6This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study compared efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan ⁄ amlodipine (T ⁄ A) single-pill combination (SPC) vs the respective monotherapies in 858 patients with severe hypertension (systolic ⁄ diastolic blood pressure [SBP ⁄ DBP] !180 ⁄ 95 mm Hg). At 8 weeks, T ⁄ A provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP ⁄ DBP ()47.5 mm Hg ⁄ )18.7 mm Hg) vs T (P<.0001) or A (P=.0002) monotherapy; superior reductions were also evident at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Blood pressure (BP) goal and response rates were consistently higher with T ⁄ A vs T or A. T ⁄ A was well tolerated, with less frequent treatmentrelated adverse events vs A (12.6% vs 16.4%) and a numerically lower incidence of peripheral edema and treatment discontinuation. In conclusion, treatment of patients with substantially elevated BP with T ⁄ A SPCs resulted in high and significantly greater BP reductions and higher BP goal and response rates than the respective monotherapies. T ⁄ A SPCs were well tolerated. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:206-215. Ó2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Based on evidence from a number of large antihypertensive trials, 1-9 most guidelines acknowledge that combination therapy is needed to reduce blood pressure (BP) successfully to goal in the majority of patients; only a minority of patients achieve their BP goal with a single agent.10-14 Also, the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) study showed a significant reduction of cardiovascular (CV) events and death in hypertensive patients at high CV risk treated with a combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a calcium channel blocker (CCB).15 Nevertheless, despite rigorous and comprehensive guidelines, and a trend towards an increase in the use of combination therapy in treatment practice, 16 several studies have demonstrated the persistence of poor BP goal rates in treated patients. [17][18][19] The impact of poor BP control is compounded by the often high prevalence of other CV risk factors in hypertensive patients (eg, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM], and smoking).13 Therefore, an urgent need still remains to improve the management of hypertension. One logical approach would be to use 2 drugs from different classes and complementary mechanisms of action in combination. Such combinations may result in additional BP decreases and improved goal rates, compared with either agent used alone. 20-23Furthermore, single-pill combinations (SPCs) are known to increase treatment adherence and reduce health care costs. [24][25][26][27] A combination of a CCB and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) is a rational approach for managing hypertension and there is increasing evidence that this combination is effective. 11,13,28,29 The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the SPC of telmisartan 80 mg ⁄ amlodipine 10 mg (T80 ⁄ A10) with that of...

BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend nonstatin lipid-lowering agents in patients at very high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains ≥70 mg/dL on maximum tolerated statin treatment. It is uncertain if this approach benefits patients with LDL-C near 70 mg/dL. Lipoprotein(a) levels may influence residual risk. OBJECTIVES In a post hoc analysis of the ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial, the authors evaluated the benefit of adding the proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab to optimized statin treatment in patients with LDL-C levels near 70 mg/dL. Effects were evaluated according to concurrent lipoprotein(a) levels. METHODS ODYSSEY Outcomes compared alirocumab with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndromes receiving optimized statin treatment. In 4,351 patients (23.0%), screening or randomization LDL-C was <70 mg/dL (median 69.4 mg/dL; interquartile range: 64.3–74.0 mg/dL); in 14,573 patients (77.0%), both determinations were ≥70 mg/dL (median 94.0 mg/dL; interquartile range: 83.2–111.0 mg/dL). RESULTS In the lower LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.2 and 3.1 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with baseline lipoprotein(a) greater than or less than or equal to the median (13.7 mg/dL). Corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.52–0.90) and 1.11 (95% Cl: 0.83–1.49), with treatment-lipoprotein(a) interaction on MACE ( P interaction = 0.017). In the higher LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.7 and 3.8 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with lipoprotein(a) >13.7 mg/dL or ≤13.7 mg/dL; corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.82 (95% Cl: 0.72–0.92) and 0.89 (95% Cl: 0.75–1.06), with P interaction = 0.43. CONCLUSIONS In patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and LDL-C near 70 mg/dL on optimized statin therapy, proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition provides incremental clinical benefit only when lipoprotein(a) concentration is at least mildly elevated. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402 )

Background In contrast with the setting of acute myocardial infarction, there are limited data regarding the impact of diabetes mellitus on clinical outcomes in contemporary cohorts of patients with chronic coronary syndromes. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and prognostic impact of diabetes according to geographical regions and ethnicity. Methods and results CLARIFY is an observational registry of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, enrolled across 45 countries in Europe, Asia, America, Middle East, Australia, and Africa in 2009–2010, and followed up yearly for 5 years. Chronic coronary syndromes were defined by ≥1 of the following criteria: prior myocardial infarction, evidence of coronary stenosis &gt;50%, proven symptomatic myocardial ischaemia, or prior revascularization procedure. Among 32 694 patients, 9502 (29%) had diabetes, with a regional prevalence ranging from below 20% in Northern Europe to ∼60% in the Gulf countries. In a multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, diabetes was associated with increased risks for the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.28 (95% confidence interval 1.18, 1.39) and for all secondary outcomes (all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and coronary revascularization). Differences on outcomes according to geography and ethnicity were modest. Conclusion In patients with chronic coronary syndromes, diabetes is independently associated with mortality and cardiovascular events, including heart failure, which is not accounted by demographics, prior medical history, left ventricular ejection fraction, or use of secondary prevention medication. This is observed across multiple geographic regions and ethnicities, despite marked disparities in the prevalence of diabetes. ClinicalTrials identifier ISRCTN43070564

Normal BP was measured in only 6% of men and 7% of women taking antihypertensive medication (p > 0.05; no consistent trends by age). Elevated BP is widespread and hypertension is underdiagnosed and poorly controlled in this urban working-age Bulgarian population, especially among those under 40 y. This may contribute to the high rates of coronary heart disease and stroke incidence and mortality in Bulgaria.

No abstract