Hepatic steatosis, carotid atherosclerosis and metabolic syndrome: the STEATO Study.

PURPOSE: Hepatic steatosis is frequently observed in subjects with metabolic syndrome (MS). In type 2 diabetics, it is independently associated with cardiovascular diseases. In order to confirm and extend this finding, a large group of patients with risk factors for atherosclerosis was studied. METHODS: Carotid atherosclerosis was investigated by echo-Doppler, and hepatic steatosis by ultrasound and transaminase values. Strict exclusion criteria were chosen in order to avoid secondary forms of fatty liver and interference on transaminase values. RESULTS: Among 970 enrolled patients, about 20% were diabetics, half had MS and 76% presented echographic hepatic steatosis. In multivariate analyses, fatty liver and MS were associated with carotid atherosclerosis [odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) 2.15 (1.27-3.63) and 1.72(1.12-2.64), respectively], whereas HOMA index was not. Aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase were not independently associated with carotid atherosclerosis, whereas gamma-glutamyl transferase showed a link with atherosclerosis beyond MS and steatosis presence. The analyses of the 780 non diabetics recruited showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate that hepatic steatosis measured by echography is associated with carotid atherosclerosis in a large population mostly carrying cardiovascular or metabolic risk factors, independently of MS, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus and/or insulin resistance.

Ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure for the assessment of anti hypertensive efficacy in clinical trials: insights from the Val-Syst Study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have found that measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the clinical setting may lead to overestimation of hypertension and may yield inaccurate assessments of the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of clinic BP in the Valsartan and Amlodipine for the Treatment of Isolated Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (Val-Syst) study accurately identified those elderly outpatients with systolic hypertension who had true 24-hour elevations in BP, as well as those who required dose increases in antihypertensive therapy during follow-up. METHODS: In Val-Syst, patients aged between 60 and 80 years with a clinic sitting systolic BP (SBP) of 160 to 220 mm Hg and a diastolic BP <90 mm Hg after a 2-week placebo washout period were randomized to receive valsartan 80 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily (level 1). In those with a trough SBP > or =140 mm Hg after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, doses were titrated upward to valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily (level 2). If clinic SBP was > or =140 mm Hg after a further 8 weeks, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added for an additional 8 weeks (level 3). Clinical decisions during the active-treatment period were based on clinic BP measurements. Thirteen of the 35 participating centers assessed ambulatory BP as well as clinic BP at baseline and the end of the treatment, making it possible to compare the results of the 2 modes of measurement. The Student test was used to compare drug-induced changes in clinic and ambulatory BP in individual patients. Differences between the decreases in clinic and ambulatory BP at the 3 treatment levels were tested using repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with baseline as the covariate. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four elderly patients (age range, 60-80 years; 85 men, 79 women) were included in the study (79 valsartan, 85 amlodipine), and valsartan and amlodipine were reported to have comparable effects on the level and rhythm of 24-hour BP In the present study, 22 of 164 patients had white-coat hypertension at baseline (clinic SBP > or =160 mm Hg and mean 24-hour SBP <130 mm Hg). For both treatments combined, the mean (SD) decreases in clinic SBP were inversely proportional to the treatment level (level 1 = -33.2 (7.9) mm Hg; level 2 = -31.6 (11.8) mm Hg; level 3 = -29.3 (11.6) mm Hg; P = 0.001, overall ANCOVA). In contrast, after adjusting for baseline values, the decreases in mean 24-hour SBP did not differ between treatment levels (level 1 = -10.8 [10.4] mm Hg; level 2 = -13.0 [11.2] mm Hg; level 3 = -16.4 [13.8] mm Hg). The decrease in clinic BP during therapy was similar in patients with white-coat hypertension and sustained hypertension (clinic SBP > or 160 mm Hg and mean 24-hour SBP > or =130 mm Hg), whereas 24-hour and 8- to 9-am SBP decreased significantly only in patients with sustained hypertension (P < 0.001). At the end of the study, mean 24-hour SBP continued to be uncontrolled (> or =130 mm Hg) in 16 of 53 patients (30.2%) at treatment level 1, 27 of 62 (43.5%) at level 2, and 19 of 49 (38.8%) at level 3 (P = NS). CONCLUSION: Based on the findings in this population of elderly patients with systolic hypertension, the management of hypertension may vary depending on whether decisions concerning the selection of patients for clinical trials and treatment adjustments during follow-up are made using clinic or ambulatory BP measurement.

Comparison of valsartan 160 mg with lisinopril 20 mg, given as monotherapy or in combination with a diuretic, for the treatment of hypertension: the Blood Pressure Reduction and Tolerability of Valsartan in Comparison with Lisinopril (PREVAIL) study.

BACKGROUND: The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to provide good blood pressure (BP) control without eliciting adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the risk-benefit profile of the angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan with that of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with mild to severe hypertension. The primary objective was to show that the equipotent BP-lowering effect of the valsartan-based treatment is accompanied by a better tolerability profile. METHODS: This 16-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted at 88 outpatient centers across Italy. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients aged > or = 18 years with mild to severe hypertension (systolic BP [SBP], 160-220 mm Hg; diastolic BP [DBP], 95-110 mm Hg) were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily, oral, self-administered treatment with valsartan 160-mg capsules or lisinopril 20-mg capsules under double-blind conditions for 4 weeks. Responders continued monotherapy, whereas nonresponders had hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg added for the final 12 weeks of the study. The 2 primary variables used to assess the equivalence of therapeutic efficacy of the 2 regimens were sitting SBP and sitting DBP, which were measured at weeks 0 (baseline), 4, 8, and 16. The rate of drug-related adverse events (AEs) was used to assess whether 1 treatment had a better tolerability profile than the other. Tolerability was assessed by collecting information about AEs by means of questioning the patient or physical examination at each visit. RESULTS: A total of 1213 patients were enrolled (635 men, 578 women; mean [SD] age, 54.5 [10.1] years [range, 28-78 years]). The study was completed by 1100 patients (553 receiving valsartan and 547 receiving lisinopril). Fifty-one patients (8.4%) treated with valsartan and 62 (10.2%) [corrected] treated with lisinopril withdrew, mainly because of AEs (9 [1.5%] and 23 patients [3.8%], respectively). The valsartan- and lisinopril-based treatments were similarly effective in reducing sitting BP, with mean SBP/DBP reductions of 31.2/15.9 mm Hg and 31.4/15.9 mm Hg, respectively. At the end of the study, BP was controlled in 82.6% [corrected] of the patients receiving valsartan and 81.6% of those receiving lisinopril. AEs were experienced by 5.1% of the patients treated with valsartan and 10.7% of those treated with lisinopril (P=.0001), with dry cough observed in 1.0% and 7.2% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan and lisinopril were both highly effective in controlling BP in these patients with mild to severe hypertension, but valsartan was associated with a significantly reduced risk for AEs, especially cough.

Comparison of the effects on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure of valsartan and amlodipine, alone or in combination with a low-dose diuretic, in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (Val-syst Study).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the time-effect profiles of a once-daily administration of valsartan and amlodipine, each given alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, in terms of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and heart rate in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-four elderly outpatients with systolic hypertension received valsartan 80 mg (n=79) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=85) once daily for eight weeks, after which the patients with poorly controlled office BP were up-titrated to valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily. If their office systolic BP was still >140 mmHg after eight weeks at these doses, 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide was added for a further eight weeks. The hourly BP decreases in all of the patients were calculated on the basis of 24-h ambulatory recordings made after the placebo period and at the end of active treatment. The trough/peak ratio and smoothness index were calculated in the responders. RESULTS: Both the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments effectively lowered mean 24-h, daytime and night-time systolic ambulatory BP (all p<0.001) without any significant differences between the two regimens. Ambulatory heart rate decreased in the subjects on valsartan and slightly increased in those on amlodipine (the differences in 24-h and daytime heart rate were significant (p=0.008 and 0.002 respectively). Among the 138 responders, the valsartan-based treatment had a greater anti-hypertensive effect during the daytime hours (p=0.02), a difference that was also significant for average 24-h BP (p=0.02). The mean systolic BP trough/peak ratio was 0.56 in the patients on valsartan, and 0.77 in those on amlodipine (NS). The smoothness index was respectively 1.70 and 1.58 (NS). CONCLUSIONS: The present results show that both the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments lead to a similar long-term reduction in 24-h systolic BP. However, in treatment responders, valsartan has a greater anti-hypertensive effect during the daytime.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group comparison of valsartan and amlodipine in the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in elderly patients: the Val-Syst study.

BACKGROUND: Some antihypertensive therapies are limited by dose-dependent adverse effects (AEs). The angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan has been shown to reduce blood pressure (BP) in a dose-related manner with minimal dose-limiting AEs. Amlodipine besylate is a potent dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker also with dose-related antihypertensive efficacy, but with possible dose-limiting AEs, particularly peripheral edema. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the risk/benefit profiles of valsartan and amlodipine in elderly patients who have isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). METHODS: This 24-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, titration-to-effect, parallel-group study was conducted at 35 outpatient centers in Italy. Elderly (aged 60-80 years) patients with ISH received oral treatment with valsartan 80-mg capsules or amlodipine 5-mg capsules once daily. After 8 weeks of treatment, the dose of the patients with poorly controlled systolic BP (SBP) was titrated to 160 mg (valsartan) or 10 mg (amlodipine) once daily. At week 16, if trough SBP was still not adequately controlled, a low-dose diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 12.5 mg) was added to the treatment regimen for an additional 8 weeks. Tolerability was assessed at all study visits using physical examination and patient interview. RESULTS: Of 421 randomized patients (231 women, 190 men; mean [SD] age, 69 [6] years), 208 were included in the valsartan group, and 213 in the amlodipine group. The efficacy of valsartan-based treatment. in reducing SBP was similar to that of amlodipine-based treatment. With doubled doses, efficacy (change in SBP) increased significantly from baseline (both P < 0.01). The frequency of AEs doubled with amlodipine 10 mg but was not clinically relevant with valsartan 160 mg. Overall, AEs were observed in 31.9% of those receiving amlodipine versus 20.2% of the patients receiving valsartan (P < 0.003), with peripheral edema rates of 26.8% and 4.8%, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study population of elderly patients with ISH, valsartan-given alone or in combination with HCTZ 12.5 mg-showed similar efficacy but better tolerability than amlodipine-based treatment.