Differences in goal attainment in clinical management of dyslipidemia in China evaluated by different guidelines / 中华心血管病杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To better understand the similarities and disparities between the newly issued Chinese Guidelines on Prevention and Treatment of Dyslipidemia in Adults (CG) and exist relevant guidelines by comparing the actual effect on assessment of current clinical management of dyslipidemia in China, in order to promote the use of CG in clinical practice.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Study participants included 2094 patients from the Second Multi-center Survey of Dyslipidemia Management in China. The goal attainment rate was defined as the proportion of participants who achieved their target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels specified by CG, the Chinese Expert Recommendations on Prevention and Treatment of Dyslipidemia (CR), the updated Adult Treatment Panel III of the National Cholesterol Education Program (ATP III), respectively.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>(1) The overall goal attainment rates were 62%, 34% and 50% according to CR, ATP III and CG, respectively. (2) With reference to the CG risk stratifications, the risk of nearly 40% of high risk patients and all very high risk patients were underestimated by CR, whereas the risk of more than 40% of patients in any risk groups were overestimated by ATP III. (3) The disparities in risk stratifications accounted for 90% of the difference in overall goal attainment rate (12%) between CR and CG, while the disparities in the risk stratifications and that in LDL-C target levels were responsible for 29% and 71% of the difference (16%) , respectively, between ATP III and CG.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>There were significant differences in goal attainment rates assessed by different clinical practice guidelines. CG is more aggressive in risk stratification than CR but simpler and easier to use than ATP III, and hence more appropriate to Chinese patients and should be widely promoted in China.</p>

Efficacy and safety of the single pill combination of valsartan 80 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertensive patients without adequate blood pressure control by monotherapy / 中华心血管病杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a once daily valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg combination tablet in Chinese mild to moderate hypertensive patients without adequate blood pressure control by monotherapy.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double dummy, active-controlled, parallel group trials were conducted. After a washout period (no medication) of 1-4 weeks, patients with Mean Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure (MSDBP) > or = 95 mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa) and < 110 mm Hg received a monotherapy of either Amlodipine 5 mg (in study 1) or valsartan 80 mg (in study 2) for 4 weeks. Patients with MSDBP > or = 90 mm Hg and < 110 mm Hg at the end of the monotherapy period were randomized to receive valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg treatment, or continue with the monotherapy.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In study 1, compared with amlodipine 5 mg, valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg once daily further reduced mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP)/MSDBP 4.4/3 mm Hg (P < 0.0001). In study 2, compared with valsartan 80 mg, valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg once daily further reduced MSSBP/MSDBP 6.4/4.2 mm Hg (P < 0.0001). The blood pressure (BP) control rates (BP < 140/90 mm Hg) of combination treatment group were 71.0% and 71.2% respectively, and significantly higher than the monotherapy groups in both trials. Incidence of adverse events was comparable in monotherapy and combination therapy groups.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Our results showed that valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg was superior to amlodipine 5 mg or valsartan 80 mg alone in lowering blood pressure and BP control in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not adequately controlled with amlodipine 5 mg or valsartan 80 mg monotherapy. No new or unexpected safety issues were identified with valsartan/amlodipine combination therapy compared with monotherapy.</p>

Cut offs and risk stratification of dyslipidemia in Chinese adults / 中华心血管病杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To establish cut offs and risk stratification of dyslipidemia in Chinese adults.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Data from 2 widely cited studies: the PRC-US Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular and Cardiopulmonary Epidemiology and the China Multi-Provincial Cardiovascular Cohort Study, with a total of 40 719 Chinese adults, age 35 to 64 at baseline, about half men and half women, followed up for a total of 345 140.5 person years, were used to analyze the relationship between dyslipidemia and ischemic cardiovascular diseases (ICVD, including coronary heart events and ischemic stroke events) using a common data analysis protocol co-developed by the scientists from the 2 studies. The relative risk was estimated with the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for other conventional cardiovascular risk factors. The 10-year absolute risk of ICVD for a 50 years-old person at different risk factor combinations was used to develop the risk stratification.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>(1) There was a continuous linear relationship between baseline TC (or LDL-C) and ICVD risk without a threshold; (2) The incidence (absolute risk) of ICVD was similar for LDL-C < 3.37 mmol/L (130 mg/dl) and for TC < 5.18 mmol/L (200 mg/dl); and similar for LDL-C < 4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dl) and for TC < 6.22 mmol/L (240 mg/dl); (3) The absolute ICVD risk for TC > or = 6.22 mmol/L (240 mg/dl) was slightly less but close to that for grade 1 hypertension; (4) ICVD risk increased as HDL-C decreased; (5) No significant association was found between baseline TG and subsequent ICVD; (6) At any TC level, the absolute ICVD risk for those having only hypertension was higher than that for those having 3 other risk factors.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The cut offs for diagnosis of dyslipidemia in Chinese adults can refer to those used in relevant international guidelines: TC < 5.18 mmol/L (200 mg/dl) [or LDL-C < 3.37 mmol/L (130 mg/dl)] as normal, TC 5.18 - 6.19 mmol/L (200 - 239 mg/dl) [or LDL-C 3.37 - 4.12 mmol/L (130 - 159 mg/dl)] as borderline high, and TC > or = 6.22 mmol/L (240 mg/dl) [or LDL-C > or = 4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dl)] as high; HDL-C < 1.04 mmol/L (40 mg/dl) as low, 1.04 - 1.53 mmol/L (40 - 59 mg/dl) as normal and > or = 1.55 mmol/L (60 mg/dl) as optimal. In risk stratification scheme, hypertension plays a role that equals to that of any other 3 risk factors.</p>

The angiographic features of exercise-induced ST-segment elevation in patients without myocardial infarction / 中华心血管病杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To explore the incidence and angiographic features of exercise-induced ST-segment elevation in patients without prior myocardial infarction.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Exercise-induced ST-segment elevation occurred in 15 out of 4601 consecutive patients without prior myocardial infarction underwent treadmill exercise testing during a 2-year period. The coronary angiographic features of the 15 patients (13 males, aged between 40 - 75 years) were analyzed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Coronary angiography revealed one hemodynamically relevant stenotic vessel in 6 patients, two hemodynamically relevant stenotic vessels in 6 patients, three hemodynamically relevant stenotic vessels in 3 patients. Left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery was affected in 12 patients. Left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis was evidenced in 1 patient and right coronary artery stenosis in 7 patients. Severe (90% - 100%) occlusions were visualized in 8 out of 13 patients with LAD or LMCA lesions. Elevated ST-segment leads were consistent with the ischemic area where the blood supply of myocardium was affected by diseased vessels.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The incidence of exercise induced ST-segment elevation in patients without prior myocardial infarction is very low and mostly due to severe fixed coronary artery stenosis, especially in LAD. The location of ischemic myocardium can be suggested by ST-segment elevation leads during exercise.</p>

Therapeutic efficacy of valsartan and valsartan/HCTZ in mild to moderate hypertensive patients / 中华心血管病杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To assess the efficacy and safety of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 80/12.5 mg once daily (o.d.) in Chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension who was not adequately controlled by valsartan 80 mg o.d. monotherapy.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>In this multi-center, double-blind, randomized, active controlled, parallel group trial, 1051 out of 1175 Chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension [DBP >or= 95 mm Hg and < 110 mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa)] completed single-blind run-in period (valsartan 80 mg o.d. therapy for 4 weeks) after 2 week's wash-out period. At the end of the single-blind run-in period, those patients with DBP >or= 95 mm Hg (n = 864) were randomized in 1:1 ratio to Valsartan and Valsartan 80 mg (n = 429)/HCTZ80/12.5 mg (n = 435) treatment o.d. for 8 weeks. Safety and efficacy was assessed every 4 weeks during double blind phase.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>At the end of study, valsartan/HCTZ 80/12.5 mg combination treatment further reduced systolic (-3.5 mm Hg) and diastolic (-2.2 mm Hg) pressures and increased the rate of patients reaching goal BP level (53.9% vs. 40.9%) compared to valsartan 80 mg o.d. monotherapy. Incidence of side effects was similar between the combination therapy and monotherapy groups (8.9% vs. 5.1%, P > 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Efficacy of Valsartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg compound was superior to valsartan 80 mg on BP reduction and goal BP control rate in Chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. The combination of Valsartan 80 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg provides a suitable treatment for Chinese patients who are not adequately controlled by valsartan 80 mg o.d. monotherapy.</p>

Efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil versus losartan potassium in Chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension / 中华心血管病杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil compared with losartan potassium in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.</p><p><b>METHOD</b>This is a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel, multi-center study. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, a total of 287 eligible subjects were randomized at 1:1 ratio to receive olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg or losartan potassium 50 mg, once daily for 8 weeks. The blood pressure was assessed after 4 weeks treatment. If the subject's seating diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) was still >or=90 mm Hg, the dosage was doubled for another 4 weeks; for those subjects whose SeDBP was <90 mm Hg after 4-week treatment, the initial dosage remained unchanged and the treatment continued until completion of the study.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>(1) The mean trough reduction in SeDBP from baseline in olmesartan group was significantly greater than that in losartan group after 4 weeks (11.72 mm Hg vs 9.23 mm Hg, P=0.004) and 8 weeks treatment (12.94 mm Hg vs 11.01 mm Hg, P=0.035). (2) The number and percentage of responders in olmesartan group (81, 65.3%) were statistically higher than those (68, 52.7%) in losartan group (P=0.028) after 4 weeks treatment and were similar between the two groups after 8 weeks treatment (P>0.05). (3) Individual and overall trough/peak ratios of DBP and SBP in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring were higher in olmesartan group than losartan group. The hypotensive effect of olmesartan was more durable than losartan at 24 hour interval. (4) The incidence of study drug-related adverse events (AEs) in olmesartan group (10.5%) was similar as that in losartan group (13.9%, P>0.05). Most of these AEs were mild and transient.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>This study shows that olmesartan medoxomil, at oral dose of 20 mg-40 mg once daily was effective and safe for hypertension treatment and the hypotensive effect was superior to losartan potassium (50 mg-100 mg once daily).</p>