| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Parati, G, et al.
(författare)
-
MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on office BP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study: a randomised controlled trial protocol
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:12, s. e021038-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) carries an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications and can be identified through combined use of office (O) and ambulatory (A) blood pressure (BP) monitoring (M) in treated patients. However, it is still debated whether the information carried by ABPM should be considered for MUCH management. Aim of the MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on OBP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study is to assess the impact on outcome of MUCH management based on OBPM or ABPM.Methods and analysisMASTER is a 4-year prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint investigation. A total of 1240 treated hypertensive patients from about 40 secondary care clinical centres worldwide will be included -upon confirming presence of MUCH (repeated on treatment OBP <140/90 mm Hg, and at least one of the following: daytime ABP ≥135/85 mm Hg; night-time ABP ≥120/70 mm Hg; 24 hour ABP ≥130/80 mm Hg), and will be randomised to a management strategy based on OBPM (group 1) or on ABPM (group 2). Patients in group 1 will have OBP measured at 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months and taken as a guide for treatment; ABPM will be performed at randomisation and at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months but will not be used to take treatment decisions. Patients randomised to group 2 will have ABPM performed at randomisation and all scheduled visits as a guide to antihypertensive treatment. The effects of MUCH management strategy based on ABPM or on OBPM on CV and renal intermediate outcomes (changing left ventricular mass and microalbuminuria, coprimary outcomes) at 1 year and on CV events at 4 years and on changes in BP-related variables will be assessed.Ethics and disseminationMASTER study protocol has received approval by the ethical review board of Istituto Auxologico Italiano. The procedures set out in this protocol are in accordance with principles of Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Results will be published in accordance with the CONSORT statement in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Trial registration numberNCT02804074; Pre-results.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ciulla, M. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Different effects of antihypertensive therapies based on losartan or atenolol on ultrasound and biochemical markers of myocardial fibrosis: results of a randomized trial
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 110:5, s. 552-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), myocardial texture is altered by a disproportionate increase in fibrosis, but there is insufficient clinical evidence whether antihypertensive therapy or individual agents can induce regression of myocardial fibrosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the effects of an angiotensin II receptor antagonist with a beta-blocker on myocardial collagen volume (assessed by echoreflectivity and serum collagen markers) in 219 hypertensive patients with echocardiographically documented LVH. Patients were allocated randomly to receive losartan 50 to 100 mg/d (n=111) or atenolol 50 to 100 mg/d (n=99) with or without hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 to 25 mg/d for 36 weeks. Echoreflectivity analysis was conducted on ultrasound tracings of the midapex septum with specifically designed and validated software. A color histogram of reflecting echoes was obtained, and its spread (broadband [BB], previously shown to correlate directly with collagen volume fraction on endomyocardial biopsies) was used as the primary outcome measure. Mean color scale and serum markers of collagen synthesis (PIP, PIIIP) or degradation (CITP) were secondary outcome variables. Echoreflectivity analysis proved feasible in 106 patients (losartan 52, atenolol 54). Losartan reduced BB over 36 weeks (from 114.5 to 104.3 color levels, P<0.02), whereas atenolol treatment was associated with an increase in BB (from 109.0 to 113.6 color levels, P=NS), the difference between treatments being -12.8 color levels (95% CI -23.6 to -2.0, P=0.02). Secondary end points (mean color scale and collagen markers) also changed in the direction of decreased collagen in patients receiving losartan, but differences between groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with LVH, losartan decreases myocardial collagen content, whereas atenolol does not. The difference between the 2 treatments is statistically significant.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Teo, Koon K., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, candesartan, and losartan on cancers in 15 trials enrolling 138 769 individuals The ARB Trialists Collaboration
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 29:4, s. 623-635
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but a recent meta-analysis of selected studies suggested that ARBs may increase cancer risks.Objective Candesartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, valsartan, and losartan were assessed for incident cancers in 15 large parallel long-term multicenter double-blind clinical trials of these agents involving 138 769 participants.Patients and methods Individuals at high CVD risk were randomized to telmisartan (three trials, n=51 878), irbesartan (three trials, n=14 859), valsartan (four trials, n=44 264), candesartan (four trials, n=18 566), and losartan (one trial, n=9193) and followed for 23-60 months. Incident cancer cases were compared in patients randomized to ARBs versus controls. In five trials (n=42 403), the ARBs were compared to ACEi and in 11 trials (n=63 313) to controls without ACEi. In addition, in seven trials (n=47 020), the effect of ARBs with ACEi was compared to ACEi alone and in two trials ARBs with ACEi versus ARB alone (n=25 712).Results Overall, there was no excess of cancer incidence with ARB therapy compared to controls in the 15 trials [ 4549 (6.16%) cases of 73 808 allocated to ARB versus 3856 (6.31%) of 61 106 assigned to non-ARB controls; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.04] overall or when individual ARBs were examined. ORs comparing combination therapy with ARB along with ACEi versus ACEi was 1.01 (95% CI 0.94-1.10), combination versus ARB alone 1.02 (95% CI 0.91-1.13), ARB alone versus ACEi alone 1.06 (95% CI 0.97-1.16) and ARB versus placebo/control without ACEi 0.97 (95% CI 0.91-1.04). There was no excess of lung, prostate or breast cancer, or overall cancer deaths associated with ARB treatment.Conclusion There was no significant increase in the overall or site-specific cancer risk from ARBs compared to controls.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
