
==== Front
Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc MedCurrent Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine1468-67081468-6694BioMed Central 1468-6708-5-91546178410.1186/1468-6708-5-9ResearchA novel approach to treatment of hypertension in diabetic patients – a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study comparing the efficacy of combination therapy of Eprosartan versus Ramipril with low-dose Hydrochlorothiazide and Moxonidine on blood pressure levels in patients with hypertension and associated diabetes mellitus type 2 – rationale and design [ISRCTN55725285] Pater Cornel 1cornel.pater@solvay.comBhatnagar Deepak 2depak.bhatnagar@pat.nhs.ukBerrou Jean-Pascal 3jean-pascal.berrou@solvay.comLuszick Joachim 1joachim.luszick@solvay.comBeckmann Katrin 1katrin.beckmann@solvay.com1 Department of Cardiovascular Clinical Development, Solvay Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Hannover, Germany2 The Royal Oldham Hospital/Manchester Royal Infirmary, UK3 Global Product Strategy Department, Solvay Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Hannover Germany2004 1 10 2004 5 1 9 9 21 7 2004 1 10 2004 Copyright © 2004 Pater et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.2004Pater et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Hypertension and diabetes mellitus are closely interrelated and coexist in as many as two-thirds of patients with type 2 diabetes. The consequent risk of such an association is an accelerated development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and nephropathy complications.

In choosing an antihypertensive agent, effectiveness needs to be accompanied by favourable metabolic, cardioprotective, and nephroprotective properties. Given the multifactorial nature of hypertension, the approach that has gained widespread agreement is treatment with more than one agent. Agents with different mechanisms of action increase antihypertensive efficacy because of synergistic impacts on the cardiovascular system. Combination therapy allows the use of lower doses of each antihypertensive agent which accounts for the excellent tolerability of combination products.

The aim of the present study is to quantify the efficacy of combination therapy of Eprosartan 600 mg respectively Ramipril 5 mg with low-dose Hydrochlorothiazide and Moxonidine on blood pressure levels in patients with essential hypertension and associated diabetes mellitus type 2.

The use of monotherapy (Eprosartan or Ramipril) followed by addition of low-dose Hydrochlorothiazide as second agent and of Moxonidine as a third agent will be individualized to the severity of hypertension in the particular patient and to his/her degree of response to current treatment.
==== Body
Background
The clinical combination of hypertension and diabetes carries a particular poor prognosis [1-6]. Clinical studies done in individuals with type 2 diabetes and substudies obtained from clinical trials done in the general population have demonstrated that achievement of goal blood pressure (< 130/80 mm Hg) in this patient category is crucial in decreasing the premature morbidity and mortality [7]. Thus, management of subjects with type 2 diabetes and associated hypertension needs to be early and aggressive, and must use a global approach. Findings from large, international outcomes studies as well as guidelines and recommendation of prestigious international scientific bodies have made available consensus recommendations [8-13].

The challenge clinicians are facing is to tighten blood pressure control to less than 130/80 mmHg and to adjust initiation of therapy to the severity of hypertension in the individual patient.

This multicenter study will evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of monotherapy, double- and triple- antihypertensive combination therapies in a large spectrum of hypertension & diabetes patient population, as summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Large spectrum of hypertension and diabetes patient population selected for the multicenter study that will evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of monotherapy and double and triple-antlhy pertensive combination therapies

GoalBP*	Threshold	Upper limit	
for all patients regardless BP values	for initiation of double-combination	of BP values targeted	
< 130/80 mmHg	> 150/90 mmHg	≤ 179/109 mmHg	
* The Goal BP defines the cut off point for responders/non-responders to any therapy.

Table 2 (see Additional file 1) specifies the treatment strategies to be employed in the study as adjusted to severity of hypertension in the particular patient and to his/her degree of response to that therapy.

The primary objectives of hypertension management in patients with diabetes are to reduce blood pressure levels to currently recommended target level and thus to reduce the risk of cardiovascular and renal complications without adversely impacting glycemic and lipid control.

Previous debate regarding the level of blood pressure reduction that optimizes cardiovascular risk reduction is currently settled. BP goal of < 130/85 mmHg promoted by the JNC-VI guidelines issued 1997 [10] were replaced in 2002 by a position paper of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) supporting a target blood pressure in hypertension & diabetes patients of < 130/80 mmHg [14]. This blood pressure-goal is also endorsed by the most recent JNC-7 guidelines [15] and two other American professional societies [16,17] as well as by the ESH/ESC [9] and formally by the ISH.

A widespread agreement, supported by the above mentioned organizations/societies is in place, regarding the principles governing the use of appropriate antihypertensive drug combinations to maximize hypotensive efficacy while minimizing side effects. Polypharmacy is common place and, with at least one third of patients requiring two or more agents simultaneously, a paradigm shift in the approach of initiating therapy is done by advocating use of two agents in subjects with more severe hypertension (BP in excess of 20/10 mmHg above goal). Low-dose thiazide diuretic is favored as one of the two starting agents.

In general, monotherapy is likely to be successful in mild hypertensive patients (grade 1 hypertension) without associated major risk factors for CHD. In contrast, patients with type 2 diabetes need more rigorous control of BP in an easier, simpler fashion, given the remarkable complexity of the multiple drug regimens needed to control their comorbid medical problems (e.g., diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol).

A large body of evidence derived from a multitude of international trials have demonstrated both the benefit of low-level, goal blood pressure, in terms of prevention of long-term complications and, the need for multiple drug combinations in order to achieve that goal [13,18-20]. Furthermore, in a computer-modelled cost-effectiveness analysis of the JNC-VI treatment goal (< 130/85 mmHg), lowering blood pressure to goal increases patients' life expectancy and decreases long-term cost [21]. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the context of the UKPDS study has also revealed that incremental cost of tight control (< 150.85 mmHg) versus less tight control (< 180/105 mmHg) was considered to be effective [22].

In the HOT study [13], which recruited grade 2 and 3 hypertensives after washout from previous agents, monotherapy was successful in only 25–40% of patients, according to the target diastolic blood pressure. In trials of diabetic patients, the vast majority were on at least two drugs, and, in two recent trials on diabetic nephropathy [23,24] an average of 2.5 to 3.0 non-study drugs were required in addition to the angiotensin receptor antagonist used in these studies (losartan/irbesartan).

Given the very poor BP control rate, i.e., 11% in patients with hypertension & diabetes, the use of combination therapy is an important therapeutic consideration, as it facilitates quicker and easier attainment of goal BP and should lead to a greater proportion of people with diabetes who achieve BP goal. Initiation of treatment by combination therapy was effectively tested in the VA study at the beginning of the antihypertensive treatment trial era [25,26] and recently in the PROGRESS study [27].

Methods
Patient Population
Subjects will be recruited in outpatient clinics/offices of general practitioners and internal medicine/cardiology specialists from the entire spectrum of patients having coexistent hypertension and diabetes mellitus type 2. The upper limit of blood pressure values targeted (≤ 179/109 mmHg) correspond grade 2 hypertension (according to current ESC/ISH and WHO guidelines).

Subjects to be recruited are supposed to have both entities (hypertension with BP values in the range ≥ 130/80 – ≤ 179/109 mmHg and diabetes mellitus type 2) diagnosed since previously, undergoing current antihypertensive treatment and, to be eligible for the study according to the specific inclusion/exclusion criteria described below.

The study consists of five distinct phases: Screening (S) (up to seven days), Placebo Run-in phase (two weeks), monotherapy (four weeks, double-blind fashion), double-combination treatment (Eprosartan/HCTZ respectively Ramipril/HCTZ for four weeks, HCTZ open labelled), triple-combination treatment (Eprosartan/HCTZ/Moxonidine versus Ramipril/HCTZ/Moxonidine with HCTZ and Moxonidine open labelled) and Follow-up (two to seven days). Patients allocated to monotherapy will participate in the study for a four weeks period while those starting with double combination therapy will receive medication for a maximum of 12 weeks.

The flowchart below captures the main events during the study conduct (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 Study Design. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized study comparing the efficacy of combination therapy of Eprosartan versus Ramipril with low-dose Hydrochlorothiazide and Moxonidine on blood pressure levels in patients with essential hypertension and associated diabetes mellitus type 2.

Randomization and Blinding
Randomization will be concealed.

A stratified randomization will be employed based on the following rules:

1. Subjects with blood pressure in range: BP ≥ 130/80 – ≤ 150/90 mm Hg will be randomly allocated to one of the monotherapy arms (Eprosartan or Ramipril). 30 subjects will be recruited for each arm.

2. Subjects with blood pressure in the range: BP > 150/90 – ≤ 179/109 mm Hg will be randomly allocated to double-combination therapy (Eprosartan/HCTZ or Ramipril/HCTZ); 190 subjects will be recruited for each arm.

The randomization lists will be provided by the Department of Clinical Supplies at Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV with the program ADLS. Patients will be allocated in equal numbers to each sequence. A fixed block size of patients will be used, and only complete blocks of study medication will be provided to the centers.

Within each center, randomization numbers will be used in ascending order and patients will be allocated to randomization code numbers in chronological order. The study will be unblinded when all CRFs are in house and the data on the database have been declared clean.

The following drugs are to be used in the study:

• Eprosartan 600 mg, once daily

• Ramipril 5 mg, once daily

• Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg, once daily

• Moxonidine 0.4 mg, once daily

• Placebo tablets matching Eprosartan 600 mg and Ramipril 5 mg will be used in the monotherapy, in the double- and in the triple-combination therapy phases. Hydrochlorothiazide tablets will be open labelled in the double- and triple-combination therapy phases. Moxonidine tablets will open-labelled in the triple-combination therapy phase.

Eprosartan and Ramipril and the corresponding placebos will be packaged according to the double-dummy technique. Fig. 2 summarizes the treatment algorithm.

Figure 2 Treatment Algorithm

Monotherapy (Eprosartan vs. Ramipril)
Patients eligible for participation in the study by the assessment at V2 will be randomized on the basis of the severity of their hypertension and allocated to either monotherapy or to double-combination therapy (described below).

Patients with initial blood pressure values in the range ≥ 130/80 – ≤ 150/90 mmHg, will be randomly allocated to one of the monotherapy groups.

By the end of the first four-week phase an assessment will be made as to whether patients have reached or not the "goal" hypertension (< 130/80 mmHg).

Patients on monotherapy deemed to be responders at the end of four weeks treatment (i.e., have reached the "goal") will terminate their participation in the study and be followed up during the ensuing two to seven days after stopped monotherapy (procedure similar with Follow-up at end of study (V6).

Non-responders (according to above mentioned criteria, i. e., with BP still ≥ 130/80 mmHg), will receive double-combination therapy (Eprosartan/HCTZ respectively Ramipril/HCTZ) and will be followed-up for eight weeks (red-dotted line in the flowchart).

Double-combination Therapy (Eprosartan/HCTZ vs. Ramipril/HCTZ)
Patients with initial blood pressure values in the range > 150/90 – ≤ 179/109 mmHg, will be randomly allocated to double-combination therapy. By the end of this first four-week phase an assessment will be made as to whether patients have reached or not the "goal" hypertension (< 130/80 mmHg).

Responders will maintain double-combination therapy and will be followed-up for an eight week period (V3 toV5, dotted-line in the flowchart) and retain therapy unchanged.

Non-responders will receive triple-combination, as described below.

Triple-combination Therapy (Eprosartan/HCTZ/Moxonidine vs. Ramipril/HCTZ/Moxonidine)
Non-responder patients after four weeks of double-combination therapy will receive triple-combination (Eprosartan/HCTZ/Moxonidine vs. Ramipril/HCTZ/Moxonidine) and will be followed-up for an eight weeks period (V3 to V5).

After the first four weeks of monotherapy respectively double-combination therapy (V3), patients will be reassessed for compliance, adverse events and supplied with medication for the next eight weeks (except for the monotherapy patients who reached goal blood pressure and who will terminate the study).

During the eight weeks triple-combination therapy all patients will be reassessed for compliance and adverse events (visits V4, V5 and V6). A 12-lead ECG will be performed by S, V3 and V5 while safety laboratory parameters will be performed by S, V2 and finally by visit V5.

A Follow-up Visit will be performed on all patients with full physical examination, BP and pulse rate check within the ensuing two to seven days after study end (V6). Further follow-up and optimal treatment will be decided on a case-by-case basis by the physician in charge. Table 3 (see Additional file 2) displays a summary of the scheduled investigations, as planned for each particular visit.

Inclusion Criteria
1. Males and females aged 40 to 80 years of age. Women of childbearing age will be subject to pregnancy testing and will agree to maintain adequate hormonal contraception.

2. Eligible patients should have diagnosed essential hypertension (not controlled with current treatment, i.e., BP ≥ 130/80 – ≤ 179/109 mmHg) and diagnosed associated diabetes mellitus type 2, willing to accept withdrawal of any antihypertensive medication by the time of the Screening visit.

Exclusion Criteria
A multitude of exclusion criteria, carefully listed in the study protocol, can be summarised in three different groups:

1. Ineligibility based on hypertension grade 3 (BP ≥ 180/110 mmHg), any form of secondary hypertension or hypotension (SBP ≤ 90 mmHg).

2. Any form of organic heart disease requiring medical treatment that might have hypotensive effect, imply need for invasive investigation or surgery.

3. The patient is suffering from a severe concomitant illness related to any body organ or system, likely to affect outcome assessment. Likewise, ineligibility is declared for patient anticipated to have compliance problems, participants in another trial during the past 30 days, pregnancy and lactations and known hypersensitivity to ingredients of any of the employed agents (eprosartan, ramipril, hydrochlorothiazide, moxonidine). In addition, diabetes mellitus type 1 is exclusion criteria.

Study Outcomes
Prior and Concomitant Therapy
The study protocol calls for every patient to be treated optimally by the physician in charge and to receive comprehensive, individualized lifestyle change advice regarding relevant diet and physical activity. Visits are to be scheduled in the context of the study (at four weeks interval during ongoing treatment). Any antihypertensive medication should be withdrawn latest by Screening visit and will be prohibited during the whole period of ongoing study.

Ethics and Informed Consent
The study will be conducted in accordance with ICH GCP and the European Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 (on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products for human use) and on the basis of ethical principles laid down in the current revision of the Declaration of Helsinki (Edinburgh 2000). In addition, Solvay Pharmaceuticals GmbH policies and procedures should also be followed.

Written consent, involving provision of detailed information regarding the study objectives, design, scope of the intervention, risks and benefits, will be obtained for all patients before initiating any study procedures. Likewise, study documentation is to be subject to the scrutiny of local ethical committees in the two countries participating in the study.

Sample Size and Statistical Analysis
Efficacy
The primary objective is to demonstrate the superiority of combination therapy of Eprosartan/HCTZ (600/12.5 mg) versus Ramipril/HCTZ (5/12.5 mg) with the primary parameter of attention being the percentage of patients brought to goal blood pressure (<130/80 mmHg) at visit V3.

Null hypothesis: H0: PE+HCTZ = PR+HCTZ

Alternative hypothesis: H1: PE+HCTZ ≠ PR+HCTZ,

Where PE+HCTZ is the percentage of patients brought to goal blood pressure at visit 3 with Eprosartan/HCTZ and PR+HCTZ is the percentage of patients brought to goal blood pressure at visit V3 with Ramipril/HCTZ.

The primary parameter will be analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for center effects. Statistical significance will be assessed with a two-sided test at 0.05 α level. The confirmative analysis of the primary parameter will be performed on the intent-to-treat patient sample.

Secondary efficacy objectives:

• To compare the mean change in sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) and sitting diastolic blood pressure (sitDBP) between Eprosartan/HCTZ and Ramipril/HCTZ (V3 vs. V2).

• To compare the percentage of patients brought to goal blood pressure by the triple-combination Eprosartan/HCTZ/Moxonidine vs. Ramipril/HCTZ/Moxonidine (V5 vs. V3).

• To compare the mean change in sitSBP and sitDBP between triple-combination with Eprosartan/HCTZ/Moxonidine vs. Ramipril/HCTZ/Moxonidine (V5 vs. V3).

• To compare the mean change in sitSBP and sitDBP between monotherapy with Eprosartan vs. Ramipril (V3 vs. V2)

• To compare the percentage of patients brought to goal blood pressure at visit V5 between Eprosartan/HCTZ and Ramipril/HCTZ in patients not at goal blood pressure after four weeks of monotherapy.

• To compare the mean change in sitSBP and sitDBP as well as the responder rate in patients non-responders (not at goal) after four weeks of monotherapy (switched to double combination therapy) (V5 vs.V3); and to compare the mean change in sitSBP and sitDBP as well as the responder rate maintenance in patients who reached goal blood pressure value at the end of first four weeks of double-combination therapy and successively entered an eight weeks follow-up period (V5 vs.V3).

Changes in blood pressure parameters will be assessed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model will include the intercept, treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate. For response rates, the treatment groups will be compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for center effects. Comparisons of the medication regimens will be reported along with 95% confidence intervals of the relative risk ratios. These analyses will be considered as exploratory.

Safety
All patients who receive at least one dose of double-blind medication will be assessed for clinical safety and tolerability. Evaluation of safety data will be based on comparisons of patient experience by treatment group. Clinical interpretation of safety will be based on reviews of standard displays of adverse events incidence, pulse rate data, and laboratory test values. Summary statistics of laboratory test values and incidence of adverse events according to treatment and time of onset will be presented.

Sample Size, Power and Level of Significance
A formal sample size estimation has been done for patients with blood pressure in the range: > 150/90 mmHg and ≤ 179/109 mmHg.

Assuming that 55% of the patients in the Eprosartan/HCTZ group would reach goal blood pressure as compared with only 40% in the Ramipril/HCTZ group, a 0.05% two-sided significance level with 80% power to detect the targeted 15% difference will imply the need for 346 patients supposed to complete the four-weeks double-combination therapy phase. Further 35 patients (10% of the total) will be recruited to account for drop-outs.

In addition, 60 subjects with BP ≥ 130/80 and ≤ 150/90 mmHg will be randomly allocated to either Eprosartan or Ramipril monotherapy group at visit V2. Inclusion of monotherapy phase with a relatively low number of patients (30 subjects per arm) is justified by the intention to therapeutically target the whole spectrum of patient population having coexistent diabetes mellitus type 2 and mild to moderate hypertension, in whom the agents tested are likely to be effective.

Blood Pressure Measurements
Office blood pressure will be determined by Riva-Rocci method with a mercury or a mercury calibrated sphygmomanometer throughout the study. All measurements will be made on the same arm supported at heart level, using the same cuff size and the same equipment. If the patient's arm circumference is > 32 cm, a large blood pressure cuff should be used. Diastolic blood pressure will be measured at the disappearance of Korotkoff sounds phaseV. Measurements should be taken by the same staff member at the particular visits.

For an individual patient blood pressure measurements should be performed at 24 hours after the last oral dose, at the same time (± 2 hour) in the morning, between 8 and 10 am. Blood pressure will be measured in the following sequence: after the patient sits quietly for at least 5 minutes, blood pressure will be measured twice at approximately 2-minutes interval. The average of these measurements will be recorded. If the difference between measurements is in excess of 5 mmHg a third reading will be performed and the average value recorded as mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

Measurements should be performed by the same study assistant using the same device, in each of the centres involved in the study.

Discussion
The current evidence base is strongly in favour of combining drugs in order to achieve blood pressure goals, in particular in patients with coexistent hypertension & diabetes. Likewise, there is a widespread agreement in the scientific community as to the goal blood pressure to be achieved in these patients. Further, common sense in clinical practice dictates that combination therapies should be tailored to severity of hypertension in the individual patient and that, eventual associated risk factors/comorbidities should be accounted for in the process of treatment decision making.

Patients with high blood pressure and associated impaired glucose tolerance or overt diabetes mellitus type 2, as a group, are insulin resistant, [28] glucose intolerant [29-31], hyperinsulinemic [32-36], dyslipidemic [37-42] and with evidence of endothelial dysfunction [43,44]. Extensive epidemiological evidence indicates that diabetic individuals with hypertension have greatly increased risk of cardiovascular disease, renal insufficiency, and diabetic retinopathy [45-47].

For every 5 to 10 mmHg decrease in systolic blood pressure achieved with diuretics, ARBs, ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers or calcium channel blockers in patients with diabetes, there is a 20% to 30% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular events [48-53].

Agents belonging to the nine, most well-known different antihypertensive drug classes produce a similar reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (10–15 and 5–10 mm Hg respectively). Differences in terms of magnitude of blood pressure lowering, as indicated by results from comparative efficacy studies, are usually small [54]. However, larger differences have been shown as to effects on hard endpoints (myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke).

Comparisons between different agents in patients with hypertension & diabetes mellitus type 2, convincingly point to ACE inhibitors and ARBs as being the two classes of antihypertensive drugs that reduce the activity of the renin-angiotensin II system, and should be among the preferred first-step drugs for the treatment of these conditions [55]. Angiotensin II increases blood pressure by enhancing aldosterone synthesis, resulting in sodium retention and direct vasoconstriction. The first step in this pathway is inhibited by adrenergic blockers. The third and forth steps are inhibited by ACE inhibitors and ARBs, respectively [56].

Clinical trials carried out world-wide have shown that ACE inhibitors have renoprotective effects [57,58] and clear cardiovascular benefits [59-63]. Their main side effects are dry cough and angioedema.

In contrast, in placebo-controlled trials, the ARBs have demonstrated almost no side effects [64]. Both ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been shown to maintain quality of life of hypertensive patients equal to or better than other classes of antihypertensive drugs [65-68]. The only laboratory abnormality that may occur with agents from both classes is mild hyperkaliemia, especially in some elderly patients with type 2 diabetes who have hyporeninemic-hypoaldosteronism [69].

Use of low-dose thiazide diuretic (< 25 mg) as a second agent in treatment of patients with hypertension & diabetes is well-documented and widely recommended [21,70-73]. It has beneficial effects on both morbidity and mortality figures while, previous general concern on the negative impact of diuretics on the different lipid parameters is no longer justified as, all long-term studies with low-dose diuretics have not been shown to affect lipid profiles in a negative way [74-76]. Moreover, in studies of a year or more, diuretics have been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in every trial to date [77-79].

Since drug combinations may be required for many years in the age-groups in which type 2 diabetes is most prevalent, there have been calls for the use of agents devoid of adverse effects on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. It has been suggested that such effects may account for the shortfall in reduction of coronary heart disease observed in clinical trials of diuretics and β-blockers [80,81].

Moxonidine stimulates imidazoline-I1 receptors in the medulla, thereby reducing central sympathetic drive and attenuating peripheral vascular resistance. In addition, reduced sympathetic drive results in lower plasma concentrations of catecholamines and renin. Randomised comparative studies show that the efficacy of moxonidine as monotherapy is similar to that of other antihypertensive agents [82]. Moreover, selectivity for the I1 receptor greatly reduces the adverse affects attributable to costimulation of medullary α2-adrenoceptors [82] observed with the first generation of centrally acting agents, α-methyldopa and clonidine.

In clinical studies, moxonidine has been shown to have neutral or beneficial effects on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism [82,83]. A retrospective analysis suggested minor dose-dependent reductions in fasting plasma glucose in moxonidine-treated hypertensive patients.

On the available evidence, moxonidine seems to be a logical choice as component of combination treatment of patients with hypertension and associated diabetes mellitus type 2 or impaired glucose tolerance.

Conclusions
The poor blood pressure control in patients with hypertension & diabetes in everyday life lies, at least in part, in the emphasis in the evidence-based guidelines of the recent past towards advice on initial, single treatments as well as in their lack of clarity and transparency in recommending pre-specified blood pressure targets [10,84-86].

Previous consensual advice that combination treatments expose patients to the increased risk of adverse events has been replaced by good evidence to the contrary: use of several agents combined or of fixed-dose combinations treatments have the potential to bring patients to goal blood pressure and thereby to minimize long term risk of hypertension/diabetes-related complications [22-27,87].

Despite the apparent simplicity of the paradigm shift towards clear blood pressure goal and individualized therapy on the basis of hypertension severity (and addition of a third agent in case of uncontrolled BP with two agents), comparative data to guide clinical practice is still lacking and this applies also to the comparison of ARBs versus ACE inhibitors. The present study attempts to explore this area.

Competing interests
Pater C, Berrou JP, Luszick J and Beckman K are employees of Solvay Pharmaceuticals.

Authors' contributions
Study concept and design: Pater, Berrou, Luszick

Drafting of manuscript: Pater, Bhatnagar

Statistical expertise: Beckman

Supplementary Material
Additional File 1
Table 2 – Blood pressure-adjusted treatment stratification

Click here for file

 Additional File 2
Table 3 – Investigations Schedule

Click here for file
==== Refs
Bella JN Devereux RB Roman MJ  Separate and joint effects of systemic hypertension and diabetes mellitus on left ventricular structure and function in American Indians (The Strong Heart Study) Am J Cardiol 2001 87 1260 1265 11377351 10.1016/S0002-9149(01)01516-8 
Palmieri V Bella JN Arnett DK  Effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus on left ventricular geometry and systolic function in hypertensive subjects. Hypertension Genetic Epidemiology Network (HyperGEN) Study Circulation 2001 103 102 107 11136693 
Tomiyama H Kimura Y Okazaki R  Close relationship of abnormal glucose tolerance with endothelial dysfunction in hypertension Hypertension 2000 36 245 249 10948085 
Deedwania PC  Hypertension and diabetes. New therapeutic options Arch Intern Med 2000 160 1585 1594 10847251 10.1001/archinte.160.11.1585 
Cooper ME Johnston CI  Optimizing treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes JAMA 2000 283 3177 3179 10866846 10.1001/jama.283.24.3177 
Laakso M  Benefits of strict glucose and blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes. Lessons from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Circulation 1999 99 461 462 9927388 
Yki-Järvinen H  Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular risk. Lessons from intervention trials Drugs 2000 60 975 983 11129129 
Mancia G  Presentation of the ESH-ESC Guidelines for management of arterial hypertension. Program and abstracts of the 13 th European Meeting on Hypertension Milan, Italy June 13–17, 2003 
Guidelines Committee  2003 European Society of Hypertension – European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension J Hypertens 2003 21 1011 1053 12777938 
The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure Arch Intern Med 1997 157 2413 2446 9385294 10.1001/archinte.157.21.2413 
Guidelines Subcommittee  1999 WHO-International Society of Hypertension, Guidelines for the management of hypertension J Hypertens 1999 17 151 183 10067786 
American Diabetes Association  Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2001 24 suppl 1 S33 S43 
Hansson L Zanchetti A Carmuthers SG Dahloef B Elmfeldt D Julius S  Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomized trial Lancet 1998 351 1755 1762 9635947 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)04311-6 
American Diabetes Association 2002  Standards of ethical care for patients with diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2002 25 suppl 1 S33 49 
Chobanian AV Bakris GL Black HR The national High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee  The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The JNC 7 Report JAMA 2003 289 2560 3572 12748199 10.1001/jama.289.19.2560 
American Diabetes Association  Treatment of hypertension in adults with diabetes Diabetes Care 2003 26 suppl 1 S80 S82 12502624 
National Kidney Foundation  K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: Evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis 2002 39 suppl 1 S1 S266 11904577 
Adler AI Stratton IM Neil HA  Association of systolic blood pressure with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 36): prospective observational study BMJ 2000 321 412 419 10938049 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.412 
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Group  Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvasrulcar complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38 BMJ 1998 317 703 713 9732337 
Arauz-Pacheco C Parrott MA Raskin P  The treatment of hypertension in adult patients with diabetes Diabetes Care 2002 25 134 147 11772914 
Elliot WJ Weir DR Black HR  Cost-effectiveness of the lower treatment goal (of JNC VI) for diabetic hypertensive patients. Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure Arch Intern Med 2000 160 1277 1283 10809030 10.1001/archinte.160.9.1277 
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group  Cost-effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40 BMJ 1998 317 720 726 9732339 
Brenner BM Cooper ME De Zeeuw D Keane WF Mitch WE Parving HH  Effects of Losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy N Engl J Med 2001 345 861 869 11565518 10.1056/NEJMoa011161 
Lewis EJ Hunsicker LG Clarke WR Berl T Pohl MA Lewis JB  Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes New Engl J Med 2001 345 851 860 11565517 10.1056/NEJMoa011303 
Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents  Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressure averaging 115 through 129 mmHg JAMA 1967 202 1028 1034 4862069 
Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on antihypertensive Agents  Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension. II. Results in patients with diastolic blood pressure averaging 90 through 114 mmHg JAMA 1970 213 1143 1152 4914579 
PROGRESS Collaborative Study Group  Randomized trial of Perindopril based blood pressure-lowering regimen among 6108 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack Lancet 2001 358 1033 1041 11589932 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06178-5 
Reaven GM  Role of insulin resistance in human disease Diabetes 1988 37 1595 1607 3056758 
Shen D-C Shieh S-M Fuh M  Resistance to insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in patients with hypertension J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1988 66 580 583 3350907 
Swislocki ALM Hoffman BB Reaven GM  Insulin resistance, glucose intolerance and hyperinsulinemia in patients with hypertension Am J Hypertens 1989 2 419 423 2667570 
Jarret RJ Keen H McCartney M  Glucose tolerance and blood pressure in two population samples: their relation to diabetes mellitus and hypertension Int J Epidemiol 1978 7 15 24 659046 
Lucas CP Estigarribia JA Darga LL  Insulin and blood pressure in obesity Hypertension 1985 7 702 706 3897043 
Modan M Halkin H Almog S  Hyperinsulinemia: a link between hypertension, obesity and glucose intolerance J Clin Invest 1985 75 809 817 3884667 
Ferrannini E Buzzigoli G Bonadona R  Insulin resistance in essential hypertension N Engl J Med 1987 317 350 357 3299096 
Shen D-C Shieh S-M Fuh M  Resistance to insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in patients with hypertension J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1988 66 580 583 3350907 
Swislocki ALM Hoffman BB Reaven GM  Insulin resistance, glucose intolerance and hyperinsulinemia in patients with hypertension Am J Hypertens 1989 2 419 423 2667570 
Fuller JH Shipley MJ Rose G  Coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance: the Whitehall Study Lancet 1980 1 1373 1376 6104171 
Pyörälä K  Relationship of glucose tolerance and plasma insulin to the incidence of coronary heart disease: results from two population studies in Finland Diabetes Care 1979 2 131 141 520116 
Yip J Facchini FS Reaven GM  Resistance to insulin-mediated glucose disposal as a predictor of cardiovascular disease J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998 83 2773 2776 9709945 10.1210/jc.83.8.2773 
Laws A Reaven GM  Evidence for an independent relationship between insulin resistance and fasting plasma HDL-cholesterol, triglyceride and insulin concentrations J Intern Med 1992 231 25 30 1732395 
Shieh S-M Shen M Fuh MM-T  Plasma lipid and lipoprotein concentrations in Chinese males with coronary artery disease, with and without hypertension Atherosclerosis 1987 67 49 55 3675705 
Fuh M-T Shieh SM Wu D-A  Abnormalities of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in patients with hypertension Arch Intern Med 1987 147 1031 1038 3592870 10.1001/archinte.147.6.1035 
Lip GYH Blann AD Zarifis J  Soluble adhesion P-selectin and endothelial dysfunction in essential hypertension: implications for atherogenesis? A preliminary report J Hypertens 1995 13 1674 1678 8903631 
Desouza CA Dengel DR Macko RF  Elevated levels of circulating cell adhesion molecules in uncomplicated essential hypertension Am J Hypertens 1997 10 1335 1341 9443768 
Hasslacher C Sted W Wahl P Ritz E  Blood pressure and metabolic control as risk factors for nephropathy in type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes Diabetologia 1985 28 6 11 3979689 10.1007/BF00276992 
Knuiman MW Welborn TA McCann VJ Stanton KG Constable IJ  Prevalence of diabetic complications in relation to risk factors Diabetes 1986 35 1332 1339 3770311 
Kannel WB  Kaplan, Neward, Stanler  An overview of risk in cardiovascular disease In Prevention of Coronary Disease, Practical Management of Risk Factors Philadelphia, WB Sanders 69 83 
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group  Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39 BMJ 1998 317 713 720 9732338 
Curb JD Pressel SL Cutler JA  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 8968014 10.1001/jama.276.23.1886 
Tuomilehto J Rastenyte D Birkenhager WH  Effects of calcium channel blockade in older patients with diabetes and systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial investigators N Engl J Med 1999 340 677 684 10053176 10.1056/NEJM199903043400902 
Hansson L Zanchetti A Carruthers SG  Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomized trial Lancet 1998 351 1755 1762 9635947 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)04311-6 
Estacio RO Jeffers BW Gifford N Schrier RW  Effect of blood pressure control on diabetic microvascular complications in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes Diabetes Care 2000 23 suppl 2 B54 B64 10860192 
Fuller J Stevens LK Chaturvedi N Holloway JE  Antihypertensive therapy in diabetes mellitus (Cochrane Review) The Cochrane Library 1998 4 Oxford: Update Software 
Kaplan NM  Treatment of Hypertension: Drug therapy In Clinical Hypertension 1998 7 Baltimore, MD, Williams and Wilkins 181 265 
Zanchetti A Ruilope LM  Antihypertensive treatment in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus: what guidance from recent controlled randomized trials? J Hypertens 2002 20 2099 2110 12409940 10.1097/00004872-200211000-00001 
Unger T  Neurohomonal modulation in cardiovascular disease Am Heart J 2000 139 S2 S8 10618581 10.1067/mhj.2000.102901 
Kasiske BL Kalil RS Ma JZ Liao M Keane WF  Effect of antihypertensive therapy on the kidney in patients with diabetes: a meta-regression analysis Ann Intern Med 1993 118 129 138 8416309 
Ruggeneti P Perna A Ghererdi G  Renal function and requirement for dialysis in chronic nephropathy patients on long-term ramipril: REIN Follow-up Trial Lancet 1998 352 1252 1256 9788454 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)04433-X 
Zuanetti G Latini R Maggioni AP  Effect of the ACE inhibitor lisinopril on mortality in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction-data from GISSI-3 Study Circulation 1997 96 4239 4245 9416888 
Tatti P Pahor M Byington RP  Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM Diabetes Care 1998 21 597 603 9571349 
Yusuf S Sleght P Pogue J  Effects of angiotensin-enzyme-converting inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients N Engl J Med 2000 342 145 153 10639539 10.1056/NEJM200001203420301 
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 10675071 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)12323-7 
Lonn EM Yusuf S Dzavik V  Effects of ramipril and vitamin E on atherosclerosis. The study to evaluate Carotid Ultrasound Changes in Patients Treated With Ramipril and Vitamin E (SECURE) Circulation 2001 103 919 925 11181464 
Physician's Desk Reference 2001 55 Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics Company, Inc 654 566 996–998, 1902–1904, 2166–2168 
Paran E Anson O Neuman L  The effects of replacing beta-blockers with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor on the quality of life of hypertensive patients Am J Hypertens 1996 9 1206 1213 8972892 10.1016/S0895-7061(96)00253-1 
Sebastian JL McKinney WP Kaufman J  Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and cough. Prevalence in an outpatient clinic population Chest 1991 99 36 39 1984982 
Moore MA Edelman JM Gazdick LP  Choice of initial antihypertensive medication may influence the extent to which patients stay on therapy: a community-based study of losartan-based regimen vs. usual care High Blood Press 1998 7 156 167 
Vidal JLL Vicente JVL Roca JA  Sexual dysfunction in hypertensivepatients treated with losartan Am J Med Sci 2001 321 336 341 11370797 
Phelps KR Lieberman RL Oh MS  Pathophysiology of the syndrome of hyporeninemic hypoaldosteronism Metabolism 1980 29 186 199 6986536 10.1016/0026-0495(80)90145-6 
Curb JD Pressel SL Cutler JA  Effect of diuretic-based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in older patients with isolated systolic hypertension JAMA 1996 276 1886 1892 8968014 10.1001/jama.276.23.1886 
Borhani NO Mercuri M Borhani PA  Final outcome results of the multicenter isradipine diuretic atherosclerosis study (MIDAS). A randomized controlled trial JAMA 1996 276 785 791 8769587 10.1001/jama.276.10.785 
The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group  Major outcomes in high risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs. diuretic: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT) JAMA 2002 288 2981 2997 12479763 10.1001/jama.288.23.2981 
ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group  Major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients randomized to doxazosin vs. chlortalidone: the anti-hypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT) JAMA 2002 283 2981 2975 
Lakshman MR Reda DJ Materson BJ  Diuretics and beta-blockers do not have adverse effects at 1 year on plasma lipid and lipoprotein profiles in men with hypertension. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents Arch Intern Med 1999 159 6 551 558 10090111 10.1001/archinte.159.6.551 
Weir MR Moser M  Diuretics and beta-blockers: is there a risk for dyslipidemia? Am Heart J 2000 139 174 183 10618579 10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90325-9 
Moser M  Lipid abnormalities and diuretics Am Fam Physician 1989 40 213 220 2679012 
The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators  Effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients N Engl J Med 2000 342 145 153 10639539 10.1056/NEJM200001203420301 
Neal B MacMahon S Chapman N  for the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood-pressure-lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials Lancet 2000 356 1955 1964 11130523 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03307-9 
Gradman AH Acevedo C  Evolving strategies for the use of combination therapy in hypertension Curr Hypertens Rep 2002 4 5 343 349 12217251 
Reaven GM Lithell H Landsberg L  Hypertension and associated metabolic abnormalities – the role of insulin resistance and the sympathoadrenal system N Engl J Med 1996 334 374 381 8538710 10.1056/NEJM199602083340607 
Curb JD Pressel MS Cutler JA  Effect of diuretic-based hypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in older diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension JAMA 1996 276 1886 1892 8968014 10.1001/jama.276.23.1886 
Chrisp P Faulds D  Moxonidine A review of its pharmacology, and therapeutic use in essential hypertension Drugs 1992 44 993 1012 1282869 
Kaan EC Brückner R Frohly P Tulp M Shafer SG Ziegler D  Effects of agmatine and moxonidine on glucose metabolism: an integrated approach towards pathophysiological mechanisms in cardiovascular metabolic disorders Cardiovasc Risk Factors 1995 5 suppl 1 19 27 
Brown MJ Cruickshank JK Dominiczak AF MacGregor GA Poulter NR Russel GI Thom S Williams B  Better blood pressure control: how to combine drugs Journal of Human Hypertension 2003 17 81 86 12574784 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001511 
Ramsay LE  British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management 1999 BMJ 1999 319 630 635 10473485 
Chalmers J  1999 World Health Organisation – International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. Guidelines Sub-committee Clin Exp Hypertens 1999 21 1009 1060 10423121 
Epstein M Bakris G  Newer approaches to antihypertensive therapy. Use of fixed-dose combination therapy Arch Intern Med 1996 156 1969 1978 8823150 10.1001/archinte.156.17.1969

