Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this large clinical trial, the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan reduced the risk of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. However, the effect was small, and there was no reduction in the rate of cardiovascular events. Thus, impaired glucose tolerance is probably best managed with lifestyle intervention. In this large clinical trial, the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan reduced the risk of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. However, the effect was small, and there was no reduction in the rate of cardiovascular events. Patients with impaired glucose tolerance have an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. 1 – 3 Interventions that might reduce the incidence of diabetes and associated rates of death and complications from cardiovascular causes in such patients are therefore of importance. 3 Several trials have shown that lifestyle modification, including increased physical activity and weight loss, reduces the risk of diabetes, although these trials did not evaluate cardiovascular outcomes. 3 – 8 Certain drugs, including metformin, acarbose, and rosiglitazone, also reduce the incidence of diabetes, although their effect on cardiovascular events is uncertain. 6 , 9 , 10 Another pharmacologic approach to reducing the . . .

Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance, the short-acting insulin secretagogue nateglinide did not reduce the incidence of diabetes over the course of 5 years. Nateglinide also did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Therefore, nateglinide does not have a place in the management of impaired glucose tolerance. Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance, the short-acting insulin secretagogue nateglinide did not reduce the incidence of diabetes over the course of 5 years. Nateglinide also did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Persons with impaired glucose tolerance are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease 1 – 3 ; therefore, treatments that might reduce the incidence of diabetes and associated cardiovascular disease and death are potentially important. 3 The risk of diabetes is reduced with lifestyle interventions that involve increasing physical activity and reducing weight 4 – 6 and with metformin, 6 acarbose, 7 or rosiglitazone 8 therapy, but no trials to date have been powered to consider cardiovascular outcomes. Among persons with type 2 diabetes, reducing glycemia results in a small reduction in the risk of major macrovascular events. 9 Glucose levels after a glucose challenge, . . .

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, but effective treatments are lacking. We assessed the efficacy and safety of LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in patients with this disorder. PARAMOUNT was a phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind multicentre trial in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–III heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or higher, and NT-proBNP greater than 400 pg/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central interactive voice response system to LCZ696 titrated to 200 mg twice daily or valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily, and treated for 36 weeks. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in NT-proBNP, a marker of left ventricular wall stress, from baseline to 12 weeks; analysis included all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who had a baseline and at least one postbaseline assessment. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00887588. 149 patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 and 152 to valsartan; 134 in the LCZ696 group and 132 in the valsartan group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. NT-proBNP was significantly reduced at 12 weeks in the LCZ696 group compared with the valsartan group (LCZ696: baseline, 783 pg/mL [95% CI 670–914], 12 weeks, 605 pg/mL [512–714]; valsartan: baseline, 862 pg/mL [733–1012], 12 weeks, 835 [710–981]; ratio LCZ696/valsartan, 0·77, 95% CI 0·64–0·92, p=0·005). LCZ696 was well tolerated with adverse effects similar to those of valsartan; 22 patients (15%) on LCZ696 and 30 (20%) on valsartan had one or more serious adverse event. In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, LCZ696 reduced NT-proBNP to a greater extent than did valsartan at 12 weeks and was well tolerated. Whether these effects would translate into improved outcomes needs to be tested prospectively. Novartis.

LCZ696 is a first-in-class inhibitor of the angiotensin II receptor and neprilysin. We aimed to establish whether the dual actions of LCZ696 lead to further lowering of blood pressure, compared with the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan. 1328 patients aged 18–75 years with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomly assigned (double-blind) to 8 weeks' treatment in one of eight groups: 100 mg (n=156 patients), 200 mg (n=169), or 400 mg (n=172) LCZ696; 80 mg (n=163), 160 mg (n=166), or 320 mg (n=164) valsartan; 200 mg AHU377 (n=165); or placebo (n=173). The primary endpoint was the mean difference across the three single-dose pairwise comparisons of LCZ696 versus valsartan (100 mg vs 80 mg, 200 mg vs 160 mg, and 400 mg vs 320 mg) in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure during the 8-week treatment period. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00549770. 1215 patients completed the 8-week treatment period. The average reduction in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure across the doses of LCZ696 versus the appropriate comparator dose of valsartan showed significantly greater reductions with LCZ696 (mean reduction: −2·17 mm Hg, 95% CI −3·28 to −1·06; p<0·0001). The reduction in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure was significantly different for 200 mg LCZ696 versus 160 mg valsartan (−2·97 mm Hg, 95% CI −4·88 to −1·07, p=0·0023) and for 400 mg LCZ696 versus 320 mg valsartan (−2·70 mm Hg, −4·61 to −0·80, p=0·0055). LCZ696 was well tolerated and no cases of angio-oedema were reported; only three serious adverse events occurred during the 8-week treatment period, of which none was judged to be related to the study drug, and no patients died. Compared with valsartan, dual-acting LCZ696 provides complementary and fully additive reduction of blood pressure, which suggests that the drug holds promise for treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Novartis.

The aim of this study was to assess dual renin system intervention with the maximum recommended doses of aliskiren and valsartan, compared with each drug alone in patients with hypertension. In this double-blind study, 1797 patients with hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure 95–109 mm Hg and 8-h daytime ambulatory diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to receive once-daily aliskiren 150 mg (n=437), valsartan 160 mg (455), a combination of aliskiren 150 mg and valsartan 160 mg (446), or placebo (459) for 4 weeks, followed by forced titration to double the dose to the maximum recommended dose for another 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 8 endpoint. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT00219180. 196 (11%) patients discontinued study treatment before the end of the trial (63 in the placebo group, 53 in the aliskiren group, 43 in the valsartan group, and 37 in the aliskiren/valsartan group), mainly due to lack of therapeutic effect. At week 8 endpoint, the combination of aliskiren 300 mg and valsartan 320 mg lowered mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline by 12·2 mm Hg, significantly more than either monotherapy (aliskiren 300 mg 9·0 mm Hg decrease, p<0·0001; valsartan 320 mg, 9·7 mm Hg decrease, p<0·0001), or with placebo (4·1 mm Hg decrease, p<0·0001). Rates of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar in all groups. The combination of aliskiren and valsartan at maximum recommended doses provides significantly greater reductions in blood pressure than does monotherapy with either agent in patients with hypertension, with a tolerability profile similar to that with aliskiren and valsartan alone.

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that for the same blood-pressure control, valsartan would reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality more than amlodipine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. 15 245 patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac events participated in a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of therapy based on valsartan or amlodipine. Duration of treatment was event-driven and the trial lasted until at least 1450 patients had reached a primary endpoint, defined as a composite of cardiac mortality and morbidity. Patients from 31 countries were followed up for a mean of 4–2 years. Blood pressure was reduced by both treatments, but the effects of the amlodipine-based regimen were more pronounced, especially in the early period (blood pressure 4·0/2·1 mm Hg lower in amlodipine than valsartan group after 1 month; 1·5/1·3 mm Hg after 1 year; p<0·001 between groups). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 810 patients in the valsartan group (10·6%, 25·5 per 1000 patient-years) and 789 in the amlodipine group (10·4%, 24·7 per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·94–1·15, p=0·49). The main outcome of cardiac disease did not differ between the treatment groups. Unequal reductions in blood pressure might account for differences between the groups in cause-specific outcomes. The findings emphasise the importance of prompt blood-pressure control in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. Published online June 14, 2004 http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art4187web.pdf

Objective To compare the effects on proteinuria and blood pressure of addition of dietary sodium restriction or angiotensin receptor blockade at maximum dose, or their combination, in patients with non-diabetic nephropathy receiving background treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition at maximum dose.Design Multicentre crossover randomised controlled trial.Setting Outpatient clinics in the Netherlands.Participants 52 patients with non-diabetic nephropathy.Interventions All patients were treated during four 6 week periods, in random order, with angiotensin receptor blockade (valsartan 320 mg/day) or placebo, each combined with, consecutively, a low sodium diet (target 50 mmol Na+/day) and a regular sodium diet (target 200 mmol Na+/day), with a background of ACE inhibition (lisinopril 40 mg/day) during the entire study. The drug interventions were double blind; the dietary interventions were open label.Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was proteinuria; the secondary outcome measure was blood pressure.Results Mean urinary sodium excretion, a measure of dietary sodium intake, was 106 (SE 5) mmol Na+/day during a low sodium diet and 184 (6) mmol Na+/day during a regular sodium diet (P<0.001). Geometric mean residual proteinuria was 1.68 (95% confidence interval 1.31 to 2.14) g/day during ACE inhibition plus a regular sodium diet. Addition of angiotensin receptor blockade to ACE inhibition reduced proteinuria to 1.44 (1.07 to 1.93) g/day (P=0.003), addition of a low sodium diet reduced it to 0.85 (0.66 to 1.10) g/day (P<0.001), and addition of angiotensin receptor blockade plus a low sodium diet reduced it to 0.67 (0.50 to 0.91) g/day (P<0.001). The reduction of proteinuria by the addition of a low sodium diet to ACE inhibition (51%, 95% confidence interval 43% to 58%) was significantly larger (P<0.001) than the reduction of proteinuria by the addition of angiotensin receptor blockade to ACE inhibition (21%, (8% to 32%) and was comparable (P=0.009, not significant after Bonferroni correction) to the reduction of proteinuria by the addition of both angiotensin receptor blockade and a low sodium diet to ACE inhibition (62%, 53% to 70%). Mean systolic blood pressure was 134 (3) mm Hg during ACE inhibition plus a regular sodium diet. Mean systolic blood pressure was not significantly altered by the addition of angiotensin receptor blockade (131 (3) mm Hg; P=0.12) but was reduced by the addition of a low sodium diet (123 (2) mm Hg; P<0.001) and angiotensin receptor blockade plus a low sodium diet (121 (3) mm Hg; P<0.001) to ACE inhibition. The reduction of systolic blood pressure by the addition of a low sodium diet (7% (SE 1%)) was significantly larger (P=0.003) than the reduction of systolic blood pressure by the addition of angiotensin receptor blockade (2% (1)) and was similar (P=0.14) to the reduction of systolic blood pressure by the addition of both angiotensin receptor blockade and low sodium diet (9% (1)), to ACE inhibition.Conclusions Dietary sodium restriction to a level recommended in guidelines was more effective than dual blockade for reduction of proteinuria and blood pressure in non-diabetic nephropathy. The findings support the combined endeavours of patients and health professionals to reduce sodium intake.Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR675.

The fixed-dose combination of any two antihypertensive drugs from different drug classes is typically more effective in reducing blood pressure than a dose increase of component monotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of a vasodilating β blocker (nebivolol) and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (valsartan) in adults with hypertension. We did an 8-week, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial at 401 US sites. Participants (age ≥18 years) with hypertension but with blood pressure less than 180/110 mm Hg were randomly assigned (2:2:2:2:2:2:2:1) by a 24-h interactive web response system in blocks of 15 to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with nebivolol and valsartan fixed-dose combination (5 and 80 mg/day, 5 and 160 mg/day, or 10 and 160 mg/day), nebivolol (5 mg/day or 20 mg/day), valsartan (80 mg/day or 160 mg/day), or placebo. Doses were doubled in weeks 5–8; results are reported according to the final dose. Participants and research staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary and key secondary endpoints were changes from baseline to week 8 in diastolic and systolic blood pressure, respectively. The primary statistical comparison was between the highest fixed-dose combination dose and the highest monotherapy doses; lower doses were then compared if this comparison was positive (Hochberg method for multiple testing). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events. Continuous efficacy parameters were analysed using an ANCOVA model; binary outcomes were analysed using a logistic regression model. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01508026. Between Jan 6, 2012, and March 15, 2013, 4161 patients were randomly assigned (277 to placebo and 554–555 to each active comparator group), 4118 of whom were included in the primary analysis. At week 8, the fixed-dose combination 20 and 320 mg/day group had significantly greater reductions in diastolic blood pressure from baseline than both nebivolol 40 mg/day (least-squares mean difference −1·2 mm Hg, 95% CI −2·3 to −0·1; p=0·030) and valsartan 320 mg/day (−4·4 mm Hg, −5·4 to −3·3; p<0·0001); all other comparisons were also significant, favouring the fixed-dose combinations (all p<0·0001). All systolic blood pressure comparisons were also significant (all p<0·01). At least one treatment-emergent adverse event was experienced by 30–36% of participants in each group. Nebivolol and valsartan fixed-dose combination is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with hypertension. Forest Research Institute.

Background. Despite the proven efficacy of acyclovir (ACV) therapy, herpes simplex encephalitis (HSE) continues to cause substantial morbidity and mortality. Among patients with HSE treated with ACV, the mortality rate is approximately 14%–19%. Among survivors, 45%–60% have neuropsychological sequelae at 1 year. Thus, improving therapeutic approaches to HSE remains a high priority. Methods. Following completion of a standard course of intravenous ACV, 87 adult patients with HSE (confirmed by positive polymerase chain reaction [PCR] for herpes simplex virus DNA in cerebrospinal fluid) were randomized to receive either valacyclovir (VACV) 2 g thrice daily (n = 40) or placebo tablets (n = 47) for 90 days (12 tablets of study medication daily). The primary endpoint was survival with no or mild neuropsychological impairment at 12 months, as measured by the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS). Logistic regression was utilized to assess factors related to the primary endpoint. Results. The demographic characteristics of the 2 randomization groups were statistically similar with no significant differences in age, sex, or race. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in the MDRS scoring for VACV-treated vs placebo recipients, with 85.7% and 90.2%, respectively, of patients demonstrating no or mild neuropsychological impairment (P = .72). No significant study-related adverse events were encountered in either treatment group. Conclusions. Following standard treatment with intravenous ACV for PCR-confirmed HSE, an additional 3-month course of oral VACV therapy did not provide added benefit as measured by neuropsychological testing 12 months later in a population of relatively high-functioning survivors. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00031486.

In a randomized trial, 1442 patients with a history of atrial fibrillation were assigned to receive either valsartan, an angiotensin II–receptor blocker, or placebo. Antiarrhythmic therapy was administered according to the treating physician's preference. At 1 year, there was no difference between the groups in the rate of either a first recurrence or multiple recurrences of atrial fibrillation. Patients with a history of atrial fibrillation were assigned to receive either valsartan or placebo. At 1 year, there was no difference between the groups in the rate of either a first recurrence or multiple recurrences of atrial fibrillation. Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. 1 – 5 Antiarrhythmic drugs have only moderate efficacy in preventing recurrences of atrial fibrillation and sometimes cause serious adverse reactions. 6 – 8 Ablation is a costly procedure, and accepted indications are limited. 9 , 10 Thus, new approaches to the management of atrial fibrillation continue to be the subject of interest and investigation. Some studies have shown that the recurrence of atrial fibrillation after cardioversion may be partially related to a biologic phenomenon known as remodeling, in which the electrical, mechanical, and structural properties of atrial tissue and cardiac cells are progressively and irreversibly altered, creating . . .