Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes. Evaluation of a structured treatment and teaching programme on hypertension in general practice. Physician-pharmacist comanagement of hypertension: a randomized, comparative trial. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. Five-year findings of the hypertension detection and follow-up program. I. Reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. Effect of intensive blood pressure control with valsartan on urinary albumin excretion in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes.
BP is an important determinant of kidney disease among patients with diabetes. The recommended thresholds to initiate treatment to lower BP are 130/80 and 125/75 mmHg for people with diabetes and nephropathy, respectively. We sought to determine the effects of lowering BP below these currently recommended thresholds on renal outcomes among 11,140 patients who had type 2 diabetes and participated in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study. Patients were randomly assigned to fixed combination perindopril-indapamide or placebo, regardless of their BP at entry. During a mean follow-up of 4.3 yr, active treatment reduced the risk for renal events by 21% (P < 0.0001), which was driven by reduced risks for developing microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria (both P < 0.003). Effects of active treatment were consistent across subgroups defined by baseline systolic or diastolic BP. Lower systolic BP levels during follow-up, even to <110 mmHg, was associated with progressively lower rates of renal events. In conclusion, BP-lowering treatment with perindopril-indapamide administered routinely to individuals with type 2 diabetes provides important renoprotection, even among those with initial BP <120/70 mmHg. We could not identify a BP threshold below which renal benefit is lost. Evaluation of a structured hypertension treatment and teaching programme in general practice.
                Prospective controlled trial; follow-up period 18 months.
                10 primary health care practices. PRACTICES AND PATIENTS: From each practice 20 patients (30 to 60 years old, mean of the last two blood pressure measurements at or above 160 and/or 95 mmHg) were randomly selected; in 5 practices these patients were to participate in the treatment and teaching programme; in the remaining 5 practices hypertension care was continued without the availability of such a programme (controls).
                Structured treatment and teaching programme based upon four group sessions for patients mainly conducted by paramedical personnel.
                Blood pressure, body weight, prescription of antihypertensive drugs - as documented in the patient's records.
                Of the 100 control patients 26 and of the 100 intervention patients 14 were lost to observation; 46 patients had agreed to participate in the programme. The mean number of prescribed antihypertensive agents per patient decreased in the intervention group (1.8 +/- 1.3 at baseline, vs 1.2 +/- 1.2 at follow-up) compared to the control group (1.6 +/- 1.3 vs 1.8 +/- 1.6); difference 0.8 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1), p < 0.0001. In the control group 9% and in the intervention group 33% of patients had documented reductions of body weight (p < 0.0001). Blood pressure decreased in the intervention group (162 +/- 14/100 +/- 7 mmHg at baseline, vs 154 +/- 16/95 +/- 9 mmHg at follow-up) compared to the control group (161 +/- 13/98 +/- 7 mmHg vs 158 +/- 18/96 +/- 11 mmHg); differences for systolic blood pressure 5 (95% CI 0 to 10) mmHg, p = 0.071; for diastolic blood pressure 4 (1 to 7) mmHg, p = 0.018.
                The introduction of a structured hypertension treatment and teaching programme in general practice may lead to significant improvements of hypertension care. To compare the effectiveness of an evidence-based, systematic approach to hypertension care involving comanagement of patients by primary care physicians and clinical pharmacists versus usual care in reducing blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension.
                Patients in a staff model medical group with uncontrolled hypertension were randomized to either a usual care (UC) or a physician-pharmacist comanagement (PPCM) group. All physicians in the study received both group and individual education and participated in the development of an evidence-based hypertension treatment algorithm. Physicians were then given the names of their patients whose medical records documented elevated blood pressures (defined as systolic > or = 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic > or = 90 mm Hg for patients aged < 65 yrs, and systolic > or = 160 mm Hg and/or diastolic > or = 90 mm Hg for those aged > or = 65 yrs). Patients randomized to the UC group were managed by primary care physicians alone. Those randomized to the PPCM group were comanaged by their primary care physician and a clinical pharmacist, who provided patient education, made treatment recommendations, and provided follow-up. Blood pressure measurements, antihypertensive drugs, and visit costs/patient were obtained from medical records.
                One hundred ninety-seven patients with uncontrolled hypertension participated in the study. Both PPCM and UC groups experienced significant reductions in blood pressure (systolic -22 and -11 mm Hg, respectively, p < 0.01; diastolic -7 and -8 mm Hg, respectively, p < 0.01). The reduction in systolic blood pressure was greater in the PPCM group after adjusting for differences in baseline blood pressure between the groups (p < 0.01). More patients achieved blood pressure control in the PPCM than in the UC group (60% vs 43%, p = 0.02). Average provider visit costs/patient were higher in the UC than the PPCM group ($195 vs $160, p = 0.02).
                An evidence-based, systematic approach using physician-pharmacist comanagement for patients with uncontrolled hypertension resulted in improved blood pressure control and reduced average visit costs/patient. Hypertension is a leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States, with no known treatment to prevent progressive declines leading to ESRD.
                To compare the effects of 2 levels of blood pressure (BP) control and 3 antihypertensive drug classes on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline in hypertension.
                Randomized 3 x 2 factorial trial with enrollment from February 1995 to September 1998.
                A total of 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) were recruited from 21 clinical centers throughout the United States and followed up for 3 to 6.4 years.
                Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 mean arterial pressure goals, 102 to 107 mm Hg (usual; n = 554) or 92 mm Hg or less (lower; n = 540), and to initial treatment with either a beta-blocker (metoprolol 50-200 mg/d; n = 441), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d; n = 436) or a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, (amlodipine 5-10 mg/d; n = 217). Open-label agents were added to achieve the assigned BP goals.
                Rate of change in GFR (GFR slope); clinical composite outcome of reduction in GFR by 50% or more (or > or =25 mL/min per 1.73 m2) from baseline, ESRD, or death. Three primary treatment comparisons were specified: lower vs usual BP goal; ramipril vs metoprolol; and amlodipine vs metoprolol.
                Achieved BP averaged (SD) 128/78 (12/8) mm Hg in the lower BP group and 141/85 (12/7) mm Hg in the usual BP group. The mean (SE) GFR slope from baseline through 4 years did not differ significantly between the lower BP group (-2.21 [0.17] mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year) and the usual BP group (-1.95 [0.17] mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year; P =.24), and the lower BP goal did not significantly reduce the rate of the clinical composite outcome (risk reduction for lower BP group = 2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -22% to 21%; P =.85). None of the drug group comparisons showed consistent significant differences in the GFR slope. However, compared with the metoprolol and amlodipine groups, the ramipril group manifested risk reductions in the clinical composite outcome of 22% (95% CI, 1%-38%; P =.04) and 38% (95% CI, 14%-56%; P =.004), respectively. There was no significant difference in the clinical composite outcome between the amlodipine and metoprolol groups.
                No additional benefit of slowing progression of hypertensive nephrosclerosis was observed with the lower BP goal. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors appear to be more effective than beta-blockers or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in slowing GFR decline. The Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program (HDFP), in a community-based, randomized controlled trial involving 10,940 persons with high blood pressure (BP), compared the effects on five-year mortality of a systematic antihypertensive treatment program (Stepped Care [SC]) and referral to community medical therapy (Referred Care [RC]). Participants, recruited by population-based screening of 158,906 people aged 30 to 69 years in 14 communities througout the United States, were randomly assigned to SC or RC groups within each center and by entry diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (90 to 104, 105 to 114, and 115 + mm Hg). Over the five years of the study, more than two thirds of the SC participants continued to receive medication, and more than 50% achieved BP levels within the normotensive range, at or below the HDFP goal for DBP. Controls of BP was consistently better for the SC than for the RC group. Five-year mortality from all causes was 17% lower for the SC group compared to the RC group (6.4 vs 7.7 per 100, P less than .01) and 20% lower for the SC subgroup with entry DBP of 90 to 104 mm Hg compared to the corresponding RC subgroup (5.9 vs 7.4 per 100, P less than .01). These findings of the HDFP indicate that the systematic effective management of hypertension has a great potential for reducing mortality for the large numbers of people with high BP in the population, including those with "mild" hypertension. Diabetes is the most common cause of renal failure in the United States, and data regarding the effects of aggressive blood pressure (BP) therapy in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes are inadequate.
                A total of 129 type 2 diabetic patients with a BP of <140/80 to 90 mm Hg without overt albuminuria were randomized to either intensive BP control (diastolic BP goal 75 mm Hg) using an angiotensin II receptor blocker, valsartan, versus moderate BP control (diastolic BP 80 to 90 mm Hg with placebo initially) to evaluate the effect on the change in urinary albumin excretion (UAE) from baseline.
                The mean entrance BP was 126 +/- 8.8/84 +/- 2.4 mm Hg. The mean follow-up period was 1.9 +/- 1.0 years. During the follow-up period, the mean BP was 118 +/- 10.9/75 +/- 5.7 for the intensive v 124 10.9/80 6.5 mm Hg for the moderate BP groups (P < .001). No difference was observed in change in creatinine clearance or serum creatinine from baseline between the two groups. An analysis of covariance model for change in log (UAE + 1), adjusting for age, HBA(1c), duration of diabetes, baseline log (UAE + 1), sex, and ethnicity resulted in a significant treatment difference at 2 years (P = .007) with intensive BP control reducing log (UAE+1) compared with moderate BP control.
                Intensive BP control with valsartan to <120/80 mm Hg in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes and normo- or microalbuminuria significantly decreased the progression of UAE and in some cases caused regression of UAE.
Treating patients to lower than standard BP targets, ≤140-160/90-100 mmHg, does not reduce mortality or morbidity. Because guidelines are recommending even lower targets for diabetes mellitus and chronic renal disease, we are currently conducting systematic reviews in those groups of patients.