

![]() |
| Sandra J. Lewis, MD, FACC |
CME Information
Sponsor: This activity is sponsored by The Foundation for Better Health Care.
Grantor: This activity is supported by an educational grant to the FBHC from King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Overview
With increased data supporting tighter control of blood pressure, it is vital for clinicians to understand the importance of this issue, as well as how to accomplish treatment goals most effectively. Duke University Medical Center researchers have found an interesting paradox about gender differences in heart disease: women have a greater burden of hypertension (HTN) than their male counterparts, and they receive more aggressive treatment for it, yet they obtain no better blood pressure control.
Since the researchers also found that the impact of HTN on mortality or recurrent cardiac events was similar between men and women, they believe that there are great opportunities to improve medical therapy and outcomes in women. Using drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is one of the most common approaches to influencing blood pressure. In fact, this approach has the largest body of research supporting efficacy, and studies demonstrate that these drugs affect more than just blood pressure.
Doctors managing patients with comorbidities can opt for an appropriate treatment for HTN that might also benefit other systems (eg, renoprotection in diabetic patients). Recent trials have shown that some agents are optimal choices in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction or heart failure; others are beneficial in patients with renal insufficiency and provide micro- and macrovascular benefits in people with diabetes mellitus (DM), reduce the development of new cases of DM, or have a greater effect on stroke prevention.
Reference
1. Frazier CG, Shah SH, Armstrong PW, et al; SYMPHONY and the Second SYMPHONY Investigators. Prevalence and management of hypertension in acute coronary syndrome patients varies by sex: observations from the Sibrafiban versus aspirin to Yield Maximum Protection and management of hypertension in acute coronary from ischemic Heart events postacute cOroNary sYndromes (SYMPHONY) randomized clinical trials. Am Heart J. 2005;150:1260-1267. [Evidence Level A]
Intended Audience
This activity is designed for physicians and allied health professionals, such as nurse practitioners, nurses, and physician assistants, who provide women with principal and preventative healthcare.
Needs Assessment
Through needs assessment surveys, literature searches, advisory board suggestions, and previous meeting evaluations, The Foundation for Better Health Care has determined a need to address the current state of knowledge regarding the role of ACE inhibitors in CVD risk reduction.
Content Validation
The FBHC validates the content of its CME activities through a peer review process and by utilizing evidence-based medicine sources throughout the planning and implementation of its activities. Adopting the levels of evidence used by the American Academy of Family Physicians 1 and the principles of evidence-based medicine outlined by Sackett et al,2 the FBHC rates the level of evidence of the literature used to determine needs and learning objectives, as well as all data cited and presented.
All recommendations involving clinical medicine are based on evidence that is accepted within the profession of medicine as adequate justification for their indications and contraindications in the care of patients. Further, all scientific research referred to, reported, or used in support or justification of a patient care recommendation conforms to the generally accepted standards of experimental design, data collection, and analysis.
Levels of Evidence1
- Level A (randomized controlled trial [RCT]/meta-analysis)
- Level B A well-designed, nonrandomized clinical trial. A nonquantitative systematic review with appropriate search strategies and well-substantiated conclusions. Includes lower-quality RCTs, clinical cohort studies, and case-controlled studies with nonbiased selection of study participants and consistent findings. High-quality, historical, uncontrolled studies, or well-designed epidemiologic studies with compelling findings, are also included
- Level C (consensus/expert opinion)
- Siwek J, Gourlay ML, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. Am Fam Physician. 2002;65:251-258.
- Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine. 3rd ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone; 2005.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this activity, participants should be able to:
-
Identify the clinical data supporting the aggressive management of hypertension (HTN) in women and demonstrate ways to prevent and treat HTN to reduce complications in female patients
- Dahlof B, Burke TA, Krobot K, et al. Population impact of losartan use on stroke in the European Union (EU): projections from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. J Hum Hypertens. 2004;18:367-373. [Evidence Level A]
- Papademetriou V, Farsang C, Elmfeldt D, et al, and the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly study group. Stroke prevention with the angiotensin II type 1-receptor blocker candesartan in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension: the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1175-1180. [Evidence Level A]
- Fox JC, Leight K, Sutradhar SC, et al. The JNC 7 approach compared to conventional treatment in diabetic patients with hypertension: a double-blind trial of initial monotherapy vs. combination therapy. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2004;6:437-442. [Evidence Level A]
-
Review current approaches to HTN management in order to improve patient outcomes
- Giles TD, Berk BC, Black HR, et al, on behalf of the Hypertension Writing Group. Expanding the definition and classification of hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2005;7:505-512. [Evidence Level C]
- North of England Hypertension Guideline Development Group. Essential hypertension: managing adult patients in primary care. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle; August 2004. [Evidence Level C]
- Baguet JP, Robitail S, Boyer L, Debensason D, Auquier P. A meta-analytical approach to the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in reducing blood pressure. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2005;5:131-140. [Evidence Level A]
- Krum H, Haas SJ, Eichhorn E, et al. Prognostic benefit of beta-blockers in patients not receiving ACE-Inhibitors. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:2154-2158. [Evidence Level A]
-
Compare the specific cardioprotective and renoprotective benefits of HTN therapies in order to make appropriate treatment decisions for individual patients
- Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:2022-2031. [Evidence Level A]
- Whelton PK, Barzilay J, Cushman WC, et al, and the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Clinical outcomes in antihypertensive treatment of type 2 diabetes, impaired fasting glucose concentration, and normoglycemia: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1401-1409. [Evidence Level A]
- Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJ, Velazquez EJ, et al. Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1893-1906. [Evidence Level A]
- Scheen AJ. Renin-angiotensin system inhibition prevents type 2 diabetes mellitus. Part 1. A meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Diabetes Metab. 2004;30:487-496. [Evidence Level A].
- Kjedlsen SE, et al. Effects of valsartan preventing the development of type 2 diabetes in high risk hypertensive patients: analysis from the VALUE Trial. Presented at 15th European meeting on Hypertension; June 17-21, 2005 Milan, Italy. [Evidence Level A]
- Wright JT Jr, Bakris G, Greene T, et al, and the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension Study Group. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. JAMA. 2002;288:2421-2431. [Evidence Level A]
-
Compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of ACEIs versus ARBs, and evaluate the role of combining the two agents in order to prescribe the best possible therapy for individual patient response
- Scheen AJ. Renin-angiotensin system inhibition prevents type 2 diabetes mellitus. Part 1. A meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Diabetes Metab. 2004;30:487-496. [Evidence Level A]
- Kjedlsen SE, et al. Effects of valsartan preventing the development of type 2 diabetes in high risk hypertensive patients: analysis from the VALUE Trial. Presented at: 15th European Meeting on Hypertension; June 17-21, 2005; Milan, Italy. [Evidence Level A]
- Wright JT Jr, Bakris G, Greene T, et al, and the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension Study Group. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. JAMA. 2002;288:2421-2431. [Evidence Level A]
- Bosch J, Lonn E, Pogue J, Arnold JM, Dagenais GR, Yusuf S; HOPE/HOPE-TOO Study Investigators. Long-term effects of ramipril on cardiovascular events and on diabetes: results of the HOPE study extension. Circulation. 2005;112:1339-1346. [Evidence Level B]
- Abuissa H, Jones PG, Marso SP, O'Keefe JH Jr. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers for prevention of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:821-826. [Evidence Level A]
- Cheung BM, Cheung GT, Lauder IJ, Lau CP, Kumana CR. Meta-analysis of large outcome trials of angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 2006;20:37-43. [Evidence Level A]
- White HD, Aylward PE, Huang Z, et al, and the VALIANT Investigators. Mortality and morbidity remain high despite captopril and/or Valsartan therapy in elderly patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both after acute myocardial infarction: results from the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT). Circulation. 2005;112:3391-3399. [Evidence Level A]
- Healey JS, Baranchuk A, Crystal E, et al. Prevention of atrial fibrillation with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1832-1839. [Evidence Level A]
- Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Loriga G, et al, and the REIN-2 Study Group. Blood-pressure control for renoprotection in patients with non-diabetic chronic renal disease (REIN-2): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:939-946. [Evidence Level A]
- Kawata T, Daimon M, Hasegawa R, et al. Effect on coronary flow velocity reserve in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: comparison between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist. Am Heart J. 2006;151:798.e9-15. [Evidence Level B]
- Papademetriou V, Farsang C, Elmfeldt D, et al, and the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly study group. Stroke prevention with the angiotensin II type 1-receptor blocker candesartan in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension: the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(6):1175-1180.
- Stergiou GS, Makris T, Papavasiliou M, Efstathiou S, Manolis A. Comparison of antihypertensive effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a calcium antagonist and a diuretic in patients with hypertension not controlled by angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy. J Hypertens. 2005;23(4):883-889. [Evidence Level A]
Accreditation
The Foundation for Better Health Care is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The Foundation for Better Health Care takes responsibility for the content, quality, and scientific integrity of this CME activity.
Credit Designation
The Foundation for Better Health Care designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)TM. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
This Activity has been evaluated and approved by the Continuing Education Approval Program of the National Association of Nurse Practitioner in Women's Health for 1.5 contact hours of continuing education. NPWH Activity no CE 06-15. Each participant should claim only those contact hours that he/she actually spent in the educational activity.
Method of Clinician Participation
View the archived symposium and complete the posttest at click here. A minimum score of 80% must be obtained for credit to be awarded by the FBHC. There is no fee for this activity. Credit for the posttest is available until July 18, 2008.
Identifying and Resolving Conflicts of Interest
The FBHC requires all planning committee members, faculty, teachers, authors, and staff of a CME activity to identify all relevant financial relationships that benefit the individual and his or her spouse or partner in any financial amount within the past 12 months. Such relationships may create the opportunity to affect the content of CME regarding the products or services of the commercial interest.
The FBHC has created the FBHC Committee to Identify and Resolve Conflicts of Interest, which reviews Faculty and Staff Disclosure Statements, identifies and resolves conflicts of interest, and determines the level of participation of planning committee members, faculty members, teachers, and authors.
Faculty
Prakash Deedwania, MD, FAHA, FCCP, FACP, FACC
Chief, Cardiology Division
VACCHCS/UCSF
Fresno, CA
Professor of Medicine
School of Medicine
University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, CA
Independent Reviewer
Margaret Nachtigall, MD
Assistant Professor
New York University Medical Center
New York, New York
Faculty and Reviewer Disclosures
It is the policy of The Foundation for Better Health Care to ensure balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor in all its sponsored educational activities. All faculty are expected to disclose to the activity audience any real or apparent conflict(s) of interest related to the content of their presentation(s). The following relationships have been disclosed:
Dr. Deedwania discloses the following:
- Advisor/Consultant: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, King Pharmaceuticals, Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer Inc
- Advisory Board: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Pfizer Inc
Margaret Nachtigall, MD
- Nothing to disclose
FBHC Staff Disclosure
The FBHC, in keeping with the ACCME's Essential Areas and their Elements and Standards for Commercial Support, has asked each FBHC staff member who has developed and/or reviewed content for this activity to disclose to learners all financial relationships, including those of their spouse or partner, with the manufacturer(s) of any pharmaceutical product(s), device(s), or providers of commercial services in any financial amount within the past 12 months. The FBHC staff members have disclosed the following:
Eresso Aga, Scientific Director
- Nothing to disclose
LaTanya Brown, Project Director
- Nothing to disclose
Michelle Dien, Project Director
- Nothing to disclose
Annika Dronge, MD, Medical Director
- Nothing to disclose
Susan Duff, Managing Editor
- Nothing to disclose
Louise Farkas, Sr. Editor/Writer
- Nothing to disclose
Michael Hite, CEO
- Nothing to disclose
Lauren Janay, Content Coordinator
- Nothing to disclose
Nancy Larsen, Consultant
- Nothing to disclose
Nina Leeds, PhD, Scientific Director
- Nothing to disclose
Andrew McCrea, PhD, Executive Director
- Nothing to disclose
Natacha Menar, Sr. Editor/Writer
- Nothing to disclose
Sejal Patel, Senior Account Manager
- Nothing to disclose
Judy Seraphine, Consultant
- Nothing to disclose
Simone Stromer, MD, Medical Director
- Nothing to disclose
Emilie Wang, PhD, Scientific Director
- Nothing to disclose
Diane Zuckerman, RPh, Consultant
- Nothing to disclose
FBHC Disclosure Statement
The views expressed are those of the author(s). It should not be inferred or assumed that this publication expresses the views of Daiichi Sankyo, or any other manufacturer of pharmaceuticals. The Foundation for Better Health Care (FBHC) is an independent professional organization that does not endorse specific products of any pharmaceutical concern. This FBHC CME activity has been independently planned by the FBHC.
All rights reserved, including translation into other languages. No part of this Webcast may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means-electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or storage in information storage and retrieval systems-without permission in writing from The Foundation for Better Health Care, 33 East 33nd Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10016.

July 18, 2007
Expiration date:
July 18, 2008
Estimated time to complete:
1.5 hours











