1. Practical Approaches to Managing Hypertension: Reducing Global Cardiovascular Risk
Randall M. Zusman, MD
Associate Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Director
Division of Hypertension and Vascular Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

2. ? Key Question Which class of agents do you presently
consider first-line treatment for patients
with hypertension?
Diuretics
β-Blockers (BBs)
Calcium channel blockers (CCBs)
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)
Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)
All of the above
Use your keypad to vote now!

3. Faculty Disclosure
Dr Zusman: advisory board member, research support, speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer Inc, sanofi-aventis Group, Sankyo Co., Ltd.

4. Learning Objectives
State the prevalence of hypertension and its role in the cardiovascular disease continuum
Formulate hypertension management according to risk stratification
Describe the importance of targeting improvement in vascular function in patients with hypertension

5. Hypertension and Global CV Risk

6. What Is Global CV Risk? Treating hypertension to goal is good
Addressing all CV risk factors is better
Achieve optimal BP level
Avoid CV and renal morbidity and mortality
Chobanian AV et al, for the NHBPEPCC. Bethesda, Md: NHLBI; NIH Publication No Available at:

7. JNC 7 Cardiovascular Risk Factors
Hypertension
Cigarette smoking
Obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2)
Physical inactivity
Dyslipidemia
Diabetes mellitus
Microalbuminuria or estimated GFR <60 mL/min
Age (men >55 yr; women >65 yr)
Family history of premature CVD
Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al, for the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Complete Report. Bethesda, Md: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NIH Publication No Available at:
Chobanian AV et al, for the NHBPEPCC. Bethesda, Md: NHLBI; NIH Publication No Available at:

8. ? Key Question What percentage of patients with hypertension
have 2 or more additional CV risk factors?
20%
30%
40%
50%
>50%
Use your keypad to vote now!

9. >50% of Hypertension Occurs in Presence of 2 or More Risk Factors
CV Risk Factor Clustering With Hypertension: Framingham Offspring, Aged 18 to 74 Years
>50% of Hypertension Occurs in Presence of 2 or More Risk Factors
Men
Women
1 RF
2 RFs
1 RF
2 RFs
26%
25%
27%
24%
19%
22%
17%
20% 8%
12%
Epidemiologic research confirms the phenomenon of risk factor clustering.
Data based on the Framingham Study, which examined the occurrence of hypertension in isolation or in combination with other major risk factors (ie, hyperlipidemia, glucose intolerance, hyperinsulinemia, obesity, and LVH), demonstrate that hypertension usually coexists with other cardiovascular risk factors.
Less than 20% of hypertension occurs in the absence of 1 or more major risk factors.
Clusters of 2 to 3 cardiovascular risk factors occur in about half of all patients with hypertension.
These data highlight the need to more aggressively diagnose comorbid risk factors among patients with hypertension.
Kannel WB. Risk stratification in hypertension: new insights from the Framingham Study. Am J Hypertens. 2000;13:3S-10S.
No Additional RFs
No Additional RFs
3 RFs
3 RFs
4 or More RFs
4 or More RFs
RF = risk factor.
Adapted from Kannel WB. Am J Hypertens. 2000;13:3S-10S. 9

10. 10-Year Probability of Event (%)
Risk of CHD in Mild Hypertension by Intensity of Associated Risk Factors 40 42 36 30
10-Year Probability of Event (%) 21 24 18 14 10 12 6 4 6
Risk Factors
SBP mm Hg
TC mg/dL −
HDL-C mg/dL − −
Diabetes − − − + + +
Cigarette smoking − − − − + +
ECG-LVH − − − − − +
The risk of CHD in patients with hypertension—particularly elevated SBP—is a significant predictor of death from coronary heart disease (CHD). Risk for CHD is exacerbated by the intensity of associated risk factors (eg, elevated total cholesterol [TC], low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], diabetes, cigarette smoking, and left ventricular hypertrophy).
Each additional CHD risk factor or CHD risk equivalent, whatever its degree, can increase the overall 10-year risk of coronary death in both men and women.
In addition to these risk factors shown above, obesity, physical inactivity, and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] increase the overall risk for CHD in patients with mild hypertension.
Reference
Kannel WB. Risk stratification in hypertension: new insights from the Framingham Study. Am J Hypertens. 2000;13:3S-10S.
Adapted from Kannel WB. Am J Hypertens. 2000;13:3S-10S.

11. JNC 7: Algorithm for Hypertension
LIFESTYLE MODIFICATIONS
Not at Goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease)
INITIAL DRUG CHOICES
Without Compelling Indications
With Compelling Indications
Stage 1 Hypertension
Thiazide-type diuretics for most; may consider ACEI, ARB, BB, CCB, or combo
Stage 2 Hypertension
2-drug combos for most (usually thiazide-type diuretics and ACEI, or ARB, or BB, or CCB)
Compelling Indications
Other drugs (diuretic, ACEI, ARB, BB, CCB) as needed
Pharmacologic therapy is usually needed to treat high blood pressure.
Recent clinical trials (eg, ALLHAT) have shown that blood pressure control can be achieved in most patients with hypertension.
The majority of patients require 2 antihypertensive agents to achieve goal blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease).
A thiazide-type diuretic is recommended as initial therapy for uncomplicated hypertension, either alone or in combination with an antihypertensive agent from another class (ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB], β-blocker, or CCB).
A drug from a different class should be added if the first drug is insufficient for achieving goal blood pressure.
Patients whose blood pressure is >20/10 mm Hg above goal should receive pharmacologic therapy, either singly or in a fixed-dose combination.   
National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Bethesda, Md: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NIH Publication No
If not at goal BP, optimize dosages or add drugs until
goal BP achieved; consider consultation with hypertension specialist
Chobanian AV et al, for the NHBPEPCC. Bethesda, Md: NHLBI; NIH Publication No Available at:

12. Nonpharmacologic Interventions and BP Reduction
Weight Loss (19.4 lb)
Low-Salt Diet
Alcohol Reduction
Potassium Supplement
Exercise 1 2 3
BP Decrease (mm Hg)
Meta-analyses of lifestyle changes indicate BP reductions
Meta-analyses of data from 54 randomized, controlled trials (N = 2419) indicate aerobic exercise significantly decreases systolic and diastolic blood pressure in overweight, normal-weight, hypertensive, and nonhypertensive people.
Comparing exercise results to 3 other meta-analyses, Messerli et al found that the decrease in blood pressure due to exercise exceeded the magnitude of the reduction due to low-salt diet (32 trials, N = 2635), alcohol reduction (15 trials, N = 2234), and potassium supplements (33 trials, N = 2609). 4 5 6
SBP
DBP 7
Adapted from: Stevens VJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:1-11; Messerli FH et al. In: Griffin BP et al, eds Manual of Cardiovascular Medicine. 2nd ed; Whelton SP et al. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136: ; Cutler JA et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65(suppl):643S-651S; Xin X et al. Hypertension. 2001;38: ; Whelton PK et al. JAMA. 1997;277:

13. JNC 7 Classification of Blood Pressure
NORMAL
PREHYPERTENSION
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
SBP <120 mm Hg and
DBP <80 mm Hg
SBP mm Hg or
DBP mm Hg
SBP mm Hg or
DBP mm Hg
SBP 160 mm Hg or
DBP 100 mm Hg
Treatment
recommended
Consider treatment in
those with diabetes or
renal disease who fail
lifestyle modification
Key Take-Aways
In the 7th Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) published in 2003, Stage I hypertension was defined as in JNC 6, while Stage 2 hypertension was consolidated into a single category (vs Stages 2 and 3 in JNC iag6). (JNC7, p.11, 2nd paragraph)
JNC 7 also added a prehypertension category, formerly termed normal and borderline in JNC 6. (JNC7, p.12, Table 3) Although not a disease category, the classification of prehypertension is used to identify persons at risk of developing hypertension so that both patients and clinicians will be encouraged to make the necessary lifestyle changes to prevent or delay the disease from developing. (JNC 7, p.12, 1st column, 2nd paragraph)
Although drug therapy is not for prehypertensive persons based on their level of BP, drug therapy should be considered in prehypertensive patients with concomitant diabetes or renal disease in whom lifestyle modification has failed to reduce their BP to ≤130/80 mm Hg. (JNC7, p.12, 1st column, 2nd paragraph)
Additional Background Information
 ≈ 28% of American adults 18 years (≈59 million) have prehypertension (AHA Update, page 18).
1. National Institutes of Health. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. NIH Publication No August 2004:1-86.
2. AHA Statistical Update. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2006 update. A report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Committee. Circulation. 2006;113:e85-e151.
Chobanian AV et al, for the NHBPEPCC. Bethesda, Md: NHLBI; NIH Publication No Available at:

14. Goal BP Recommendations for Patients With DM or Renal Disease
Organization
Year
Goal BP
(mm Hg)
Canadian Hypertension Society
2007
<130/80
American Diabetes Association
2006
National Kidney Foundation
2004
British Hypertension Society
130/80
JNC 7
2003
World Health Organization/
International Society of Hypertension
Chobanian AV et al, for the NHBPEPCC. Bethesda, Md: NHLBI; NIH Publication No Available at:

15. JNC 7: Compelling Indications for Antihypertensive Drug Classes
Recommended Drugs
Aldo Compelling Indication Diuretic ACEI BB ARB CCB Ant
Heart failure • • • •   •
Post MI   • •     •
High coronary disease risk • • •   •  
Diabetes • • • • •  
Chronic kidney disease   •   •    
Recurrent stroke
prevention • and •        
Patients with prehypertension or hypertension who have compelling indications (specific high-risk conditions) require therapy with specific antihypertensive agents (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, β-blockers, CCBs). Compelling indications include heart failure, post myocardial infarction (MI), high CHD risk, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and prevention of recurrent stroke.
The selections of agents for patients with these high-risk conditions are based on favorable outcome data from clinical trials.
Also in these patients, however, a combination of agents may be required to lower BP.
Other management considerations include medications already being taken by the patient, tolerability, and desired BP targets.
National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7 Express). Bethesda, Md: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NIH Publication No Available at:
Aldo Ant = aldosterone antagonist. Chobanian AV et al, for the NHBPEPCC. Bethesda, Md: NHLBI; NIH Publication No Available at:

16. Hypertension and Diabetes: Global CV Risk Reduction With Evidence-Based Intervention

17. ? Key Question On average, how many drugs will a patient
need to control hypertension? 1 2 3 4
Use your keypad to vote now!

18. Multiple Antihypertensive Agents Needed to Achieve BP Goal: ALLHAT
1 Drug
2 Drugs
3 Drugs
% Controlled <140/90 mm Hg
100 80 60
Patients (%) 40 20
Baseline
6 Months
1 Year
3 Years
5 Years
Patients had hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor. N =
Adapted from Cushman WC et al. J Clin Hypertens. 2002;4:

19. Average No. of BP Medications
Multiple Antihypertensive Agents Needed to Achieve BP Goal: Diabetes/Renal Impairment
UKPDS (<150/85 mm Hg)
MDRD (<92 mm Hg, MAP)
HOT (<80 mm Hg, diastolic)
AASK (<92 mm Hg, MAP)
RENAAL (<140/90 mm Hg)
IDNT (135/85 mm Hg)
When patients have hypertension and diabetes, these comorbidities contribute strongly to both renal and CV injury. Diabetes is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States. More than 11 million Americans have both diabetes and hypertension.
Bakris and colleagues reviewed clinical trials in which patients with either diabetes or renal impairment were randomized to 2 BP reduction targets. Among these trials were the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT), and the African American Study of Kidney Disease (AASK). The authors demonstrated that patients assigned to the lower BP target required an average of 3.2 daily antihypertensive medications to achieve goal.
As shown in the graph, patients in 2 other studies (RENAAL and IDNT) required >3 nonstudy medications to achieve BP goals.
These data further emphasize the importance of using multiple antihypertensive agents in the treatment of high-risk patients with hypertension.
References
Bakris GL, Williams M, Dworkin L et al. Preserving renal function in adults with hypertension and diabetes: a consensus approach. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;36:
Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D et al, for the RENAAL Study Investigators. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:
Cushman WC, Ford CE, Cutler JA et al. Success and predictors of blood pressure control in diverse North American settings: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT). J Clin Hypertens. 2002;4:
Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR et al, for the Collaborative Study Group. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2001;345: 1 2 3 4
Average No. of BP Medications
Patients had either diabetes or renal impairment.
Bakris GL et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;36: ; Brenner BM et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;345: ; Lewis EJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:

20. DM Approximately Doubles CVD Risk in Patients With Hypertension
Study
Patients With Diabetes
Patients Without Diabetes
Ratio
(events per 1000 pt-yr)
SHEP
CV events
63.0
36.8
1.71
Stroke
28.8
15.0
1.92
CHD events
32.2
15.2
2.12
Syst-Eur
55.0
28.9
1.90
26.6
12.3
2.16
23.1
12.4
1.87
HOT (DBP <90 mm Hg)
24.0
9.8
2.45
Patients with both hypertension and diabetes are at higher risk for CV events, stroke, and CHD events.
In the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP) study, 4736 subjects aged 60 years and older with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), defined as a SBP >160 mm Hg and DBP <90 mm Hg, were randomized to receive placebo or active antihypertensive therapy.1 A total of 583 of the subjects had type 2 diabetes. While all subjects who received active treatment experienced a significant reduction in major CVD events, the overall absolute reduction was twice as high in patients with diabetes compared with their nondiabetic counterparts, reflecting the higher risk associated with diabetes.
In the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Sys-Eur) trial, 2398 elderly patients (age >60 years) with ISH received active treatment beginning with a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist or placebo.2 Major CVD events were more common, nearly double, in patients with diabetes than in those without diabetes.
Lastly, in the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study,3 18,790 subjects were randomized to 1 of 3 BP goals: <90 mm Hg, <85 mm Hg, and <80 mm Hg. In those in the lowest BP goal group who had diabetes, the risk for major CVD events was reduced by 51% compared with those without diabetes in the highest group. The ADA and NKF recommend a BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg for persons with diabetes to reduce the risk for CVD events.4
1. Curb JD, Pressel SL, Cutler JA, et al. Effect of diuretic-based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in older diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program Cooperative Research Group. JAMA. 1996;276:
2. Tuomilehto J, Rastenyte D, Birkenhager WH, et al. Effects of calcium-channel blockade in older patients with diabetes and systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:
3. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al for the HOT Study Group. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet. 1998;351:
4. American Diabetes Association. Treatment of hypertension in adults with diabetes. Position statement. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(suppl 1):S71-S73.
Adapted from Curb JD et al. JAMA. 1996;276: ; Hansson L et al. Lancet. 1998;351: ; Tuomilehto J et al. N Engl J Med. 1999:340:

21. HOT Study: Fewer Major CV Events in Patients With Diabetes Randomized to Lower BP Goal25
P = .005 20 15
Stroke, MI, or CV Death
(per 1000 patient-years) 10 5
In the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study, 18,790 patients were randomized to 3 DBP targets: 80, 85, or 90 mm Hg in a 3.8-year study. All patients received a dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist initially. Approximately 70% also received an ACE inhibitor or ß-blocker, and then a diuretic, as necessary to achieve DBP goal.
Active lowering of blood pressure was particularly beneficial in the subgroup of 1501 patients with diabetes mellitus. In the group randomized to the DBP target 80 mm Hg, the risk of a major cardiovascular event* was 51% lower than in the group randomized to the DBP target of 90 mm Hg.
*Major cardiovascular events defined as all MIs, all strokes, and all other cardiovascular deaths.
Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al, for the HOT Study Group. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet. 1998;351:
80
85
90
Target DBP (mm Hg)
Patients with hypertension and diabetes were given baseline felodipine, plus other agents in a 5-step regimen. Study N = 18790; diabetes n = 1501.
HOT = Hypertension Optimal Treatment; MI = myocardial infarction.
Adapted from Hansson L et al, for the HOT Study Group. Lancet. 1998;351:

22. Reduction in Event Rate for Active Treatment Group (%)
Syst-Eur: CV Protection Resulting From BP Lowering Was Greatest in Patients With Diabetes
With Diabetes
Without Diabetes
Fatal and Nonfatal
Stroke
Fatal and Nonfatal
Cardiac Events
Overall
Mortality
CVD
Mortality
All CV
Events
–10 8%
P = .55
–20
16%
P = .37
Reduction in Event Rate for Active Treatment Group (%)
–30
25%
P = .02
22%
P = .10
–40
36%
P = .02
41%
P = .09
–50
Patients with hypertension and diabetes can benefit greatly from antihypertensive therapy.
In a post hoc analysis of data from the Syst-Eur trial, Tuomilehto and colleagues compared the effects of BP lowering on long-term outcome in patients with and without diabetes.
In Syst-Eur, 4695 patients older than 60 years who had SBP of mm Hg and DBP <95 mm Hg were randomly assigned to active treatment with the calcium channel blocker (CCB) nitrendipine 10 to 40 mg/day (with the possible addition or substitution of enalapril or hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] to attain the study’s SBP goal) or to placebo. Approximately 10% of the population (492 patients) had diabetes at baseline.
At 2 years, in the 492 patients with diabetes, the mean SBP and DPB were lower by 8.6 mm Hg and 3.9 mm Hg, respectively, in those receiving active treatment relative to those receiving placebo. These BP levels were comparable to the relative BP reductions in nondiabetic patients: 10.3 mm Hg systolic and 4.5 mm Hg diastolic.
As shown in this slide of patients receiving active treatment, risk reductions for all endpoints were greater in the diabetic subgroup. In patients with diabetes, active treatment reduced overall mortality by 41%, cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality by 70%, all cardiovascular (CV) events combined by 62%, fatal and nonfatal stroke by 69%, and all cardiac events combined by 57%. The reductions in CVD mortality, all CV events, fatal and nonfatal stroke, and fatal and nonfatal cardiac events were significantly greater among those with diabetes than among those without diabetes.
Tuomilehto J, Rastenyte D, Birkenhager WH, et al, for the Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators. Effects of calcium-channel blockade in older patients with diabetes and systolic hypertension. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:
–60
57%
P = .06
62%
P = .002
–70
69%
P = .02
70%
P = .01
Patients with hypertension received nitrendipine  enalapril or HCTZ. N = 4695.
Syst-Eur = Systolic Hypertension in Europe; CV = cardiovascular.
Adapted from Tuomilehto J et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:

23. UKPDS: Tight Glucose Versus Tight BP Control and CV Outcomes
Tight glucose control (goal <6.0 mmol/L or 108 mg/dL)
Tight BP control (average 144/82 mm Hg)
Stroke
Any Diabetic
Endpoint DM
Deaths
Microvascular
Complications 5%
-10
10%
12%
-20
Relative Risk Reduction (%)
24%
-30 *
The results of the UKPDS suggest that reducing BP in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes is critical not only for preserving renal function but for reducing total CV risk.
In a comparison of tight glucose control vs tight BP control, tight BP control had a relatively greater impact on CV outcomes than did tight blood glucose control.  
References:
Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ. 1998;317(7160):
Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ. 1998;317(7160):
32%
32% *
-40
37%
*P <.05 compared to tight glucose control *
44% *
-50
Patients had hypertension and type 2 diabetes. N = 1148.
Bakris GL et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;36:

24. Currently Available Antihypertensive Medications: Mechanism of Action
Drug Class
Mechanism of Action
Diuretics
Rid the body of excess fluids and sodium through urination
May enhance the effect of other BP medications
ACEIs
Lower levels of angiotensin II
Expand blood vessels
ARBs
Block angiotensin II receptors
BBs
Decrease heart rate and cardiac output
CCBs
Interrupt movement of calcium into heart and vessel cells
American Heart Association. December 11, Available at:

25. The Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System (RAAS)
Kininogen
Kallikrein
Bradykinin
Inactive Peptides
Nitric
Oxide 
Angiotensinogen
Renin
ACEIs
Angiotensin I
ACE 
Angiotensin II 
ARBs
ARBs
¯ Blood Pressure
¯ Vascular Proliferation
¯ Oxidative Stress
¯ Vascular Inflammation
¯ Thrombogenesis
AT1
The renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) is a series of metabolic pathways that regulates blood pressure and endothelial function.
ACEIs and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) both impact the enzymatic cascade that affects blood pressure control. This is accomplished at different points for ACEIs versus ARBs (as observed on the right side of the diagram).
ACEIs inhibit the degradation of bradykinin (as observed on the left side of the diagram). Bradykinin stimulates the production of nitric oxide, which acts as a vasodilator. ACE regulates the balance between the vasodilatory and salt-wasting properties of bradykinin and the vasoconstrictive and salt-retentive properties of angiotensin II.
Bradykinin promotes vasodilation by stimulating the production of arachidonic acid metabolites, nitric oxide, and endothelium-derived hyperpolarizing factor in vascular endothelium. In the kidney, bradykinin causes natriuresis through direct tubular effects.
Ang II is a potent vasoconstrictor, acting directly on vascular smooth muscle cells. In addition, Ang II interacts with the sympathetic nervous system both peripherally and centrally to increase vascular tone. Ang II causes volume expansion through sodium retention (via aldosterone and renal vasoconstriction) and fluid retention (via antidiuretic hormone).
Brown NJ, et al. Circulation. 1998;97:
Burnier M. Circulation. 2001;103:
Endemann DH. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15(8):
ACEI
ARB
Adapted with permission from Brown NJ et al. Circulation. 1998;97: Endemann DH. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15:

26. The Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System (RAAS)
Kininogen
Angiotensinogen
Renin
Inhibitors
Kallikrein
Renin 
Bradykinin
Angiotensin I
ACE
Inactive Peptides
Angiotensin II
ARBs
¯ Blood Pressure
¯ Vascular Proliferation
¯ Oxidative Stress
¯ Vascular Inflammation
Thrombogenesis
AT1
The renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) is a series of metabolic pathways that regulates blood pressure and endothelial function.
ACEIs and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) both impact the enzymatic cascade that affects blood pressure control. This is accomplished at different points for ACEIs versus ARBs (as observed on the right side of the diagram).
ACEIs inhibit the degradation of bradykinin (as observed on the left side of the diagram). Bradykinin stimulates the production of nitric oxide, which acts as a vasodilator. ACE regulates the balance between the vasodilatory and salt-wasting properties of bradykinin and the vasoconstrictive and salt-retentive properties of angiotensin II.
Bradykinin promotes vasodilation by stimulating the production of arachidonic acid metabolites, nitric oxide, and endothelium-derived hyperpolarizing factor in vascular endothelium. In the kidney, bradykinin causes natriuresis through direct tubular effects.
Ang II is a potent vasoconstrictor, acting directly on vascular smooth muscle cells. In addition, Ang II interacts with the sympathetic nervous system both peripherally and centrally to increase vascular tone. Ang II causes volume expansion through sodium retention (via aldosterone and renal vasoconstriction) and fluid retention (via antidiuretic hormone).
Brown NJ, et al. Circulation. 1998;97:
Burnier M. Circulation. 2001;103:
Endemann DH. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15(8):
Adapted with permission from Brown NJ et al. Circulation. 1998;97: ; Endemann DH. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15:

27. Valsartan/Amlodipine
VALUE: Hazard Ratios for Prespecified Analyses in Patients With Hypertension at High CV Risk
Favors Valsartan
Favors Amlodipine
Hazard Ratio
Valsartan/Amlodipine
Primary cardiac composite endpoint
Cardiac mortality
Cardiac morbidity
All myocardial infarction
All congestive heart failure
All stroke
All-cause death
New-onset diabetes
0.5 1
2.0
An analysis of risk ratios for various endpoints reveals that overall cardiac morbidity was not different in the valsartan and amlodipine groups. However, patients receiving valsartan had more heart attacks and strokes.1
1. Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with valsartan- or amlodipine-based regimens: VALUE, a randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:
Patients had hypertension and were at high CV risk.
VALUE = Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation.
Julius S et al, for the VALUE trial group. Lancet. 2004;363:

28. Val-HeFT: HF Morbidity With ARB in Patients Not Receiving ACEIs
100
Valsartan (n = 185)
Placebo (n = 181) 80 60
Event-Free Probability (%) 40
Risk Reduction 44%
(P <.001) 20
Val-HeFT clearly showed the benefits of valsartan in the small subgroup (7%) who were not receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. In this subgroup, Diovan reduced the risk of achieving the morbidity/mortality endpoint by a dramatic 44% (P<0.001).1
1. Maggioni AP, Anand I, Gottlieb SO, Latini R, Tognoni G, Cohn JN. Effects of valsartan on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1414–1421. 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Months
ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB = angiotensin receptor blocker; HF = heart failure.
Maggioni AP et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:

29. VALIANT: ARBs in Secondary Prevention
Acute dual RAS blockade provides no significant benefit
0.4
Captopril
Valsartan
0.3
Valsartan and captopril
All-Cause Mortality (probability)
0.2
0.1
Valsartan vs captopril: HR = 1.00; P = .982
Valsartan + captopril vs captopril: HR = 0.98; P = .726
0.0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Months
Patients had post-MI HF or LVSD (EF <0.40). N =
EF = ejection fraction; LVSD = left ventricular systolic dysfunction; MI = myocardial infarction; RAS = renin-angiotensin system; VALIANT = Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial.
Pfeffer M et al. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:

30. COMET: Primary Endpoint of Mortality40
Metoprolol
Carvedilol 30
All-Cause Mortality (%) 20
HR = 0.83
95% CI,
P = .0017 10 1 2 3 4 5
Time (years)
Carvedilol n = 1511; metoprolol n = 1518.
COMET = Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial.
Poole-Wilson PA et al. Lancet. 2003;362:7-13.

31. ACEI Versus Placebo: Effect on MI
CONSENSUS II
SOLVD-Treatment
SOLVD-Prevention
Total (95% CL)
1.5
AIRE
TRACE
SAVE
OR (95% CL) for the Occurrence of MI
1.0
0.7
0.5
1.3
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.5
Years
Patients had HF and/or LVD.
Strauss MD, Hall A. Circulation. 2006;114:

32. ACEI Trials in CAD Without HF: Primary Outcomes14
EUROPA: CV Death/MI/Cardiac Arrest
HOPE: CV Death/MI/Stroke 20
Placebo 12
Placebo 10
20% Risk Reduction
HR = 0.80 (0.71–0.91)
P = .0003 15
22% Risk Reduction
HR = 0.78 (0.70–0.86)
P <.001 8
Percent
Ramipril 10 mg 6 10
Percent
Perindopril 8 mg 4 5 2
Time (years)
Time (years) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
PEACE: CV Death/MI/CABG/PCI
QUIET: All CV Events 30 50
Quinapril 20 mg
Placebo 25 40
4% Risk Increase
HR = 1.04 (0.89–1.22)
P = .6
4% Risk Reduction
HR = 0.96 (0.88–1.06)
P = .43 20
Percent 30
Percent 15
Trandolapril
4 mg 20
Placebo 10 10
Key Summary:
Four major trials have studied the effect of long-term ACE inhibition in CAD patients with normal LV function.
EUROPA: Perindopril 8 mg demonstrated a 20% reduction in the primary outcome (CV death, MI, and cardiac arrest) in relatively low-risk patients. (EUROPA 2003, 784)
HOPE: ramipril 10 mg demonstrated a 22% reduction in the primary outcome (CV death, MI, and stroke) in high-risk patients. (Yusuf 2000, page 148)
EUROPA and HOPE achieved comparable benefits, even though EUROPA patients were at lower risk and more intensively treated. (20% vs 22%)
PEACE: In contrast, trandolapril 4 mg demonstrated a neutral effect on the primary outcome (CV death, MI, and revascularization) in lower-risk patients. (PEACE 2004, page 2062)
QUIET: This trial also demonstrated a neutral effect of ACE inhibition on a composite of all major CV outcomes. Quinapril 20 mg was administered to 1750 patients who had undergone coronary angioplasty or atherectomy. Subjects were randomized to treatment or placebo and followed for a mean of 27 months. (Pitt 2001, page 1060)
The proposed reasons for the differences among the trial findings include: a low-risk population; the drug or dosage; too brief a study period (QUIET); or underpowered (PEACE) to demonstrate a reduction in MI and CV death. (Pitt 2001, page 1061) (PEACE 2004, page 2063) 5
Time (years)
Time (years) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
EUROPA Investigators. Lancet. 2003;362: ; HOPE Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000;342: ; PEACE Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2004;351: ; Pitt B, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2001;87:
1. EUROPA Investigators. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet. 2003;362: HOPE Study Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ALTACE® (ramipril), on cardiovascular high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2000;342: PEACE Trial Investigators. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;351: Pitt B, O’Neill B, Feldman R, Ferrari R, Schwartz L, Mudra H, et al, for the QUIET Study Group. The Quinapril Ischemic Event Trial (QUIET): Evaluation of chronic ACEI therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function. Am J Cardiol. 2001;87:

33. MICRO-HOPE, PERSUADE: CV Events in Patients With Diabetes
MICRO-HOPE (n = 3577) CV death/MI/stroke
PERSUADE (n = 1502) CV death/MI/cardiac arrest 25 25
Placebo 20 20
Placebo
25% RRR P = .0004
19% RRR P = .13 15 15
Primary Outcome (%) 10 10
Perindopril 8 mg
Ramipril 10 mg 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Follow-Up (years)
Follow-Up (years)
HOPE Study Investigators. Lancet. 2000;355: ; Daly CA et al. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:

34. MICRO-HOPE: Albuminuria in Patients With Diabetes
3.0
Placebo
2.5
Ramipril
2.0
P = .02
Mean Albumin/Creatinine Ratio (urine)
1.5
P = .001
1.0
0.5
Key Take-Aways
Ramipril lowered the risk of overt nephropathy in diabetic people who did and did not have baseline microalbuminuria (relative risk reduction 24% [95% CI 3 to 40], P = 0.027).1 (MICRO-HOPE substudy 2000, p.255, Table 3)
Treatment with ramipril resulted in a lower albumin/creatinine ratio than placebo at 1 year and at the end of the study.1 (MICRO-HOPE substudy 2000, p.256, Figure 3)
If albuminuria is present, patient should be seen by a nephrologist.
Additional Background Information
3,577 people with diabetes included in the HOPE study were randomized to ramipril 10 mg/d or placebo and vitamin E or placebo for a median follow-up of 4.5 years.1 (MICRO-HOPE substudy 2000, p.253, Abstract, Methods; p.254, 2nd column, last paragraph)
225 (20%) participants with and 41 (2%) without baseline microalbuminuria developed overt nephropathy (relative risk 14.0 [95% CI 10-19], P<.0001).1 (MICRO-HOPE substudy 2000, p.256, 2nd column, 2nd to last paragraph)
Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators. Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet. 2000;355:
0.0 1 2 3
4-5
Time (y)
HOPE Study Investigators. Lancet. 2000;355:

35. The Data Support Global CV Risk Management
CV disease remains the leading cause of death in both men and women in the United States
Framingham data show that CV risk factors tend to cluster—and that risk of death from CHD and stroke increases proportionately
Endothelial dysfunction seems to be a key factor in the development of CV disease
Recent clinical trials have given us a wealth of information with which to manage global CV risk

36. Adherence

37. CV Risk Factor Control Among Adults With Diagnosed Diabetes
Fewer than half of adults with diabetes achieve treatment goals for CV risk factors
NHANES III (n = 1204) 60
NHANES (n = 370) 50
33.9
48.2
44.3
37.0 40
29.0
35.8
Adults (%) 30 20
Encouraging adherence—and understanding what undermines it—is critical to therapeutic success. 10
5.2
7.3
A1C Level <7%
Blood Pressure
<130/80 mm Hg
Total Cholesterol*
<200 mg/dL
Achieved All 3 Treatment Goals
*LDL-C and TG not evaluated.
Saydah SH, et al. JAMA. 2004;291:

38. Practical Tips to Improve Adherence
Talk to your patient
Explain the condition and why specific therapy is important
Ask about adherence
Involve the patient as a partner in treatment
Provide clear written and oral instructions
Tailor the regimen to the patient’s lifestyle and needs
Use motivational interviewing techniques
Look for:
Different ways to approach patients based on individual patient attitudes
Allies in patient care—family, friends
Ways to simplify the regimen
Refill dates (if the patient has not refilled the prescription, the medication is not being taken)
There are several steps the health care provider can take to help ensure patient adherence to therapy.1
The cornerstone of any patient–health care provider relationship is communication. There is no substitute for talking to your patient. Discussions should include action items such as the patient’s view on adherence and/or specific adherence patterns, an explanation of the condition, and the reason and importance of specific treatments selected. Goals should include simplifying the therapeutic drug regimen when possible, asking about adherence at every visit, and checking refill dates.1
Patient’s adherence rates may improve if they realize that their provider is interested in when and how they take their medicine and if they refill it on time, thus strengthening the patient-provider relationship. Other studies have shown benefits by involving the patient as a partner and tailoring the medication to meet the patient’s lifestyle and needs, as well as their willingness and desire to change. Another successful approach is to always provide clear written and oral instructions and use behavioral strategies as reminders to take medication. Encouraging a patient support system, such as involving family and/or friends as allies in the treatment process, can also improve adherence.1
Background
Motivational interviewing can also be used to improve patient adherence. Motivational interviewing is a patient-centered therapeutic technique designed to increase a patient’s intrinsic motivation for change by exploring what is causing ambivalence to therapy and then resolving these issues. Open questions should be asked rather than a series of questions that will evoke short answers and leave little room for expansion. The four primary principles of motivational interviewing are:
1) express empathy (focus on patients’ awareness of their own thoughts and abilities in an effort to increase confidence in, and reliance on, their own decision-making skills)
2) develop discrepancy (elicit from patients those aspects of his/her life that are important and at odds with current behavioral patterns)
3) roll with resistance (rather than meeting consumer resistance with confrontation, providers are encouraged to utilize reflection in an effort to decrease it whenever possible)
4) support self-efficacy (encouraging patient based on the abilities and resources they possess)
Ockene et al, Pg 633, table 1
Ockene et al. Pg. 635, Col. 2, Para. 3, Lines 6-11 & Bullets 1-4; Pg. 636, Col. 1, Bullets 1-3; Pg. 633, Table 1
Ockene et al. Pg. 635, Col. 2, Para. 3, Lines 6-11 & Bullets 1-4; Pg. 636, Col. 1, Bullets 1-3; Pg. 633, Table 1
Squires. P.3, para.1
Ockene IS et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:
Squires. P.12, para.4
Squires. P.9, para.2, Lines 2-4
Squires. P.9, para.4, last line; P.10, first line
Squires. P.10, para.3, lines 1-2
Squires. P.11, para.2, lines 4-5
References
1. Ockene IS, Hayman LL, Pasternak RC, Schron E, Dunbar-Jacob J. Task force #4—adherence issues and behavior changes: achieving a long-term solution. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:
2. Squires DD, Moyers TB. Motivational interviewing. Available at: Accessed August 31, 2005.

39. Practical Tips to Improve Adherence
Use systematic approaches
Disease management programs
Periodic review of electronic medical records or manual chart audits
Group/shared medical appointments—blend care, education, social support
Other techniques
Follow-up (telephone/mail/ ) and reminder cards
Signed agreements/contracts
Self-monitoring tools (eg, tape measure, pedometer, home testing devices)
Patient assistance programs
Support patients where medication costs are a barrier to adherence
Practical approaches to improving adherence include the use of systematic approaches, such as disease management programs1 and regular reviews of medical records.2 In addition, having individuals participate in group appointments with patients with similar medical conditions not only provides social support but also the advantage of patients seeing first-hand how educational approaches have worked for others.3
Other techniques include reminder follow-ups, the implementation of an informal agreement between the health care provider and the patient, and use of self-monitoring tools (eg, pedometer, home testing devices, BP monitors, and scales).3
Patient assistance programs are available to support patients when costs are a barrier to adherence.4
Fonarow et al, Pg 819, Abstract, Col 2, Lines 9-15
NCEP ATP III, p. IX-5, col.2, para.4, lines1-4
Ockene et al. Pg 633, Table 1
Fonarow GC et al. Am J Cardiol. 2001;87: ; Ockene IS et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:
; NCEP ATP III. September NIH publication no ; Pfizer Helpful Answers Web site. Available at:
References
1. Fonarow GC, Gawlinski A, Moughrabi S, Tillisch JH. Improved treatment of coronary heart disease by implementation of a cardiac hospitalization atherosclerosis management program (CHAMP). Am J Cardiol. 2001;87:
2. National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) Final Report. Bethesda, Md: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; September NIH publication no
3. Ockene IS, Hayman LL, Pasternak RC, Schron E, Dunbar-Jacob J. Task force #4—adherence issues and behavior changes: achieving a long-term solution. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:
4. Pfizer Helpful Answers Web site. Available at

40. Case Study

41. Case Study: 55-Year-Old Asian Man With Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes
Physical examination
BP: 148/96 mm Hg
Height: 64"
Weight: 178 lb
BMI: 30 kg/m2
Waist circumference: 38"
Cardiac dysfunction status: normal ventricular function (LVEF 68%)
Laboratory values
Glucose: 148 mg/dL (fasting)
A1C: 8.8%
Creatinine: 1.5 mg/dL
Urinalysis: 1+ proteinuria
Lipid profile (mg/dL):
TC: 268; LDL-C: 168; HDL-C: 42; TG: 296
Medications
HCTZ 25 mg/d
Glyburide 5 mg/d

42. ? Decision Point What is the JNC 7 goal for this patient who has
hypertension, diabetes, and renal disease?
<120/80 mm Hg
<130/80 mm Hg
<140/80 mm Hg
<140/90 mm Hg
Use your keypad to vote now!

43. ? Decision Point The patient’s BP is 148/96 mm Hg while
taking HCTZ 25 mg/d and glyburide 5 mg/d.
To bring BP down to <130/80 mm Hg, you would
add a(n): BB
CCB
ARB
ACE
Use your keypad to vote now!

44. Q & A

45. PCE Takeaways

46. PCE Takeaways
Patients with hypertension often present with multiple cardiac risk factors
Be vigilant in your investigation of all clinical indicators
Creatively address patient adherence; not everyone responds to the same interventions
Clinical inertia is the enemy—don't settle for "close enough"

47. ? Key Question How important is using an antihypertensive agent
with proven risk reduction (reducing morbidity
and mortality) when choosing medications for
your patients with hypertension?
Not important
Slightly important
Somewhat important
Extremely important
Use your keypad to vote now!