[The importance of hypertension in type 2 diabetes mellitus, the method of continuous blood pressure control and patient’s careas well as the forms of non-drug and drug therapy have been disclosed by presenting therapeutical recommendations from American, European scientific societies and international organizations. It has been established that the principles of care and treatment of hypertonia have basically remained unchanged in diabetes all over the world, despite the recent widespread debate over the interpretation of normal blood pressure and the consideration of the benefits of intensive or standard treatment.]

[In the ATTENTION (Using of ARB and sTaTin basEd iNdividualized Treatments in Hungarian patients In the light Of New CV prevention guidelines) trial’s ARB arm 9996 treated hypertensive patients were enrolled. Based on the results in the medical practice, the choice of the first ARB has a significant impact on the further antihypertensive therapy. Losartan, telmisartan and valsartan are all suitable for reaching the goal blood pressure. If necessary, doctors will not change the composition but the dose or use a diuretic supplement (resistant hypertension, older age etc.). Overall a telmisartan preference was observed in the study.]

[Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are treatment options for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or those with cardiovascular risk factors. The comparative efficacy and safety of ACEis and ARBs have been much debated. To compare the benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients without heart failure a metaanalysis was carried out based on 254.301 subjects of 106 randomised trials. Meta-analysis included randomized trials of ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo or active controls and corroborated with head-to-head trials of ARBs vs ACEis. According to placebo controlled studies ACEis but not ARBs reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and MI. It seems that ACEis are more effective than ARBs. But this is only true if we take into account the trials before 2000. The analysis restricted to trials published after 2000 revealed similar outcomes with ACEis vs placebo and ARBs vs placebo. Head-to-head comparison trials of ARBs vs ACEis exhibited no difference in outcomes. The underlying causes and details are explained in this review.]

[The appearance of the Covid-19 epidemic in different continents shows specific clinical features. Confirmed infected patients are detectable from approximately 30 years, with a maximum between 40 and 70 years of age. At the same time, however, a significant proportion of those who die from the infection come from patients over 65 years. The prevalence and mortality rates of the hypertensive population show a very similar formation. Based on the data collected, it is not surprising that hypertension as the underlying disease in the Covid- 19 epidemic is the first in all analysis. A more precise analysis clarified that it is not hypertension per se, but co-morbidities and complications of hypertension that play a primary role behind large-scale mortality in old age, such as diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. Data from China, North America, and Italy suggest that hypertension and diabetes – and in North America, pathological obesity – in infected patients actually only reflect the prevalence of these diseases in a given population. The presence of comorbidities (coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure, arrhythmia, chronic kidney disease) – based on multivariate logistic regression analysis – presents a more risk for severe clinical course and mortality. Some recent analyses have provided strong evidence that ACEI/ARB treatment does not pose a higher risk for the course or outcome of infection. Their administration is constantly needed in hypertension and comorbidities due to their organ protective and slowing the progression of diseases.]

[The article deals with the question where and when is it ethically acceptable in a randomized controlled clinical trial to give the investigational drug to one of the groups, while placebo to the other. First, it gives a short overview on the origin of the problem and the history of its reemergence before and after the revision of the Declaration of Helsinki 2000. It examines the various forms of placebo use, the pros and cons of its implementation, the international debate before the revision of the Declaration of Helsinki 2000 and the corrections after its acceptance. Finally it declares some principles in connection with placebo controlled clinical trials and examines when such a trial is acceptable in various psychiatric disorders.]