Microalbuminuria (MA), conventionally defined as a urinary albumin excretion (UAE) of 30-300 mg/day, is recognised as a marker of endothelial dysfunction. Furthermore, it represents an established risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and for end-stage renal disease in individuals with an adverse cardiovascular risk profile. It is common in the general population, particularly in patients with diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension. There is growing evidence from prospective observational trials that UAE levels well below the current MA threshold ("lowgrade MA") are also associated with an increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease and allcause mortality. Even in apparently healthy individuals (without diabetes or hypertension), such an association has been shown. As albuminuria screening assays that are reliable even in the lower ranges are commercially available, there may be an important clinical role for MA in disease screening, comparable to the role of blood pressure and lipid screening. MA is modifiable, and the inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system by ACE inhibitors and AT1 receptor antagonists has been shown to result in a lower incidence of cardiovascular events.

Martin Thoenes, MD 5,6 Hypertensive patients with cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities are at increased risk, and cardiologists' care should put particular emphasis on controlling blood pressure. Data on blood pressure treatment and control and drug utilization on a global scale, however, are scarce. Aiming to resolve this lack of information, the authors analyzed the data of International Survey Evaluating Microalbuminuria Routinely by Cardiologists in Patients With Hypertension (i-SEARCH) to gain further insights into national and regional blood pressure control and antihypertensive pharmacotherapy prescribed in cardiology practice. A total of 22,282 patients with hypertension from 26 countries were enrolled in 2005 ⁄ 2006. A total of 18,652 patients were treated (mean age, 63.0AE11.4 years; 52.2% male; mean body mass index, 28.9 kg ⁄ m 2 ). Mean systolic blood pressure was 148.2AE19.8 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure was 86.7AE11.6 mm Hg. Blood pressure was controlled in 8.3% of diabetic and 25.3% of nondiabetic patients (21.2% overall), with particularly good control rates in North and Latin America (28.0% and 30.6%, respectively). A total of 31.2% of patients were treated with 1, 39.7% with 2, and 29.1% with !3 drugs. b-Blockers were being used most frequently (47.9%), in both monotherapy and combination therapy despite low numbers of patients with respective compelling indications for their use. The present data illustrate the potential for an improvement of blood pressure treatment and control in daily cardiology practice.

No abstract

BackgroundPrevious randomized controlled trials demonstrated a protective effect of renin angiotensin system blocking agents for the development of type-2 diabetes in patients with pre-diabetes. However, there are no real-world data available to illustrate the relevance for clinical practice.MethodsOpen, prospective, parallel group study comparing patients with an ACE inhibitor versus a diuretic based treatment. The principal aim was to document the first manifestation of type-2 diabetes in either group.ResultsA total of 2,011 patients were enrolled (mean age 69.1 ± 10.3 years; 51.6% female). 1,507 patients were available for the per-protocol analysis (1,029 ramipril, 478 diuretic group). New-onset diabetes was less frequent in the ramipril than in the diuretic group over 4 years. Differences were statistically different at a median duration of 3 years (24.4% vs 29.5%; p < 0.05). Both treatments were equally effective in reducing BP (14.7 ± 18.0/8.5 ± 8.2 mmHg and 12.7 ± 18.1/7.0 ± 8.3 mmHg) at the 4 year follow-up (p < 0.001 vs. baseline; p = n.s. between groups). In 38.6% and 39.7% of patients BP was below 130/80 mmHg (median time-to-target 3 months). There was a significant reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in favour of ramipril (p = 0.033). No significant differences were found for a change in HbA1c as well as for fasting blood glucose levels during follow-up. The rate of adverse events was higher in diuretic treated patients (SAE 15.4 vs. 12.4%; p < 0.05; AE 26.6 vs. 25.6%; p = n.s).ConclusionsRamipril treatment is preferable over diuretic based treatment regimens for the treatment of hypertension in pre-diabetic patients, because new-onset diabetes is delayed.

Many patients with hypertension suffer from impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although these diagnoses are generally simple and reliable, it is more difficult to diagnose impaired glucose tolerance. As the gold standard (oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)) is complicated to perform, a simpler alternative would be useful. The aims of the Pre-Diabetes Score study are to correlate demographic and/or laboratory parameters that are clinically simple to determine with the results of the OGTT and to determine the diagnostic significance of the combinations of parameters with regard to impaired glucose tolerance. A total of 260 patients were included in the evaluation; 39% had impaired glucose tolerance and 12% had diabetes mellitus. A combination of HbA1c of > or =6%, a venous fasting glucose of > or =110 mg/dl, an age of > or =55 years, a systolic blood pressure of > or =140 mmHg and an enlarged waist size is highly predictive of impaired glucose tolerance.