Although calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are useful in stroke prevention, their specific role in preventing stroke in hypertensive patients with intracranial aneurysms undergoing endovascular stent placement remains unclear.

We retrospectively examined 458 hypertensive patients with intracranial aneurysms who underwent stent treatment, drawn from a larger multicenter cohort comprising 1326 patients across eight centers. Patients were dichotomized into two groups according to use of a CCB. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance group differences in patient and aneurysm characteristics. We conducted a comparison of patient and aneurysm characteristics, ischemic complications, and clinical outcomes between the two groups.

The CCB and non-CCB groups comprised 279 and 179 patients, respectively. PSM resulted in 165 matched pairs. After PSM, the incidence of ischemic events within 1 month of the procedure (4.2% vs 10.9%; P=0.022) and proportion of patients with modified Rankin Scale score >2 at last follow-up (1.5% vs 7.8%; P=0.013) were significantly lower in the CCB group. Among patients treated with combination therapy, inclusion of a CCB was associated with a lower incidence of ischemic events (1.5% vs 13.3%; P=0.345), but the difference was not statistically significant after correction.

CCB use in hypertensive patients undergoing endovascular stenting for treatment of intracranial aneurysms is associated with a lower incidence of ischemic events and a lower incidence of unfavorable neurological outcomes, especially when used in combination therapy.

In a post hoc analysis of a multinational, randomized trial, we investigated whether the efficacy and safety of nifedipine-gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) and ramipril differed between Chinese and European patients with hypertension.

Previously treated (after 2-week washout) and untreated patients with clinic blood pressure (BP) ≥ 140/90 mmHg (systolic/diastolic), daytime ambulatory BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg and standard deviation of home systolic BP > 7 mmHg, and/or daytime BP > 12 mmHg were randomly assigned to treatment based on nifedipine-GITS 30 mg or ramipril 10 mg for 12 months. Clinic, ambulatory and home BP were measured at baseline, 10 weeks and 12 months after randomization.

A total of 67 Chinese and 101 European patients were analyzed and they differed in age (50.9 vs. 54.6 years, respectively), body mass index (24.5 vs. 27.0 kg/m2), clinic diastolic BP (87.9 vs. 92.5 mmHg), heart rate (75.0 vs. 70.8 beats/minute), and nighttime diastolic BP (79.3 vs. 75.9 mmHg) (all P < 0.05). However, within each ethnicity, patients were comparable for clinical characteristics between the nifedipine-GITS and ramipril groups (P > 0.05). In both the Chinese and European patients, BP was similarly reduced with nifedipine-GITS and ramipril, except that daytime systolic/diastolic BP reductions were 7.4/4.1 mmHg greater in the ramipril than nifedipine-GITS group in Chinese (P = 0.02). The safety profile differed between the Chinese and European patients (P for drug*ethnicity interaction ≤ 0.05) for all adverse events (lower incidence on nifedipine-GITS in Chinese), ankle edema (higher on nifedipine-GITS in Europeans), and dry cough (higher on ramipril in Chinese).

In the Chinese and European patients with hypertension, nifedipine-GITS and ramipril had similar BP lowering efficacy, but different safety profile and tolerability.

Identifier at clinicaltrials.gov NCT02499822 (Registration date: 16 July 2015).

In 2024, the European Society of Cardiology released a new guideline for the management of elevated blood pressure (BP) and hypertension. The guideline introduced a new BP categorization: (1) nonelevated (office BP <120/70 mm Hg) for which drug treatment is not recommended, (2) elevated (120-139/70-89 mm Hg) for which drug treatment is recommended based on cardiovascular disease risk and follow-up BP level, and (3) hypertension (≥140/90 mm Hg) for which prompt confirmation and drug treatment are recommended in most individuals. The initial default systolic BP treatment target is 120 to 129 mm Hg; however, relaxed targets (BP as low as reasonably achievable) are recommended in case of treatment intolerance, adults ≥85 years, symptomatic orthostasis, moderate-to-severe frailty, or limited life expectancy. Here, we summarize what is new and different in the 2024 European Society of Cardiology guidelines, relative to other major international hypertension guidelines in Europe and America. Our aim is to reconcile any uncertainty clinicians may have about implementing these various guidelines in patient care.

Around one-third of adults in Algeria have hypertension, but > 40% are unaware they have the disease, and of those receiving treatment, only ~ 20-30% have adequate blood pressure (BP) control. Recommended starting treatment is an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker plus a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or diuretic. A single-pill combination of perindopril/amlodipine (ACEi/CCB) recently became available in Algeria. Twelve Algerian hypertension experts reviewed the clinical evidence regarding this therapeutic combination to determine its potential role for hypertension management in Algeria. The evidence indicated that this combination reduces cardiovascular outcomes and visit-to-visit BP variability, effectively controls 24-hour BP, and is well tolerated. In conclusion, the perindopril/amlodipine SPC provides a valuable new treatment option for hypertension in Algeria.

Blood pressure variability (BPV) predicts cardiovascular events independent of mean blood pressure. BPV is defined as short-term (24-h), medium or long- term (weeks, months or years). Standard deviation, coefficient of variation and variation independent of the mean have been used to quantify BPV. High BPV is associated with increasing age, diabetes, smoking and vascular disease and is a consequence of premature ageing of the vasculature. Long-term BPV has been incorporated into cardiovascular risk models (QRISK) and elevated BPV confers an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes even in subjects with controlled blood pressure. Long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and thiazide diuretics are the only drugs that reduce BPV and for the former explains their beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes. We believe that BPV should be incorporated into blood pressure management guidelines and based on current evidence, long-acting dihydropyridines should be preferred drugs in subjects with elevated BPV.

The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of various antihypertensive drugs in preventing strokes in hypertensive patients.

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in stroke prevention from inception until April 2023. A network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework was performed using the random-effects model.

This study included 88 RCTs involving 487,076 patients to investigate the effects of antihypertensive drugs in preventing stroke. Among these trials, 58 RCTs specifically focused on comparing the impact of such drugs on hypertensive subjects. In overall population, Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEIs), Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), Calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and Diuretics (DIs) demonstrated superiority over placebo in in reducing stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. CCBs and DIs outperformed β adrenergic receptor blockers (BBs), ACEIs, and ARBs in stroke reduction. However, when focusing on hypertensive patients, ACEIs, CCBs, and DIs proved superior to placebo in reducing stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. ARBs reduced stroke and all-cause mortality but lacked efficacy in reducing cardiovascular mortality. Of the various CCB subclasses, only the Dihydropyridines displayed efficacy in preventing stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Among diuretic subclasses, thiazide-type DIs exhibited no efficacy in preventing all-cause mortality. ACEIs+CCBs were more effective than ACEIs or ARBs monotherapy in reducing stroke, more effective than ACEIs, ARBs, CCBs, or DIs monotherapy in reducing all-cause mortality, and more effective than ARBs in reducing cardiovascular mortality.

These findings suggest that ACEIs, dihydropyridine CCBs, and thiazide-like diuretics may provide superior prevention against stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality in hypertensive patients. Combinations of ACEIs and CCBs may provide enhanced protection of stroke than ACEIs or ARBs monotherapy.

The aim of the observational SIMPLE study was to assess real-life effectiveness and safety of a single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril arginine/amlodipine in a broad range of subjects with newly diagnosed mild-to-moderate hypertension treated in Canadian general practice.

Treatment-naïve participants aged 18-65 years with mild-to-moderate hypertension, whose physicians decided to initiate the perindopril/amlodipine SPC, were recruited from Canadian clinical practice from October 2017 to February 2019. Participants were followed at 3- (M3) and 6-month (M6) visits after treatment initiation. The recommended starting dose of 3.5 mg/2.5 mg once daily was up-titrated, at the discretion of the treating physician, if blood pressure (BP) remained above target at subsequent visits. The primary endpoint was change in mean office systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) at M6.

The full analysis set included 1179 participants with a mean age of 51.5 ± 8.7 years; 61% were male. Mean SBP/DBP at baseline was 153.4 ± 11.5/94.8 ± 7.7 mmHg. Treatment was initiated at 3.5 mg/2.5 mg in 76.0% participants. Over the 6-month treatment period, significant (P < 0.001) decreases from baseline were observed for SBP (- 22.9 ± 14.5 mmHg) and DBP (- 13.4 ± 9.1 mmHg), with 70.2% of participants achieving their BP target. Across all perindopril/amlodipine SPC dose groups, 61.4% of participants achieved BP targets at M3; mean SBP was reduced by 20.8 ± 14.7 mmHg and DBP by 11.7 ± 9.2 mmHg (both P < 0.001). Analysis by baseline subgroup revealed significant BP reductions across age groups, sex, hypertension grades, and diabetes status. Participants with Grade 2 hypertension had a significantly greater decrease than those with Grade 1 (P < 0.001). Treatment with the SPC was well tolerated, and in the 6.1% with treatment-related adverse events, the majority were mild to moderate. High (99%) self-reported adherence (< 20 missed doses) in the 49.4% with available data and high physician satisfaction with treatment (82%) were reported.

Data from routine Canadian clinical practice indicate that a perindopril/amlodipine SPC is associated with significant BP reductions from baseline in a broad range of participants with different cardiovascular risk factors and may represent an appropriate first-line treatment for subjects with newly diagnosed hypertension.

Guidelines recognized dual combination in initial antihypertensive therapy. Studies found that low-dose quadruple combination were superior to monotherapy. However, whether low-dose quadruple therapy is better than dual combination is unknown.

A randomized blinded crossover trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose quadruple antihypertensives (irbesartan 75 mg + metoprolol 23.75 mg + amlodipine 2.5 mg + indapamide 1.25 mg) with standard-dose dual antihypertensives (irbesartan 150 mg + amlodipine 5 mg), both in a single pill, in the initial treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to two crossover sequences. Each sequence received four-weeks of either half-dose quadruple antihypertensives or standard-dose dual antihypertensives, followed by a two-week washout and crossover for four-weeks. Participants and researchers were blinded. The main outcomes were the reduction of blood pressure and safety outcomes. Analyses were per intention to treat.

A total of 90 eligible participants were randomized between July 13, 2022, and April 20, 2023. The mean age was 43.88 years (SD 10.31), and 25.6% were women. The mean baseline 24-h blood pressure was 145.59/93.84 mm Hg. Compared to the standard-dose dual treatment, the half-dose quadruple treatment resulted in a further reduction in mean 24-h blood pressure by 4.72/4.17 mm Hg (P < 0.001 for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure), mean daytime blood pressure by 5.52/4.73 mm Hg (P < 0.001 for both), mean nighttime blood pressure by 2.37/2.25 mm Hg (P = 0.034 and 0.014, respectively), and mean office blood pressure by 2.91/1.73 mm Hg (P < 0.001 and 0.014, respectively). Apart from significant increases of fasting blood glucose (P = 0.029) and blood uric acid (P < 0.001) in the half-dose quadruple group, no other adverse events or changes in laboratory values differed significantly between the two treatments.

Initiating treatment with half-dose quadruple combination therapy was more effective in lowering blood pressure than standard-dose dual therapy. The safety of half-dose quadruple therapy was comparable.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05377203.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is crucial in cardiovascular homeostasis. Any disruption in this homeostasis often leads to numerous cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and non-cardiovascular diseases. Small molecules that show ability toward mechanically modulating RAAS components have been developed to address this problem, thus providing opportunities for innovative drug discovery and development. This review is put forth to provide a comprehensive understanding not only on the signaling mechanisms of RAAS that lead to cardiovascular events but also on the use of small molecules targeting the modulation of RAAS components. Further, the detailed descriptions of the drugs affecting the RAAS and their pharmacodynamics, kinetics, and metabolism profiles are provided. This article also covers the limitations of the present therapeutic armory, followed by their mechanistic insights. A brief discussion is offered on the analysis of the chemical space parameters of the drugs affecting RAAS compared to other cardiovascular and renal categories of medications approved by the US FDA. This review provides structural insights and emphasizes the importance of integrating the current therapeutic regimen with pharmacological tactics to accelerate the development of new therapeutics targeting the RAAS components for improved and efficacious cardiovascular outcomes. Finally, chemical spacing parameters of RAAS modulators are provided, which will help in understanding their peculiarities in modulating the RAAS signaling through structural and functional analyses. Furthermore, this review will assist medicinal chemists working in this field in developing better drug regimens with improved selectivity and efficacy.

Among patients with myocardial infarction (MI) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the REDUCE-AMI trial did not demonstrate a benefit of beta-blocker vs. no beta-blocker treatment on all-cause mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction. The aim of this pre-specified sub-study was to investigate effects of beta-blockers on self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression.

In this parallel-group, open-label, registry-based randomized trial, assessments with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were obtained at hospitalization and two follow-up points (6-10 weeks and 12-14 months) after MI. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle using linear mixed models, calculating both short- and long-term effects. From August 2018 through June 2022, 806 patients were enrolled. At baseline, 27% of patients were possible cases of anxiety (m, 5.6; SD, 3.9) and 14% were possible cases of depression (m, 3.9; SD, 3.2). Beta-blocker treatment had a negative effect on depressive symptoms at both follow-ups 1 (β = 0.48; 95% CI 09-0.86; P = 0.015) and 2 (β = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.01-0.81; P = 0.047), but no effect on anxiety.

Beta-blocker treatment led to a modest increase in depressive symptoms among MI patients with preserved LVEF. This observed effect was most pronounced in individuals with prior beta-blocker treatment. In routine initiation and continuation of beta-blocker treatment, a risk of slightly increased depressive symptoms should be considered.

The burden of over 300 million individuals living with hypertension in India is increasing steadily. Most current guidelines recommend initial combination therapy for effective blood pressure (BP) control. However, there is no randomised evidence to inform which combinations to use in the South Asian population, who account for over one-quarter of the world's population.

This multi-centre, single-blind, randomised, three-arm trial recruited men and women aged 30-79 years with hypertension. The trial compares the efficacy of commonly recommended single pill combinations (SPCs) of three drug classes - calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), ACE inhibitor (perindopril), and a thiazide-like diuretic (indapamide). The primary objective is to determine the most effective two-drug combination, initially at starting doses with forced up-titration at 2 months, in reducing 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) at 6 months. The trial has 85 % power to detect a difference of 3 mmHg in 24-h ASBP amongst the groups.Participant recruitment took place from August 2022 to February 2024.

The 1981 participants (42.0 % women) enrolled had a mean age of 52.1 (SD 11.3) years and a mean body mass index of 26.5 (SD 4.2) kg/m2. 58.1 % of participants had a previous diagnosis of hypertension and 18.6 % of participants were known to diabetes. The mean ASBP was 135.6 (SD 17.0) mmHg, and the mean ambulatory diastolic BP was 84.5 (SD 10.9) mmHg.

The TOPSPIN trial is the first randomised evaluation of commonly used BP-lowering combination therapies in a South Asian population. The results have potentially significant implications for choosing first-line antihypertensive agents among Indians and the South Asian diaspora.

The Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial investigated the effects of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering using a fixed combination of perindopril-indapamide versus placebo in type 2 diabetes (T2D). The study showed that combination perindopril-indapamide had significant benefits in reducing cardiovascular, renal, and mortality events, with consistent relative risk reductions across different patient subgroups. Secondary analyses of ADVANCE have identified novel risk markers in T2D including cessation of BP lowering therapy, absent peripheral pulses and cardiac biomarkers to name a few. ADVANCE also shed light on practical aspects of hypertension management, including the limitations of office BP, tolerability of combination BP lowering therapy across the range of BP levels and the interpretation of changes in serum creatinine after treatment initiation. This review article summarizes the findings of ADVANCE and its subsequent substudies, which have been foundational in our understanding of BP management and the use of combination BP lowering therapy in T2D.

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a pivotal role in regulating blood pressure (BP), with dysregulation of RAAS resulting in hypertension and potentially heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), cardio-renal syndrome, and stroke. RAAS inhibitors, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), have advantages beyond BP control. However, differences between these two drug classes need to be considered when choosing a therapy for preventing cardiovascular events.

A panel of 36 Egyptian cardiologists developed consensus statements on RAAS inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes and stroke, using a modified three-step Delphi process.

The consensus statements highlight the importance of effective BP control and the role of RAAS blockade for prevention and management of various cardiovascular diseases. ACEis and ARBs differ in their mode of action and, thus, clinical effects. On the basis of available evidence, the consensus group recommended the following: ACEis should be considered as first choice (in preference to ARBs) to reduce the risk of MI, for primary prevention of HF, and for secondary prevention of stroke. ACEis and ARBs show equivalent efficacy for the primary prevention of stroke. Evidence also favors the preferential use of ACEis in patients with type 2 diabetes, for BP control, for the primary prevention of diabetic kidney disease, and to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Treatment with an ACEi should be started within 24 h of ST segment elevation MI (and continued long term) in patients with HF, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and/or diabetes. Angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) are the first choice for patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with ACEis being the second choice in this group. ARBs are indicated as alternatives in patients who cannot tolerate ACEis. ACEis may be associated with cough development, but the incidence tends to be overestimated, and the risk can be reduced by use of a lipophilic ACEi or combining the ACEi with a calcium channel blocker.

RAAS blockade is an essential component of hypertension therapy; however, the protective effects provided by ACEis are superior to those of ARBs. Therefore, an ACEi is indicated in almost all cases, unless not tolerated.

Levamlodipine, the levorotatory form of amlodipine racemate, has a blood pressure-lowering effect that is twice that of the racemate. The study aims to establish a foundation for the clinical application of the test drug by conducting a phase I clinical bioequivalence trial, comparing its bioequivalence and safety with the reference drug in healthy Chinese subjects. Recruiting 26 healthy subjects for separate bioequivalence trials in both fasting and fed conditions. The subjects will orally administer 2.5-mg test drug and 5-mg reference drug. A chiral method was used for bioanalytics and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was employed to quantify the (S)-amlodipine concentrations at various time points after administration. In fasting condition, the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for the primary pharmacokinetic parameters Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ are 100.24%, 103.63%, and 103.24%, respectively. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) fall within the range of 80-125%, satisfying the established bioequivalence criteria. Similarly, upon oral administration of the drugs in the fed condition, the GMRs for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ are 96.48%, 99.90%, and 99.62%, respectively. The corresponding 90% CIs are within the limits of 80-125%, meeting the predefined bioequivalence standards. Furthermore, both drugs exhibited favorable safety profiles. The results show that the two drugs are bioequivalent in healthy Chinese subjects under both fasting and fed conditions. The two drugs both had similar PK parameters and good safety.

Mega-trials can provide large-scale evidence on important questions.

To explore how the results of mega-trials compare with the meta-analysis results of trials with smaller sample sizes.

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for mega-trials until January 2023. PubMed was searched until June 2023 for meta-analyses incorporating the results of the eligible mega-trials.

Mega-trials were eligible if they were noncluster nonvaccine randomized clinical trials, had a sample size over 10 000, and had a peer-reviewed meta-analysis publication presenting results for the primary outcome of the mega-trials and/or all-cause mortality.

For each selected meta-analysis, we extracted results of smaller trials and mega-trials included in the summary effect estimate and combined them separately using random effects. These estimates were used to calculate the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) between mega-trials and smaller trials in each meta-analysis. Next, the RORs were combined using random effects. Risk of bias was extracted for each trial included in our analyses (or when not available, assessed only for mega-trials). Data analysis was conducted from January to June 2024.

The main outcomes were the summary ROR for the primary outcome and all-cause mortality between mega-trials and smaller trials. Sensitivity analyses were performed with respect to the year of publication, masking, weight, type of intervention, and specialty.

Of 120 mega-trials identified, 41 showed a significant result for the primary outcome and 22 showed a significant result for all-cause mortality. In 35 comparisons of primary outcomes (including 85 point estimates from 69 unique mega-trials and 272 point estimates from smaller trials) and 26 comparisons of all-cause mortality (including 70 point estimates from 65 unique mega-trials and 267 point estimates from smaller trials), no difference existed between the outcomes of the mega-trials and smaller trials for primary outcome (ROR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04) nor for all-cause mortality (ROR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04). For the primary outcomes, smaller trials published before the mega-trials had more favorable results than the mega-trials (ROR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10) and subsequent smaller trials published after the mega-trials (ROR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18).

In this meta-research analysis, meta-analyses of smaller studies showed overall comparable results with mega-trials, but smaller trials published before the mega-trials gave more favorable results than mega-trials. These findings suggest that mega-trials need to be performed more often given the relative low number of mega-trials found, their low significant rates, and the fact that smaller trials published prior to mega-trial report more beneficial results than mega-trials and subsequent smaller trials.

Several guidelines do not recommend beta-blocker as the first-line treatment for hypertension because of its inferior efficacy in stroke prevention. Combination therapy with beta-blocker is commonly used for blood pressure control. We compared the clinical outcomes in patients treated with amlodipine plus bisoprolol (A + B), a ß1-selective beta-blocker and amlodipine plus valsartan (A + V).

A population-based cohort study was performed using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From 2012 to 2019, newly diagnosed adult hypertensive patients who received initial amlodipine monotherapy and then switched to A + V or A + B were included. The efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and coronary revascularization), hemorrhagic stroke, and heart failure. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between outcomes and different treatments.

Overall, 4311 patients in A + B group and 10980 patients in A + V group were included. After a mean follow-up of 4.34 ± 1.79 years, the efficacy outcomes were similar between the A + V and A + B groups regarding all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.18), ASCVD event (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.12), and heart failure (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87-1.30). The risk of hemorrhagic stroke was lower in A + B group (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94). The result was similar when taking death into consideration in competing risk analysis. The safety outcomes were similar between the 2 groups.

There was no difference of all-cause death, ASCVD event, and heart failure in A + B vs. A + V users. But A + B users had a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is the largest contributor to the incident cardiovascular disease worldwide. Despite explicit guideline recommendations for the diagnosis and management of hypertension, a large proportion of patients remain undiagnosed, untreated, or treated but uncontrolled. Inadequate BP control is associated with many complex factors including patient preference, physician's inertia, health systems disparities, and poor adherence to prescribed antihypertensive drug treatment. The primary driver for reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is lowering of BP ''per se'' and not class effects of specific pharmacotherapies. The recent ESH guidelines recommend the use of four major classes of drugs including renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS) blockers (angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)), calcium channel blockers (CCB), thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics, and betablockers. Initiation of treatment for hypertension with a two-drug regimen, preferably in a single pill combination (SPC), is recommended for most patients. Preferred combinations should comprise a RAS blocker (either an ACEi or an ARB) with a CCB or thiazide/thiazide-like diuretic. These strategies are supported by robust evidence that combination therapy produces greater BP reductions than monotherapy, reduces side effects of the individual components, improves therapeutic adherence and long-term persistence on treatment, and permits achievement of earlier BP control.

Uncertainty exists about whether lowering systolic blood pressure to less than 120 mm Hg is superior to that of less than 140 mm Hg, particularly in patients with diabetes and patients with previous stroke.

In this open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised controlled trial, participants with high cardiovascular risk were enrolled from 116 hospitals or communities in China. We used minimised randomisation to assign participants to intensive treatment targeting standard office systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg or standard treatment targeting less than 140 mm Hg. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, revascularisation, hospitalisation for heart failure, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes, assessed by the intention-to-treat principle. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04030234.

Between Sept 17, 2019, and July 13, 2020, 11 255 participants (4359 with diabetes and 3022 with previous stroke) were assigned to intensive treatment (n=5624) or standard treatment (n=5631). Their mean age was 64·6 years (SD 7·1). The mean systolic blood pressure throughout the follow-up (except the first 3 months of titration) was 119·1 mm Hg (SD 11·1) in the intensive treatment group and 134·8 mm Hg (10·5) in the standard treatment group. During a median of 3·4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome event occurred in 547 (9·7%) participants in the intensive treatment group and 623 (11·1%) in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-0·99; p=0·028). There was no heterogeneity of effects by diabetes status, duration of diabetes, or history of stroke. Serious adverse events of syncope occurred more frequently in the intensive treatment group (24 [0·4%] of 5624) than in standard treatment group (eight [0·1%] of 5631; HR 3·00, 95% CI 1·35-6·68). There was no significant between-group difference in the serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, injurious fall, or acute kidney injury.

For hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk, regardless of the status of diabetes or history of stroke, the treatment strategy of targeting systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with that of less than 140 mm Hg, prevents major vascular events, with minor excess risk.

The Ministry of Science and Technology of China and Fuwai Hospital.

For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

The cardiovascular continuum describes how several cardiovascular risk factors contribute to the development of atherothrombosis, ischemic heart disease, and peripheral arteriopathy, leading to cardiac and renal failure and ultimately death. Due to its multiple valences, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system plays an important role in all stages of the cardiovascular continuum, starting from a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors, and continuing with the development of atherosclerosis thorough various mechanisms, and culminating with heart failure. Therefore, this article aims to analyze how certain components of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (converting enzymes, angiotensin, angiotensin receptors, and aldosterone) are involved in the underlying pathophysiology of the cardiovascular continuum and the possible arrest of its progression.

Hypertension is attributable long-term to various negative health outcomes, including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and, more broadly, to cardiovascular events such as congestive heart disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke. Effective hypertension treatment is essential to lower the risk of these outcomes. Treatment of hypertension includes both nonpharmacologic and, if necessary, pharmacologic interventions. The drug classes proven in trials to decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease events in cases with hypertension include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers. When considering thiazide diuretics as a first-line treatment, chlorthalidone (CTD) is currently recommended by the American College of Cardiology over hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Previous studies have demonstrated that CTD is superior to HCTZ in preventing cardiovascular disease events. However, more recent studies have revealed that there is no significant difference in the results of patients treated with HCTZ versus those treated with CTD. Additionally, studies have revealed CTD has worse outcomes regarding side effects when compared to HCTZ. In this regard, it is essential to carefully consider which medication will best improve the outcomes of patients with hypertension while also causing few or easily manageable side effects.

Originally, the beta-blockers were equally ranked alongside the other antihypertensive drug classes. Things changed when two major long-term randomized controlled trials, ASCOT-BPLA and LIFE showed that the patients receiving the beta-blockers based regimes suffered 25-30% more strokes than those receiving a calcium channel blocker based regime or an angiotensin receptor blocker based regime. The inferiority of the beta-blockers at stroke prevention was not due to differences in blood pressure control during the follow-up period in both trials. The 2023 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines still argue in favour of beta-blockers that their clinical inferiority was simply to lesser blood pressure reduction rather than class effect. The analysis argues that the return of beta-blockers as a first-line option for the management of uncomplicated hypertension by the ESH is a cause for concern and should be reconsidered.

We address the reasons why, unlike other guidelines, in the 2023 guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension β-blockers (BBs) have been regarded as major drugs for the treatment of hypertension, at the same level as diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. We argue that BBs, (1) reduce blood pressure (the main factor responsible for treatment-related protection) not less than other drugs, (2) reduce pooled cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in placebo-controlled trials, in which there has also been a sizeable reduction of all major cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes, (3) have been associated with a lower global cardiovascular protection in 2 but not in several other comparison trials, in which the protective effect of BBs versus the other major drugs has been similar or even greater, with a slightly smaller or no difference of global benefit in large trial meta-analyses and a similar protective effect when comparisons extend to BBs in combination versus other drug combinations. We mention the large number of cardiac and other comorbidities for which BBs are elective drugs, and we express criticism against the exclusion of BBs because of their lower protective effect against stroke in comparison trials, because, for still uncertain reasons, differences in protection against cause-specific events (stroke, heart failure, and coronary disease) have been reported for other major drugs. These partial data cannot replace global benefits as the main deciding factor for drug choice, also because in the general hypertensive population whether and which type of event might occur is unknown.

The benefits of improved clinical outcomes through blood pressure (BP) reduction have been proven in multiple clinical trials and meta-analyses. The new (2023) guideline from the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) includes β-blockers within five main classes of antihypertensive agents suitable for initiation of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy and for combination with other antihypertensive agents. This is in contrast to the 2018 edition of ESH guidelines that recommended β-blockers for use primarily in patients with compelling indications such as cardiovascular comorbidities, e.g. coronary heart disease, heart failure. This change was based on the fact that the magnitude of BP reduction is the most important factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, over and above the precise manner in which reduced BP is achieved. The ESH guideline also supports the use of β-blockers for patients with resting heart rate (>80 bpm); high resting heart rate is a sign of sympathetic overactivity, an important driver of adverse cardiac remodelling in the setting of hypertension and heart failure. Hypertension management guidelines support for the use of combination therapies for almost all patients with hypertension, ideally within a single-pill combination to optimise adherence to therapy. Where a β-blocker is prescribed, the inclusion of a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker within a combination regimen is rational. These agents together reduce both peripheral and central BP, which epidemiological studies have shown is important for reducing the burden of premature morbidity and mortality associated with uncontrolled hypertension, especially strokes.

Although blood pressure (BP) control is critical to prevent cardiovascular diseases, hypertension control rates in Canada are in decline.

To assess this issue, we sought to evaluate the differences in antihypertensive medication prescription profiles in the province of Quebec between 2009 and 2021.

This is a retrospective cohort study.

We used data from the CARTaGENE population-based cohort linked to administrative health databases.

Participants with any drug claim in the 6 months prior to the end of follow-up were included.

Guideline-recommended antihypertensive drug prescription profiles were assessed at the time of enrollment (2009-2010) and end of follow-up (March 2021).

Prescriptions practices from the 2 time periods were compared using Pearson's chi-square tests. A sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding participants in which antihypertensive drugs may not have been prescribed solely to treat hypertension (presence of atrial fibrillation/flutter, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or migraines documented prior to or during follow-up).

Of 8447 participants included in the study, 31.4% and 51.3% filled prescriptions for antihypertensive drugs at the beginning and end of follow-up. In both study periods, guideline-recommended monotherapy was applied in most participants with hypertension (77.9% vs 79.5%, P = .3), whereas optimal 2 and 3-drug combinations were used less frequently (62.0% vs 61.4%, P = .77, 51.9% vs 46.7%, P = .066, respectively). Only the use of long-acting thiazide-like diuretics (9.5% vs 27.7%, P < .001) and spironolactone as a fourth-line agent (8.3% vs 15.9%, P = .054) increased with time but nonetheless remained infrequent. Results were similar in the sensitivity analysis.

Specific indication of the prescribed antihypertensive medications and follow-up BP data was not available.

Application of hypertension guidelines for the choice of antihypertensive drugs remains suboptimal, highlighting the need for education initiatives. This may be an important step to raise BP control rates in Canada.

Beta blockers are one of the commonest prescription drugs in medicine and they have been thought to revolutionize the treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the last century. In addition to HFrEF, they are prescribed for a variety of diseases in cardiology from hypertension to HF, angina, and stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The increased prescription of beta blockers in conditions like HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and stable CAD may be doing more harm than good as per the data we have so far. The available data shows that beta blockers are associated with increased stroke risk and atrial fibrillation (AF) in hypertension and in patients with HFpEF, they have been associated with decreased exercise capacity. In patients with stable CAD and patients with myocardial infarction with normal systolic functions, beta blockers don't offer any mortality benefit. In this article, we critically review the common indications and the uses of beta blockers in patients with HFpEF, CAD, hypertension and AF and we propose that beta blockers are over-prescribed under the shadow of their beneficial effects in patients with HFrEF.

The association between Interdialytic home blood pressure variability (BPV) and the prognosis of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) largely unknown.

We proposed the hypothesis that interdialytic home BPV exert effect on cardiac and all-cause mortality among individuals undergoing MHD.

A total of 158 patients receiving MHD at the hemodialysis unit of Wuhan Fourth Hospital between December 2019 and August 2020 were included in this prospective cohort study. Patients were divided into tertiles according to the systolic BPV (SBPV), and the primary endpoints were cardiac and all-cause death. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess the relationship between long-term survival and interdialytic home SBPV. In addition, Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to identify risk factors contributing to poor prognosis.

The risk of cardiac death and all-cause death was gradually increased in patients according to tertiles of SBPV (3.5% vs. 14.8% vs. 19.2%, p for trend = .021; and 11.5% vs. 27.8% vs. 44.2%, p for trend <.001). The Cox regression analysis revealed that compared to Tertile 1, the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in Tertile 2 and Tertile 3 were 3.13 (p = .026) and 3.24 (p = .021), respectively, after adjustment for a series of covariates.

The findings revealed a positive correlation between increased interdialytic home SBPV and elevated mortality risk in patients with MHD.

Visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) is an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The long-term effect of a period of blood pressure (BP) control, but with differential BPV, is uncertain. Morbidity and mortality follow-up of UK participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm has been extended for up to 21 years to determine the CV impact of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) control and BPV during the trial, and amongst those allocated to amlodipine- and atenolol-based treatment.

Eight thousand five hundred and eighty hypertensive participants (4305 assigned to amlodipine ± perindopril-based and 4275 to atenolol ± diuretic-based treatment during the in-trial period (median 5.5 years) were followed for up to 21 years (median 17.4 years), using linked hospital and mortality records. A subgroup of participants (n = 2156) was followed up 6 years after the trial closure with a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit. In-trial mean SBP and standard deviation of visit-to-visit SBP as a measure of BPV, were measured using >100 000 BP measurements. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk [hazard ratios (HRs)], associated with (i) mean with SBP and BPV during the in-trial period, for the CV endpoints occurring after the end of the trial and (ii) randomly assigned treatment to events following randomization, for the first occurrence of pre-specified CV outcomes.

Using BP data from the in-trial period, in the post-trial period, although mean SBP was a predictor of CV outcomes {HR per 10 mmHg, 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.17], P < .001}, systolic BPV independent of mean SBP was a strong predictor of CV events [HR per 5 mmHg 1.22 (95% CI 1.18-1.26), P < .001] and predicted events even in participants with well-controlled BP. During 21-year follow-up, those on amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based in-trial treatment had significantly reduced risk of stroke [HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.93), P = .003], total CV events [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), P = .008], total coronary events [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99), P = .024], and atrial fibrillation [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.83-0.99), P = .030], with weaker evidence of a difference in CV mortality [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), P = .073]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure, and all-cause mortality.

Systolic BPV is a strong predictor of CV outcome, even in those with controlled SBP. The long-term benefits of amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment in reducing CV events appear to be primarily mediated by an effect on systolic BPV during the trial period.

Hypertension is a widely prevalent disease and uncontrolled hypertension predisposes affected individuals to severe adverse effects. Though the importance of controlling hypertension is clear, the multitude of therapeutic regimens and patient factors that affect the success of blood pressure control makes it difficult to predict the likelihood to predict whether a patient's blood pressure will be controlled. This project endeavors to investigate whether machine learning can accurately predict the control of a patient's hypertension within 12 months of a clinical encounter. To build the machine learning model, a retrospective review of the electronic medical records of 350,008 patients 18 years of age and older between January 1, 2015 and June 1, 2022 was performed to form model training and testing cohorts. The data included in the model included medication combinations, patient laboratory values, vital sign measurements, comorbidities, healthcare encounters, and demographic information. The mean age of the patient population was 65.6 years with 161,283 (46.1%) men and 275,001 (78.6%) white. A sliding time window of data was used to both prohibit data leakage from training sets to test sets and to maximize model performance. This sliding window resulted in using the study data to create 287 predictive models each using 2 years of training data and one week of testing data for a total study duration of five and a half years. Model performance was combined across all models. The primary outcome, prediction of blood pressure control within 12 months demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.76 (95% confidence interval; 0.75-0.76), sensitivity of 61.52% (61.0-62.03%), specificity of 75.69% (75.25-76.13%), positive predictive value of 67.75% (67.51-67.99%), and negative predictive value of 70.49% (70.32-70.66%). An AUC of 0.756 is considered to be moderately good for machine learning models. While the accuracy of this model is promising, it is impossible to state with certainty the clinical relevancy of any clinical support ML model without deploying it in a clinical setting and studying its impact on health outcomes. By also incorporating uncertainty analysis for every prediction, the authors believe that this approach offers the best-known solution to predicting hypertension control and that machine learning may be able to improve the accuracy of hypertension control predictions using patient information already available in the electronic health record. This method can serve as a foundation with further research to strengthen the model accuracy and to help determine clinical relevance.

Resistant hypertension (RHT) is characterized by persistently high blood pressure (BP) levels above the widely recommended therapeutic targets of less than 140/90 mmHg office BP, despite life-style measures and optimal medical therapies, including at least three antihypertensive drug classes at maximum tolerated dose (one should be a diuretic). This condition is strongly related to hypertension-mediated organ damage and, mostly, high risk of hospitalization due to hypertension emergencies or acute cardiovascular events. Hypertension guidelines proposed a triple combination therapy based on renin angiotensin system blocking agent, a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic, and a dihydropyridinic calcium-channel blocker, to almost all patients with RHT, who should also receive either a beta-blocker or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or both, depending on concomitant conditions and contraindications. Several other drugs may be attempted, when elevated BP levels persist in these RHT patients, although their added efficacy in lowering BP levels on top of optimal medical therapy is uncertain. Also, renal denervation has demonstrated to be a valid therapeutic alternative in RHT patients. More recently, novel drug classes and molecules have been tested in phase 2 randomised controlled clinical trials in patients with RHT on top of optimal medical therapy with at least 2-3 antihypertensive drugs. These novel drugs, which are orally administered and are able to antagonize different pathophysiological pathways, are represented by non-steroid mineralocorticorticoid receptor antagonists, selective aldosterone synthase inhibitors, and dual endothelin receptor antagonists, all of which have proven to reduce seated office and 24-h ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP levels. The main findings of randomized clinical trials performed with these drugs  as well as their potential indications for the clinical management of RHT patients are summarised in this systematic review article.

No abstract available.

The objective of the PERSONAL-CovidBP (Personalised Electronic Record Supported Optimisation When Alone for Patients With Hypertension: Pilot Study for Remote Medical Management of Hypertension During the COVID-19 Pandemic) trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of smartphone-enabled remote precision dosing of amlodipine to control blood pressure (BP) in participants with primary hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This was an open-label, remote, dose titration trial using daily home self-monitoring of BP, drug dose, and side effects with linked smartphone app and telemonitoring. Participants aged ≥18 years with uncontrolled hypertension (5-7 day baseline mean ≥135 mm Hg systolic BP or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic BP) received personalized amlodipine dose titration using novel (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 mg) and standard (5 and 10 mg) doses daily over 14 weeks. The primary outcome of the trial was mean change in systolic BP from baseline to end of treatment. A total of 205 participants were enrolled and mean BP fell from 142/87 (systolic BP/diastolic BP) to 131/81 mm Hg (a reduction of 11 (95% CI, 10-12)/7 (95% CI, 6-7) mm Hg, P<0.001). The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses (84%); of those participants, 35% were controlled by 1 mg daily. The majority (88%) controlled on novel doses had no peripheral edema. Adherence to BP recording and reported adherence to medication was 84% and 94%, respectively. Patient retention was 96% (196/205). Treatment was well tolerated with no withdrawals from adverse events.

Personalized dose titration with amlodipine was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating primary hypertension. The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses, and with personalization of dose there were no trial discontinuations due to drug intolerance. App-assisted remote clinician dose titration may better balance BP control and adverse effects and help optimize long-term care.

URL: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04559074.