapy beyond aspirin alone, a concept that future trials will need to validate. (Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilization, Management, and Avoidance [CHARISMA]; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00050817?order=1 ; NCT00050817 )

National guidelines recommend β‐blockers as second step agents after diuretic therapy in patients without compelling indications despite little clinical trial evidence of cardiovascular outcome benefits in uncomplicated essential hypertension. In high‐risk patients with hypertension, such as those with a previous myocardial infarction or diabetes, heart failure, or coronary artery disease, β‐blockers have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality and to reduce events beyond those ascribed to blood pressure (BP) lowering. The use of a β‐blocker‐based regimen in patients with diabetes has been shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality, progression of diabetic nephropathy, and stroke. Lowering BP in hypertensive patients is a primary goal, but it is also essential that goal BP be achieved with the fewest adverse consequences (ie, by choosing agents that do not worsen concomitant conditions or cause unacceptable side effects). Physicians must consider issues of possible worsening insulin resistance and dyslipidemia associated with some β‐blockers. These metabolic concerns, however, are not an issue for the combined β‐/αblocker carvedilol. This review highlights historical data and important clinical trials that underscore the importance of β‐blockade in specific patients and delineates situations where β‐blockers benefit patients with hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease.

Background— Prehypertension is common and is associated with increased vascular mortality. The extent to which it increases risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and congestive heart failure is less clear. Methods and Results— We determined the prevalence of prehypertension, its association with other coronary risk factors, and the risk for incident cardiovascular disease events in 60 785 postmenopausal women during 7.7 years of follow-up using Cox regression models that included covariates as time-dependent variables. Prehypertension was present at baseline in 39.5%, 32.1%, 42.6%, 38.7%, and 40.3% of white, black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian women, respectively ( P P P =0.71 for interaction), although the numbers of events among Hispanic and Asian women were small. Conclusions— Prehypertension is common and was associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular death in white and nonwhite postmenopausal women. Risk factor clustering was conspicuous, emphasizing the need for trials evaluating the efficacy of global cardiovascular risk reduction through primordial prevention.

A panel discussion was convened on November 10, 2006, to discuss methods of improving blood pressure control rates and future study focus. The expert panel was moderated by George L. Bakris, MD, Director, Hypertension Center, Endocrine Division, the University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, and included Matthew R. Weir, MD, Division of Nephrology, the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, and Henry R. Black, MD, Roberts Professor of Preventive Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Alternatives to the traditional, but possibly toxic mercury sphygmomanometer are needed for accurate blood pressure measurements in the medical workplace. We compared the performance of two commercially available potential replacements for the mercury column; an anaeroid manometer (BaumCo) and an automated oscillometric device (Omron HEM-907), using the mercury sphygmomanometer as a standard, in the same participants.Two independent observers performed simultaneous triplicate blood pressure readings for 512 participants. The average difference and standard deviation of the difference comparing the mercury column vs. the anaeroid and automated devices were calculated for each of the three paired systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings.Both devices met the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation criteria for sphygmomanometers (5 mmHg average difference,8 mmHg standard deviation of the difference) for all three readings. Compared with the mercury standard, there were no significant differences (by paired t-test) with the anaeroid device (-0.83/0.73 mmHg, P=0.25/0.09), but the automated device slightly overestimated systolic blood pressure (by 2.12 mmHg, P=0.002) and underestimated diastolic blood pressure (by 2.36 mmHg, P=0.0002). The first reading was significantly higher and had a larger standard deviation than the second or third readings across all manometers.The automated device performed as well as an anaeroid manometer operated by well trained, experienced observers. The two alternative devices to the mercury sphygmomanometer examined in this study may be potential replacement devices for blood pressure measurement.

Background ALLHAT, a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled hypertension treatment trial in 42,418 patients, reported that a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone) was superior to a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), and an alpha1-blocker (doxazosin) in preventing the new onset of heart failure (HF). However, questions have been raised regarding the validity of the HF diagnosis. Methods The ALLHAT HF Validation Study was designed to validate and elucidate the significance of HF events in ALLHAT. Records for 2778 HF hospitalizations in 1935 patients were centrally reviewed using several prespecified algorithms (based on ALLHAT and Framingham criteria) and reviewers' global clinical judgment. Percent agreement with diagnoses assigned by ALLHAT site physicians, relative risks across randomized comparisons, incidence rates, and mortality after HF hospitalization were evaluated for first events validated by each of the criteria sets. Results Percent agreements with site physician diagnoses were 71%, 80%, and 84% for ALLHAT, Framingham, and reviewers' judgment, respectively. Using these 3 criteria, relative risks (95% CI) for new-onset HF compared with chlorthalidone were, respectively, 1.46 (1.27-1.68), 1.42 (1.25-1.62), and 1.45 (1.28-1.64) for amlodipine; 1.18 (1.02-1.28), 1.13 (0.99-1.30), and 1.15 (1.01-1.32) for lisinopril; and 1.79 (1.51-2.11), 1.71 (1.46-2.00), and 1.80 (1.55-2.10) for doxazosin. Conclusions An independent review of source documentation showed a high degree of agreement with the HF diagnoses assigned by site physicians and confirmed the higher risk of HF associated with first-step therapy using amlodipine, lisinopril, or doxazosin compared with chlorthalidone. Thiazide-type diuretics should be the preferred first-step therapy for prevention of HF in high-risk patients with hypertension.

The 2015 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/American Society of Hypertension Scientific Statement "Treatment of Hypertension in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease" is summarized in the context of a clinical case. The Statement deals with target blood pressures, and the optimal agents for the treatment of hypertension in patients with stable angina, in acute coronary syndromes, and in patients with ischemic heart failure. In all cases, the recommended blood pressure target is

1. Relationship Between Hypertension and CAD 1374 2. Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Hypertension and CAD 1380 3. BP Goals 1382 4. Management of Hypertension in Patients With CAD and Stable Angina 1386 5. Management of Hypertension in Patients With ACS 1388

Fifteen years ago, a panel of experts representing the full spectrum of cardiovascular disease (CVD) research and practice assembled at a workshop to examine the state of knowledge about CVD. The leaders of the workshop generated a hypothesis that framed CVD as a chain of events, initiated by a myriad of related and unrelated risk factors and progressing through numerous physiological pathways and processes to the development of end-stage heart disease (Figure 1). 1 They further hypothesized that intervention anywhere along the chain of events leading to CVD could disrupt the pathophysiological process and confer cardioprotection. The workshop participants endorsed this paradigm but also identified the unresolved issues relating to the concept of a CVD continuum. There was limited availability of clinical trial data and pathobiological evidence at that time, and the experts recognized that critical studies at both the mechanistic level and the clinical level were needed to validate the concept of a chain of events leading to end-stage CVD. In the intervening 15 years, new evidence for underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, the development of novel therapeutic agents, and the release of additional landmark clinical trial data have confirmed the concept of a CVD continuum and reinforced the notion that intervention at any point along this chain can modify CVD progression. In addition, the accumulated evidence indicates that the events leading to disease progression overlap and intertwine and do not always occur as a sequence of discrete, tandem incidents. Furthermore, although the original concept focused on risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) and its sequelae, the CVD continuum has expanded to include other areas such as cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and renal disease. Since its conception 15 years ago, the CVD continuum has become much in need of an update. Accordingly, this 2-part article will present a critical and comprehensive update of the current evidence for a CVD continuum based on the results of pathophysiological studies and the outcome of a broad range of clinical trials that have been performed in the past 15 years. It is not the intent of the article to include a comprehensive listing of all trials performed as part of the CVD continuum; instead, we have sought to include only those trials that have had the greatest impact. Part I briefly reviews the current understanding of the pathophysiology of CVD and discusses clinical trial data from risk factors for disease through stable CAD. Part II continues the review of clinical trial data beginning with acute coronary syndromes and continuing through extension of the CVD continuum to stroke and renal disease. The article concludes with a discussion of areas in which future research might further clarify our understanding of the CVD continuum.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) provides a unique opportunity to compare the long-term relative safety and efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and calcium channel blocker–initiated therapy in older hypertensive individuals. Patients were randomized to amlodipine (n=9048) or lisinopril (n=9054). The primary outcome was combined fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction, analyzed by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, combined cardiovascular disease (CVD), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cancer, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. Blood pressure control was similar in nonblacks, but not in blacks. No significant differences were found between treatment groups for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, ESRD, or cancer. Stroke rates were higher on lisinopril in blacks (RR=1.51, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.86) but not in nonblacks (RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.28), and in women (RR=1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.79), but not in men (RR=1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31). Rates of combined CVD were higher (RR=1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) because of higher rates for strokes, peripheral arterial disease, and angina, which were partly offset by lower rates for heart failure (RR=0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96) on lisinopril compared with amlodipine. Gastrointestinal bleeds and angioedema were higher on lisinopril. Patients with and without baseline coronary heart disease showed similar outcome patterns. We conclude that in hypertensive patients, the risks for coronary events are similar, but for stroke, combined CVD, gastrointestinal bleeding, and angioedema are higher and for heart failure are lower for lisinopril-based compared with amlodipine-based therapy. Some, but not all, of these differences may be explained by less effective blood pressure control in the lisinopril arm.

Angioedema is a rare, potentially life-threatening condition that has been associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors since their introduction in the 1980s. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), the largest antihypertensive study conducted to date, randomized 42,418 participants to a diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), or an alpha-blocker (doxazosin). Patients who developed angioedema were compared for baseline characteristics and changes in antihypertensive drug administration. Fifty-three participants developed angioedema during active follow-up: 55% were black, 60% men, and 70% were assigned to lisinopril (including 62% of black participants with angioedema), 15% to chlorthalidone, 9% to doxazosin, and 6% to amlodipine. Six percent occurred within a day of randomization and 23% within the first week. Over half did not have an increase in their assigned (blinded) antihypertensive drug before angioedema onset; 3 (6%) had a dose increase within a week before onset. One patient died following an angioedema episode. The occurrence of angioedema in the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor arm corresponds with previously reported angioedema-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor associations.

Whether certain classes of antihypertensive drugs confer benefits beyond those associated with lowering blood pressure remains a highly controversial issue. Data from several meta-analyses have been used to support the notion that most, if not all, of the cardiovascular benefits reported with the use of different classes of antihypertensive drugs are simply a consequence of the extent to which they lower blood pressure. However, we submit evidence in this review that the diverse pharmacological actions of several antihypertensive medications may have benefits beyond their blood pressure–lowering effects and that, in the case of certain classes of drugs, notably β-blockers, adverse metabolic effects of these drugs may actually mitigate the potential benefits of blood pressure lowering. The early placebo-controlled trials of the treatment of hypertension, several of which were undertaken in high-risk patient populations, provided convincing evidence for substantial reductions in the risk of stroke but little or no evidence for benefits on coronary heart disease (CHD) events.1–6 However, the design, numbers of patients recruited, and event rates in individual trials provided inadequate power to evaluate the impact of treatment on CHD events. In only 1 trial, the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Programme (HDFP),7 was a reduction in CHD events observed in those assigned “special care” compared with those assigned “usual care.” The conduct of this particular trial, however, differed from the other early trials in that those in the special care group would have been likely to benefit from more comprehensive intervention on other cardiovascular risk factors. In the first meta-analysis of the placebo-controlled trials of antihypertensive drug therapy,8 HDFP was excluded, presumably because the authors of the meta-analysis considered that outcome benefits could have occurred independently of blood pressure reduction. In subsequent meta-analyses, however, for reasons that are unclear, HDFP was included.9 From observational studies …

Author(s): Cauley, Jane A; McTiernan, Anne; Rodabough, Rebecca J; LaCroix, Andrea; Bauer, Douglas C; Margolis, Karen L; Paskett, Electra D; Vitolins, Mara Z; Furberg, Curt D; Chlebowski, Rowan T; Women's Health Initiative Research Group | Abstract: BackgroundDespite experimental observations suggesting that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A inhibitors (statins) have antitumor activity, clinical studies have reached mixed conclusions about the relationship between statin use and breast cancer risk.MethodsTo investigate associations between potency, duration of use, and type of statin used and risk of invasive breast cancer, we examined data for 156,351 postmenopausal women who were enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative. Information was collected on breast cancer risk factors and on the use of statins and other lipid-lowering drugs. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsOver an average follow-up of 6.7 years, 4383 invasive breast cancers were confirmed by medical record and pathology report review. Statins were used by 11,710 (7.5%) of the cohort. Breast cancer incidence was 4.09 per 1000 person-years (PY) among statin users and 4.28 per 1000 PY among nonusers. In multivariable models, the hazard ratio of breast cancer among users of any statin, compared with nonusers, was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.80 to 1.05, P = .20). There was no trend in risk by duration of statin use, with HR = 0.80 (95% CI = 0.63 to 1.03) for l 1 year of use, HR = 0.99 (95% CI = 0.80 to 1.23) for 1- l 3 years of use, and HR = 0.94 (95% CI = 0.75 to 1.18) for g or = 3 years of use. Hydrophobic statins (i.e., simvastatin, lovastatin, and fluvastatin) were used by 8106 women, and their use was associated with an 18% lower breast cancer incidence (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.97, P = .02). Use of other statins (i.e., pravastatin and atorvastatin) or nonstatin lipid-lowering agents was not associated with breast cancer incidence.ConclusionsOverall statin use was not associated with invasive breast cancer incidence. Our finding that use of hydrophobic statins may be associated with lower breast cancer incidence suggests possible within-class differences that warrant further evaluation.

In a double-blind, outcome trial conducted in hypertensive patients randomized to chlorthalidone (C), amlodipine (A), lisinopril (L), or doxazosin (D), the alpha-adducin Gly460Trp polymorphism was typed (n=36 913). Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. Relative risks (RRs) of chlorthalidone versus other treatments were compared between genotypes (Gly/Gly+Gly/Trp versus Trp/Trp). Primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD). Coronary heart disease incidence did not differ among treatments or genotypes nor was there any interaction between treatment and genotype (P=0.660). Subgroup analyses indicated that Trp allele carriers had greater CHD risk with C versus A+L in women (RR=1.31) but not men (RR=0.91) with no RR gender differences for non-carriers (gender-gene-treatment interaction, P=0.002). The alpha-adducin gene is not an important modifier of antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular risk, but women Trp allele carriers may have increased CHD risk if treated with C versus A or L. This must be confirmed to have implications for hypertension treatment.