Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study aimed to determine whether early administration of drugs that block the renin–angiotensin system slows the progression of change in glomerular mesangial fractional volume and retinopathy progression of two steps or more, according to the retinopathy severity scale. Early blockade of the renin–angiotensin system did not modify nephropathy progression in patients with type 1 diabetes but had important effects in slowing retinopathy. Early blockade of the renin–angiotensin system did not modify nephropathy progression in patients with type 1 diabetes but had important effects in slowing retinopathy. Diabetic nephropathy, responsible for more than 45% of cases of end-stage renal disease in the United States, 1 may be structurally advanced once albuminuria becomes detectable. 2 , 3 Blockers of the renin–angiotensin system are more effective than other antihypertensive agents in slowing nephropathy progression in patients who have proteinuria, diabetes mellitus, and a reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR), 4 – 6 and such blockers can also decrease proteinuria in patients with diabetes. 7 Although the reduction of proteinuria in patients with diabetes has been associated with a reduction in the rate of decline in GFR in small studies, 8 this association has not been systematically tested; . . .

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are known to reduce proteinuria. Their combination might be more effective than either treatment alone, but long-term data for comparative changes in renal function are not available. We investigated the renal effects of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor), telmisartan (an ARB), and their combination in patients aged 55 years or older with established atherosclerotic vascular disease or with diabetes with end-organ damage. The trial ran from 2001 to 2007. After a 3-week run-in period, 25 620 participants were randomly assigned to ramipril 10 mg a day (n=8576), telmisartan 80 mg a day (n=8542), or to a combination of both drugs (n=8502; median follow-up was 56 months), and renal function and proteinuria were measured. The primary renal outcome was a composite of dialysis, doubling of serum creatinine, and death. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101. 784 patients permanently discontinued randomised therapy during the trial because of hypotensive symptoms (406 on combination therapy, 149 on ramipril, and 229 on telmisartan). The number of events for the composite primary outcome was similar for telmisartan (n=1147 [13·4%]) and ramipril (1150 [13·5%]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·92–1·09), but was increased with combination therapy (1233 [14.5%]; HR 1·09, 1·01–1·18, p=0·037). The secondary renal outcome, dialysis or doubling of serum creatinine, was similar with telmisartan (189 [2·21%]) and ramipril (174 [2·03%]; HR 1·09, 0·89–1·34) and more frequent with combination therapy (212 [2·49%]: HR 1·24, 1·01–1·51, p=0·038). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined least with ramipril compared with telmisartan (−2·82 [SD 17·2] mL/min/1·73 m 2 vs −4·12 [17·4], p<0·0001) or combination therapy (−6·11 [17·9], p<0·0001). The increase in urinary albumin excretion was less with telmisartan (p=0·004) or with combination therapy (p=0·001) than with ramipril. In people at high vascular risk, telmisartan's effects on major renal outcomes are similar to ramipril. Although combination therapy reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than monotherapy, overall it worsens major renal outcomes. Boehringer-Ingelheim.

Persons with prehypertension (formerly, “borderline hypertension”) were randomly assigned in a blinded fashion to receive two years of candesartan or placebo, followed by two years of placebo for all. Over four years, therapy with candesartan reduced the risk of the development of hypertension by 15.6 percent (P<0.007). Further research is needed to evaluate the clinical usefulness and ultimate safety of antihypertensive treatment for prehypertension. Persons with prehypertension were randomly assigned to receive two years of candesartan or placebo. Therapy with candesartan reduced the risk of the development of hypertension by 15.6 percent. The name of the range of blood pressures between what is clearly normal and what is definitely hypertensive changed from “transient hypertension” in the 1940s 1 to “borderline hypertension” in the 1970s, 2 “high-normal blood pressure” in the 1990s, 3 and most recently, “prehypertension” in 2003. 4 Regardless of terminology, this condition is a precursor of hypertension 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 and is associated with excess morbidity and deaths from cardiovascular causes. 1 , 2 , 7 – 10 Furthermore, an association of prehypertension with other cardiovascular risk factors has been established. 11 – 14 The Trial of Preventing Hypertension (TROPHY) 15 was an investigator-initiated study to examine whether early treatment of . . .

PurposeGiven the beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan on blood pressure generally, this study investigates its antihypertension effects in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with primary hypertension specifically, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on glycolipid metabolism.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, open-label, active-controlled study to compare the antihypertension effects of sacubitril/valsartan in DM individuals with primary hypertension. The primary end point was reduction in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan vs. olmesartan at week 8. The secondary endpoints included the changes in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), daytime SBP/DBP, nighttime SBP/DBP, BP achievement (office sitting BP < 130/80 mmHg), and lipid profile. The trial was registered with chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200066428) on Dec 22, 2022.ResultsA total of 124 patients were included in the final analysis. SBP decreased to a greater extent in the sacubitril/valsartan group from baseline to 8 weeks [between-treatment difference: 3.51 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.41 to 6.62 mm Hg, P = 0.03]. Furthermore, more patients achieved the blood pressure goal with sacubitril/valasartan (74.60% vs. 54.70%, P = 0.03). Multiple logistical regression analysis showed that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with BP achievement [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.14–0.73, P = 0.007], but the difference in SBP, DBP, day time SBP/DBP, and night time SBP/DBP reduction did not approach statistical significance. HbA1C1, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol were lower than baseline in both groups (P < 0.05); however, there was no difference in the effects on glucose and lipid metabolism from sacubitril/valsartan compared to olmesartan.ConclusionsSacubitril/valsartan not only provided superior BP reduction compared to olmesartan, it did so without adverse effects on glycemic control and lipid parameters in DM patients with primary hypertension.

Diastolic dysfunction might represent an important pathophysiological intermediate between hypertension and heart failure. Our aim was to determine whether inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which can reduce ventricular hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis, can improve diastolic function to a greater extent than can other antihypertensive agents. Patients with hypertension and evidence of diastolic dysfunction were randomly assigned to receive either the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (titrated to 320 mg once daily) or matched placebo. Patients in both groups also received concomitant antihypertensive agents that did not inhibit the renin-angiotensin system to reach targets of under 135 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and under 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure. The primary endpoint was change in diastolic relaxation velocity between baseline and 38 weeks as determined by tissue doppler imaging. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170924. 186 patients were randomly assigned to receive valsartan; 198 were randomly assigned to receive placebo. 43 patients were lost to follow-up or discontinued the assigned intervention. Over 38 weeks, there was a 12·8 (SD 17·2)/7·1 (9·9) mm Hg reduction in blood pressure in the valsartan group and a 9·7 (17·0)/5·5 (10·2) mm Hg reduction in the placebo group. The difference in blood pressure reduction between the two groups was not significant. Diastolic relaxation velocity increased by 0·60 (SD 1·4) cm/s from baseline in the valsartan group (p<0·0001) and 0·44 (1·4) cm/s from baseline in the placebo group (p<0·0001) by week 38. However, there was no significant difference in the change in diastolic relaxation velocity between the groups (p=0·29). Lowering blood pressure improves diastolic function irrespective of the type of antihypertensive agent used.

Patients with hypertension may require combination therapy to attain the blood pressure targets recommended by US and European treatment guidelines. Combination therapy with a calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin II-receptor blocker would be expected to provide enhanced efficacy. Two studies were conducted to compare the efficacy of various combinations of amlodipine and valsartan administered once daily with their individual components and placebo in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [ MSDBP] ≥95 and < 110 mm Hg). A secondary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability. The 2 studies were multinational, multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials. In study 1, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg once daily, valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg with valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, or placebo. In study 2, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 10 mg once daily, valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 10 mg with valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, or placebo. The primary efficacy variable in both studies was change from baseline in MSDBP at the end of the study. Secondary variables included the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), response rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg or a ≥ 10-mm Hg decrease from baseline), and control rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg). Safety was assessed in terms of adverse events (spontaneously reported or elicited by questioning), vital signs, and laboratory values. A total of 1911 patients were randomized to treatment in study 1 (1022 amlodipine + valsartan; 507 valsartan; 254 amlodipine; 128 placebo); 1250 were randomized to treatment in study 2 (419, 415, 207, and 209, respectively). In all treatment groups in both studies, the majority of patients were white (79.5% study 1, 79.4% study 2) and male (53.5% and 50.3%, respectively). The overall mean age was 54.4 years in study 1 and 56.9 years in study 2. The mean weight of patients in study 1 was higher than that in study 2 (88.8 vs 79.7 kg). The overall baseline mean sitting BP was 152.8/99.3 mm Hg in study 1 and 156.7/99.1 mm Hg in study 2. With the exception of a few combinations that included amlodipine 2.5 mg, the combination regimens in both studies were associated with significantly greater reductions in MSDBP and MSSBP compared with their individual components and placebo ( P < 0.05). A positive dose response was observed for all combinations. The highest response rate in study 1 was associated with the highest dose of combination therapy (amlodipine 5 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 91.3%). Amlodipine 5 mg, valsartan 320 mg, and placebo were associated with response rates of 71.9%, 73.4%, and 40.9%, respectively. In study 2, the 2 doses of combination therapy were associated with similar response rates (amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 160 mg: 88.5%; amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 87.5%). Amlodipine 10 mg was associated with a response rate of 86.9%; valsartan 160 and 20 mg were associated with response rates of 74.9% and 72.0%, respectively; and placebo was associated with a response rate of 49.3%. Control rates followed a similar pattern. The incidence of peripheral edema with combination therapy was significantly lower compared with amlodipine monotherapy (5.4% vs 8.7%, respectively; P = 0.014), was significantly higher compared with valsartan monotherapy (2.1%; P < 0.001), and did not differ significantly from placebo (3.0%). In these adult patients with mild to moderate hypertension, the combination of amlodipine + valsartan was associated with significantly greater blood pressure reductions from baseline compared with amlodipine or valsartan monotherapy or placebo. The incidence of peripheral edema was significantly lower with combination therapy than with amlodipine monotherapy.

This study investigated whether an angiotensin-receptor blocker (olmesartan) would delay microalbuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes and normoalbuminuria. Olmesartan was associated with a delayed onset of microalbuminuria, even though blood pressure control in both groups was excellent. Diabetic nephropathy is an increasingly common cause of end-stage renal disease, 1 and the development and rate of renal deterioration are most closely related to the patient's blood pressure. Guideline committees worldwide concur that the blood pressure in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be kept at 130/80 mm Hg or less. 2 Microalbuminuria is predictive of diabetic nephropathy and premature cardiovascular disease 3 – 5 ; therefore, European and American guidelines recommend that patients with diabetes be tested for microalbuminuria. 6 , 7 Overactivity of the renin–angiotensin system has been implicated in the deterioration of renal function in patients with diabetic nephropathy and . . .

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.

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 . . .

In this study, patients with type 2 diabetes, albuminuria, and mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction received losartan followed by lisinopril or placebo. The study was stopped early because of increased risks of hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury with combination therapy. Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States. 1 Persons with diabetes and proteinuria are at high risk for progression to ESRD. 2 Blockade of the renin–angiotensin system decreases the progression of proteinuric kidney disease, 3 – 5 and the degree of reduction in proteinuria correlates with the extent to which the decrease in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is slowed. 2 , 6 Given these observations, it has been hypothesized that interventions that further lower proteinuria will further reduce the risk of progression. 6 Combination therapy with an angiotensin-converting–enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and an angiotensin II–receptor blocker (ARB) results in . . .