The evolution of systolic blood pressure as a strong predictor of cardiovascular risk and the effectiveness of fixed-dose ARB/CCB combinations in lowering levels of this preferential target

Figures & data

Figure 1 Relationship between odds ratios for cardiovascular events and corresponding differences in systolic blood pressure. Reprinted with permission from Staessen JA, Wang JG, Thijs L. 2003. Cardiovascular prevention and blood pressure reduction: a quantitative overview updated until 1 March 2003. J Hypertens, 21:1055–76. Copyright © 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. The left-hand panel shows the relationship between odds ratios for cardiovascular events (experimental treatment versus reference treatment) and differences between treatments in achieved systolic blood pressure using data from clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs. The meta-regression line, which is shown with its 95% confidence interval, was weighted for the inverse of the variance of the individual odds ratios. The right-hand panel shows the results of more recent trials superimposed on the meta-regression line.

Abbreviations: AASK, the African American Study of Kidney disease and hypertension; ABCD/NT, Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes trial – tight versus usual blood pressure control in normotensive patients; ALLHAT, Antihypertensive and Lipid- Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial; ALLHAT/Aml, Antihypertensive and Lipid- Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial – amlodipine versus chlorthalidone; ALLHAT/Lis, Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial – lisinopril versus chlorthalidone; ANBP2, Australian comparative outcome trial of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor- and diuretic-based treatment of hypertension in the elderly; ATMH, Australian Trial in Mild Hypertension; CAPPP, CAptopril Prevention Project; CONVINCE, Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints Trial; DIABHYCAR, the non-insulin-dependent DIAbetes, HYpertension, microalbuminuria or proteinuria, Cardiovascular events, and ramipril study; ELSA, European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis; EWPHE, trial conducted by the European Working Party on High blood pressure in the Elderly; HEP, trial of Hypertension in Elderly Patients in primary care; HOPE, Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation study; HOT/LH, Hypertension Optimal Treatment trial – 80 versus 90 mmHg as target diastolic pressure; HOT/MH, Hypertension Optimal Treatment trial – 85 versus 90 mmHg as target diastolic pressure; IDNT2, Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus; INSIGHT, International Nife-dipine GITS Study – Intervention as a Goal for Hypertension Treatment; LIFE/All, Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study – all patients; LIFE/DM, Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study – diabetic subgroup; MIDAS/NICS/VHAS, combined results of MIDAS, NICS and VHAS; MRC1, Medical Research Council trial of treatment of mild hypertension; MRC2, Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults; NICOLE, NIsoldipine in Coronary artery disease in LEuven; NORDIL, NOrdic DILtiazem study; PART2, Prevention of Atherosclerosis with Ramipril Trial; PART2/SCAT, combined results of PART2 and SCAT; PATS, Post-stroke Antihypertensive Treatment Study; PREVENT, Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Vascular Effects Norvasc Trial; PROGRESS/Com, perindopril PROtection aGainst REcurrent Stroke Study – group on combined therapy; PROGRESS/Per, perindopril PROtection aGainst REcurrent Stroke Study – group on single-drug treatment; RENAAL, Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan; RCT70–80, combined results of four smaller trials published from 1970 through 1980, including HSCS, OSLO, USPHS, and VACS; SCOPE, Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly; SHEP, Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program; STONE, Shanghai Trial of Nifedipine in the Elderly; STOP1, Swedish Trial in Old Patients with hypertension; STOP2/ACEIs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor arm of STOP2; STOP2/CCBs, calcium-channel blocker arm of STOP2; Syst-China, Systolic hypertension in China trial; Syst-Eur, Systolic hypertension in Europe trial; UKPDS, UKPDS hypertension in diabetes study; UKPDS/CA, UKPDS hypertension in Diabetes Study – captopril versus atenolol; UKPDS/LH, UKPDS hypertension in diabetes study – low versus high on-treatment blood pressure.

Figure 2 Risk ratios for mortality as a result of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease in patients treated for hypertension compared with gender- and age-matched hypertensive and normotensive subjects (Derived from Benetos et al 2003).

Benetos et al (2003) used data from 8893 treated hypertensive patients and 25,880 untreated age- and gender-matched normotensive and hypertensive control patients to determine the influence of hypertension on cardiovascular mortality. Cardiovascular and coronary mortality were two-fold higher in the treated population. After adjustment for systolic blood pressure (SBP) using Cox regression analysis, the differences between the treated and untreated populations decreased from 96% to 14% (cardiovascular mortality, P = 0.05) and from 99% to 16% (coronary heart disease mortality, p = 0.08). Subsequent adjustment for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) had no further effect on the risk ratios.

Table 1 Impact of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on risk of an adverse renal outcome (doubling of serum creatinine or progression to end stage renal disease) (Reproduced with permission from Pohl MA, Blumenthal S, Cordonnier DJ, et al. 2005. Independent and additive impact of blood pressure control and angiotensin II receptor blockade on renal outcomes in the irbesartan diabetic nephropathy trial: clinical implications and limitations. J Am Soc Nephrol, 16:3027–37. Copyright © 2005 American Society of Nephrology).

	RR	95% CI	P value
Baseline
SBP lower by 20 mmHg	0.79	0.71, 0.88	<0.0001
DBP lower by 20 mmHg	1.02	0.85, 1.22	0.86
Achieved
SBP lower by 20 mmHg	0.52	0.45, 0.60	<0.0001
DBP lower by 20 mmHg	1.06	0.84, 1.35	0.61

Notes: Relative risks were computed by applying Cox proportional hazards methods to data from 1590 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomized to one of three antihypertensive treatment regimens (irbesartan 300 mg/day, amlodipine 10 mg/day, or placebo). Median patient follow-up was 2.6 years.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; RR, relative risk; SBP, systolic blood pressure.

Figure 3 Achievement of blood pressure goals in controlled trials of antihypertensive agents. Reproduced with permission from Mancia G, Grassi G. 2002. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure control in antihypertensive drug trials. J Hypertens, 20:1461–4. Copyright © 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Mancia and Grassi (2002) summarized the effects of antihypertensive treatment on systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively) in clinical trials involving patients with essential hypertension. The data show that higher initial blood pressures (B) are associated with larger reductions during treatment (T). Target blood pressure values (SBP, 140 mmHg; DBP, 85–90 mmHg), shown as dotted lines on the graphs, were achieved more frequently for DBP than for SBP. See Figure 1 legend for key to trial names.

Figure 4 Percentage of patients who achieved SBP <140 mmHg and retained DBP ≥ 90 mmHg compared with percentage of patients who achieved DBP < 90 mmHg and retained SBP ≥ 140 mmHg. Reproduced with permission from Waeber B, Mourad JJ. 2006. Targeting systolic blood pressure: the key to controlling combined systolic/diastolic hypertension. Am J Hypertens, 19:985–6. Copyright © 2006 Nature Publishing Group.

Data from the STRAtegies of Treatment in Hypertension: Evaluation (STRATHE) study show that patients who achieve a target systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 140 mmHg are also likely to achieve a diastolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg. In contrast, a substantial proportion of patients who achieve DBP < 90 mmHg fail to achieve adequate control of SBP. As demonstrated by the figure, this finding is consistent across a range of treatment regimens.

Figure 5 Systolic blood pressure reductions achieved with a combination of amlodipine and olmesartan (Chrysant et al 2008).

In the COACH study (Combination of Olmesartan medoxomil and Amlodipine besylate in Controlling High blood pressure), patients with a seated diastolic blood pressure of 95–120 mmHg at baseline were randomized to receive daily treatment with placebo, olmesartan/amlodipine 20/5 mg, 40/5 mg, or 40/10 mg. The figure shows the mean reduction from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure (SBP) after 8 weeks of treatment.

Table 2 Reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure achieved with aliskiren monotherapy and with amlodipine/valsartan, amlodipine/olmesartan, and aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy regimens

Daily treatment regimen	Seated DBP inclusion criteria (mmHg)	n	Mean age (years)	Mean seated BP at baseline (mmHg)	Duration of treatment (weeks)	Mean reduction from baseline in seated BP (mmHg)		Reference
						SBP	DBP
Amlodipine (10 mg)/valsartan (160 mg)	≥95 and <110	209	56.7	157.4/99.3	8	27.8a	17.6a	Philipp et al 2007
Amlodipine (5–10 mg)/valsartan (160 mg)	≥110 and <120	64	56.5	170.8/112.2	6	35.8	28.6	Poldermans et al 2007
Amlodipine (10 mg)/olmesartan (40 mg)	95–120	162	54.1	165.7/102.4	8	30.1	19.0	Chrysant et al 2008
Aliskiren (150→300 mg)b	95–109	560	NR	NR	12	17.4	12.2	Schmieder et al 2007
Aliskiren (300 mg)/HCTZ (25 mg)	95–109	173	54.8	154.6/99.3	8	21.2a	14.3a	Villamil et al 2007

a least squares mean;

b forced titration after 3 weeks.

Abbreviations: BP, blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HCTZ, hydrochlorothiazide; NR, data not reported; SBP, systolic blood pressure.

BenetosAThomasFBeanKE2003Why cardiovascular mortality is higher in treated hypertensives versus subjects of the same age, in the general populationJ Hypertens2116354012923394

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ManciaGGrassiG2002Systolic and diastolic blood pressure control in antihypertensive drug trialsJ Hypertens201461412172300

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ChrysantSGMelinoMKarkiS2008The Combination of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Amlodipine Besylate in Controlling High Blood Pressure: COACH, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week factorial efficacy and safety studyClin Ther3058760418498909

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PhilippTSmithTRGlazerR2007Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertensionClin Ther295638017617280

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PoldermansDGlazesRKargiannisS2007Tolerability and blood pressure-lowering efficacy of the combination of amlodipine plus valsartan compared with lisinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in adult patients with stage 2 hypertensionClin Ther292798917472820

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar