Dual‐Targeted Therapy in Cardiometabolic Risk: A Meta‐Analysis of Telmisartan‐Based Combinations for Hypertension and Dyslipidemia

BackgroundMentha consumption may associated with blood pressure improvement in humans, but the recent evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed inconsistent results. The present study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to investigate the effect of Mentha on blood pressure.MethodsTo cover all relevant literature, a complete search was conducted across PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases before March 2024 using PRISMA guidelines. In addition, Google Scholar, SID databases, the reference lists of the related reviews, and meta-analyses were searched for this purpose. Also, a “snowball search” was applied to include other relevant trials that may have been missed. A random-effects model was used for quantitative data synthesis, with weight mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Standard methodologies were utilized to assess kappa statistics between the authors, GRADE evidence profiles, heterogeneity, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias.ResultsOut of 476 publications identified, seven RCTs were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. There was perfect agreement in study selection between the reviewers (К statistic, 0.86; p < 0.001). Meta-analysis showed a 1.227 mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (95% CI: -6.61,4.16, p = 0.655), 2.997 mmHg reduction in long-term SBP (95% CI: -8.00,2.00, p = 0.241), 1.830 mmHg reduction in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (95% CI: -5.06,1.40, p = 0.268), and 2.857 mmHg reduction in long-term DBP (95% CI: -6.01, 0.30, p = 0.076) after Mentha consumption in intervention group compared to control. In sub-group analysis, a statistically and clinically significant reduction in SBP and DBP was observed in the participants with ages above 30 years and in the participants with SBP > 130 mmHg or DBP > 80 mmHg.ConclusionsOur findings showed that Mentha consumption might not have a statistically significant effect on lowering SBP, DBP, long-term SBP, and long-term DBP. However, it can lead to a clinically significant reduction in both long-term SBP and long-term DBP. Besides, Mentha may have potential benefits for patients with pre-hypertension and hypertension. Nevertheless, further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm our results.PROSPERO Registration No: CRD42023459490

Many randomised trials assessing the effect of salt reduction on blood pressure show reduction in blood pressure in individuals with high blood pressure. However, there is controversy about the magnitude and the clinical significance of the fall in blood pressure in individuals with normal blood pressure. Several meta-analyses of randomised salt reduction trials have been published in the last few years. However, most of these included trials of very short duration (e.g. 5 days) and included trials with salt loading followed by salt deprivation (e.g. from 20 to 1 g/day) over only a few days. These short-term experiments are not appropriate to inform public health policy which is for a modest reduction in salt intake over a prolonged period of time. A meta-analysis by Hooper et al is an important attempt to look at whether advice to achieve a long-term salt reduction (i.e. more than 6 months) in randomised trials causes a fall in blood pressure. However, most trials included in this meta-analysis achieved a small reduction in salt intake; on average, salt intake was reduced by 2 g/day. It is, therefore, not surprising that this analysis showed a small fall in blood pressure, and that a dose-response to salt reduction was not demonstrable. To assess the effect of the currently recommended modest reduction in salt intake (WHO 2003; SACN 2003; Whelton 2002), on blood pressure in individuals with normal and elevated blood pressure. To assess whether the magnitude of the reduction in blood pressure is dependent on the magnitude of the reduction in salt intake. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, and reference list of original and review articles. We included randomised trials with a modest reduction in salt intake and a duration of 4 or more weeks. Data were extracted independently by two persons. Mean effect sizes were calculated using both fixed and random effect models using Review Manager 4.2.1 software. Weighted linear regression was used to examine the relationship between the change in urinary sodium and the change in blood pressure. We used funnel plots to detect publication and other biases in the meta-analysis. Seventeen trials in individuals with elevated blood pressure (n=734) and 11 trials in individuals with normal blood pressure (n=2220) were included. In individuals with elevated blood pressure the median reduction in 24-h urinary sodium excretion was 78 mmol (4.6 g/day of salt), the mean reduction in systolic blood pressure was -4.97 mmHg (95%CI:-5.76 to -4.18), and the mean reduction in diastolic blood pressure was -2.74 mmHg (95% CI:-3.22 to -2.26). In individuals with normal blood pressure the median reduction in 24-h urinary sodium excretion was 74 mmol (4.4 g/day of salt), the mean reduction in systolic blood pressure was -2.03 mmHg (95% CI: -2.56 to -1.50) mmHg, and the mean reduction in diastolic blood pressure was -0.99 mmHg (-1.40 to -0.57). Weighted linear regression analyses showed a correlation between the reduction in urinary sodium and the reduction in blood pressure. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that a modest reduction in salt intake for a duration of 4 or more weeks has a significant and, from a population viewpoint, important effect on blood pressure in both individuals with normal and elevated blood pressure. These results support other evidence suggesting that a modest and long-term reduction in population salt intake could reduce strokes, heart attacks, and heart failure. Furthermore, our meta-analysis demonstrates a correlation between the magnitude of salt reduction and the magnitude of blood pressure reduction. Within the daily intake range of 3 to 12 g/day, the lower the salt intake achieved, the lower the blood pressure.

Digital health interventions are effective for hypertension self-management, but a comparison of the effectiveness and implementation of the different modes of interventions is not currently available. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of SMS, smartphone application, and website interventions on improving blood pressure in adults with hypertension, and to report on their reach, uptake, and feasibility. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and APA PsycInfo on May 25, 2022, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English from Jan 1, 2009, that examined the effectiveness of digital health interventions on reducing blood pressure in adults with hypertension. Screening was carried out using Covidence, and data were extracted following Cochrane's guidelines. The primary endpoint was change in the mean of systolic blood pressure. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. Data on systolic and diastolic blood pressure reduction were synthesised in a meta-analysis, and data on reach, uptake and feasibility were summarised narratively. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the level of evidence. The study was registered with PROSPERO CRD42021247845. Of the 3235 records identified, 29 RCTs from 13 regions (n=7592 participants) were included in the systematic review, and 28 of these RCTs (n=7092 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. 11 studies used SMS as the primary mode of delivery of the digital health intervention, 13 used smartphone applications, and five used websites. Overall, digital health intervention group participants had a -3·62 mm Hg (95% CI -5·22 to -2·02) greater reduction in systolic blood pressure, and a -2·45 mm Hg (-3·83 to -1·07) greater reduction in diastolic blood pressure, compared with control group participants. No statistically significant differences between the three different modes of delivery were observed for both the systolic (p=0·73) and the diastolic blood pressure (p=0·80) outcomes. Smartphone application interventions had a statistically significant reduction in diastolic blood pressure (-2·45 mm Hg [-4·15 to -0·74]); however, there were no statistically significant reductions for SMS interventions (-1·80 mm Hg [-4·60 to 1·00]) or website interventions (-3·43 mm Hg [-7·24 to 0·38]). Due to the considerable heterogeneity between included studies and the high risk of bias in some, the level of evidence was assigned a low overall score. Interventions were more effective among people with greater severity of hypertension at baseline. SMS interventions reported higher reach and smartphone application studies reported higher uptake, but differences were not statistically significant. SMS, smartphone application, and website interventions were associated with statistically and clinically significant systolic and diastolic blood pressure reductions, compared with usual care, regardless of the mode of delivery of the intervention. This conclusion is tempered by the considerable heterogeneity of included studies and the high risk of bias in most. Future studies need to describe in detail the mediators and moderators of the effectiveness and implementation of these interventions, to both further improve their effectiveness as well as increase their reach, uptake, and feasibility. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme.

A reduction in salt intake lowers blood pressure (BP) and, thereby, reduces cardiovascular risk. A recent meta-analysis by Graudal implied that salt reduction had adverse effects on hormones and lipids which might mitigate any benefit that occurs with BP reduction. However, Graudal's meta-analysis included a large number of very short-term trials with a large change in salt intake, and such studies are irrelevant to the public health recommendations for a longer-term modest reduction in salt intake. We have updated our Cochrane meta-analysis. To assess (1) the effect of a longer-term modest reduction in salt intake (i.e. of public health relevance) on BP and whether there was a dose-response relationship; (2) the effect on BP by sex and ethnic group; (3) the effect on plasma renin activity, aldosterone, noradrenaline, adrenaline, cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglycerides. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and reference list of relevant articles. We included randomised trials with a modest reduction in salt intake and duration of at least 4 weeks. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analyses, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed. Thirty-four trials (3230 participants) were included. Meta-analysis showed that the mean change in urinary sodium (reduced salt vs usual salt) was -75 mmol/24-h (equivalent to a reduction of 4.4 g/d salt), the mean change in BP was -4.18 mmHg (95% CI: -5.18 to -3.18, I (2)=75%) for systolic and -2.06 mmHg (95% CI: -2.67 to -1.45, I (2)=68%) for diastolic BP. Meta-regression showed that age, ethnic group, BP status (hypertensive or normotensive) and the change in 24-h urinary sodium were all significantly associated with the fall in systolic BP, explaining 68% of the variance between studies. A 100 mmol reduction in 24 hour urinary sodium (6 g/day salt) was associated with a fall in systolic BP of 5.8 mmHg (95%CI: 2.5 to 9.2, P=0.001) after adjusting for age, ethnic group and BP status. For diastolic BP, age, ethnic group, BP status and the change in 24-h urinary sodium explained 41% of the variance between studies. Meta-analysis by subgroup showed that, in hypertensives, the mean effect was -5.39 mmHg (95% CI: -6.62 to -4.15, I (2)=61%) for systolic and -2.82 mmHg (95% CI: -3.54 to -2.11, I (2)=52%) for diastolic BP. In normotensives, the mean effect was -2.42 mmHg (95% CI: -3.56 to -1.29, I (2)=66%) for systolic and -1.00 mmHg (95% CI: -1.85 to -0.15, I (2)=66%) for diastolic BP. Further subgroup analysis showed that the decrease in systolic BP was significant in both whites and blacks, men and women. Meta-analysis of hormone and lipid data showed that the mean effect was 0.26 ng/ml/hr (95% CI: 0.17 to 0.36, I (2)=70%) for plasma renin activity, 73.20 pmol/l (95% CI: 44.92 to 101.48, I (2)=62%) for aldosterone, 31.67 pg/ml (95% CI: 6.57 to 56.77, I (2)=5%) for noradrenaline, 6.70 pg/ml (95% CI: -0.25 to 13.64, I (2)=12%) for adrenaline, 0.05 mmol/l (95% CI: -0.02 to 0.11, I (2)=0%) for cholesterol, 0.05 mmol/l (95% CI: -0.01 to 0.12, I (2)=0%) for LDL, -0.02 mmol/l (95% CI: -0.06 to 0.01, I (2)=16%) for HDL, and 0.04 mmol/l (95% CI: -0.02 to 0.09, I (2)=0%) for triglycerides. A modest reduction in salt intake for 4 or more weeks causes significant and, from a population viewpoint, important falls in BP in both hypertensive and normotensive individuals, irrespective of sex and ethnic group. With salt reduction, there is a small physiological increase in plasma renin activity, aldosterone and noradrenaline. There is no significant change in lipid levels. These results provide further strong support for a reduction in population salt intake. This will likely lower population BP and, thereby, reduce cardiovascular disease. Additionally, our analysis demonstrates a significant association between the reduction in 24-h urinary sodium and the fall in systolic BP, indicating the greater the reduction in salt intake, the greater the fall in systolic BP. The current recommendations to reduce salt intake from 9-12 to 5-6 g/d will have a major effect on BP, but are not ideal. A further reduction to 3 g/d will have a greater effect and should become the long term target for population salt intake.

To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of amlodipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) measured by office and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) during treatment and, after patients have missed two doses. After a single blind run-in 4-week placebo period, 58 patients were randomly allocated to amlodipine (5mg/daily, n=30) or nifedipine GITS (30mg/daily; n=28) in a double-blind, double dummy fashion. Patients received active medication for 4 weeks. Then, to simulate failure of compliance, patients received two single blinded doses of placebo. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was carried out at the end of run-in placebo phase, the first day, the last day of active treatment and up to 72h after the last active dose. Diastolic blood pressure was controlled in 61.9% patients on amlodipine and 52.9% on nifedipine GITS. Reductions in blood pressure were similar in both groups. ABPM showed significant reduction in blood pressure from the first day in the nifedipine GITS group, while amlodipine group had marginal effect. Peak reduction in systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 26/15mmHg at 5-6h after ingestion of amlodipine tablets. The trough reduction was 22/13mmHg; with a trough-to-peak ratio of 84.61% for systolic and 86.67% for diastolic blood pressure. Peak reduction in systolic/diastolic blood pressure with nifedipine GITS was 19/15mmHg and the trough reduction was 21/17mmHg, giving a trough-to-peak ratio of 100% for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. When patients received placebo after 4 weeks of active treatment, simulating a compliance failure, amlodipine maintained reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure for at least up to 72h after the last active dose, maintaining 57.71% of the effect for systolic blood pressure and 60.00% for diastolic blood pressure. In contrast, nifedipine GITS effect was rapidly lost during this study phase, with a reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure of only 14-16%, 72h after the last active dose. This study showed that amlodipine and nifedipine GITS reduce blood pressure to about the same extent during chronic treatment. In the case of compliance failure, such as missing one or two doses, amlodipine maintained significant and important antihypertensive effect with the trough-to-peak ratio still over 50% 72h after the last active dose. On the other hand, the coverage of nifedipine GITS was limited to about 36h after the last active dose.

AHA 2012: Prevention a key focus of meeting

Analysis of Recent Papers in Hypertension. Jan Basile, MD, Section Editor

Eplerenone is an aldosterone receptor blocker that is chemically derived from spironolactone. In Canada, it is indicated for use as adjunctive therapy to reduce mortality for heart failure patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II systolic chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. It is also used as adjunctive therapy for patients with heart failure following myocardial infarction. Additionally, it is indicated for the treatment of mild and moderate essential hypertension for patients who cannot be treated adequately with other agents. It is important to determine the clinical impact of all antihypertensive medications, including aldosterone antagonists, to support their continued use in essential hypertension. No previous systematic reviews have evaluated the effect of eplerenone on cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and magnitude of blood pressure lowering in patients with hypertension. To assess the effects of eplerenone monotherapy versus placebo for primary hypertension in adults. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events (fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction), cerebrovascular events (fatal or non fatal strokes), adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 3 March 2016. We handsearched references from retrieved studies to identify any studies missed in the initial search. We also searched for unpublished data by contacting the corresponding authors of the included studies and pharmaceutical companies involved in conducting studies on eplerenone monotherapy in primary hypertension. The search had no language restrictions. We selected randomized placebo-controlled trials studying adult patients with primary hypertension. We excluded studies in people with secondary or gestational hypertension and studies where participants were receiving multiple antihypertensives. Three review authors independently reviewed the search results for studies meeting our criteria. Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using a standardized data extraction form. A fourth independent review author resolved discrepancies or disagreements. We performed data extraction and synthesis using a standardized format on Covidence. We conducted data analysis using Review Manager 5. A total of 1437 adult patients participated in the five randomized parallel group studies, with treatment durations ranging from 8 to 16 weeks. The daily doses of eplerenone ranged from 25 mg to 400 mg daily. Meta-analysis of these studies showed a reduction in systolic blood pressure of 9.21 mmHg (95% CI -11.08 to -7.34; I2 = 58%) and a reduction of diastolic pressure of 4.18 mmHg (95% CI -5.03 to -3.33; I2 = 0%) (moderate quality evidence).There may be a dose response effect for eplerenone in the reduction in systolic blood pressure at doses of 400 mg/day. However, this finding is uncertain, as it is based on a single included study with low quality evidence. Overall there does not appear to be a clinically important dose response in lowering systolic or diastolic blood pressure at eplerenone doses of 50 mg to 400 mg daily. There did not appear to be any differences in the number of patients who withdrew due to adverse events or the number of patients with at least one adverse event in the eplerenone group compared to placebo. However, only three of the five included studies reported adverse events. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality, as we judged multiple domains as being at unclear risk in the 'Risk of bias' assessment. Eplerenone 50 to 200 mg/day lowers blood pressure in people with primary hypertension by 9.21 mmHg systolic and 4.18 mmHg diastolic compared to placebo, with no difference of effect between doses of 50 mg/day to 200 mg/day. A dose of 25 mg/day did not produce a statistically significant reduction in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and there is insufficient evidence for doses above 200 mg/day. There is currently no available evidence to determine the effect of eplerenone on clinically meaningful outcomes such as mortality or morbidity in hypertensive patients. The evidence available on side effects is insufficient and of low quality, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about potential harm associated with eplerenone treatment in hypertensive patients.

BackgroundFor elderly patients suffering from arterial hypertension, a complete assessment of the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan used as an anti-hypertensive agent is not available yet. Therefore, we decided to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore some endpoints concerning anti-hypertensive efficacy as well as safety of sacubitril/valsartan in elderly hypertensive patients.MethodsPubMed and Scopus have been extensively investigated with the help of some key words until June 15, 2018. The meta-analysis incorporated exclusively RCTs in which the anti-hypertensive efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan were compared with those of a reference drug (comparator) that could be an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a beta-blocker. Continuous ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was required as an inclusion criterion in the studies to be included in the meta-analysis. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in the sitting position (msSBP and msDBP, respectively), as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events (AEs) were taken as safety outcomes.ResultsFive RCTs were included with a total of 1,513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an ARB (valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases). Compared with ARBs, after 12 weeks there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference (WMD) = - 5.41 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.0 to -3.8; P < 0.01), msDBP (WMD = -1.22 mm Hg, 95% CI : -2.15 to -0.3; P < 0.01), maSBP (WMD = -4.58 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.62 to -3.54; P < 0.01) and maDBP (WMD = -2.17 mm Hg, 95% CI: - 2.78 to -1.56; P < 0.01) in elderly hypertensive patients at 12 weeks.ConclusionsSacubitril/valsartan may reduce arterial pressure more efficaciously than ARBs in elderly hypertensive patients. These results have to be confirmed by further RCTs with a good methodological quality, possibly with a greater sample size.

It is well recognised from many clinical trials that there is a blood pressure lowering effect when placebo is administered to patients with essential hypertension (''placebo effect''). The reduction in blood pressure, however, may also be partly due to loss of the alerting response (''white coat effect'') as a result of familiarisation with the clinical environment. To investigate the hypothesis that there may be a more marked placebo effect and white coat effect in isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) compared with systodiastolic hypertension (SDH), we studied 78 patients with hypertension: 34 had ISH and 44 patients had SDH. The 34 patients with ISH were older (68.7 vs 54.9 years), had a higher SBP (192.2 vs 169.6 mmHg) and lower DBP (85.5 vs 102.0 mmHg) when compared to patients with SDH. Amongst the patients with ISH, there were no significant changes in mean blood pressures pre-placebo (paired t-test, p = NS). In the placebo period, there was a significant reduction in systolic blood pressures at all three points, and a significant reduction in diastolic blood pressures after 2 and 3 months placebo (paired t-test, p < 0.05). There was a mean reduction in mean systolic blood pressure at visit 1 by 5.2%, visit 2 by 5.1% and visit 3 by 4.6%, when compared to mean pre-placebo systolic blood pressures (p < 0.05). The mean reduction in diastolic blood pressure was 5.8% at visit 2 and 3.5% at visit 3, when compared to mean pre-placebo diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.05). At the 4-week visit after receiving placebo, the mean systolic blood pressure decreased by 9.4 mmHg (p = 0.003) and mean diastolic blood pressure by 2.7 mmHg (p = NS) in the patients with ISH. In patients with SDH, there were no statistically significant changes in recorded BP readings following the introduction of placebo. We suggest blood pressures in some patients with ISH may settle with careful follow up and initiation of treatment in these patients could potentially be delayed for at least 3 months, as therapy may not prove necessary.

The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the A1166C polymorphism of the angiotensin AT1 receptor gene and reduction of blood pressure and pulse pressure in patients with mild and moderate arterial hypertension. Moreover, we sought to investigate the impact of insulin resistance and plasma renin activity on blood pressure reduction following treatment with perindopril depending on the A1166C polymorphism of the AT1 receptor gene. The study included 64 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, with a mean age of 40.5 +/-16.4 years. Before and after treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) blood pressure measurement with a traditional method and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring were performed and blood samples were taken for laboratory investigation. The A1166C genotype distribution was: AA 53.1% in 34 patients, AC 43.8% in 28 patients, CC 3.1% in 2 patients. There were no statistically significant differences in the magnitude of blood pressure reduction and pulse pressure after treatment with perindopril between genotypes. Only in patients with genotype AA insulin resistance correlated with body mass index and only in these patients we observed a significant correlation between plasma renin activity and reduction of diastolic blood pressure. There was an inverse correlation between insulin resistance and reduction of systolic blood pressure only in patients with genotype AC. The A1166C polymorphism of the AT1 receptor gene is not associated with reduction of blood pressure after treatment with ACEI in patients with essential hypertension. There is a negative correlation between plasma renin activity and reduction of diastolic blood pressure only in patients with genotype AA. There is an inverse correlation between insulin resistance and systolic blood pressure only in patients with AC genotype.

Hypertension, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, poses a significant health challenge, particularly among the elderly. The "GAME BUSRI" intervention, promoting celery leaf consumption, offers a promising complementary therapy for blood pressure management. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this community-based intervention in reducing blood pressure among hypertensive elderly individuals in Purwakarta, Indonesia. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design was employed. Participants were recruited from the community and assigned to either the intervention group (receiving daily celery leaf decoction and health education) or the control group (receiving health education only). Blood pressure measurements were taken at baseline and after the 8-week intervention period. Data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests. The intervention group demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared to the control group. The mean reduction in systolic blood pressure was 11.33 mmHg (p &lt; 0.001), and the mean reduction in diastolic blood pressure was 8.67 mmHg (p &lt; 0.001). No adverse events were reported. The "GAME BUSRI" intervention effectively reduced blood pressure in hypertensive elderly individuals. This community-based approach, utilizing a readily available and culturally acceptable resource, holds promise for improving hypertension management and reducing cardiovascular risk in this population.

Renal denervation in hypertension patients: Proceedings from an expert consensus roundtable cosponsored by SCAI and NKF.

The prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a key public health priority. A number of dietary factors have been associated with modifying CVD risk factors. One such factor is dietary fibre which may have a beneficial association with CVD risk factors. There is a need to review the current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area. The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of dietary fibre for the primary prevention of CVD. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1947 to January 2015) and Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to January 2015) as well as two clinical trial registers in January 2015. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied. We selected RCTs that assessed the effects of dietary fibre compared with no intervention or a minimal intervention on CVD and related risk factors. Participants included adults who are at risk of CVD or those from the general population. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias; a third author checked any differences. A different author checked analyses. We included 23 RCTs (1513 participants randomised) examining the effect of dietary fibre. The risk of bias was unclear for most studies and studies had small sample sizes. Few studies had an intervention duration of longer than 12 weeks. There was a wide variety of fibre sources used, with little similarity between groups in the choice of intervention.None of the studies reported on mortality (total or cardiovascular) or cardiovascular events. Results on lipids suggest there is a significant beneficial effect of increased fibre on total cholesterol levels (17 trials (20 comparisons), 1067 participants randomised, mean difference -0.23 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.06), and LDL cholesterol levels (mean difference -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06) but not on triglyceride levels (mean difference 0.00 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05), and there was a very small but statistically significant decrease rather than increase in HDL levels with increased fibre intake (mean difference -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01). Fewer studies (10 trials, 661 participants randomised) reported blood pressure outcomes where there is a significant effect of increased fibre consumption on diastolic blood pressure (mean difference -1.77 mmHg, 95% CI -2.61 to -0.92) whilst there is a reduction in systolic blood pressure with fibre but this does not reach statistical significance (mean difference -1.92 mmHg, 95% CI -4.02 to 0.19). There did not appear to be any subgroup effects by the nature of the type of intervention (fibre supplements or provision of foods/advice to increase fibre consumption) or the type of fibre (soluble/insoluble) although the number of studies contributing to each subgroup were small. All analyses need to be viewed with caution given the risks of bias observed for total cholesterol and the statistical heterogeneity observed for systolic blood pressure. Adverse events, where reported, appeared to mostly reflect mild to moderate gastrointestinal side-effects and these were generally reported more in the fibre intervention groups than the control groups. Studies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, CVD clinical events. The pooled analyses for CVD risk factors suggest reductions in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol with increased fibre intake, and reductions in diastolic blood pressure. There were no obvious effects of subgroup analyses by type of intervention or fibre type but the number of studies included in each of these analyses were small. Risk of bias was unclear in the majority of studies and high for some quality domains so results need to be interpreted cautiously. There is a need for longer term, well-conducted RCTs to determine the effects of fibre type (soluble versus insoluble) and administration (supplements versus foods) on CVD events and risk factors for the primary prevention of CVD.

PurposeOur meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nebivolol compared with other second-generation β blockers for hypertensive patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The efficacy endpoints included systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), reduction of SBP and DBP, heart rate (HR), and adverse events (AEs).FindingsEight RCTs with 1514 patients met the inclusion criteria. HR was significantly lower in patients receiving other second-generation β blockers compared with patients receiving nebivolol. There was no difference the reduction of blood pressure (SBP and DBP) or the reduction of SBP or DBP between the groups. The incidence of AEs was lower in patients taking nebivolol compared with patients taking other second-generation β blockers.ConclusionsNo significant difference was demonstrated between nebivolol and other second-generation β blockers in the reduction of blood pressure, SBP, and DBP. The tolerability of nebivolol was significantly better compared with other second-generation β blockers, and nebivolol was also associated with a stable HR and a lower risk of AEs compared with other second-generation β blockers.