Skip to main content
  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • General Statistics
    • Editorial Board
    • Editors
    • Information for Advertisers
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Clinical Implications
    • Clinical-Pathological Conferences
    • Controversies in Hypertension
    • Editors' Picks
    • Guidelines Debate
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Recent Advances in Hypertension
    • SPRINT Trial: the Conversation Continues
  • Resources
    • Instructions to Reviewers
    • Instructions for Authors
    • →Article Types
    • → Submission Guidelines
      • Research Guidelines
        • Minimum Information About Microarray Data Experiments (MIAME)
      • Abstract
      • Acknowledgments
      • Clinical Implications (Only by invitation)
      • Conflict(s) of Interest/Disclosure(s) Statement
      • Figure Legends
      • Figures
      • Novelty and Significance: 1) What Is New, 2) What Is Relevant?
      • References
      • Sources of Funding
      • Tables
      • Text
      • Title Page
      • Online/Data Supplement
    • →Tips for Easier Manuscript Submission
    • → General Instructions for Revised Manuscripts
      • Change of Authorship Form
    • → Costs to Authors
    • → Open Access, Repositories, & Author Rights Q&A
    • Permissions to Reprint Figures and Tables
    • Journal Policies
    • Scientific Councils
    • AHA Journals RSS Feeds
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Advanced search

Header Publisher Menu

  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

Hypertension

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • General Statistics
    • Editorial Board
    • Editors
    • Information for Advertisers
    • Author Reprints
    • Commercial Reprints
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Acknowledgment of Reviewers
    • Clinical Implications
    • Clinical-Pathological Conferences
    • Controversies in Hypertension
    • Editors' Picks
    • Guidelines Debate
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Recent Advances in Hypertension
    • SPRINT Trial: the Conversation Continues
  • Resources
    • Instructions to Reviewers
    • Instructions for Authors
    • →Article Types
    • → Submission Guidelines
    • →Tips for Easier Manuscript Submission
    • → General Instructions for Revised Manuscripts
    • → Costs to Authors
    • → Open Access, Repositories, & Author Rights Q&A
    • Permissions to Reprint Figures and Tables
    • Journal Policies
    • Scientific Councils
    • AHA Journals RSS Feeds
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
Original Article

Comparison Between Valsartan and Amlodipine Regarding Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality in Hypertensive Patients With Glucose Intolerance

NAGOYA HEART Study

Takashi Muramatsu, Kunihiro Matsushita, Kentaro Yamashita, Takahisa Kondo, Kengo Maeda, Satoshi Shintani, Satoshi Ichimiya, Miyoshi Ohno, Takahito Sone, Nobuo Ikeda, Masato Watarai, Toyoaki Murohara, for the NAGOYA HEART Study Investigators
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.184226
Hypertension. 2012;59:580-586
Originally published January 9, 2012
Takashi Muramatsu
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kunihiro Matsushita
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kentaro Yamashita
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Takahisa Kondo
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kengo Maeda
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Satoshi Shintani
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Satoshi Ichimiya
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miyoshi Ohno
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Takahito Sone
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nobuo Ikeda
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Masato Watarai
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Toyoaki Murohara
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
From the Department of Cardiology (Ta.M., Ku.M., K.Y., T.K., Ke.M., S.S., To.M.), Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan; Yokkaichi Municipal Hospital (S.I.), Yokkaichi, Japan; Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital (M.O.), Nagoya, Japan; Ogaki Municipal Hospital (T.S.), Ogaki, Japan; Chunichi Hospital (N.I.), Nagoya, Japan; Anjo Kosei Hospital (M.W.), Anjo, Japan.

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Correction - July 01, 2015
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Supplemental Materials
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Jump to

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Sources of Funding
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Supplemental Materials
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
Loading

Abstract

It has not been fully examined whether angiotensin II receptor blocker is superior to calcium channel blocker to reduce cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance. A prospective, open-labeled, randomized, controlled trial was conducted for Japanese hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance. A total of 1150 patients (women: 34%; mean age: 63 years; diabetes mellitus: 82%) were randomly assigned to receive either valsartan- or amlodipine-based antihypertensive treatment. Primary outcome was a composite of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, admission attributed to heart failure, or sudden cardiac death. Blood pressure was 145/82 and 144/81 mm Hg, and glycosylated hemoglobin was 7.0% and 6.9% at baseline in the valsartan group and the amlodipine group, respectively. Both of them were equally controlled between the 2 groups during the study. The median follow-up period was 3.2 years, and primary outcome had occurred in 54 patients in the valsartan group and 56 in the amlodipine group (hazard ratio: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.66–1.40]; P=0.85). Patients in the valsartan group had a significantly lower incidence of heart failure than in the amlodipine group (hazard ratio: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06–0.69]; P=0.01). Other components and all-cause mortality were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Composite cardiovascular outcomes were comparable between the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments in Japanese hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance. Admission because of heart failure was significantly less in the valsartan group.

  • angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker
  • calcium channel blocker
  • cardiovascular disease
  • diabetes mellitus
  • hypertension
  • impaired glucose tolerance

Introduction

Hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are major risk factors for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), and a combination of those further increases CVD.1–3 Activation of the renin-angiotensin system exacerbates not only hypertension but also insulin resistance and diabetic vascular complications.4–6 Indeed, various renin-angiotensin system blockers (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI] or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker [ARB]) have been shown to suppress new onset of T2DM and to reduce the progression of diabetic nephropathy.7–10 Hence, many guidelines worldwide recommend ACEI/ARB as the first-line antihypertensive medications for diabetic hypertensive patients.3,11–14

Several clinical trials previously assessed head-to-head comparisons between ACEI/ARB and calcium channel blocker (CCB) regarding the efficacies on CVD.15–21 In diabetic hypertensive patients, some small-sample trials showed that ACEI significantly reduced the risk of CVD compared with CCB,15,16 whereas another large-scale trial showed no difference.17 The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) and Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trials, which recruited 5250 (34%) and 2018 patients (43%) with T2DM, respectively,18,19 showed that ARB significantly reduced new onset of T2DM but failed to reduce total CVD compared with CCB. The Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) also compared ARB and CCB in diabetic patients with nephropathy.20,21 Although the IDNT revealed better renal protection by ARB than CCB as a primary outcome,20 ARB and CCB had similar efficacies on composite CVD as a secondary outcome.21 Among the components, ARB was more protective against heart failure (HF), whereas CCB tended to be more protective against myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke.

Epidemiologically, CV events in East Asia are different from those in Western countries. Age-adjusted incidence of ischemic heart disease is ≈80% lower, but cerebrovascular mortality is 2- to 3-fold higher in Japan compared with those in the United States.22,23 In addition, mean body mass indices in East Asians are lower than that of Western population.24 ARB is less protective against new onset of T2DM in lean patients compared with the obese,25 and CCB has a beneficial property for preventing stroke.26 Thus, CCBs are still frequently used in hypertensive patients with T2DM in East Asia.

Taken together, it is still unknown whether ACEI/ARB should be the first-line medication for diabetic hypertensive patients in East Asia for the CVD protection. Accordingly, we carried out the NAGOYA HEART Study (NHS) to compare the efficacies of an ARB valsartan and a CCB amlodipine on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as a primary outcome in Japanese hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance.

Materials and Methods

Study Design

The rationale and design of the NHS have been described previously.27 The NHS is an investigator-initiated trial which used a prospective, randomized, open-labeled, blinded endpoints design.28 Participants were recruited by 171 cardiologists only from 46 board-certified medical centers and hospitals. All of the patients provided their written informed consent. This study was approved by the ethical review committee of the Nagoya University School of Medicine and of participating institutions.

Inclusion Criteria

Eligible participants were men and women aged between 30 and 75 years with both hypertension and glucose intolerance (ie, T2DM or impaired glucose tolerance [IGT]). We enrolled hypertensive patients with not only T2DM but also IGT, because IGT has a similarly elevated risk for CVD compared with T2DM.29,30 Hypertension was defined as having received any antihypertensive drugs already or blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg. T2DM was defined as having received any antidiabetic agents or plasma glucose level ≥7.0 mmol/L in fasting state, ≥11.1 mmol/L in nonfasting state, or 2 hours after glycemic load in an oral glucose tolerance test. IGT was defined by plasma glucose level <7.0 mmol/L in fasting state and 7.8 to 11.0 mmol/L as the 2-hour value in an oral glucose tolerance test.31 For exclusion criteria, please see the online-only Data Supplement.

Study Outcomes Measure

Primary outcome was a composite of acute MI (ECG changes, elevation of cardiac enzymes more than twice as high as upper limit of normal levels, and culprit lesion detected by coronary angiogram), stroke (neurological deficit persisting for >24 hours and relevant findings in computed tomography or MRI), admission because of HF (new or worsening typical clinical symptoms including dyspnea, shortness of breath, and peripheral edema, together with pulmonary congestion in chest roentgenogram, echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction according to the guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, and increased plasma brain natriuretic peptide levels), coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary bypass graft surgery unplanned at randomization), or sudden cardiac death (unexpected intrinsic death within 24 hours after the onset of symptoms). All-cause mortality was included as the secondary outcome. All of the reported adverse events were analyzed, and outcomes were strictly adjudicated by an independent End point Evaluation Committee in a blinded manner as for the assigned treatments.

Procedures and Follow-Up

Patients were randomly assigned to the valsartan- or the amlodipine-based treatment group. Random allocation was performed by a minimization method with 5 factors of baseline characteristics, such as age, sex, medication for dyslipidemia, current smoking status, and the T2DM/IGT ratio.

As an initial dose, either valsartan 80 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily was administered to patients in a respective group. For patients already taking antihypertensive drugs at the enrollment, all of the ACEI/ARB and CCB were once discontinued and the allocated drug was started without a run-in period. During the follow-up, target blood pressure was ≤130/80 mm Hg.3,11–14 Physicians could increase the respective dose until 160 mg or 10 mg daily after 4 weeks, and other antihypertensive drugs, such as diuretics, β-blockers, or α-blockers could be added after 8 weeks as needed. Blood glucose control was performed according to the treatment guidelines issued from the Japan Diabetes Society.32 For additional information, please see the online-only Data Supplement.

Sample

Sample size calculation was described previously.27 Patient enrollment began in October 2004 on the assumption that 1500 patients for each group were enrolled and anticipated to be finished by the end of 2006. Finally, we recruited total 1168 patients by the end of January 2009, when the Data and Safety Monitoring Board suggested stopping the recruitment because a longer recruitment period might be required to complete the enrollment. Consequently, the steering committee decided not to recruit patients thereafter. Follow-up was continued until July 31, 2010, and available data were fixed on November 5, 2010.

Interim Analyses and Data Monitoring

The interim analyses were assessed immediately after closing the enrollment and every 6 months (4 times in total). For additional information, please see the online-only Data Supplement.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. Only the first cardiovascular event was analyzed as a primary outcome in case of multiple events observed in a single patient. Cumulative incidence of cardiovascular events was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The crude hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model to compare the treatment group differences. The Levene test and repeated-measure ANOVA were used to compare the changes of blood pressure and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels throughout the follow-up. All of the statistical analyses were performed by an independent statistical analysis board, and a P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient Characteristics

A total of 1168 patients were considered to be eligible for the present study, but 6 patients who met exclusion criteria and 12 patients who withdrew their consent were excluded. Consequently, 1150 patients were randomly assigned to the valsartan group (n=575) or the amlodipine group (n=575), and a total of 1117 patients (97%) completed the follow-up throughout the study (Figure S1). Please see the online-only Data Supplement.

Baseline characteristics of enrolled patients are shown in Table 1. All of the patients were diagnosed as hypertensive, and 82% and 18% had T2DM and IGT, respectively. In overall samples, mean age was 63 years, and 66% were men. Mean blood pressure and HbA1c were 145/82 mm Hg and 7.0%, respectively. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Table 2 shows the prescribed medications during the follow-up. Immediately after the random allocation, 77% of patients in both groups were prescribed only the assigned regimen as an antihypertensive medication. The concomitant antihypertensive drugs were mainly β-blockers in both groups. Antihypertensive and hypoglycemic agents showed no differences in use between the 2 groups.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of Enrolled Patients

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Prescribed Medications During the Follow-Up

Blood Pressure Changes and HbA1c Levels During the Study

Changes in blood pressure and HbA1c levels are shown in Figure 1. Blood pressure was reduced to 131/73 mm Hg in the valsartan group and 132/74 mm Hg in the amlodipine group at 54 months. The Levene test for equality of variances showed no differences between the 2 groups. Blood pressure did not differ between the 2 groups throughout the trial (P=0.653 in systolic BP and P=0.658 in diastolic BP by repeated-measure ANOVA). HbA1c levels were shown to decrease steadily to 6.7% in both groups, and the changes did not differ between the 2 groups.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Changes in blood pressure and glycemic control throughout the study. SBP indicates systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure.

Clinical Outcomes

The median follow-up period reached 3.2 years (interquartile range: 2.6–4.7 years), and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board suggested finishing the follow-up at that point. A total of 202 clinical adverse events from 148 patients (26%) in the valsartan group and 204 events from 162 patients (28%) in amlodipine group were reported to the end point evaluation committee.

Figure 2 shows the incidence of adjudicated primary composite cardiovascular outcomes. A total of 56 events from 54 patients (9.4%) in the valsartan group and 64 events from 56 patients (9.7%) in the amlodipine group were adjudicated as primary outcomes, and time-to-event curves did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (HR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.66–1.40]; P=0.85). Table 3 shows HRs for each component ascertained in this study, and there were no significant differences in the risk of MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or sudden cardiac death between the 2 groups. However, incidence of admission because of HF was significantly less in the valsartan group than in the amlodipine group (3 versus 15 patients; HR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06–0.69]; P=0.012). Figure S2 shows the time-dependent curves of the incidence of admission attributed to worsening of HF. Please see the online-only Data Supplement. All-cause mortality, as a secondary outcome, did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (22 versus 16 patients; HR: 1.37 [95% CI: 0.72–2.61]; P=0.34; Table 3).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan-Meier curves for the incidence of primary composite outcome. Time to the first cardiovascular event was used for the analysis.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Primary Outcome and Overall Cardiovascular Event

Adverse Events

With respect to the safety outcome, we confirmed 106 adverse events of 94 patients in the valsartan group and 112 events of 94 patients in the amlodipine group during the follow-up (Table S1). However, any serious adverse events were not observed. There were no significant differences in the incidence of each adverse event, including the definite solid cancer (22 in the valsartan group and 23 in the amlodipine group) between the 2 groups. Please see the online-only Data Supplement.

Discussion

The NHS is a randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing the efficacies on cardiovascular outcomes between ARB and CCB in hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance. The present study has a novelty to evaluate the cardiovascular events as a primary outcome exclusively in non-Western patients with glucose intolerance. East Asians are generally less obese than Western population, although they had similar prevalence of T2DM.24 This epidemiological data suggest that East Asians could have some different substrates in glucose intolerance. Furthermore, the incidence of CVD in East Asia is much different from Western countries. However, there was little clinical evidence that supports therapeutic guidelines for the treatment of diabetic hypertensive patients in East Asia. In this study, both blood pressure and glycemic status were equally controlled between the 2 treatment groups, and there was no difference in a primary composite cardiovascular outcome. Our result was generally in line with the data of the Western IDNT Trial for which the number of patients were almost similar to ours, whereas the cardiovascular outcome was measured as a secondary outcome.21 The VALUE and CASE-J trials enrolled a larger number of diabetic patients than ours, but they also showed no difference in composite cardiovascular outcomes between the ARB- and CCB-based treatments.18,19 Consequently, any evidence in clinical advantage of ARB against CCB regarding composite CVD has not been yielded regardless of the race.

In the present study, the valsartan-based treatment significantly reduced the risk of HF as compared with the amlodipine-based treatment. One may argue that more frequent use of thiazides in the valsartan group possibly attributed to better protection against HF. However, this effect on HF in valsartan-based treatment was statistically significant even in those who never received thiazides throughout the study (n=967; HR: 0.21; [95% CI: 0.05–0.96]; P=0.04), and test of heterogeneity in thiazides use showed no statistical significance (P=0.50). Thus, our study suggested the more protective efficacy of valsartan against HF regardless of the use of thiazides, and our findings confirm the results of the IDNT Trial, as well as a meta-analysis in diabetic patients in Western countries.21,33 In contrast, both the original VALUE Trial and CASE-J Trial showed significant difference of blood pressure throughout the follow-up and no difference in the risk of HF.18,19 However, a modified analysis of the VALUE Trial indicated that, when blood pressure effects of valsartan and amlodipine were adjusted equally, the only difference in outcomes between the 2 groups was a lower incidence of HF in the valsartan group.34 Our study showed considerably lower HR (0.20) for HF than previous trials because of the small number of cases, whereas there may be several possible explanations for this finding. First, given the fact that T2DM leads to renal damage and sodium retention, our patients could be more likely to develop HF than those with hypertension only.5 Indeed, a subanalysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial suggested that ACEI was more protective against HF compared with CCB in diabetic patients,17 and a meta-analysis in diabetic patients showed that ARB showed a greater protection against HF than other antihypertensive drugs.33 In addition, the progression of insulin resistance and diabetic vascular complications are enhanced by the renin-angiotensin system.5 It is then conceivable that the complicated glucose intolerance unmasked the beneficial effect of ARB compared with hypertension alone. Second, our study patients are all Japanese. A subanalysis of the Reduction of Endpoints in Non–Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus With the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan Study showed that ARB was particularly effective against diabetic nephropathy in Japanese patients compared with other ethnicities.35 Taken together, ARB may have a greater potential to reduce the risk of HF compared with CCB, especially in Japanese hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance.

We showed that CCB had a tendency to reduce the risk of MI compared with ARB similar to the IDNT findings.21 The VALUE Trial demonstrated that MI was significantly lower in the CCB group compared with the ARB group.18 However, it requires careful interpretation, because this finding might be yielded by the difference in blood pressure control (≈4/2 mm Hg) during the follow-up in the VALUE Trial. However, when the effect of blood pressure was adjusted, the difference of MI risk disappeared.34 Furthermore, an updated meta-analysis demonstrated that ARB and CCB showed equivalent MI risk.36

In the risk of stroke, we found no difference between ARB and CCB. This finding is also in line with a previous meta-analysis in diabetic patients33 and head-to-head comparison trials not only in Asians19 but also in whites.18,21 However, it is quite in contrast to the 2 recent Japanese trials, the JIKEI HEART and KYOTO HEART Studies that clearly showed reduced risk of stroke in the add-on group with valsartan compared with the non-ARB group, who mainly received CCB.37,38 In these 2 trials, >50% of patients in the ARB add-on group also received CCB, so that these trials might suggest the superiority of combined therapy with ARB and CCB against the control group (mainly CCB-based without ARB). Thus, the discrepancy between the NHS and the JIKEI/KYOTO HEART Studies may partially be explained by the difference in the concomitant medications and the study design.

We applied the prospective, randomized, open-labeled, blinded endpoints method to assess outcomes. The prospective, randomized, open-labeled, blinded endpoints design is relatively vulnerable to reporting bias, because allocated drugs are open to both patients and physicians. In this regard, softer end points should be adjudicated with a special care. In the present study, an independent clinical research nurse coordinator group managed to follow up patient records and to collect the data in >90% of patients, and all of the reported adverse events were strictly adjudicated by an independent end point evaluation committee under a blinded manner as to the drug assignment. In fact, among 386 provisional reports, only 120 (31.1%) were adjudicated as the primary end point by the committee. Therefore, we believe that the bias would be highly unlikely to account for the differences. Rather, prospective, randomized, open-labeled, blinded endpoints design is close to daily clinical practice and less stressful to patients.28

Our patients were relatively well controlled in both blood pressure and glycemic status. A recent international cohort study reconfirmed that the incidence of CVD was significantly lower in Japan compared with other countries.39 These underlying conditions might result in quite lower incidence of primary outcomes (3.1% per year) than we anticipated. In addition, the sample size (n=1150) was less than the initially planned number of samples (n=3000), and that the present study was underpowered to determine our initial hypothesis that ARB might be more effective in preventing major CV events than CCB. However, postcensored analysis indicated acceptable statistical power (84.9%), the risk of primary outcome in each group was almost even (HR: 0.97), and our results were consistent with previous clinical evidence.18,19,21,33,34

Perspectives

The NHS is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing the clinical efficacies of ARB and CCB in Japanese hypertensive patients with glucose intolerance. Composite major CV events were similarly observed between ARB-based and CCB-based antihypertensive treatment. However, HF was more significantly reduced by ARB regimen. The NHS results echo those of the IDNT CV event trial and confirm the efficacy of ARB in this patient population in diabetic hypertensive patients in East Asia. Our results will highlight the safety and efficacy of ARB and support the current therapeutic guidelines for the treatment of diabetic hypertensive patients.

Sources of Funding

The NAGOYA HEART Study was funded by Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine. The Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, reported receiving research promotion grants (Shougaku Kifukin) from Actelion, Astellas, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo, Eisai, Fuji Film RI, Kaken, Kowa, Kureha, Medtronic, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Mochida, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, and Takeda. However, the research topics of these donation grants are not restricted.

Disclosures

To.M. received lecturer's fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, and Takeda.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr Hiroshi Yatsuya (the Department of Public Health, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine) for useful comments. We dedicate special recognition to Dr Takao Nishizawa, who passed away on August 2, 2009, after making a significant contribution to the study.

The NAGOYA HEART Study investigators include the following researchers: Principal Investigator: Toyoaki Murohara; Executive Committee: Toyoaki Murohara (chair), Takahisa Kondo, Satoshi Shintani, Kengo Maeda, Kunihiro Matsushita, Takashi Muramatsu, and Kentaro Yamashita; Steering Committee: Toyoaki Murohara (chair), Takahisa Kondo, Satoshi Shintani, Kengo Maeda, Kunihiro Matsushita, Takashi Muramatsu, Kentaro Yamashita, Makoto Akahoshi, Haruo Hirayama, Satoshi Ichimiya, Masato Iida, Yoshio Iwama, Shinji Kaneko, Taizo Kondo, Nobuyuki Marui, Toshihiro Obayashi, Miyoshi Ohno, Osamu Ohno, Toshiyuki Osaka, Takahito Sone, Yasunobu Takada, Chiei Takanaka, and Masato Watarai; Endpoints Evaluation Committee: Tatsuaki Matsubara (chair), Kimihiro Komori, and Manabu Doyu; Data and Safety Monitoring Board: Hideaki Toyoshima (chair), Yutaka Oiso, and Makoto Hirai; Statistical Analysis Board: Nobuo Shirahashi; Writing and Subanalysis Study Committee: Toyoaki Murohara (chair), Takahisa Kondo, Satoshi Shintani, Kengo Maeda, Kunihiro Matsushita, Takashi Muramatsu, and Kentaro Yamashita; Clinical Research Coordinator and Data Management Group: Kumi Sasaki, Emiko Watanabe, and Yoko Inoue; and Investigators Participating in the NAGOYA HEART Study: Masayoshi Ajioka, Tetsuya Amano, Toru Aoyama, Yutaka Aoyama, Hiroshi Asano, Yoshizumi Asano, Tokiko Fuchino, Takaharu Fujimura, Ryoji Fukui, Yoshihiro Futamura, Yukihisa Hamaguchi, Yoshihiro Hanaki, Ken Harada, Mitsunori Harada, Shuji Harata, Hiroaki Harayama, Kazuyuki Haruta, Kazuki Hattori, Kazunori Hayashi, Yuzo Hayashi, Michitaka Hibino, Akihiro Hirashiki, Yoshio Ichihara, Shigeo Iino, Hajime Imai, Haruo Inagaki, Yasuya Inden, Natsuo Inoue, Atsushi Iseki, Hideki Ishii, Kyosuke Ishikawa, Shinichi Ishikawa, Shinji Ishikawa, Ryoji Ishiki, Satoshi Isobe, Atsushi Ito, Hirokazu Iwata, Hideo Izawa, Kenji Kada, Masahiro Kajiguchi, Haruo Kamiya, Hiroki Kamiya, Masaaki Kanashiro, Hitoshi Kanayama, Yoshiyuki Kataoka, Masataka Kato, Kimihiko Kato, Rinya Kato, Katsuhiro Kawaguchi, Hideki Kawai, Kei Kawakami, Toshiki Kawamiya, Shohei Kikuchi, Akira Kimura, Keita Kondo, Teruo Kondo, Masayoshi Koyasu, Nobutake Kurebayashi, Yasuko Kureishi-Bando, Yasunori Kushiyama, Seifuku Kyo, Mitsutaka Makino, Haruo Matsui, Yoshichika Matsui, Tatsuyuki Matsunami, Kazuhiro Matsuo, Satoshi Matsuyama, Sachio Mitani, Hirotsugu Mitsuhashi, Hiroshi Miyake, Shinji Mokuno, Shuji Morikawa, Ryuta Morimoto, Yasutsugu Morimoto, Yasuhiro Morita, Hisashi Murakami, Yoshihiro Murata, Masahiro Muto, Kazuyoshi Nagao, Kozo Nagata, Harumichi Nakagawa, Eishin Nakamura, Yoshihito Nakashima, Mamoru Nanasato, Yasuhiro Nishimoto, Hideya Nishimura, Yasuto Nishinaka, Takuya Nishiura, Takao Nishizawa, Manabu Niwa, Shoji Noda, Yasushi Numaguchi, Yasuhiro Ogawa, Shozo Ogawa, Yasuhiro Ogura, Mitsutoshi Oguri, Taiki Ohashi, Jun Ohno, Takashi Okashiro, Kenji Okumura, Kei Oshima, Naohiro Osugi, Masahiro Oya, Yoshihiro Saburi, Makoto Saito, Kazuyoshi Sakai, Shinichi Sakai, Hiroaki Sano, Bummei Sato, Ken Sawada, Kohei Sawasaki, Tetsuo Shibata, Yukio Shiga, Toshimasa Shigeta, Masayuki Shimano, Atsuya Shimizu, Kiyokazu Shimizu, Masanori Shinoda, Toshikazu Sobue, Mikio Sugino, Shigeo Sugino, Hiroki Sugiura, Hirohiko Suzuki, Noriyuki Suzuki, Tomoyuki Suzuki, Toru Tajika, Katsumasa Takagi, Kensuke Takagi, Ryotaro Takahashi, Hiroki Takanari, Kenji Takemoto, Yoshio Takemoto, Kyosuke Takeshita, Susumu Takeuchi, Toyonari Takeuchi, Atsushi Tanaka, Toshikazu Tanaka, Toshiro Tanaka, Yasushi Tatematsu, Akihiro Terasawa, Mamoru Tokuda, Masayuki Torigoe, Toshio Torii, Takanobu Toriyama, Hideyuki Tsuboi, Naoya Tsuboi, Hideto Tsukamoto, Issei Uchida, Tomohiro Uchikawa, Yusuke Uemura, Tadayuki Uetani, Hisashi Umeda, Hiroki Watanabe, Michiharu Yamada, Minoru Yamada, Takashi Yamada, Takashi Yamamoto, Masaki Yamauchi, Kenichiro Yokoi, Kiminobu Yokoi, Kiyoshi Yokoi, Eriko Yokoyama, Tomohiro Yoshida, Yukihiko Yoshida, and Mari Yoshikane.

The affiliation of Mr. Nobuo Shirahashi is Novartis Pharma KK, Tokyo, Japan, and Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, Osaka City University Medical School, Osaka, Japan.

Footnotes

  • This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT00129233).

  • The online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at http://hyper.ahajournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.184226/-/DC1.

  • Received September 29, 2011.
  • Revision received October 26, 2011.
  • Accepted December 17, 2011.
  • © 2012 American Heart Association, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Curb JD,
    2. Pressel SL,
    3. Cutler JA,
    4. Savage PJ,
    5. Applegate WB,
    6. Black H,
    7. Camel G,
    8. Davis BR,
    9. Frost PH,
    10. Gonzalez N,
    11. Guthrie G,
    12. Oberman A,
    13. Rutan GH,
    14. Stamler J
    . Effect of diuretic-based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in older diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program Cooperative Research Group. JAMA. 1996;276:1886–1892.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Turner RC,
    2. Millns H,
    3. Neil HA,
    4. Stratton IM,
    5. Manley SE,
    6. Matthews DR,
    7. Holman RR
    . Risk factors for coronary artery disease in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS: 23) BMJ. 1998;316:823–828.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Arauz-Pacheco C,
    2. Parrott MA,
    3. Raskin P
    . Hypertension management in adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27Suppl 1:S65–S67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Cooper ME,
    2. Bonnet F,
    3. Oldfield M,
    4. Jandeleit-Dahm K
    . Mechanisms of diabetic vasculopathy: an overview. Am J Hypertens. 2001;14:475–486.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Burnier M,
    2. Zanchi A
    . Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: a key therapeutic strategy to reduce renal and cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes. J Hypertens. 2006;24:11–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Perkins JM,
    2. Davis SN
    . The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: a pivotal role in insulin sensitivity and glycemic control. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2008;15:147–152.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Yusuf S,
    2. Gerstein H,
    3. Hoogwerf B,
    4. Pogue J,
    5. Bosch J,
    6. Wolffenbuttel BH,
    7. Zinman B
    ; for the HOPE Study Investigators. Ramipril and the development of diabetes. JAMA. 2001;286:1882–1885.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    NAVIGATOR Study Group. Effect of valsartan on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1477–1490.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet. 2000;355:253–259.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Brenner BM,
    2. Cooper ME,
    3. de Zeeuw D,
    4. Keane WF,
    5. Mitch WE,
    6. Parving HH,
    7. Remuzzi G,
    8. Snapinn SM,
    9. Zhang Z,
    10. Shahinfar S
    ; RENAAL Study Investigators. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:861–869.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Whitworth JA
    . 2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension. J Hypertens. 2003;21:1983–1992.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Chobanian AV,
    2. Bakris GL,
    3. Black HR,
    4. Cushman WC,
    5. Green LA,
    6. Izzo JL Jr.,
    7. Jones DW,
    8. Materson BJ,
    9. Oparil S,
    10. Wright JT Jr.,
    11. Roccella EJ
    ; Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2003;42:1206–1252.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension; European Society of Cardiology. 2007 Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2007;28:1462–1536.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Japanese Society of Hypertension Committee. The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH 2009). Hypertens Res. 2009;32:3–107.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Estacio RO,
    2. Jeffers BW,
    3. Hiatt WR,
    4. Biggerstaff SL,
    5. Gifford N,
    6. Schrier RW
    . The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:645–652.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Tatti P,
    2. Pahor M,
    3. Byington RP,
    4. Di Mauro P,
    5. Guarisco R,
    6. Strollo G,
    7. Strollo F
    . Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:597–603.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Leenen FH,
    2. Nwachuku CE,
    3. Black HR,
    4. Cushman WC,
    5. Davis BR,
    6. Simpson LM,
    7. Alderman MH,
    8. Atlas SA,
    9. Basile JN,
    10. Cuyjet AB,
    11. Dart R,
    12. Felicetta JV,
    13. Grimm RH,
    14. Haywood LJ,
    15. Jafri SZ,
    16. Proschan MA,
    17. Thadani U,
    18. Whelton PK,
    19. Wright JT
    ; Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial Collaborative Research Group. Clinical events in high-risk hypertensive patients randomly assigned to calcium channel blocker versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial. Hypertension. 2006;48:374–384.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Julius S,
    2. Kjeldsen SE,
    3. Weber M,
    4. Brunner HR,
    5. Ekman S,
    6. Hansson L,
    7. Hua T,
    8. Laragh J,
    9. McInnes GT,
    10. Mitchell L,
    11. Plat F,
    12. Schork A,
    13. Smith B,
    14. Zanchetti A
    ; VALUE trial group. 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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ogihara T,
    2. Nakao K,
    3. Fukui T,
    4. Fukiyama K,
    5. Ueshima K,
    6. Oba K,
    7. Sato T,
    8. Saruta T
    ; Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan Trial Group. Effects of candesartan compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risks: candesartan antihypertensive survival evaluation in Japan trial. Hypertension. 2008;51:393–398.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Lewis EJ,
    2. Hunsicker LG,
    3. Clarke WR,
    4. Berl T,
    5. Pohl MA,
    6. Lewis JB,
    7. Ritz E,
    8. Atkins RC,
    9. Rohde R,
    10. Raz I
    ; Collaborative Study Group. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:851–860.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Berl T,
    2. Hunsicker LG,
    3. Lewis JB,
    4. Pfeffer MA,
    5. Porush JG,
    6. Rouleau JL,
    7. Drury PL,
    8. Esmatjes E,
    9. Hricik D,
    10. Parikh CR,
    11. Raz I,
    12. Vanhille P,
    13. Wiegmann TB,
    14. Wolfe BM,
    15. Locatelli F,
    16. Goldhaber SZ,
    17. Lewis EJ
    ; Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial. Collaborative Study Group. Cardiovascular outcomes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:542–549.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Ueshima H
    . Explanation for the Japanese paradox: prevention of increase in coronary heart disease and reduction in stroke. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2007;14:278–286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Kubo M,
    2. Kiyohara Y,
    3. Kato I,
    4. Tanizaki Y,
    5. Arima H,
    6. Tanaka K,
    7. Nakamura H,
    8. Okubo K,
    9. Iida M
    . Trends in the incidence, mortality, and survival rate of cardiovascular disease in a Japanese community: the Hisayama Study. Stroke. 2003;34:2349–2354.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Balkau B,
    2. Deanfield JE,
    3. Després JP,
    4. Bassand JP,
    5. Fox KA,
    6. Smith SC Jr.,
    7. Barter P,
    8. Tan CE,
    9. Van Gaal L,
    10. Wittchen HU,
    11. Massien C,
    12. Haffner SM
    . International Day for the Evaluation of Abdominal Obesity (IDEA): a study of waist circumference, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus in 168,000 primary care patients in 63 countries. Circulation. 2007;116:1942–1951.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Nakao K,
    2. Hirata M,
    3. Oba K,
    4. Yasuno S,
    5. Ueshima K,
    6. Fujimoto A,
    7. Ogihara T,
    8. Saruta T
    ; CASE-J Trial Group. Role of diabetes and obesity in outcomes of the Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) Trial. Hypertens Res. 2010;33:600–606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet. 2003;362:1527–1535.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Matsushita K,
    2. Muramatsu T,
    3. Kondo T,
    4. Maeda K,
    5. Shintani S,
    6. Murohara T
    ; NAGOYA HEART Study Group. Rationale and design of the NAGOYA HEART Study: comparison between valsartan and amlodipine regarding morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension and glucose intolerance. J Cardiol. 2010;56:111–117.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Hansson L,
    2. Hedner T,
    3. Dahlof B
    . Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (probe) study: a novel design for intervention trials–prospective randomized open blinded end-point. Blood Press. 1992;1:113–119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Tominaga M,
    2. Eguchi H,
    3. Manaka H,
    4. Igarashi K,
    5. Kato T,
    6. Sekikawa A
    . Impaired glucose tolerance is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but not impaired fasting glucose: the Funagata Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:920–924.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  30. 30.↵
    DECODE Study Group. the European Diabetes Epidemiology Group. Glucose tolerance and cardiovascular mortality: comparison of fasting and 2-hour diagnostic criteria. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:397–405.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27Suppl 1:S15–S35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Japan Diabetes Society
    , eds. Treatment Guide for Diabetes 2007 (English Version). Tokyo, Japan: Nankodo; 2007.
  33. 33.↵
    Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Effects of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1410–1419.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Weber MA,
    2. Julius S,
    3. Kjeldsen SE,
    4. Brunner HR,
    5. Ekman S,
    6. Hansson L,
    7. Hua T,
    8. Laragh JH,
    9. McInnes GT,
    10. Mitchell L,
    11. Plat F,
    12. Schork MA,
    13. Smith B,
    14. Zanchetti A
    . Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial. Lancet. 2004;363:2049–2051.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Kurokawa K,
    2. Chan JC,
    3. Cooper ME,
    4. Keane WF,
    5. Shahinfar S,
    6. Zhang Z
    . Renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockade and renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a subanalysis of Japanese patients from RENAAL Study. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2006;10:193–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Volpe M,
    2. Tocci G,
    3. Sciarretta S,
    4. Verdecchia P,
    5. Trimarco B,
    6. Mancia G
    . Angiotensin II receptor blockers and myocardial infarction: an updated analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Hypertens. 2009;27:941–946.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Mochizuki S,
    2. Dahlöf B,
    3. Shimizu M,
    4. Ikewaki K,
    5. Yoshikawa M,
    6. Taniguchi I,
    7. Ohta M,
    8. Yamada T,
    9. Ogawa K,
    10. Kanae K,
    11. Kawai M,
    12. Seki S,
    13. Okazaki F,
    14. Taniguchi M,
    15. Yoshida S,
    16. Tajima N
    ; Jikei Heart Study group. Valsartan in a Japanese population with hypertension and other cardiovascular disease (Jikei Heart Study): a randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint morbidity-mortality study. Lancet. 2007;369:1431–1439.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Sawada T,
    2. Yamada H,
    3. Dahlof B,
    4. Matsubara H
    ; KYOTO HEART Study Group. Effects of valsartan on morbidity and mortality in uncontrolled hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risks: KYOTO HEART Study. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:2461–2469.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Bhatt DL,
    2. Eagle KA,
    3. Ohman EM,
    4. Hirsch AT,
    5. Mahoney EM,
    6. Wilson PW,
    7. Alberts MJ,
    8. D'Agostino R,
    9. Liau CS,
    10. Mas JL,
    11. Röther J,
    12. Smith SC Jr.,
    13. Salette G,
    14. Contant CF,
    15. Massaro JM,
    16. Steg PG
    ; REACH Registry Investigators. Comparative determinants of 4-year cardiovascular event rates in stable outpatients at risk of or with atherothrombosis. JAMA. 2010;304:1350–1357.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Hypertension
March 2012, Volume 59, Issue 3
  • Table of Contents
Previous ArticleNext Article

Jump to

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Sources of Funding
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Supplemental Materials
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Article Tools

  • Print
  • Citation Tools
    Comparison Between Valsartan and Amlodipine Regarding Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality in Hypertensive Patients With Glucose Intolerance
    Takashi Muramatsu, Kunihiro Matsushita, Kentaro Yamashita, Takahisa Kondo, Kengo Maeda, Satoshi Shintani, Satoshi Ichimiya, Miyoshi Ohno, Takahito Sone, Nobuo Ikeda, Masato Watarai, Toyoaki Murohara and for the NAGOYA HEART Study Investigators
    Hypertension. 2012;59:580-586, originally published January 9, 2012
    https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.184226

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
  •  Download Powerpoint
  • Article Alerts
    Log in to Email Alerts with your email address.
  • Save to my folders

Share this Article

  • Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Hypertension.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Comparison Between Valsartan and Amlodipine Regarding Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality in Hypertensive Patients With Glucose Intolerance
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Hypertension
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Hypertension web site.
  • Share on Social Media
    Comparison Between Valsartan and Amlodipine Regarding Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality in Hypertensive Patients With Glucose Intolerance
    Takashi Muramatsu, Kunihiro Matsushita, Kentaro Yamashita, Takahisa Kondo, Kengo Maeda, Satoshi Shintani, Satoshi Ichimiya, Miyoshi Ohno, Takahito Sone, Nobuo Ikeda, Masato Watarai, Toyoaki Murohara and for the NAGOYA HEART Study Investigators
    Hypertension. 2012;59:580-586, originally published January 9, 2012
    https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.184226
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Related Articles

Cited By...

Subjects

  • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Pharmacology
  • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Epidemiology
    • Diabetes, Type 2
  • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Clinical Studies

Hypertension

  • About Hypertension
  • Instructions for Authors
  • AHA CME
  • Guidelines and Statements
  • Permissions
  • Journal Policies
  • Email Alerts
  • Open Access Information
  • AHA Journals RSS
  • AHA Newsroom

Editorial Office Address:
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231
email: hypertension@heart.org

Information for:
  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Subscriber Help
  • Institutions / Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions FAQ
  • International Users
American Heart Association Learn and Live
National Center
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231

Customer Service

  • 1-800-AHA-USA-1
  • 1-800-242-8721
  • Local Info
  • Contact Us

About Us

Our mission is to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. That single purpose drives all we do. The need for our work is beyond question. Find Out More about the American Heart Association

  • Careers
  • SHOP
  • Latest Heart and Stroke News
  • AHA/ASA Media Newsroom

Our Sites

  • American Heart Association
  • American Stroke Association
  • For Professionals
  • More Sites

Take Action

  • Advocate
  • Donate
  • Planned Giving
  • Volunteer

Online Communities

  • AFib Support
  • Garden Community
  • Patient Support Network
  • Professional Online Network

Follow Us:

  • Follow Circulation on Twitter
  • Visit Circulation on Facebook
  • Follow Circulation on Google Plus
  • Follow Circulation on Instagram
  • Follow Circulation on Pinterest
  • Follow Circulation on YouTube
  • Rss Feeds
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Ethics Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Linking Policy
  • Diversity
  • Careers

©2018 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. The American Heart Association is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.
*Red Dress™ DHHS, Go Red™ AHA; National Wear Red Day ® is a registered trademark.

  • PUTTING PATIENTS FIRST National Health Council Standards of Excellence Certification Program
  • BBB Accredited Charity
  • Comodo Secured