Explore the vast range of titles available.

Participants without cardiovascular disease who were at increased risk were randomly assigned to receive a polypill (containing a statin and three blood-pressure–lowering drugs) or placebo and to receive aspirin or placebo. At 4.6 years, the incidence of cardiovascular events was lower among participants receiving both the polypill and aspirin than among those receiving both placebos.

The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and β blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and β blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril. We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40–79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5–10 mg adding perindopril 4–8 mg as required (amlodipine-based regimen; n=9639) or atenolol 50–100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1·25–2·5 mg and potassium as required (atenolol-based regimen; n=9618). Our primary endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infaction) and fatal CHD. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely after 5·5 years' median follow-up and accumulated in total 106 153 patient-years of observation. Though not significant, compared with the atenolol-based regimen, fewer individuals on the amlodipine-based regimen had a primary endpoint (429 vs 474; unadjusted HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·79–1·02, p=0·1052), fatal and non-fatal stroke (327 vs 422; 0·77, 0·66–0·89, p=0·0003), total cardiovascular events and procedures (1362 vs 1602; 0·84, 0·78–0·90, p<0·0001), and all-cause mortality (738 vs 820; 0·89, 0·81–0·99, p=0·025). The incidence of developing diabetes was less on the amlodipine-based regimen (567 vs 799; 0·70, 0·63–0·78, p<0·0001). The amlodipine-based regimen prevented more major cardiovascular events and induced less diabetes than the atenolol-based regimen. On the basis of previous trial evidence, these effects might not be entirely explained by better control of blood pressure, and this issue is addressed in the accompanying article. Nevertheless, the results have implications with respect to optimum combinations of antihypertensive agents.

Globally, most patients with hypertension are treated with monotherapy, and control rates are poor because monotherapy only reduces blood pressure by around 9/5 mm Hg on average. There is a pressing need for blood pressure-control strategies with improved efficacy and tolerability. We aimed to assess whether ultra-low-dose combination therapy could meet these needs. We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial of a quadpill—a single capsule containing four blood pressure-lowering drugs each at quarter-dose (irbesartan 37·5 mg, amlodipine 1·25 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 6·25 mg, and atenolol 12·5 mg). Participants with untreated hypertension were enrolled from four centres in the community of western Sydney, NSW, Australia, mainly by general practitioners. Participants were randomly allocated by computer to either the quadpill or matching placebo for 4 weeks; this treatment was followed by a 2-week washout, then the other study treatment was administered for 4 weeks. Study staff and participants were unaware of treatment allocations, and masking was achieved by use of identical opaque capsules. The primary outcome was placebo-corrected 24-h systolic ambulatory blood pressure reduction after 4 weeks and analysis was by intention to treat. We also did a systematic review of trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of quarter-standard-dose blood pressure-lowering therapy against placebo. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614001057673. The trial ended after 1 year and this report presents the final analysis. Between November, 2014, and December, 2015, 55 patients were screened for our randomised trial, of whom 21 underwent randomisation. Mean age of participants was 58 years (SD 11) and mean baseline office and 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were 154 (14)/90 (11) mm Hg and 140 (9)/87 (8) mm Hg, respectively. One individual declined participation after randomisation and two patients dropped out for administrative reasons. The placebo-corrected reduction in systolic 24-h blood pressure with the quadpill was 19 mm Hg (95% CI 14–23), and office blood pressure was reduced by 22/13 mm Hg (p<0·0001). During quadpill treatment, 18 (100%) of 18 participants achieved office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg, compared with six (33%) of 18 during placebo treatment (p=0·0013). There were no serious adverse events and all patients reported that the quadpill was easy to swallow. Our systematic review identified 36 trials (n=4721 participants) of one drug at quarter-dose and six trials (n=312) of two drugs at quarter-dose, against placebo. The pooled placebo-corrected blood pressure-lowering effects were 5/2 mm Hg and 7/5 mm Hg, respectively (both p<0·0001), and there were no side-effects from either regimen. The findings of our small trial in the context of previous randomised evidence suggest that the benefits of quarter-dose therapy could be additive across classes and might confer a clinically important reduction in blood pressure. Further examination of the quadpill concept is needed to investigate effectiveness against usual treatment options and longer term tolerability. National Heart Foundation, Australia; University of Sydney; and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

The impact of serum uric acid on cardiovascular outcomes in the LIFE study. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study demonstrated the superiority of a losartan-based regimen over atenolol-based regimen for reduction of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. It has been suggested that the LIFE study results may be related to the effects of losartan on serum uric acid (SUA). SUA has been proposed as an independent risk factor for CV morbidity and death. Cox regression analysis was used to assess relationship of SUA and treatment regimens with the LIFE primary composite outcome (CV death, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke). Baseline SUA was significantly associated with increased CV events [hazard ratio (HR) 1.024 (95% CI 1.017–1.032) per 10 μmol/L, P < 0.0001] in the entire study population. The association was significant in women [HR = 1.025 (1.013–1.037), P < 0.0001], but not in men [HR = 1.009 (0.998–1.019), P = 0.108]. After adjustment for Framingham risk score (FRS), SUA was no longer significant in the entire study population [HR = 1.006 (0.998–1.014), P = 0.122] or in men [HR = 1.006 (0.995–1.017), P = 0.291], but was significant in women [HR = 1.013 (1–1.025), P = 0.0457]. The baseline-to-end-of-study increase in SUA (standard deviation, SD) was greater (P < 0.0001) in atenolol-treated subjects (44.4 ± 72.5 μmol/L) than in losartan-treated subjects (17.0 ± 69.8 μmol/L). SUA as a time-varying covariate was strongly associated with events (P < 0.0001) in the entire population. The contribution of SUA to the treatment effect of losartan on the primary composite end point was 29% (14%-107%), P = 0.004. The association between time-varying SUA and increased CV risk tended to be stronger in women (P < 0.0001) than in men (P = 0.0658), although the gender-outcome interaction was not significant (P = 0.079). The increase in SUA over 4.8years in the LIFE study was attenuated by losartan compared with atenolol treatment, appearing to explain 29% of the treatment effect on the primary composite end point. The association between SUA and events was stronger in women than in men with or without adjustment of FRS.

Beta-adrenergic blocking agents (abbreviated as beta-blockers) have been used for treating various cardiovascular diseases. However, the potential for asthma exacerbation is one of the major adverse effects of beta-blockers. This study aimed to compare the level of risk for an asthma attack in patients receiving various beta-blockers. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of either placebo-controlled or active-controlled design. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted under a frequentist model. The primary outcome was the incidence of asthmatic attack. A total of 24 RCTs were included. Overall NMA revealed that only oral timolol [risk ratio (RR) = 3.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–10.85)] and infusion of propranolol [RR = 10.19 (95% CI 1.29–80.41)] were associated with significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than the placebo, whereas oral celiprolol [RR = 0.39 (95% CI 0.04–4.11)], oral celiprolol and propranolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02–11.65)], oral bisoprolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02–11.65)], oral atenolol [RR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.20–1.28)], infusion of practolol [RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.03–25.14)], and infusion of sotalol [RR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.08–10.65)] were associated with relatively lower incidences of asthma attack than the placebo. In participants with a baseline asthma history, in addition to oral timolol and infusion of propranolol, oral labetalol, oxprenolol, propranolol, and metoprolol exhibited significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than did the placebo. In conclusion, oral timolol and infusion of propranolol were associated with a significantly higher risk of developing an asthma attack in patients, especially in those with a baseline asthma history, and should be avoided in patients who present a risk of asthma. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020190540.

Midlife hypertension has been identified as a risk factor for the development of dementia, however, the underlying mechanism of this correlation remains unclear. In this study, we analyzed cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) that had been treated with either amlodipine or atenolol for one year and compared these to normotensive Wistar Kyoto rats (WKY). Mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis of the CSF samples was conducted to identify both the impact of hypertension as well as antihypertensive treatment on CSF proteomics. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were increased in hypertensive rats, and both medications lowered blood pressure compared to untreated SHR rats. The analysis of the CSF proteome revealed that hypertension resulted in alterations to processes associated with the development of the central nervous system, inflammation and blood coagulation. The latter included proteins such as YKL-40, KNG1, DAG1, and members of the Serpin family. Amlodipine treatment resulted in changes to proteins involved in gas transport (including CA2, HBB, and HBA1), whereas atenolol treatment led to changes in the complement and coagulation cascade (including CFH, KNG1, APOE, and AHSG). A comparison of the two antihypertensive treatments revealed alterations in pathways associated with cell adhesion, central nervous system development, and vascular development. These findings show that hypertension and long-term treatment with antihypertensive medications elicit distinct effects on the CSF proteome.

The ghrelin system is a key component of the mood and metabolic responses to chronic psychosocial stress. For example, circulating acyl-ghrelin rises in several rodent and human stress models, administered acyl-ghrelin induces antidepressant-like behavioral responses in mice, and mice with deleted ghrelin receptors (GHSRs) exhibit exaggerated depressive-like behaviors, changed eating behaviors, and altered metabolism in response to chronic stress. However, the mechanisms mediating stress-induced rises in ghrelin are unknown and ghrelin’s antidepressant-like efficacy in the setting of chronic stress is incompletely characterized. Here, we used a pharmacological approach in combination with a 10-day chronic social defeat stress (CSDS) model in male mice to investigate whether the sympathoadrenal system is involved in the ghrelin response to stress. We also examined the antidepressant-like efficacy of administered ghrelin and the synthetic GHSR agonist GHRP-2 during and/or after CSDS. We found that administration of the β1-adrenergic receptor (β1AR) blocker atenolol during CSDS blunts the elevation of plasma acyl-ghrelin and exaggerates depressive-like behavior. Neither acute injection of acyl-ghrelin directly following CSDS nor its chronic administration during or after CSDS nor chronic delivery of GHRP-2 during and after CSDS improved stress-induced depressive-like behavior. Thus, β1ARs drive the acyl-ghrelin response to CSDS, but supplementing the natural increases in acyl-ghrelin with exogenous acyl-ghrelin or GHSR agonist does not further enhance the antidepressant-like actions of the endogenous ghrelin system in the setting of CSDS.

It is hypothesized that in individuals without clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD), but at increased CVD risk, a 50% to 60% reduction in CVD risk could be achieved using fixed dose combination (FDC) therapy (usually comprised of multiple blood-pressure agents and a statin [with or without aspirin]) in a single “polypill”. However, the impact of a polypill in preventing clinical CV events has not been evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial. TIPS-3 is a 2x2x2 factorial randomized controlled trial that will examine the effect of a FDC polypill on major CV outcomes in a primary prevention population. This study aims to determine whether the Polycap (comprised of atenolol, ramipril, hydrochlorothiazide, and a statin) reduces CV events in persons without a history of CVD, but who are at least at intermediate CVD risk. Additional interventions in the factorial design of the study will compare the effect of (1) aspirin versus placebo on CV events (and cancer), (2) vitamin D versus placebo on the risk of fractures, and (3) the combined effect of aspirin and the Polycap on CV events. The study has randomized 5713 participants across 9 countries. Mean age of the study population is 63.9 years, and 53% are female. Mean INTERHEART risk score is 16.8, which is consistent with a study population at intermediate CVD risk. Results of the TIP-3 study will be key to determining the appropriateness of FDC therapy as a strategy in the global prevention of CVD.

Nebivolol could prevent dysfunction in patients suffering myocardial ischemia. However, influence of hyperthyroidism is not known. Consequences and mechanisms of nebivolol treatment were investigated in isolated hearts from euthyroid (EuT) and hyperthyroid (HpT) rats. Rats were orally treated during 1 week with 20 mg/kg/day nebivolol (O-Neb), 30 mg/kg/day atenolol (O-Ate), or not treated (C). Isolated perfused hearts were exposed to global ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) inside a flow calorimeter. Left diastolic ventricular pressure, developed contractile pressure (P), and total heat rate (Ht) were continuously measured, while infarct size was measured after 2-h R. EuT-C and HpT-C hearts developed similarly low post-ischemic contractile recovery and economy (P/Ht). Nebivolol totally prevented dysfunction and reduced infarction size in EuT hearts, but partially improved recovery in HpT rat hearts. Contrarily, oral atenolol totally prevented dysfunction in HpT hearts but partially in EuT hearts. Nebivolol effects were reversed by perfusing L-NAME in both conditions, but partially reduced by aminoguanidine in HpT. However, L-NAME increased P and P/Ht recoveries in EuT-C and HpT-C rat hearts, as well as melatonin. Oral nebivolol prevented post-ischemic dysfunction and infarction in EuT hearts due to adrenergic β1 blockade and activation of iNOS and/or eNOS, but the effect was attenuated in HpT hearts by excessive iNOS-dependent nitrosative pathways.

Background Although beta blockers could increase the risk of hypoglycemia, the difference between subtypes on hypoglycemia and mortality have not been studied. This study sought to determine the relationship between type of beta blocker and incidence of hypoglycemia and mortality in hospitalized patients. Methods We retrospectively identified non-critically ill hospitalized insulin requiring patients who were undergoing bedside glucose monitoring and received either carvedilol or a selective beta blocker (metoprolol or atenolol). Patients receiving other beta blockers were excluded. Hypoglycemia was defined as any glucose < 3.9 mmol/L within 24 h of admission (Hypo 1day ) or throughout hospitalization (Hypo T ) and any glucose < 2.2 mmol/L throughout hospitalization (Hypo severe ). Results There were 1020 patients on carvedilol, 886 on selective beta blockers, and 10,216 on no beta blocker at admission. After controlling for other variables, the odds of Hypo 1day, Hypo T and Hypo severe were higher for carvedilol and selective beta blocker recipients than non-recipients, but only in basal insulin nonusers. The odds of Hypo 1day (odds ratio [OR] 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28, 3.09, p = 0.0002) and Hypo T (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02, 1.86, p = 0.03) but not Hypo severe (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.90, 4.02, p = 0.09) were greater for selective beta blocker vs. carvedilol recipients in basal insulin nonusers. Hypo 1day , Hypo T , and Hypo severe were all associated with increased mortality in adjusted models among non-beta blocker and selective beta blocker recipients, but not among carvedilol recipients. Conclusions Beta blocker use is associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia among hospitalized patients not requiring basal insulin, and odds are greater for selective beta blockers than for carvedilol. The odds of hypoglycemia-associated mortality are increased with selective beta blocker use or nonusers but not in carvedilol users, warranting further study.