For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
24
views
24
references
 Top references
cited by
0
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      221
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Amlodipine versus angiotensin II receptor blocker; control of blood pressure evaluation trial in diabetics (ADVANCED-J)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases. The U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study has shown that blood pressure control as well as blood glucose control is efficient for prevention of complications in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. However, some reports have shown that it is difficult to control the blood pressure and the concomitant use of a plurality of drugs is needed in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. In recent years renin-angiotensin system depressants are increasingly used for the blood pressure control in diabetic patients. Particularly in Japan, angiotensin II (A II) antagonists are increasingly used. However, there is no definite evidence of the point of which is efficient for the control, the increase in dose of A II antagonist or the concomitant use of another drug, in hypertensive patients whose blood pressure levels are inadequately controlled with A II antagonist.

          Methods/Design

          Hypertensive patients of age 20 years or over with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have been treated by the single use of AII antagonist at usual doses for at least 8 weeks or patients who have been treated by the concomitant use of AII antagonist and an antihypertensive drug other than calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors at usual doses for at least 8 weeks are included.

          Discussion

          We designed a multi-center, prospective, randomized, open label, blinded-endpoint trial, ADVANCED-J, to compare the increases in dose of A II antagonist and the concomitant use of a Ca-channel blocker (amlodipine) and A II antagonist in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus, whose blood pressure levels were inadequately controlled with A II antagonist. This study is different from the usual previous studies in that home blood pressures are assessed as indicators of evaluation of blood pressure. The ADVANCED-J study may have much influence on selection of antihypertensive drugs for treatment in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. It is expected to give an important hint for considering the validity of selection of antihypertensive drugs from the aspects not only of the antihypertensive effect but medical cost-effectiveness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension.

          R Schrier, P Hiatt, B Jeffers … (1998)
          It has recently been reported that the use of calcium-channel blockers for hypertension may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. Because this issue remains controversial, we studied the incidence of such complications in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypertension who were randomly assigned to treatment with either the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine or the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor enalapril as part of a larger study. The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) Trial is a prospective, randomized, blinded trial comparing the effects of moderate control of blood pressure (target diastolic pressure, 80 to 89 mm Hg) with those of intensive control of blood pressure (diastolic pressure, 75 mm Hg) on the incidence and progression of complications of diabetes. The study also compared nisoldipine with enalapril as a first-line antihypertensive agent in terms of the prevention and progression of complications of diabetes. In the current study, we analyzed data on a secondary end point (the incidence of myocardial infarction) in the subgroup of patients in the ABCD Trial who had hypertension. Analysis of the 470 patients in the trial who had hypertension (base-line diastolic blood pressure, > or = 90 mm Hg) showed similar control of blood pressure, blood glucose and lipid concentrations, and smoking behavior in the nisoldipine group (237 patients) and the enalapril group (233 patients) throughout five years of follow-up. Using a multiple logistic-regression model with adjustment for cardiac risk factors, we found that nisoldipine was associated with a higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (a total of 24) than enalapril (total, 4) (risk ratio, 9.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 33.8). In this population of patients with diabetes and hypertension, we found a significantly higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction among those assigned to therapy with the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine than among those assigned to receive enalapril. Since our findings are based on a secondary end point, they will require confirmation.
          Article 0 comments Cited 106 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Timolol-induced reduction in mortality and reinfarction in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction.

            (1981)
            A multicenter double-blind randomized study was carried out to compare the effect of timolol (10 mg twice daily) with that of placebo in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction. Treatment was started seven to 28 days after infarction in 1884 patients (945 taking timolol, and 939 placebo), who represented 52 per cent of those evaluated for entry; the patients were followed for 12 to 33 months (mean, 17). There were 152 deaths in the placebo group and 98 in the timolol group. When deaths that occurred during treatment or within 28 days of withdrawal were considered, the cumulated sudden-death rate over 33 months was 13.9 per cent in the placebo group and 7.7 per cent in the timolol group--a reduction of 44.6 per cent (P = 0.0001). The cumulated reinfarction rate was 20.1 per cent in the placebo group and 14.4 per cent in the timolol group (P = 0.0006). We conclude that long-term treatment with timolol in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction reduces mortality and the rate of reinfarction.
            Article 0 comments Cited 104 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group.

              R Holman, R Turner, UKPDS Group … (1998)
              To determine whether tight control of blood pressure with either a beta blocker or an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor has a specific advantage or disadvantage in preventing the macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes. Randomised controlled trial comparing an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (captopril) with a beta blocker (atenolol) in patients with type 2 diabetes aiming at a blood pressure of =300 mg/l (5% and 9%). The proportion of patients with hypoglycaemic attacks was not different between groups, but mean weight gain in the atenolol group was greater (3.4 kg v 1.6 kg). Blood pressure lowering with captopril or atenolol was similarly effective in reducing the incidence of diabetic complications. This study provided no evidence that either drug has any specific beneficial or deleterious effect, suggesting that blood pressure reduction in itself may be more important than the treatment used.
              Article 0 comments Cited 80 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Cardiovasc Disord
                Title: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2261
                Publication date Collection: 2006
                Publication date (Electronic): 9 October 2006
                Volume: 6
                Page: 39
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan
                [2 ]Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan
                [3 ]Metabolism and Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa 216-8511, Japan
                [4 ]Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan
                [5 ]Clinical Trial Management, Graduate School, International University of Health and Welfare, 1-24-1 Minamiaoyama, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0062, Japan
                [6 ]Department of Translational Research for Healthcare and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan
                [7 ]Digital Medicine Initiative, Department of Digital Organ, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
                [8 ]Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, International University of Health and Welfare, 2600-1 Kitakanemaru, Otawara-shi, Tochigi 324-8501, Japan
                [9 ]Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Medicine, 6-3 Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8578, Japan
                [10 ]Department of Clinical Bioinformatics, Graduate School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan
                Article
                Publisher ID: 1471-2261-6-39
                DOI: 10.1186/1471-2261-6-39
                PMC ID: 1615874
                PubMed ID: 17029631
                SO-VID: dec1ddd8-f73b-4e97-83f7-c605a9a85db9
                Copyright © Copyright © 2006 Kawamori et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 20 June 2006
                Date accepted : 9 October 2006
                Categories
                Subject: Study Protocol

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Cardiovascular Medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Cardiovascular Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article