Serum uric acid and resistance to antihypertensive treatment: data from the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis

Michele Bombelli, Mario Macchiarulo, Rita Facchetti, Davide Maggiolini, Cesare Cuspidi, Gianfranco Parati, Giuseppe Mancia, Guido Grassi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

AIM: Whether increased serum uric acid (SUA) favours resistance to antihypertensive drugs is not clear.

METHODS: The European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing the effects of a 4-year treatment with either lacidipine or atenolol on progression of carotid atherosclerosis in patients with moderate hypertension. SUA was assessed at randomization and at the study end, office blood pressure (BP) was measured at each titration visit and every 6 months thereafter, ambulatory BP was measured at randomization and every year thereafter.

RESULTS: No difference was found in office and ambulatory BP reduction achieved after 1 and 4 years of treatment in baseline SUA tertiles. This was the case for both treatments. The percentage of patients with controlled office BP (<140/90 mmHg) after 1 year (36.5, 34.2 and 33.8%, P = 0.56) and 4 years (39.9, 39.4 and 38%, P = 0.82) was not different in SUA tertiles. Similar results were obtained basing the analysis on the control of ambulatory BP (<130/80 mmHg) or when data were analyzed taking into account SUA extreme values (≥7 and <3.5 mg/dl). The average and percentage changes of SUA (baseline-study end) were not different between patients who achieved or did not achieve office BP control (5.31 ± 1.26 vs. 5.4 ± 1.29 mg/dl, P = 0.22 e 0.13 ± 0.33 vs. 0.13 ± 0.68, P = 0.87, respectively). This was the case also for control of ambulatory BP.

CONCLUSION: In the ELSA study, SUA levels do not affect the responsiveness to antihypertensive treatment.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Hypertension
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - Dec 19 2018

Fingerprint

Uric Acid
Antihypertensive Agents
Atherosclerosis
Blood Pressure
Serum
Random Allocation
Therapeutics
Carotid Artery Diseases
Atenolol
lacidipine
Multicenter Studies
Hypertension

Cite this

Serum uric acid and resistance to antihypertensive treatment : data from the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis. / Bombelli, Michele; Macchiarulo, Mario; Facchetti, Rita; Maggiolini, Davide; Cuspidi, Cesare; Parati, Gianfranco; Mancia, Giuseppe; Grassi, Guido.

In: Journal of Hypertension, 19.12.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bombelli, Michele ; Macchiarulo, Mario ; Facchetti, Rita ; Maggiolini, Davide ; Cuspidi, Cesare ; Parati, Gianfranco ; Mancia, Giuseppe ; Grassi, Guido. / Serum uric acid and resistance to antihypertensive treatment : data from the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis. In: Journal of Hypertension. 2018.
@article{94c8fe858db84bc09ca5195d56c661ef,
title = "Serum uric acid and resistance to antihypertensive treatment: data from the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis",
abstract = "AIM: Whether increased serum uric acid (SUA) favours resistance to antihypertensive drugs is not clear.METHODS: The European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing the effects of a 4-year treatment with either lacidipine or atenolol on progression of carotid atherosclerosis in patients with moderate hypertension. SUA was assessed at randomization and at the study end, office blood pressure (BP) was measured at each titration visit and every 6 months thereafter, ambulatory BP was measured at randomization and every year thereafter.RESULTS: No difference was found in office and ambulatory BP reduction achieved after 1 and 4 years of treatment in baseline SUA tertiles. This was the case for both treatments. The percentage of patients with controlled office BP (<140/90 mmHg) after 1 year (36.5, 34.2 and 33.8{\%}, P = 0.56) and 4 years (39.9, 39.4 and 38{\%}, P = 0.82) was not different in SUA tertiles. Similar results were obtained basing the analysis on the control of ambulatory BP (<130/80 mmHg) or when data were analyzed taking into account SUA extreme values (≥7 and <3.5 mg/dl). The average and percentage changes of SUA (baseline-study end) were not different between patients who achieved or did not achieve office BP control (5.31 ± 1.26 vs. 5.4 ± 1.29 mg/dl, P = 0.22 e 0.13 ± 0.33 vs. 0.13 ± 0.68, P = 0.87, respectively). This was the case also for control of ambulatory BP.CONCLUSION: In the ELSA study, SUA levels do not affect the responsiveness to antihypertensive treatment.",
author = "Michele Bombelli and Mario Macchiarulo and Rita Facchetti and Davide Maggiolini and Cesare Cuspidi and Gianfranco Parati and Giuseppe Mancia and Guido Grassi",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1097/HJH.0000000000001951",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Hypertension",
issn = "0263-6352",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Serum uric acid and resistance to antihypertensive treatment

T2 - data from the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis

AU - Bombelli, Michele

AU - Macchiarulo, Mario

AU - Facchetti, Rita

AU - Maggiolini, Davide

AU - Cuspidi, Cesare

AU - Parati, Gianfranco

AU - Mancia, Giuseppe

AU - Grassi, Guido

PY - 2018/12/19

Y1 - 2018/12/19

N2 - AIM: Whether increased serum uric acid (SUA) favours resistance to antihypertensive drugs is not clear.METHODS: The European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing the effects of a 4-year treatment with either lacidipine or atenolol on progression of carotid atherosclerosis in patients with moderate hypertension. SUA was assessed at randomization and at the study end, office blood pressure (BP) was measured at each titration visit and every 6 months thereafter, ambulatory BP was measured at randomization and every year thereafter.RESULTS: No difference was found in office and ambulatory BP reduction achieved after 1 and 4 years of treatment in baseline SUA tertiles. This was the case for both treatments. The percentage of patients with controlled office BP (<140/90 mmHg) after 1 year (36.5, 34.2 and 33.8%, P = 0.56) and 4 years (39.9, 39.4 and 38%, P = 0.82) was not different in SUA tertiles. Similar results were obtained basing the analysis on the control of ambulatory BP (<130/80 mmHg) or when data were analyzed taking into account SUA extreme values (≥7 and <3.5 mg/dl). The average and percentage changes of SUA (baseline-study end) were not different between patients who achieved or did not achieve office BP control (5.31 ± 1.26 vs. 5.4 ± 1.29 mg/dl, P = 0.22 e 0.13 ± 0.33 vs. 0.13 ± 0.68, P = 0.87, respectively). This was the case also for control of ambulatory BP.CONCLUSION: In the ELSA study, SUA levels do not affect the responsiveness to antihypertensive treatment.

AB - AIM: Whether increased serum uric acid (SUA) favours resistance to antihypertensive drugs is not clear.METHODS: The European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing the effects of a 4-year treatment with either lacidipine or atenolol on progression of carotid atherosclerosis in patients with moderate hypertension. SUA was assessed at randomization and at the study end, office blood pressure (BP) was measured at each titration visit and every 6 months thereafter, ambulatory BP was measured at randomization and every year thereafter.RESULTS: No difference was found in office and ambulatory BP reduction achieved after 1 and 4 years of treatment in baseline SUA tertiles. This was the case for both treatments. The percentage of patients with controlled office BP (<140/90 mmHg) after 1 year (36.5, 34.2 and 33.8%, P = 0.56) and 4 years (39.9, 39.4 and 38%, P = 0.82) was not different in SUA tertiles. Similar results were obtained basing the analysis on the control of ambulatory BP (<130/80 mmHg) or when data were analyzed taking into account SUA extreme values (≥7 and <3.5 mg/dl). The average and percentage changes of SUA (baseline-study end) were not different between patients who achieved or did not achieve office BP control (5.31 ± 1.26 vs. 5.4 ± 1.29 mg/dl, P = 0.22 e 0.13 ± 0.33 vs. 0.13 ± 0.68, P = 0.87, respectively). This was the case also for control of ambulatory BP.CONCLUSION: In the ELSA study, SUA levels do not affect the responsiveness to antihypertensive treatment.

U2 - 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001951

DO - 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001951

M3 - Article

C2 - 30575681

JO - Journal of Hypertension

JF - Journal of Hypertension

SN - 0263-6352

ER -