Explore the vast range of titles available.

Dyslipidemia and hypertension increase the risk for cardiovascular disease. Combination therapy improves patient compliance. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination therapies telmisartan/amlodipine + rosuvastatin, telmisartan/amlodipine, and telmisartan + rosuvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia and hypertension. In this Phase III, multicenter, 8-week randomized, double-blind study, participants with hypertension and dyslipidemia (defined as a sitting systolic blood pressure [sitSBP] of ≥140 mm Hg, a low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol [LDL-C] level of ≤250 mg/dL, and a triglyceride level of ≤400 mg/dL) were screened. After a 4-week washout/run-in period involving therapeutic lifestyle changes and telmisartan 80 mg once a day, eligible patients had a sitSBP of ≥140 mm Hg and met the LDL-C level criteria according to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III cardiovascular disease risk category. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (1) telmisartan/amlodipine 80/10 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg (TAR group); (2) telmisartan/amlodipine 80/10 mg (TA group); or (3) telmisartan 80 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg (TR group). The primary efficacy end points were the percentage changes from baseline in LDL-C in the TAR and TA groups and the mean changes in sitSBP in the TAR and TR groups at week 8 compared to baseline. Continuous variables were compared using the unpaired t test or the Wilcoxon rank sum model, and categorical variables were compared using the χ2 or Fisher exact test. Tolerability was assessed based on adverse events found on physical examination including vital sign measurements, laboratory evaluations, and 12-lead ECG. A total of 134 patients were enrolled. The least squares mean percentage changes in LDL-C at 8 weeks after administration of the drug compared to baseline were −51.9% (3.0%) in the TAR group and −3.2% (2.9%) in the TA group (P < 0.001). At 8 weeks after baseline, the least squares mean (SE) changes sitSBP were −28.3 (2.4) mm Hg in the TAR group and −10.7 (2.1) mm Hg in the TR group (P < 0.001). The prevalence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 15.0%, 25.0%, and 12.2% in the TAR, TA, and TR groups, respectively; those of adverse drug reactions were 15.0%, 22.7%, and 10.2%. None of the differences in rates were significant among 3 groups. Triple therapy with TAR can be an effective treatment in patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension. The TAR combination has value for hypertensive patients with hyperlipidemia in terms of convenience, tolerability, and efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03566316.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been developed by drug-eluting stent (DES), but stent implantation has brought the issue of stent thrombosis and optimal antiplatelet therapy. Guidelines recommend at least 6- to 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor such as clopidogrel. Beyond DAPT after PCI with DES, however, there has been still a debate for antiplatelet regimen. Therefore, we report on the upcoming HOST-EXAM trial (NCT02044250), which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin and clopidogrel monotherapies beyond DAPT after DES implantation. The HOST-EXAM is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, comparative effectiveness trial, to compare between clopidogrel (75 mg once daily) and aspirin (100 mg once daily) as long-term antiplatelet agents. A total of 5,530 patients with no clinical events during combined antiplatelet therapy for 12±6 months after index PCI will be screened, enrolled, and randomized to either group (1:1 ratio) receiving antiplatelet monotherapy for 2 years. The primary endpoint will be the rate of clinical events defined as a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission due to acute coronary syndrome, or major bleeding at 24 months after randomization. The HOST-EXAM will be the first large-scale randomized controlled study to directly compare the efficacy and safety of long-term antiplatelet monotherapy beyond DAPT after DES implantation. This study will provide clinical evidence to establish optimal regimen for long-term antiplatelet therapy after DES implantation.

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) offers tomographic images of the coronary artery, helping physicians to refine drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in angiographically complex lesions. However, controversy exists regarding whether the routine use of IVUS in short-length lesions leads to improved clinical outcomes after DES implantation. Therefore, we evaluated the usefulness of IVUS in predicting major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization, at 1 year after DES implantation in short-length lesions. The present study was a subanalysis of the REal Safety and Efficacy of a 3-month dual antiplatelet Therapy following Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation (RESET) study with different clinical outcome parameters. The study population consisted of 662 patients with IVUS guidance and 912 patients with angiography guidance who underwent DES implantation (stent length ≤24 mm). In the IVUS-guided group, adjuvant postdilation was more frequently performed (43.0% vs 34.6%, p <0.001), and the postintervention minimal lumen diameters were greater (2.88 ± 0.44 mm vs 2.72 ± 0.43 mm, p <0.001). MACE occurred in 15 IVUS-guided (2.3%) and 19 angiographically guided (2.1%) patients (p = 0.872). In a subset of patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 292), the MACE rate was 3.4% (n = 4) and 1.7% (n = 3) in the IVUS- and angiographically guided patients, respectively (p = 0.384). The MACE rate in the IVUS- and angiographically guided patients with acute coronary syndrome (n = 601) was 1.1% (n = 3) and 2.7% (n = 9), respectively (p = 0.194). The clinical benefits of IVUS-guided DES implantation compared with angiographically guided DES implantation in short-length lesions could not be confirmed even in patients with clinically high-risk presentations (acute coronary syndrome and diabetes mellitus). In conclusion, routine IVUS guidance does not provide clinical benefits when performing short-length DES implantation.

Background Chronic diseases like hypertension need comprehensive lifetime management. This study assessed clinical and patient-reported outcomes and compared them by treatment patterns and adherence at 6 months among uncontrolled hypertensive patients in Korea. Methods This prospective, observational study was conducted at 16 major hospitals where uncontrolled hypertensive patients receiving anti-hypertension medications (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg) were enrolled during 2015 to 2016 and studied for the following 6 months. A review of medical records was performed to collect data on treatment patterns to determine the presence of guideline-based practice (GBP). GBP was defined as: (1) maximize first medication before adding second or (2) add second medication before reaching maximum dose of first medication. Patient self-administered questionnaires were utilized to examine medication adherence, treatment satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). Results A total of 600 patients were included in the study. Overall, 23% of patients were treated based on GBP at 3 months, and the GBP rate increased to 61.4% at 6 months. At baseline and 6 months, 36.7 and 49.2% of patients, respectively, were medication adherent. The proportion of blood pressure-controlled patients reached 65.5% at 6 months. A higher blood pressure control rate was present in patients who were on GBP and also showed adherence than those on GBP, but not adherent, or non-GBP patients (76.8% vs. 70.9% vs. 54.2%, P < 0.001). The same outcomes were found for treatment satisfaction and QoL (P < 0.05). Conclusions This study demonstrated the importance of physicians’ compliance with GBP and patients’ adherence to hypertensive medications. GBP compliance and medication adherence should be taken into account when setting therapeutic strategies for better outcomes in uncontrolled hypertensive patients.

The standard 60-mg dose of fimasartan, a newly developed selective angiotensin II receptor blocker, is effective and safe for use in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose (30 mg) fimasartan and placebo or valsartan (80 mg) for 8 weeks in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In this randomized trial, 293 patients (219 men; mean age, 54.24 [9.77] years) with mild to moderate hypertension were enrolled. After randomization to receive 30-mg fimasartan (n = 115), placebo (n = 117), or 80-mg valsartan (n = 61), the treatment dose was kept constant without dose escalation for 8 weeks. The primary end point was improvement in sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) from baseline to 8 weeks that was compared between treatments with low-dose fimasartan and placebo. The secondary end point was the overall efficacy and safety of low-dose fimasartan compared with that of placebo or valsartan. At week 8, SiDBP changed by –9.93 (8.86) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and by –2.08 (9.47) mm Hg in the placebo group, which indicated significant antihypertensive efficacy (P < 0.0001). Efficacy was shown at week 4 as measured by SiDBP (–9.96 [7.73] vs –2.27 [7.85] mm Hg; P < 0.0001) or sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) (–16.18 [14.44] vs –1.95 [13.48] mmHg; P < 0.0001) and at week 8 as determined by SiSBP (–15.35 [16.63] vs –2.30 [14.91] mm Hg; P < 0.0001). The fimasartan group exhibited more potent antihypertensive efficacy than the valsartan group both at week 4 (SiDBP, –9.96 [7.73] vs –6.53 [9.58] mm Hg [P = 0.0123]; SiSBP, –16.18 [14.4] vs –7.65 [12.89] mm Hg [P = 0.0002]) and at week 8 (SiDBP, –9.93 [8.86] vs –5.47 [8.96] mm Hg [P = 0.0021]; SiSBP, –15.35 [16.63] vs –7.49 [13.68] mm Hg [P = 0.0021]). Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild (89 of 95), and there were no serious TEAEs. The incidence of TEAEs was 19.1% in the fimasartan group, 22.6% in the placebo group, and 13.6% in the valsartan group, with no significant differences. Low-dose fimasartan (30 mg) was well tolerated during the study period with no significant TEAEs. Low-dose fimasartan had an effective blood pressure–lowering effect that was greater than that of 80-mg valsartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01672476.

Residual cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertriglyceridemia, despite optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels being achieved with intensive statin treatment, is a global health issue. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of treatment with a combination of high-dose atorvastatin/Ω-3 fatty acid compared to atorvastatin + placebo in patients with hypertriglyceridemia who did not respond to statin treatment. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients who had residual hypertriglyceridemia after a 4-week run-in period of atorvastatin treatment were randomly assigned to receive UI-018 (fixed-dose combination atorvastatin/Ω-3 fatty acid 40 mg/4 g) or atorvastatin 40 mg + placebo (control). The primary efficacy end points were the percentage change from baseline in non–high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C) level at the end of treatment and the adverse events recorded during treatment. A secondary end point was the percentage change from baseline in triglyceride level. After 8 weeks of treatment, the percentage changes from baseline in non–HDL-C (–4.4% vs +0.6%; p = 0.02) and triglycerides (–18.5% vs +0.9%; p < 0.01) were significantly greater in the UI-018 group (n = 101) than in the control group (n = 99). These changes were present in subgroups of advanced age (≥65 years), status (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2), or without diabetes. The prevalences of adverse events did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. In patients with residual hypertriglyceridemia despite receiving statin treatment, a combination of high-dose atorvastatin/Ω-3 fatty acid was associated with a greater reduction of triglyceride and non–HDL-C compared with atorvastatin + placebo, without significant adverse events.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of high-dose (32 mg) candesartan in Asians. In Korean adult patients with stage II hypertension, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) 12.5 mg and candesartan 32 mg/HCT 12.5 mg compared with candesartan 16-mg and 32-mg monotherapy, respectively. This Phase IV, 8-week, multicenter, randomized, active treatment–controlled, parallel group, efficacy, and tolerability study, named CAESAR (Candesartan Effect in Second Stage Arterial Hypertension), enrolled 253 patients with stage II hypertension. Treatment started with either candesartan 16 mg or candesartan 16 mg/HCT 12.5 mg. After 4 weeks, the candesartan dose was forced titrated to 32 mg in both groups. The primary and secondary objectives were to compare the blood pressure (BP) changes after 4 weeks and 8 weeks between candesartan-HCT combination therapy and candesartan monotherapy. The proportion of patients achieving target BP (systolic blood pressure [SBP] <140 mm Hg, but <130 mm Hg for patients with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease; diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mm Hg, but <80 mm Hg for those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease) after 4 and 8 weeks of therapy was also evaluated. Adverse events were investigated both by spontaneous report by the patient and by the investigators' evaluations in each visit. Laboratory tests were performed at the end of the study to evaluate drug tolerability. Study patients were all Asians, mostly male (65.7%), with a mean (SD) age of 49.4 (10.6) years and a mean body weight of 68.9 (12.1) kg; there were no between-group variances in demographic profiles except that the mean age in the candesartan-HCT group (51.0 [10.2] years) was about 3.2 years higher than that in the candesartan monotherapy group (47.8 [10.7] years; P = 0.02) despite random allocation. A total of 80.4% of the study patients had not been treated before, whereas 19.6% were previously treated and enrolled after 2 weeks of washout period. Baseline sitting systolic/diastolic BPs (SBP/DBP) were 160.7 (13.0)/104.6 (9.5) mm Hg. After 4 weeks, patients treated with candesartan 16 mg/HCT 12.5 mg showed significant decreases in SBP/DBP of 28.7 (17.5)/17.8 (10.2) mm Hg, and those in the candesartan 16 mg monotherapy group showed decreases of 20.5 (14.5)/14.1 (10.1) mm Hg ( P < 0.01 between treatments for both SBP and DBP). After forced titration of candesartan from 16 mg to 32 mg at week 8, there was an additional reduction in SBP/DBP of 4.1 (12.7)/3.8 (8.3) mm Hg in the candesartan-HCT combination therapy group and 4.0 (11.6)/2.0 (8.5) mm Hg in the candesartan monotherapy group ( P < 0.001 for SBP and DBP in both groups compared with values at week 4). A greater proportion of patients (70.6%) attained the target BP in the candesartan-HCT combination therapy group than in the candesartan monotherapy group (53.2%, P = 0.014). A total of 32 mg of candesartan was well tolerated both in combination therapy with HCT and in monotherapy. Dizziness was the most common adverse event in both groups (5 and 2 patients, respectively). The candesartan-HCT combination was associated with a statistically significant lowering of BP compared with candesartan monotherapy. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00621153.

Long-term outcomes are imperative to confirm safety of drug-eluting stents. There have been 2 randomized controlled trials comparing everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) and Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES-Rs). To date, long-term clinical outcomes of these stents were limited to only 1 report, which has recently reported 4-year comparisons of these stents. Therefore, more evidence is needed regarding long-term clinical outcomes of the second-generation stents. This study compared the long-term clinical outcomes of EES with ZES-R in “all-comer” cohorts up to 3-year follow-up. The EXCELLENT and RESOLUTE-Korea registries prospectively enrolled 3,056 patients treated with EES and 1,998 with ZES-R, respectively, without exclusions. Stent-related composite outcomes (target lesion failure) and patient-related composite events up to 3-year follow-up were compared in crude and propensity score–matched analyses. Of 5,054 patients, 3,830 patients (75.8%) had off-label indication (2,217 treated with EES and 1,613 treated with ZES-R). The stent-related outcome (189 [6.2%] vs 127 [6.4%], p = 0.812) and the patient-related outcome (420 [13.7%] vs 250 [12.5%], p = 0.581) did not differ between EES and ZES-R, respectively, at 3 years, which was corroborated by similar results from the propensity score–matched cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 1.20, p = 0.523 and 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02, p = 0.081, for stent- and patient-related outcomes, respectively). The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis up to 3 years (22 [0.7%] vs 10 [0.5%], p = 0.370) was also similar. The rate of very late definite or probable stent thrombosis was very low and comparable between the 2 stents (3 [0.1%] vs 1 [0.1%], p = 0.657). In multivariate analysis, chronic renal failure (adjusted HR 3.615, 95% CI 2.440 to 5.354, p <0.001) and off-label indication (adjusted HR 1.782, 95% CI 1.169 to 2.718, p = 0.007) were the strongest predictors of target lesion failure at 3 years. In conclusion, both stents showed comparable safety and efficacy at 3-year follow-up in this robust real-world registry with unrestricted use of EES and ZES-R. Overall incidences of target lesion failure and definite stent thrombosis, including very late stent thrombosis, were low, even in the patients with off-label indications, suggesting excellent long-term safety and sustained efficacy of both types of second-generation drug-eluting stents. •Long-term outcomes are imperative to confirm safety of drug-eluting stents. Despite its wide use in routine clinical practice, only a few long-term data, comparing second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) versus Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES-R), have been reported.•To date, long-term clinical outcomes of these stents were limited to only 1 report, which has recently reported 4-year comparisons of EES and ZES-R. Therefore, more evidence is needed regarding long-term clinical outcomes of the second-generation stents.•The study evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of the Xience V/Promus EES and Resolute ZES up to 3-year follow-up in everyday real-world use from large prospective registries of these DESs.•Our study showed that the occurrence of stent- and patient-related outcomes was comparable between the 2 stents up to 3 years of follow-up after unrestricted use of EES and ZES-R. The low rates of individual outcomes and definite stent thrombosis, including very late stent thrombosis, even in patients with off-label indications, suggest the long-term durability of the efficacy and safety of both second-generation DESs.

This 8-week study in Korea aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a telmisartan/amlodipine + hydrochlorothiazide (TAH) combination versus telmisartan/amlodipine (TA) combination in patients with essential hypertension that did not respond appropriately to 4-week treatment with TA. All patients who met the inclusion criteria received TA (40/5 mg) during a 4-week run-in period (period 1). Patients who met the criteria for essential hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP], ≥140 and <200 mm Hg, or ≥130 and<200 mm Hg in those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease) after period 1 were randomly assigned to receive TA 40/5 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (test group) or TA only (control group). The test and control drugs were administered in each group for 2 weeks (period 2). Patients who completed period 2 underwent 6-week treatment (period 3) with a TAH and TA dose twice that in period 2. The primary end point was the change in MSSBP at week 8 of treatment. Secondary end points were the change in MSSBP at week 2 and MS diastolic BP, BP control rate, and BP response rate at weeks 2 and 8. Treatment tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs), laboratory evaluations (chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis), 12-lead ECG, and physical examination including vital sign measurements. We randomized 310 patients to the treatment groups. The mean (SD) ages of the TAH and TA groups were 62.0 (10.8) and 63.4 (10.4) years, respectively. The least squares mean change in MSSBP was significantly greater in the TAH group than in the TA group after 8 weeks (–18.7 vs –12.2 mm Hg; P < 0.001). Similar results were obtained on changes in MSSBP after 2 weeks and changes in sitting diastolic BP, BP control rate, and BP response rate at weeks 2 and 8 compared with the respective baseline values. The prevalences of treatment-emergent AEs (29.0% vs 16.3%; P = 0.008) and adverse drug reactions (20.0% vs 10.5%; P = 0.020) were significantly greater in the TAH group than in the TA group. Most treatment-emergent AEs were mild or moderate; none were severe. The most frequently reported AEs were dizziness and headache. TAH triple therapy was more effective than was TA double therapy in reducing BP in these patients in Korea with essential hypertension that did not adequately respond to TA. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02738632.

Background BENEFIT-KOREA (BEnefits after 24 weeks of NEbivolol administration For essential hypertensIon patients wiTh various comorbidities and treatment environments in Korea) study, an observational study in South Korea, demonstrated the efficacy and safety of nebivolol in Asian patients with essential hypertension with and without comorbidities in real-world settings. We present a subanalysis of the efficacy and safety of nebivolol across age and sex in the BENEFIT-KOREA cohort. Methods Adult South Korean patients with essential hypertension participated in the prospective, single-arm, open, observational BENEFIT-KOREA study; 3011 patients received nebivolol as monotherapy or add-on therapy. Changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and pulse rate at 12 and 24 weeks were evaluated. Participants were divided into three age groups—young males and females: < 50 years; middle-aged males and females: ≥50 years to < 70 years; and older males and females: ≥70 years. Results The mean age of study participants was 63.5 ± 12.9 years; majority were between 50 and 69 years of age and 40.4% were females. A significant decrease was observed in mean SBP, DBP, and pulse rate from baseline at 12 and 24 weeks in males and females across all age groups analyzed (all P < 0.001 vs. baseline), with no significant difference in mean reduction in SBP and DBP from baseline between sex within the age groups. Majority of reported adverse events were mild. The incidence of adverse events was lower in young participants versus middle-aged and older participants. Conclusions Our subanalysis from the real-world BENEFIT-KOREA study in Asian patients with essential hypertension demonstrated the efficacy and safety of once-daily nebivolol across age groups with no between-sex differences. Trial registration Name of the registry: clinicaltrials.gov. Trial registration number: NCT03847350. Date of registration: February 20, 2019 retrospectively registered.