UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to investigate multi-trajectories of systolic and diastolic hypertension and assess their association with the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in middle-aged and older Chinese adults.
UNASSIGNED: The study cohort comprised 4,102 individuals aged 40-75 years with records of at least four systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). A group-based multi-trajectory model was adopted to identify multi-trajectories of systolic and diastolic hypertension, followed by a logistic model to assess the independent associations between these trajectories and CHD risk. The multinomial logistic model was used to evaluate the impact of baseline covariates on trajectory groups.
UNASSIGNED: Six distinct trajectories for systolic and diastolic hypertension were identified which represent distinct stages of hypertension and were characterized as low-stable, low-increasing, medium-decreasing, medium-increasing-decreasing, isolated systolic hypertension phase, and high-decreasing. Compared with the low-stable group, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 2.23 (1.34-3.70) for the medium-increasing-decreasing group and 1.87 (1.12-3.11) for the high-decreasing group after adjustment for baseline covariates. Compared with the low-increasing group, the ORs and 95% CIs were 1.88 (1.06-3.31) for the medium-increasing-decreasing group. Age, gender, drinking, body mass index (BMI), triglyceride (TG), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were independent predictors for trajectory groups 4 and 6.
UNASSIGNED: Novel, clinically defined multi-trajectories of systolic and diastolic hypertension were identified. Middle-aged and older adults with medium-increasing-decreasing or high-decreasing blood pressure trajectories are potentially critical periods for the development of CHD. Preventing adverse changes in hypertension status and reducing the high risk of CHD is necessary for people in distinct trajectory groups.

Obesity is a well-known modified risk factor for isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), but evidence is lacking regarding whether the combination of anthropometric and lipid indicators could strengthen their correlation with ISH. Therefore, we compared the association of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), visceral adiposity index (VAI), lipid accumulation product index (LAP), and cardiometabolic index (CMI) with ISH.
A total of 106,248 adults who received routine health screening and did not have diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg were recruited in this cross-sectional study. The associations between these indicators and ISH were evaluated using multivariate regression.
Each standard deviation (SD) increase in traditional obesity indicators (especially WHR and WHtR) had significantly higher multivariate-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) than each SD increase in lipid-related obesity indicators. In addition, multivariate-adjusted ORs for ISH in the third (vs. the first) tertile of traditional obesity indicators were also significantly higher than those of lipid-related indicators. Moreover, traditional obesity indicators exhibited a higher area under the ROC curve for discriminating ISH than lipid-related obesity indicators.
Traditional obesity indicators were more strongly associated with ISH than lipid-related obesity indicators among Chinese adults.

OBJECTIVE: Systolic hypertension is common in elderly patients and remains a challenge to treat effectively. The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, vs. olmesartan was evaluated in elderly Asian patients (≥65 years) with systolic hypertension.
METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 14-week study, patients initially received once-daily sacubitril/valsartan 100 mg or olmesartan 10 mg, increased to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg at week 4. At week 10, for patients with blood pressure (BP) >140/90 mm Hg, the doses were up-titrated to sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg or olmesartan 40 mg. The primary assessment was superiority of sacubitril/valsartan vs. olmesartan in reducing office mean sitting (ms) systolic BP (msSBP) from baseline at week 10. Secondary efficacy assessments included changes from baseline in ms diastolic BP (msDBP), ms pulse pressure (msPP), 24-hour mean ambulatory (ma) BP (maBP), and maPP at week 10; msBP and msPP at weeks 4 and 14.
RESULTS: Overall, 588 patients were randomized (mean age, 70.7 years; baseline msBP, 160.3/84.9 mm Hg; msPP, 75.4 mm Hg). At week 10, sacubitril/valsartan provided superior msSBP reductions vs. olmesartan (22.71 vs. 16.11 mm Hg, respectively; P < 0.001); similarly, reductions from baseline in other BP and PP assessments were significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan. At week 14, despite more patients requiring up-titration in the olmesartan group, msBP and msPP reductions from baseline were significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan is more effective than olmesartan in reducing BP in elderly Asian patients with systolic hypertension.

Effective treatment of systolic hypertension in elderly patients remains a major therapeutic challenge. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, was conducted to determine its effects versus olmesartan (angiotensin receptor blocker) on central aortic pressures, in elderly patients (aged ≥60 years) with systolic hypertension and pulse pressure >60 mm Hg, indicative of arterial stiffness. Patients (n=454; mean age, 67.7 years; mean seated systolic blood pressure, 158.6 mm Hg; mean seated pulse pressure, 69.7 mm Hg) were randomized to receive once-daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg, force titrated to double the initial doses after 4 weeks, before primary assessment at 12 weeks. The study extended double-blind treatment for 12 to 52 weeks, during which amlodipine (2.5-5 mg) and subsequently hydrochlorothiazide (6.25-25 mg) were added-on for patients not achieving blood pressure target (<140/90). At week 12, sacubitril/valsartan reduced central aortic systolic pressure (primary assessment) greater than olmesartan by -3.7 mm Hg (P=0.010), further corroborated by secondary assessments at week 12 (central aortic pulse pressure, -2.4 mm Hg, P<0.012; mean 24-hour ambulatory brachial systolic blood pressure and central aortic systolic pressure, -4.1 mm Hg and -3.6 mm Hg, respectively, both P<0.001). Differences in 24-hour ambulatory pressures were pronounced during sleep. After 52 weeks, blood pressure parameters were similar between treatments (P<0.002); however, more patients required add-on antihypertensive therapy with olmesartan (47%) versus sacubitril/valsartan (32%; P<0.002). Both treatments were equally well tolerated. The PARAMETER study (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Measuring Arterial Stiffness in the Elderly), for the first time, demonstrated superiority of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in reducing clinic and ambulatory central aortic and brachial pressures in elderly patients with systolic hypertension and stiff arteries.