text:
Where, oh where do I begin? How can I find the words to describe and explain the magnitude of deliciousness that these steamed cinnamon rolls provide, in under 10 minutes, no less! I know this method may sound strange, but I actually got the idea from a Chinese restaurant that served steamed biscuits..also ah-mazing! Plus, I really needed another way to prepare Cinnamon Rolls..since there just aren’t enough recipes/methods out there already..haha! 😉
I wish you could just reach in through your computer and grab one of these moist and delicate clouds of doughy & puffy deliciousness! What the steam does to these basic Cinnamon Rolls, in a matter of a couple of minutes is beyond compare! They get so puffy, light & moist, that they totally melt in your mouth!! Be careful, they go dwon SO easy this way! 🙂
I just wish I had the verbal ability to explain them to you, without you hearing all my squeals of joy to make my point..lol! You just have to try them! 🙂
What you’ll need:
Cinnamon Rolls (I used Pillsbury)
The included Frosting
Divine self control!
Fill a medium pot with water.
Place the rolls, cinnamon side up into your steamer basket.
Cover tightly..and turn up the heat..let them steam for about 5 minutes!
Take a little peek to see them puff up!
When they’re super puffed & slightly firm..they’re done! Don’t over steam them..the soft, moistness is what makes them amazing! 🙂
While they’re warm, swirl on some of the included frosting, and give them a dusting of cinnamon (optional)!
I made a ghetto pastry bag out of a ziploc sandwich baggie to achieve maximum swirlage..lol!
Serve up a moist, fluffy, hot, ooey gooey Cinnamon Roll without even heating up your entire kitchen! What a perfect way to start the day..or end one! ~Enjoy! 🙂

domain: hobby


text:
View jewish Singles in Tillicum
The Evergreen State of Washington. With millions of singles and all the dating advice and technology you need to find your match, Match.com is just the Washington matchmaker you've been searching for. If you want to search outside Tillicum, Washington click the appropriate state and the appropriate city you live in. Back in the saddle again? Start dating online in [$CITY]. Select your dream date from thousands of Tillicum online personal ads with photos.

domain: geography


text:
patients had to be diagnosed with hypertension, according to the trial-specific definition, and randomized to treatment
with an RAAS inhibitor or control treatment. The cohort included 158998 patients (71401 RAAS inhibitor; 87597
control). The incidence of all-cause death was 20.9 and 23.3 per 1000 patient-years in patients randomized to RAAS in-
0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–1.00, P ¼ 0.032), and a 7% reduction in cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88–0.99,
P ¼ 0.018). The observed treatment effect resulted entirely from the class of ACE inhibitors, which were associated
with a significant 10% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.84–0.97, P ¼ 0.004), whereas no mortality re-
ductioncouldbedemonstratedwithARBtreatment(HR:0.99,95%CI:0.94–1.04,P ¼ 0.683).Thisdifferenceintreatment
In patients with hypertension, treatment with an ACE inhibitor results in a significant further reduction in all-cause
mortality. Because of the high prevalence of hypertension, the widespread use of ACE inhibitors may result in an
important gain in lives saved.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hypertension † ACE inhibitor † ARB † Meta-analysis † Mortality
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduce
mortality in hypertension: a meta-analysis
of randomized clinical trials of
renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors
involving 158998 patients
Laura C. van Vark1*, Michel Bertrand2, K. Martijn Akkerhuis1, Jasper J. Brugts1,
Kim Fox3, Jean-Jacques Mourad4, and Eric Boersma1
1Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus MC, ‘s Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 GE Rotterdam, The Netherlands;2Lille Heart Institute, Lille, France;3Royal Brompton and
National Heart Hospital, London, UK; and4Avicenne University Hospital, Bobigny and Paris 13 University, Paris, France
Received 24 August 2011; revised 15 February 2012; accepted 5 March 2012; online publish-ahead-of-print 17 April 2012
See page 1996 for the editorial comment on this article (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs108)
Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are well established for the reduction in cardiovascular
morbidity, but their impact on all-cause mortality in hypertensive patients is uncertain. Our objective was to
analyse the effects of RAAS inhibitors as a class of drugs, as well as of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors
and AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs) separately, on all-cause mortality.
We performed a pooled analysis of 20 cardiovascular morbidity–mortality trials. In each trial at least two-thirds of the
The World Health Organization describes hypertension as the
number one risk factor for mortality, as worldwide annually 7.5
million deaths (13% of all deaths) are attributable to high blood
pressure (BP)-related diseases, particularly cardiovascular diseases
(CVD).1For that reason, the guidelines of hypertension and cardi-
ology societies emphasize that hypertension treatment should aim
* Corresponding author. Tel: +31 107033004, Fax: +31 107044759, Email: email@example.com
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. & The Author 2012.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which
permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
European Heart Journal (2012) 33, 2088–2097
at reducing the long-term risk of (cardiovascular) morbidity and
mortality.2,3Hypertension is often referred to as the ‘silent killer’,
as its presence is usually symptomless. Therefore, compliance to
antihypertensive medication is a challenge for most patients,
especially as adequate BP control often requires the use of multiple
agents, causing additional side effects and as a result inferior
adherence.2Thus, there is a continuing need for potent medica-
tions, preferably with beneficial effects on mortality, to improve
patients’ adherence to the treatment prescribed.
The benefits of antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular
morbidity are thought to be mainly due to the BP-lowering
effect per se, independent of the class of drug employed, as has
been demonstrated with b-blockers, diuretics, calcium channel
blockers, and recently with the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone
system (RAAS) inhibitors.2Blockade of the RAAS is one of the
key therapeutic targets in patients with hypertension, as an over-
active RAAS is strongly associated with high BP. The RAAS con-
trols circulating volume and electrolyte balance in the human
body and is therefore an important regulator of haemodynamic
stability.4RAAS inhibitors are the most widely prescribed class
of drugs for the management of hypertension. Currently, the
most clinically relevant pharmacological agents that block the
RAAS are angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and
AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs). Both drugs block angiotensin II,
but ACE inhibitors are characterized by a decrease in the degrad-
ation of bradykinin leading to a release of nitric oxide and prosta-
glandins resulting in additional vasodilatation. These differences in
modes of action between ACE inhibitors and ARBs might have
clinical implications for patients with hypertension.5
Reductions in both cardiovascular morbidity and mortality have
been well demonstrated with RAAS inhibitors across specific popu-
lations that were selected and included for a criterion other than
hypertension per se. For example, SOLVD (enalapril in heart
failure), HOPE (ramipril in patients with high CVD risk), and
nificant reductions in the composite endpoint of death from cardio-
vascularcauses,myocardial infarctionor strokewithACEinhibitors.
In these trials, less than half of the patients enrolled had prevalent
hypertension.6–8The beneficial effects of RAAS inhibitors on (all-
of hypertension. Furthermore, most (antihypertensive) trials in
which the clinical effects of RAAS inhibitors were evaluated were
underpowered for this endpoint.9–11To evaluate the impact of
RAAS inhibitors on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality for their
main indication, hypertension, we undertook a meta-analysis of all
prospective randomized clinical trials that compared RAAS inhibi-
tors withcontrol therapy in different populations inwhich the abso-
lute majority of the patients had hypertension, and where the
expected benefits would mainly come from a decrease in BP.
We hypothesized that, taken all evidence together, RAAS inhibi-
tors would produce a significant mortality reduction compared
with (contemporary) control therapy. Although the primary aim
of this meta-analysis decided a priori was to evaluate RAAS inhibi-
tors as a class of drugs, we realized that ACE inhibitors and ARBs
have partly different modes of action. Therefore, we decided to
also study these two classes of drugs separately.
We argued that, if a significant effect on both all-cause and
cardiovascular mortality could be demonstrated, then treating
physicians would have an additional argument to motivate hyper-
tensive patients to comply with long-term treatment with these
We intended to include all publicly available morbidity–mortality pro-
spective randomized controlled trials that compared active treatment
with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB with control treatment (placebo,
active control, or usual care).
Trials were identified by a systematic search of OVID MEDLINE and
(ADIS) ISI Web of Science using a broad range of key words, including
‘antihypertensive agents’, ‘angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors’,
‘angiotensin II Type 1 receptor blockers’, ‘hypertension’, and ‘mortal-
ity’, published in English between 1 January 2000 and 1 March 2011.
We decided to start our search in the year 2000, because of our inten-
tion to evaluate the effect of RAAS inhibition on top of contemporary
treatment and considered the HOPE trial to be a landmark study in
this respect (published in the year 2000).7References of identified
papers and abstract listings of annual meetings of the American
Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, European
Society of Cardiology, the American Society of Hypertension, the
European Society of Hypertension, and the Council for High Blood
Pressure Research were also examined during the same period. Each
trial identified in this search was critically and independently evaluated
by two investigators (L.v.V. and K.M.A.) for patient population, study
treatment, protocol, and endpoints.
A total of 512 publications met the above-mentioned search criteria
(Figure 1). We selected trials including different hypertensive popula-
tions for whom the benefits of RAAS inhibition would be expected
to be mainly due to BP reduction. We only included the principal
study publication, and excluded post hoc and subgroup analyses. Fur-
thermore, we excluded trials in which patients were selected
because of a specific disease, such as heart failure, acute coronary syn-
dromes, acute stroke, haemodialysis, atrial fibrillation, or post-cardiac
surgery patients, because of the expected benefits of RAAS inhibition
beyond BP lowering in these patient populations.12,13
Forty-four randomized controlled trials using RAAS blockade were
identified that corresponded with the inclusion criteria. We addition-
ally excluded eight trials in which less than two-thirds (66.7%) of the
studied population were diagnosed with hypertension, according to
the trial-specific definition. Ten trials were excluded due to either a
low number of participants (n , 100) or a low incidence of all-cause
death (n , 10), the primary endpoint of this study. Moreover, one
trial was excluded because all-cause mortality was not reported.
Finally, five trials (including INVEST, ACCOMPLISH, and ONTARGET)
were excluded because RAAS inhibitors were used simultaneously in
both trial arms.14–16Thus, a total of 20 trials were included in our ana-
lysis (Figure 1), which had a follow-up duration of at least 1 year.
This analysis is based on data that were obtained from the papers
reporting trials’ main results. Two authors (L.v.V., K.M.A.) independ-
ently extracted data from these reports, and resolved differences by
consensus. For each treatment arm, we recorded the number of
trial participants, the number of patients who reached the endpoint
of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the mean age at baseline,
ACE inhibitors reduce mortality in hypertension
the mean diastolic blood pressure and systolic blood pressure (SBP) at
baseline, the percentage of male participants, the percentage of
patients with diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, and hypertension,
as well as the total follow-up time (until death) in years.
The endpoints of this pooled analysis were all-cause and cardiovascular
mortality during long-term follow-up. Data on all-cause death were
available for all trials. Data on cardiovascular death were not available
for RENAAL, IDNT, MOSES, and CASE-J.
We aimed to provide estimates of the incidence of these endpoints
in patients randomized to RAAS inhibitors and control therapy, as well
as estimates of the absolute and relative reduction in the incidence of
the endpoints by RAAS inhibitors. Since the duration of follow-up
varied between the trials, we decided to base our analyses on the mor-
tality incidence rate (IR), which was assumed to be constant over time
in each of the comparison groups. The IR is defined as the number of
patients who reached the endpoint in the comparison group divided by
the patient-years of follow-up in the corresponding group (i.e. the sum
of the follow-up times for each individual). The latter figure is equal to
the number of patients multiplied by their mean follow-up duration.
To obtain the trial- and treatment-arm specific mean follow-up dur-
ation, the following five-step approach was applied. Firstly, we
observed whether the mean follow-up time per treatment arm was
Figure 1 Flow diagram of trial search and selection process. RAAS, renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system; RCT, randomized clinical trials.
L.C. van Vark et al.
stated in the paper. If this was not available, we then derived it from
the reported death rate by dividing the total number of deaths by
the annual death rate. If these data were not available, then the
mean follow-up time was estimated from incidences that were
derived from Kaplan–Meier curves, in combination with the number
of patients that were reported to be at risk at several follow-up
points. Finally, if we were not able to compute the mean follow-up
duration for each treatment arm separately, we used the mean follow-
up time that was reported for all trial participants together.
For each individual trial, the treatment-arm specific all-cause and car-
diovascular mortality IR was determined. We evaluated the assump-
tion that the mortality rate is constant over time by visually
inspecting the Kaplan–Meier curves of the studies in this meta-analysis,
comparing different time windows within each Kaplan–Meier curve.
We did not find any major deviation from this assumption. Further-
more, we realized that the follow-up time within each of the trials is
relatively short (the overall mean follow-up duration is 4.3 years).
Thus, on average, during the course of the trial, patients became
only 4 years older. In view of this fact, it seems reasonable to
assume that the IRs were constant over time.
Information on follow-up times is needed to obtain estimates of ab-
solute risks (and absolute treatment effects). However, because of the
assumptions that we used, our IR estimates might be somewhat in-
accurate. Therefore, we based our estimates of relative treatment
effects on the hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) or
standard errors that were reported for each trial. Actually, HRs
were available for all trials, except for RENAAL, SCOPE, and pilot
HYVET. For these trials, we calculated HRs based on the IRs in the
separate treatment arms.
Because of the large variety in active (and control) treatments, we
used a random-effects model to compute an overall pooled HR,
even in case statistical tests for heterogeneity across trials were non-
significant. Statistical heterogeneity was tested by Cochran’s Q statis-
tic,17and a P-value ,0.10 (two sided) was considered to indicate het-
erogeneity among trials. The degree of heterogeneity was presented as
an I2value. Publication bias was assessed by visually examining funnel
plot asymmetry and quantified by using an Egger regression test to cal-
culate two-tailed P-values.18
We hypothesized that the mortality reduction by antihypertensive
drugs might be influenced by age, gender, baseline SBP, BP reduction
during follow-up, and follow-up time. To evaluate this hypothesis,
we conducted linear regression analyses, based on trial-level data
(so-called ‘meta-regression’). The trial-specific mean age, percentage
of men, mean SBP, mean difference in BP reduction after 1 year of
follow-up between RAAS inhibitors and control therapy, and mean
follow-up time were considered as explanatory variables of the
natural logarithm of the trial-specific hazard ratio (lnHR) for all-cause
mortality. In this analysis, trial-level observations were weighed accord-
ing to the inverse of the squared standard error of lnHR, thus taking
into account the amount of ‘statistical information’ that is produced
by each trial. Secondly, by including follow-up time in this analysis
we were able to assess whether the mortality incidence ratio is con-
stant over time.
Although we hypothesized that, taken all evidence together, RAAS
inhibitors as a class of drugs would produce a homogenous treatment
effect in terms of a mortality reduction compared with (contempor-
ary) control therapy, we also performed stratified analyses according
to the class of drug (ACE inhibitor vs. ARBs), as we realized that
ACE inhibitors and ARBs have partly different modes of action. We
also performed stratified analyses according to type of control
(placebo vs. active treatment), and percentage of patients with dia-
betes mellitus or renal insufficiency at baseline (.50% vs. ,50%).
Pooled HRs for all-cause mortality were determined using a random
effects model for each stratum, and differences between strata were
All statistical tests were two-sided, and a P-value ,0.05 was consid-
ered significant. We used SAS 9.2 for Windows for data analysis.
A total of 20 trials fulfilled all selection criteria for this
meta-analysis, and their main characteristics are presented in
Table 1.9–11,19–35In total 158 998 patients were randomized to
RAAS inhibitor therapy (n ¼ 71401; 299 982 patient-years of
follow-up) or control treatment (n ¼ 87597; 377 023 patient-
years of follow-up). ACE inhibitors were used as the active treat-
ment in seven trials (n ¼ 76615); two of these studies were
placebo controlled.23,24,26,30,31,33,34Thirteen trials, of which five
were placebo-controlled, allocated participants to an ARB as the
active treatment (n ¼ 82383).9–11,19–22,25,27–29,32,35
On average, 91% of the trial participants were hypertensive
according to the definition used in each trial. The mean baseline
SBP was 153 mmHg (range of the means across trials 135–182),
the mean age was 67 years (range of the means across trials
59–84) and 58% of participants were man (range of this percent-
age across trials 36–80; Table 1).
During a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, 6284 of the patients assigned
to an RAAS inhibitor reached the endpoint of all-cause death. This
corresponds with an IR of 20.9 deaths per 1000 patient-years.
During the same period, a total of 8777 patients assigned to
control therapy had all-cause death, implying an IR of 23.3
deaths per 1000 patient-years. RAAS inhibition was associated
with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality in
three individual trials, ASCOT-BPLA, ADVANCE, and HYVET
In all 20 trials grouped together, treatment with an RAAS inhib-
ition was associated with a statistically significant 5% reduction in
all-cause mortality (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–1.00, P ¼ 0.032;
Figure 2). The degree of heterogeneity in the treatment effect
across all trials was low (I2: 15%) and non-significant (P ¼ 0.266).
No funnel-plot asymmetry was visualized, and the P-value using
an Egger regression test for all-cause mortality was .0.10 (inter-
cept 20.3, 95% CI: 21.3–0.68; P ¼ 0.53), indicating no evidence
for publication bias.
Excluding the four trials that did not report on cardiovascular mor-
tality, 2570 patients assigned to RAAS inhibition had cardiovascular
death. Based on a total of 295 617 patient-years of follow-up, the
IR was 8.7 per 1000 patient-years. The IR in patients assigned to
control therapy was 10.1 per 1000 patient-years (3773 events;
ACE inhibitors reduce mortality in hypertension
2001 1513 LosartanPlacebo
20011715 Irbesartan Amlodipine or placebo
2002 9193Losartan with and without
200233357 Lisinopril Chlorthalidone or amlodipine
20036083 ACE inhibitor (enalapril) Diuretic (HCTZ)
2003 4937Candesartan Placebo
20031283 Lisinopril Diuretic or no treatment
2004 1650 ACE inhibitorNifedipine
200415245 Valsartan Amlodipine
2005 1352Eprosartan Nitrendipine
2005 19257Amlodipine with and without
2007 3081Valsartan Non-ARB
2007 11140Perindopril with indapamidePlacebo
2008 3845Indapamide with and without
200820332 Telmisartan Placebo
Baseline characteristics of study population in 20 trials (n 5 158 998
Active drug ControlMean
Men, %IR in
19.5 Atenolol with and without HCTZ
15.5Atenolol with and without
HCTZ, hydrochlorothiazide; ACE, angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; SBP, systolic blood pressure; IR, incidence rate per 1000 patient-years.
L.C. van Vark et al.
372105 patient-years of follow-up), resulting in a significant 7%
overall reduction in cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.93, 95% CI:
0.88–0.99, P ¼ 0.018; Figure 2). The degree of heterogeneity in
treatment effect across all trials was low (I2: 23%) and non-
significant (P ¼ 0.194). There was no evidence of publication bias.
inhibitors vs. AT1 receptor blockers
All seven trials together, ACE inhibitors were associated with a
statistically significant 10% reduction in all-cause mortality (IR:
20.4 vs. 24.2 deaths per 1000 patient-years; HR: 0.90, 95% CI:
0.84–0.97, P ¼ 0.004). No significant mortality reduction could
be demonstrated with ARB treatment (13 trials; IR: 21.4 vs. 22.0
deaths per 1000 patient-years; HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.94–1.04,
P ¼ 0.683). This difference in the treatment effect between ACE
inhibitors and ARBs was statistically significant (P-value for inter-
action 0.036). Apparently, the observed mortality reduction in
the overall group of RAAS inhibitors was completely driven by
the beneficial effect of the ACE inhibitors.
As far as the ACE inhibitor trials are concerned, the largest mor-
tality reductions were observed in ASCOT-BPLA, ADVANCE, and
HYVET, all of which studied the ACE inhibitor perindopril (pooled
HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81–0.93, P-value ,0.001). However, there
was no evidence of heterogeneity among the ACE inhibitor trials
in the effect of the studied ACE inhibitor regimen on all-cause
mortality (P-value for heterogeneity 0.310, I2: 16%; Figure 3).
There was also no evidence of heterogeneity in the effect of
ARBs (P-value for heterogeneity 0.631, I2: 0%).
Patients randomized to an ACE inhibitor had 9.1 cardiovascular
deaths per 1000 patient-years, compared with 11.2 in their con-
trols (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77–1.00; P ¼ 0.051). In the ARB trials,
the IRs were 8.8 and 9.2 cardiovascular deaths per 1000 patient-
years for patients assigned to ARB and control therapy, respective-
ly (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.90–1.01; P ¼ 0.143). The test for hetero-
geneity in effects on cardiovascular mortality between ACE
inhibitors and ARBs was statistically non-significant (P ¼ 0.227).
Multiple linear regression analysis showed a significant (P ¼ 0.035)
association between the trial-specific mean SBP (measured at base-
line), and the relative mortality reduction by RAAS blockade. The
mortality reduction was largest in trials with the highest mean
Figure 2 All-cause and cardiovascular mortality treatment effect of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockade in all included trials. HR,
hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; RAAS, renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system. Overall P ¼ 0.032 for all-cause mortality. Overall P ¼ 0.018
for cardiovascular mortality.
ACE inhibitors reduce mortality in hypertension
baseline BP values. Secondly, there was a significant (P ¼ 0.008) re-
lation between the trial specific mean difference in BP between the
studied RAAS inhibitor and control therapy at 1-year follow-up,
and the mortality reduction produced by the RAAS inhibitor.
The mortality reduction was largest in trials with the largest differ-
ence in mean SBP reduction. No significant association was found
between the trial-specific mean age, man/woman ratio, mean
follow-up time and the mortality reduction by RAAS blockade.
Mean follow-up time was also not related to the observed mortal-
ity reduction, supporting our hypothesis that the mortality inci-
dence ratio is constant over time (at least for the mean duration
of 4.3 years).
Similar HRs for all-cause mortality were found in clinical trials that
compared RAAS inhibition with placebo (HR: 0.95, 95% CI:
0.88–1.02, P ¼ 0.177) and with active control (HR: 0.95, 95% CI:
0.91–1.01, P ¼ 0.066; P-value for interaction 0.889). Likewise, no
heterogeneity in treatment effect was observed with respect to
the percentage of participants with diabetes mellitus or renal
This meta-analysis, which included almost 160000 patients, sought
to evaluate the effect of RAAS inhibitors as a class of drugs on total
and cardiovascular mortality in their main indication hypertension.
Overall, the results show a 5% reduction in all-cause mortality
during a 4-year follow-up period associated with the class of
RAAS inhibitors. This mortality reduction was found when com-
pared with placebo, as well as in comparison with other
BP-lowering drugs. However, in a stratified analysis according to
the class of drug, it was shown that the observed overall all-cause
mortality reduction was almost completely a result of the benefi-
cial effect of the class of ACE inhibitors (10% relative reduction
in all-cause mortality), whereas the ARBs showed a neutral treat-
ment effect. The findings are firm, as the analysis included a large
number of patient-years (677005) and endpoints (15061
deaths). The findings are relevant to clinical practice, as they are
based on data from well-designed randomized trials encompassing
a broad population of patients with high BP, who were well-treated
for concomitant risk factors and who represent usual hypertensive
patients seen today.
Reduction in mortality is the primary goal of antihypertensive
therapy.2Paradoxically, the effect of RAAS inhibitors on mortality
Figure 3 The all-cause mortality treatment effect of ACE inhibitor and ARB trials. HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ACE, angiotensin-
converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker. P ¼ 0.004 for the treatment effect of ACE inhibitor on all-cause mortality. P ¼ 0.683
for the treatment effect of ARB on all-cause mortality.
L.C. van Vark et al.
in hypertensive patients remained uncertain and had never been
systematically evaluated. To our knowledge, no prior published
meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of RAAS inhibitors on all-
cause and cardiovascular mortality in their main indication of
hypertension. Previous analyses in for example heart failure or cor-
onary artery disease populations (with or without hypertension)
demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular events, stroke, and
mortality.36,37In addition, a pooled analysis of trials in patients
with cardiovascular disease (including hypertension) concluded
that the reduction in cardiovascular mortality and stroke with
RAAS inhibitors is BP dependent.38In our analyses, the significant
reduction in cardiovascular mortality associated with RAAS inhib-
ition supports previous literature.
As stated, the primary aim of this meta-analysis decided a priori
was to test the hypothesis that RAAS inhibitors as a class of drugs
would have a beneficial effect on total mortality in hypertension,
when compared with contemporary control antihypertensive
therapy. However, as we realized that, among the RAAS inhibitors,
the ACE inhibitors and ARBs have different mechanisms of action,
we also decided to study whether there was a differential effect on
mortality between these two classes of drugs. Indeed, our analysis
clearly showed that nearly all of the mortality reduction was
observed with ACE inhibitors. Contrary, there was no clear
benefit from the ARBs. This was supported by the sensitivity ana-
lysis which showed a significant stronger treatment effect in the
ACE inhibitor trials compared with the ARB trials. With respect
to this finding several points deserve consideration.
The reduced effect of ARBs on mortality when compared with
ACE inhibitors has also previously been discussed.39,40A recent
meta-analysis of 37 ARB trials also failed to detect a reduction in
all-cause or cardiovascular mortality in a broad population of
patients.41The differences in the modes of action between ACE
inhibitors and ARBs, and the small-but-definite BP-independent re-
duction in CAD mortality with ACE inhibitors, which has not been
observed with ARBs or other antihypertensive agents, might con-
tribute to this finding.42On the other hand, others have demon-
strated that BP-dependent beneficial effects in the prevention of
stroke and heart failure are similar for ACE inhibitors and ARBs.
ACE inhibitors and ARBs have also been shown to be equally ef-
fective in preventing atrial fibrillation and new-onset diabetes.43,44
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that we did not design this
meta-analysis to make a head-to-head comparison between ACE
inhibitors and ARBs. The finding that the beneficial effect is seen
in the ACE inhibitor population as opposed to the ARB population
should be considered a post hoc observation. Given the nature of
meta-analyses, which are per definition data-driven, the differential
effect between ACE inhibitors and ARBs should be interpreted
with caution to avoid overstating this subgroup finding vis-a `-vis
the a priori hypothesis. In this respect it should also be noted
that the difference in effect on cardiovascular mortality between
ACE inhibitors and ARBs was not statistically significant. Further-
more, two previous studies were designed to compare ACE inhi-
bitors and ARBs in an hypertensive population, but both the
ONTARGET (telmisartan vs. ramipril) and DETAIL (telmisartan
vs. enalapril) trial did not show a differential treatment effect
between ARBs and ACE inhibitors.15,45Thus, at present, the
results of this analysis do not warrant changing clinical practice
treatment guidelines that recommend that an ARB may be used
in ACE inhibitor-intolerant hypertensive patients.2Hopefully, our
findings will form the basis of further analysis and studies into
the effects of BP treatment and total mortality which is the first
line priority in the guidelines for the management of hypertension.
It might be argued that the observed 5% relative mortality re-
duction in the overall group of RAAS inhibitors, and the 10% rela-
tive mortality reduction in the ACE inhibitor group is small, and
only found to be statistically significant in our analysis because of
statistical ‘overpowering’. Indeed, in meta-analyses clinically irrele-
vant treatment effects might become statistically significant (i.e. the
estimated effect divided by the standard error is .1.96) simply
because of the large size of the aggregate (or pooled) trials. In
our view, however, the observed mortality reduction in this
meta-analysis is clinically relevant indeed, for several reasons.
Firstly, it should be realized that the treatment effect was
reached in patients who did receive a broad range of other con-
temporary risk-reduction therapies, including statins, antiplatelet
therapy, beta-blockers, diuretics, and other BP-lowering medica-
tion (note that, as per design, we included trials that were con-
ducted during 2000–2011). Secondly, the estimated absolute
mortality reduction was 2.4 per 1000 patient-years for the RAAS
inhibitors as a group and 3.8 per 1000 patient-years for the class
of ACE inhibitors. This is an interesting figure, particularly since
the prevalence of hypertension in Western (CAD) populations is
high,46despite the widespread use of BP-lowering medication.
Thus a wider application of these agents, in particular of ACE inhi-
bitors, may have substantial effects on the population level. Inter-
estingly, the observed mortality reduction was largest in trials
with the highest baseline SBP. The observed mortality reduction
may be used as an additional argument to stimulate patients to
adhere to the prescribed treatment.
Several limitations of our analysis have to be mentioned. Firstly,
there was a great deal of variation between the studied popula-
tions. For example, trials used different definitions of hypertension,
different dosages of the active and control drug, different target BP
levels, different follow-up times, and in several studies patients had
other concomitant conditions and background therapy. Although
this does not hamper the generalizability of our results, it makes
it challenging to accurately estimate the effect of RAAS inhibition
in a broad range of routine clinical practice situations.
Secondly, this meta-analysis is based on trial level data, rather
than on individual patient data. Information on background
therapy and co-morbidities were not available in several trial
reports. Thus, we could not reliably analyse the relation between
these factors and the observed mortality reduction. Moreover,
the treatment arm-specific follow-up time was not available in all
trials, we therefore derived follow-up time from either the
reported death rate, Kaplan–Meier curves, or mean follow-up dur-
ation. This is an approximation of the true follow-up time, and we
appreciate that our estimates of mortality incidence might be
somewhat over or underestimated. However, importantly, this
methodology had not influenced the estimation of the observed
relative mortality reduction, which was mainly based on the HRs
that were reported for the separate trials.
ACE inhibitors reduce mortality in hypertension
Finally, this meta-analysis assumed a class effect among the dif-
ferent ACE inhibitors and ARBs. The validity of this concept was
not challenged by formal statistical tests on heterogeneity of treat-
ment effects among the different (ACE inhibitor and ARB) trials.
Still, it should be realized that differences may exist between
drugs within the same class that are simply missed due to lack of
statistical power. It should therefore be emphasized that our find-
ings should be interpreted in relation to the pharmacological prop-
erties of the applied agents.
This meta-analysis, which involved almost 160 000 patients,
demonstrated that RAAS inhibitors as a class of antihypertensive
drugs were associated with a significant 5% relative reduction in all-
cause mortality in populations with a high prevalence of hyperten-
sion when compared with contemporary control antihypertensive
therapy. Stratified subgroup analysis according to class of drug
showed a differential treatment effect between ACE inhibitors
and ARBs. The overall reduction in all-cause mortality resulted
almost completely from the class of ACE inhibitors, which were
associated with a statistically significant 10% relative reduction in
all-cause mortality, whereas no mortality reduction was observed
with the ARBs. In view of the high prevalence of hypertension in
the general population, widespread use of ACE inhibitors may
therefore result in a considerable gain in lives saved. The results
of this study provide a convincing argument to improve treatment
adherence in the millions of people around the world suffering
from hypertension and its sequelae.
Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was
provided by the Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus
Conflict of interest: M.B reports to have previously received re-
search grants, fees, and honoraria from: Merck-Sharpe Dohme, Ameri-
can Medicine Company, Lilly, Servier, and Sanofi-Aventis. K.F. receives
fees, and research grants from Servier Laboratories. During the previ-
ous 5 years, J.J.M. has received fees for an occasional consultancy or
guest speaker meeting from various pharmaceutical companies.
L.C.v.V., K.M.A., J.J.B., and E.B. have no conflict of interest to report.
1. Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Vander Hoorn S, Murray CJ. Comparative Risk
Assessment Collaborating G. Selected major risk factors and global and regional
burden of disease. Lancet 2002;360:1347–1360.
2. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Cifkova R, Fagard R, Germano G,
Grassi G, Heagerty AM, Kjeldsen SE, Laurent S, Narkiewicz K, Ruilope L,
Rynkiewicz A, Schmieder RE, Struijker Boudier HA, Zanchetti A, Vahanian A,
Camm J, De Caterina R, Dean V, Dickstein K, Filippatos G, Funck-Brentano C,
Hellemans I, Kristensen SD, McGregor K, Sechtem U, Silber S, Tendera M,
Widimsky P, Zamorano JL, Erdine S, Kiowski W, Agabiti-Rosei E, Ambrosioni E,
Lindholm LH, Manolis A, Nilsson PM, Redon J, Struijker-Boudier HA,
Viigimaa M, Adamopoulos S, Bertomeu V, Clement D, Farsang C, Gaita D,
Lip G, Mallion JM, Manolis AJ, O’Brien E, Ponikowski P, Ruschitzka F,
Tamargo J, van Zwieten P, Waeber B, Williams B. The task force for the manage-
ment of arterial hypertension of the European Society of H, The task force for the
management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of C. 2007 Guide-
lines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Man-
agement of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension
(ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2007;28:
3. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr,
Jones DW, Materson BJ, Oparil S, Wright JT Jr, Roccella EJ. Joint National Com-
mittee on Prevention DE, Treatment of High Blood Pressure. National Heart L,
Blood I, National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating
C. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003;42:
4. Skeggs LT, Dorer FE, Kahn JR, Lentz KE, Levine M. The biochemistry of the
renin-angiotensin system and its role in hypertension. Am J Med 1976;60:
5. Marketou M, Kintsurashvili E, Papanicolaou KN, Lucero HA, Gavras I, Gavras H.
Cardioprotective effects of a selective B(2) receptor agonist of bradykinin post-
acute myocardial infarct. Am J Hypertens 2010;23:562–568.
6. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection
fractions and congestive heart failure. The SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med
7. Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, Bosch J, Davies R, Dagenais G. Effects of an
angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in
high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investiga-
tors. N Engl J Med 2000;342:145–153.
8. Fox KM, Investigators EUtOrocewPiscAd. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of
cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: rando-
mised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study).
9. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Keane WF, Mitch WE, Parving HH,
Remuzzi G, Snapinn SM, Zhang Z, Shahinfar S, Investigators RS. Effects of losartan
on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and
nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2001;345:861–869.
10. Group NS, McMurray JJ, Holman RR, Haffner SM, Bethel MA, Holzhauer B,
Hua TA, Belenkov Y, Boolell M, Buse JB, Buckley BM, Chacra AR, Chiang FT,
Charbonnel B, Chow CC, Davies MJ, Deedwania P, Diem P, Einhorn D,
Fonseca V, Fulcher GR, Gaciong Z, Gaztambide S, Giles T, Horton E, Ilkova H,
Jenssen T, Kahn SE, Krum H, Laakso M, Leiter LA, Levitt NS, Mareev V,
Martinez F, Masson C, Mazzone T, Meaney E, Nesto R, Pan C, Prager R,
Raptis SA, Rutten GE, Sandstroem H, Schaper F, Scheen A, Schmitz O, Sinay I,
Soska V, Stender S, Tamas G, Tognoni G, Tuomilehto J, Villamil AS, Vozar J,
Califf RM. Effect of valsartan on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular
events. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1477–1490.
11. Mochizuki S, Dahlof B, Shimizu M, Ikewaki K, Yoshikawa M, Taniguchi I, Ohta M,
Yamada T, Ogawa K, Kanae K, Kawai M, Seki S, Okazaki F, Taniguchi M, Yoshida S,
Tajima N, Jikei Heart Study g. Valsartan in a Japanese population with hyperten-
sion and other cardiovascular disease (Jikei Heart Study): a randomised, open-
label, blinded endpoint morbidity-mortality study. Lancet 2007;369:1431–1439.
12. Massie BM, Carson PE, McMurray JJ, Komajda M, McKelvie R, Zile MR,
Anderson S, Donovan M, Iverson E, Staiger C, Ptaszynska A, Investigators IP. Irbe-
sartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med
13. Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, Michelson EL,
Olofsson B, Ostergren J, Yusuf S, Pocock S, Investigators C. Committees.
Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic
heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme. Lancet 2003;362:759–766.
14. Jamerson K, Weber MA, Bakris GL, Dahlof B, Pitt B, Shi V, Hester A, Gupte J,
Gatlin M, Velazquez EJ, Investigators AT. Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydro-
chlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2008;359:
15. Investigators O, Yusuf S, Teo KK, Pogue J, Dyal L, Copland I, Schumacher H,
Dagenais G, Sleight P, Anderson C. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at
high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1547–1559.
16. Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, Marks RG, Kowey P, Messerli FH,
Mancia G, Cangiano JL, Garcia-Barreto D, Keltai M, Erdine S, Bristol HA, Kolb HR,
Bakris GL, Cohen JD, Parmley WW, Investigators I. A calcium antagonist vs a non-
calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary
artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a ran-
domized controlled trial. JAMA 2003;290:2805–2816.
17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in
meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–560.
18. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected
by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–634.
19. Kasanuki H, Hagiwara N, Hosoda S, Sumiyoshi T, Honda T, Haze K, Nagashima M,
Yamaguchi J, Origasa H, Urashima M, Ogawa H, Investigators H-C. Angiotensin II
receptor blocker-based vs. non-angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy in
patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease and
L.C. van Vark et al.
hypertension: the Heart Institute of Japan Candesartan Randomized Trial for Download full-text
Evaluation in Coronary Artery Disease (HIJ-CREATE). Eur Heart J 2009;30:
20. Ogihara T, Fujimoto A, Nakao K, Saruta T, Group C-JT. ARB candesartan and
CCB amlodipine in hypertensive patients: the CASE-J trial. Expert Rev Cardiovasc
21. Sawada T, Yamada H, Dahlof B, Matsubara H, Group KHS. Effects of valsartan on
morbidity and mortality in uncontrolled hypertensive patients with high cardio-
vascular risks: KYOTO HEART Study. Eur Heart J 2009;30:2461–2469.
22. Yusuf S, Diener HC, Sacco RL, Cotton D, Ounpuu S, Lawton WA, Palesch Y,
Martin RH, Albers GW, Bath P, Bornstein N, Chan BP, Chen ST, Cunha L,
Dahlof B, De Keyser J, Donnan GA, Estol C, Gorelick P, Gu V, Hermansson K,
Hilbrich L, Kaste M, Lu C, Machnig T, Pais P, Roberts R, Skvortsova V, Teal P,
Toni D, VanderMaelen C, Voigt T, Weber M, Yoon BW, Group PRS. Telmisartan
to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2008;359:
23. Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, Staessen JA, Liu L, Dumitrascu D,
Stoyanovsky V, Antikainen RL, Nikitin Y, Anderson C, Belhani A, Forette F,
Rajkumar C, Thijs L, Banya W, Bulpitt CJ, Group HS. Treatment of hypertension
in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1887–1898.
24. Bulpitt CJ, Beckett NS, Cooke J, Dumitrascu DL, Gil-Extremera B, Nachev C,
Nunes M, Peters R, Staessen JA, Thijs L, Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial
Working G. Results of the pilot study for the Hypertension in the Very Elderly
Trial. J Hypertens 2003;21:2409–2417.
25. Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, de Faire U, Fyhrquist F,
Ibsen H, Kristiansson K, Lederballe-Pedersen O, Lindholm LH, Nieminen MS,
Omvik P, Oparil S, Wedel H, Group LS. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality
in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE):
a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002;359:995–1003.
26. Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, Collins R,
Kjeldsen SE, Kristinsson A, McInnes GT, Mehlsen J, Nieminen M, O’Brien E,
Ostergren J, Investigators A. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihy-
pertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol
adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Out-
comes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre rando-
mised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:895–906.
27. Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, Brunner HR, Ekman S, Hansson L, Hua T, Laragh J,
McInnes GT, Mitchell L, Plat F, Schork A, Smith B, Zanchetti A, group Vt. Out-
comes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens
based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet 2004;363:
28. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, Berl T, Pohl MA, Lewis JB, Ritz E, Atkins RC,
Rohde R, Raz I, Collaborative Study G. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-
receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 dia-
betes. N Engl J Med 2001;345:851–860.
29. Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I, Elmfeldt D, Hofman A, Olofsson B, Trenkwalder P,
Zanchetti A, Group SS. The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly
(SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial.
J Hypertens 2003;21:875–886.
30. Officers A, Coordinators for the ACRGTA, Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent
Heart Attack T. 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.
31. Patel A, Group AC, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Woodward M, Billot L,
Harrap S, Poulter N, Marre M, Cooper M, Glasziou P, Grobbee DE, Hamet P,
Heller S, Liu LS, Mancia G, Mogensen CE, Pan CY, Rodgers A, Williams B.
Effects of a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide on macrovascular
and microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the
ADVANCE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:829–840.
32. Schrader J, Luders S, Kulschewski A, Hammersen F, Plate K, Berger J, Zidek W,
Dominiak P, Diener HC, Group MS. Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Epro-
sartan Compared with Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention: principal results of
a prospective randomized controlled study (MOSES). Stroke 2005;36:1218–1226.
33. Wing LM, Reid CM, Ryan P, Beilin LJ, Brown MA, Jennings GL, Johnston CI,
McNeil JJ, Macdonald GJ, Marley JE, Morgan TO, West MJ. Second Australian Na-
tional Blood Pressure Study G. A comparison of outcomes with angiotensin-
converting–enzyme inhibitors and diuretics for hypertension in the elderly. N
Engl J Med 2003;348:583–592.
34. Yui Y, Sumiyoshi T, Kodama K, Hirayama A, Nonogi H, Kanmatsuse K, Origasa H,
Iimura O, Ishii M, Saruta T, Arakawa K, Hosoda S, Kawai C, Japan Multicenter In-
vestigation for Cardiovascular Diseases BSG. Comparison of nifedipine retard
with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in Japanese hypertensive patients
with coronary artery disease: the Japan Multicenter Investigation for Cardiovascu-
lar Diseases-B (JMIC-B) randomized trial. Hypertens Res 2004;27:181–191.
35. Telmisartan Randomised AssessmeNt Study in ACEiswcDI, Yusuf S, Teo K,
Anderson C, Pogue J, Dyal L, Copland I, Schumacher H, Dagenais G, Sleight P.
Effects of the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan on cardiovascular events
in high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a ran-
domised controlled trial. Lancet 2008;372:1174–1183.
36. Dagenais GR, Pogue J, Fox K, Simoons ML, Yusuf S. Angiotensin-converting-
enzyme inhibitors in stable vascular disease without left ventricular systolic
dysfunction or heart failure: a combined analysis of three trials. Lancet 2006;
37. Thompson AM, Hu T, Eshelbrenner CL, Reynolds K, He J, Bazzano LA. Antihyper-
tensive treatment and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease events
among persons without hypertension: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2011;305:913–922.
38. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the pre-
vention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the
context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ 2009;
39. Messerli FH, Mancia G, Conti CR, Hewkin AC, Kupfer S, Champion A, Kolloch R,
Benetos A, Pepine CJ. Dogma disputed: can aggressively lowering blood pressure
in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease be dangerous? Ann Intern
40. Strauss MH, Hall AS. Angiotensin receptor blockers may increase risk of myocar-
dial infarction: unraveling the ARB-MI paradox. Circulation 2006;114:838–854.
41. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Wetterslev J, Messerli FH. Angiotensin receptor blockers
and risk of myocardial infarction: meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of
147 020 patients from randomised trials. BMJ 2011;342:d2234.
42. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment, Trialists C, Turnbull F, Neal B, Pfeffer M,
Kostis J, Algert C, Woodward M, Chalmers J, Zanchetti A, MacMahon S. Blood
pressure-dependent and independent effects of agents that inhibit the
renin-angiotensin system. J Hypertens 2007;25:951–958.
43. Huang G, Xu JB, Liu JX, He Y, Nie XL, Li Q, Hu YM, Zhao SQ, Wang M,
Zhang WY, Liu XR, Wu T, Arkin A, Zhang TJ. Angiotensin-converting enzyme
inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers decrease the incidence of atrial fib-
rillation: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Invest 2011;41:719–733.
44. Tocci G, Paneni F, Palano F, Sciarretta S, Ferrucci A, Kurtz T, Mancia G, Volpe M.
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers and
diabetes: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials. Am J Hypertens
45. Barnett AH, Bain SC, Bouter P, Karlberg B, Madsbad S, Jervell J, Mustonen J, Dia-
betics Exposed to T, Enalapril Study G. Angiotensin-receptor blockade versus
converting-enzyme inhibition in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med
46. Kotseva K, Wood D, De Backer G, De Bacquer D, Pyorala K, Keil U, Group ES.
EUROASPIRE III: a survey on the lifestyle, risk factors and use of cardioprotective
drug therapies in coronary patients from 22 European countries. Eur J Cardiovasc
Prev Rehabil 2009;16:121–137.
ACE inhibitors reduce mortality in hypertension

domain: medical


Mine Countermeasures Ship USS Chief
|Heraldry of the World |
|US heraldry portal|
Civic heraldry of the United States
MINE COUNTERMEASURES SHIP USS CHIEF
We have no information on the meaning or origin of these arms.
If you have any information on these arms Countermeasures Ship USS Chief mail us !
Rate these arms / rate this page :


SXSW Interactive Awards before the deadline on Friday, November 9.Time is running out. The entry deadline for one of SXSW Interactive's premier competitions is just a couple of weeks away. If you created a revolutionary new website, app, installation or platform in 2012, make sure to enter it in the
The SXSW Interactive Awards honor the Interactive community's greatest new digital creations in 15 different categories. Winners in each category will be announced at the SXSW Interactive Awards Ceremony on Tuesday, March 12 during the SXSW Interactive Festival.
So hurry, enter your latest and greatest digital work before our final deadline on Friday, November 9.
Contributed by Andrew McNeil


While the official start of fall is a few days away and homeowners in other parts of the country are preparing to turn their air conditioners off for the rest of the year, we still have a long way to go before we can turn our attention to our heaters (and some years, we don’t even use those much!)
So, what if your Gainesville, FL air conditioning system hasn’t been functioning very well this season? Did you have maintenance done? How about follow-up repairs? Still not working as well as you think it should? Then it’s probably time to consider a cooling system replacement. If you already have a central air conditioner in place, then you may be tempted to just get the newest model of that same type of system. But that’s not your only option!


text:
Study led by U of C researcher refutes claim probiotics assist children suffering from gastroenteritis
A nearly 900-child strong Canadian study led by a University of Calgary researcher has determined that commercially available brands of probiotics have no effect on children with intestinal infections.
Dr. Stephen Freedman, a pediatric emergency medicine physician and an associate professor at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine, oversaw Canada’s largest clinical trial of the effects of probiotics on children.
The study began in 2013 and took place in six sites across the country including Halifax and Calgary. Half of the 886 subjects, who ranged in age from three months to 48 months, were provided with probiotics while the others received a placebo.
Freedman also served as the co-principal investigator for a concurrent study in the United States involving nearly 1,000 children.
“These were the two largest clinical studies on the use of probiotics in children with diarrheal disease and both studies found very, very remarkably similar results,” explained Freedman. “There was no benefit, in terms of outcomes, in children who had vomiting or diarrhea when they came into the emergency department.”
“Parents really do want to know ‘Do probiotics really work?’ and I think that these two studies really conclusively answer the question that they don’t work for diarrhea of infectious etiologies in kids.”
According to Freedman, the studies’ results are significant given the majority of research in the field has been industry funded and conducted on a much smaller scale.
“There are a lot of claims that probiotics are allowed to make without any evidence of benefit. There are four generally accepted claims that are allowed by, and permitted by, Health Canada and the National Product Directory related to probiotics including good for your gastrointestinal health, intestinal balance, which are very nebulous statements without a lot of clinical meaning. But, as a parent consumer, you’re thinking good for my child’s intestinal balance.”
“This field needs a lot more screening and a lot more clinicians need to really question the recommendations that we are providing.”
He adds that the two studies focused on the effect of probiotics on a singular disease and the results do not speak to other potential benefits of probiotics.
The findings of the Canadian and American studies will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday, November 22. The findings of the Canadian study are available below:
With files from CTV’s Jaclyn Brown

domain: biology


text:
On Tuesday 7th February five Year 10 girls were selected to umpire the Primary Schools Netball County Finals and were chosen after previously helping to umpire the group stages.
On the day they were placed in charge of solely umpiring the matches up to the semi-final stage.
They showed tremendous independence and confidence throughout the day. Members of staff from other schools commented on how lovely the girls were to talk to, how well they interacted with the primary school pupils and how they conducted themselves in such a professional manner.
Mrs Castrey, Head of PE, commented: “I am extremely proud of the girls as they have grown in confidence and developed their knowledge of netball considerably. This is great practice towards their GCSE PE practical mark and they were a real credit to the school and themselves!”
The girls who took part were: Gracie-Mae Chadwick, Fern Cadman, Megan Hancock, Rebekah Bosson and Brogan McVicker (in order on the photo from left to right).

domain: sociology


text:
December 7, 2013
Continuing with the series on the the spoken words of Jesus Christ, the words written in red……
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had at their fingertips much information on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. At issue for each of them was what to include in the books we know as the Gospels. Directed by the Holy Spirit, Matthew assembled facts concerning Christ as King. Christ’s words written in red in Matthew reflect that He is the sovereign one. Mark emphasized Christ’s role as a suffering servant. The words of Christ in Mark bear this out. Luke gathered info concerning Christ as the Son of Man, emphasizing His humanity. Christ’s words in Luke confirm his humanity. Lastly, John presented our Lord as the Son of God. Christ’ words in the gospel of John highlight the fact that He is God.
We will begin our look at the amazing Bible words written in red by combing through the gospel of John. The second person of the Trinity, the the Lord Jesus Christ, created this universe with His spoken word, fashioned Adam from the clay breathing His own life into him, and took on Himself a physical flesh and blood body. He was born into this world via the womb of a young virgin named Mary. He grew to manhood and began His public ministry.
The first recorded words of Jesus Christ in John came immediately after John introduced Him as the Lamb of God (John 1:36). Two potential disciples began to follow. Jesus asked them, “What do you seek?” He was asking them (and us) what they were seeking from Him. We need to ask that same question. What do we want from Christ? They responded by asking, “Where are you staying?” Jesus said simply, “Come and see.” This is His first recorded invitation. He wasn’t asking them to come to the house where He lived, but He was inviting them (and us) to come into His world and see amazing spiritual truths that would forever change their lives (and ours).
One of these followers was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. Andrew quickly went to his brother and told Him that he had found the Messiah. This gives us a simple but insightful way to begin to share our faith. We should take the news of our meeting Jesus Christ to our relatives first – those whom we love most. What an obvious place to start, right! What are we to say? Our witness should be that we have found the Lord Jesus Christ. The way to do this is by sharing the gospel with them. Note what Andrew did next. Andrew found Peter, and he brought him to Jesus. That’s not complicated! We are likewise to bring our family members to Christ. We cannot make them believe in Him but we can bring them to Him, giving them the opportunity.
When Jesus saw Peter, He said, “You are Simon, the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas,” which is translated “A Stone.” Christ’s deity immediately shines through. He called Peter by name. Peter must have been thrilled. It was only natural for the God-Man to recognize Peter; He created him. He had also fashioned all of Peter’s days before he was ever born (Psalm 139:16). He named him with the Aramaic name, Cephas, a rock. Peter was destined by the Christ to be one of the foundation blocks of the early church (Matthew 16:18). This should give us great confidence that God knows every believer intimately and has a special purpose for each.
The Lord Jesus spoke these simple words to Phillip: “Follow Me.” I believe that Christ said it simply and softly. In like manner, Jesus Christ calls every believer out from the world by the gospel to follow Him (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). His soft voice-print “Follow Me,” can be heard in the minds of those who heed His gospel and believe it. Jesus Christ actually calls us to Himself by name (John 10:3).
Phillip thought of a friend – Nathaniel – found him and said, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” The targets for our sharing our faith should be first family then friends. Nathaniel asked, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Nathaniel knew the history of Nazareth in his day. It was a poor city and no one of any prominence could possibly come from there, surely. Nathaniel at this point did not realize that Jesus Christ was going to focus in on the poor and helpless of the earth, not the wealthy or the strong. Paul later would challenge the Corinthian church to take a look at the people sitting around them. They would recognize that the wise, strong, and those of nobility were in short supply. In fact, God has chosen those whom the world thinks are foolish, weak, and nobodies (1 Corinthians 1:26-31). The reason? So that God will receive all the praise for their salvation.
Phillip answered Nathaniel with the now familiar, “Come and see.” And did Nathaniel ever see! When Jesus saw Nathaniel walking up, He said to him, “Behold and Israelite in whom that is no guile.” Or more literally, Behold a son of Jacob (the name means deceiver because Jacob was) in whom there is no deceit (no deceit in Nathaniel). Jesus knew Nathaniel’s character. He knew him intimately. Nathaniel was astonished! He asked Jesus how He could possibly know Him. Jesus then flashed His ID card by saying, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathaniel began immediately connecting the dots. The fig tree was not in the area and yet Jesus had seen him? How was this possible? God is everywhere present, that’s how. Nathaniel responded: Teacher, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel. It’s really you! Wow!
Nathaniel was going to need special motivation to throw caution to the wind and share the gospel. For this reason, our Lord did not stop there. His written in red words continued to flow with amazing power. “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these. . . Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” Christ is saying, Nathaniel if you thought my reference to Jacob was amazing then listen to this. You do remember Jacob’s ladder, don’t you? Do you recall when Jacob saw the angels coming down from heaven and going up into heaven? You shall see heaven open and the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. Jacob’s dream was a beautiful prophecy that one day God was going to come down to man and then go back again. Christ is telling Nathaniel that Jacob’s ladder was speaking of Him (Genesis 28:12). I’m the One, Nathaniel. I’m that Ladder! Nathaniel – and we – should be sufficiently motivated. What amazing words! The ladder – the Lord Jesus Christ – is the way to heaven (John 14:6). Allow the word of Christ to richly dwell in you!

domain: literature


text:
- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Connect with Us
Bainbridge blotter | Two men and a bong
The latest reports from the Bainbridge Island Police Department blotter.
Thursday, May 17
4:35 p.m. A man went into the library on Madison Avenue and returned to his vehicle to find it had been broken into.
Someone had taken a skateboard and used it to smash out the window of the car to gain access. The man’s guitar, music equipment and jacket were stolen. The value of the items is estimated at $5,000.
7:30 p.m. Police responded to a report of trespassing at the Fletcher Bay cemetery. When they arrived they found two adult men in their car smoking marijuana in a large glass bong. When police approached the two men in their vehicle, smoke poured out from within as they rolled down their window.
Police found marijuana in the driver’s possession, a glass pipe and the bong. The driver was given a citation for possession of drug paraphernalia and police drove him home.

domain: news


text:
We are excited to announce the launch of the FIRST Ordinals Accelerator Program!
Ordinals have revolutionized what can be possible with Bitcoin.
We will be investing in Infrastructure, defi, dev tools, proven web3 use cases, and enabling technologies.
Learn more 🧵👇
Stay on top of crypto news, get daily updates in your inbox.


text:
Rabbi Rami M. Shapiro
Dying and Grumpy Family Members
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Debra Zaslow is a wonderful nationally known storyteller and author. On today's show, she will talk about her new book, Bringing Bubbe Home. This is a larger topic of what do we do with our elders who are dying and who have been "difficult"? What is the healing for them and for ourselves?

domain: library


text:
Top 10 Linkin Park Songs
The Contenders: Page 4
Lies Greed Misery is very innovative song...
It is one step ahead from Burn it Down.
Amazing song from the new album...
Hope their new album have more such songs...
LP RULES - abby221
This Song Is So Awesome That I Spent A Month Listening To It. Must Be Higher! Please Listen To It And Vote! This Song Is So Addicting. I Love The Lyrics.
I Wanna See You Choke on Your Lies, Swallowed By Your Greed, Suffering Alone In Your Misery!
Come on! 64?! This is such a fun song! Love it so much!
Makes me wanna dance whenever I hear it!
Vote this up guys!
Damn, how could this song be down here! I was searching it in the top 20's and here it is! This song is so good, it deserves at least top 20. Guys vote for this song! :D
This is an awesome songs I think this should be in top 20
This song has a very deep meaning
The most important thing is that chester's voice seems to be very melodious in it.
It is one of the slow song sung by Linkin Park
THIS SONG'S JUST GREAT! I mean just take in the 'Haiti' sense, though maybe its late ----DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE HERE AT! 44! Its ridiculous!
Such a nice song, it is definitely underrated - mnkV 10 Comments
This song is so underrated. It always reminds me of the good days of breaking the habit, its like the replica of breaking the habit but more aggressive
Why man? It should be in top 10
What the! Such a good song and here at 64!
Just listen to it once, people and you'll realise that this song is just so awesome, the lyrics are just so... Let it be, you need to listen to it at least once.
So underrated, this song is so good!V 14 Comments
I love this song, it's so meaningful, I don't know why people hate on the new songs, they're just a different type of feeling, but it's a great as the other songs
Cried while listening to this song. Absolutely heartbroken. RIP CHESTER
Respect this song if you are terribly sad about his death...
A deep idea for a song. - buggerV 2 Comments
This is an epic song.. Chester's voice as always pours out the magical lyrics of the song.. Awesome lyrics... Great music... Simply the best
One of those songs which you don't really actively seek out, but when you listen to it you realize how awesome it is.
Miracles vice with number one epic in the world I every lesson this at morning song this robot boy it like rise think by other in you, it take high
and high so please my request is robot boy take in top ten list
Excellent piano pieceV 16 Comments
The most unapriciate song ever just listed it it's fantastic
Believe it's very goodd
A song from their underground album and very beautiful and epic one. Hardly some one knows it. Unrated but very cool.
Too bad that many hardly know this great song, its one of the best songs to sing along.
Probably the best emotional song by LPV 1 Comment
Such an amazing song! One of the best songs of linkin park and should reach at least top 10 soon
What a song! It makes me feel happy! Chazz you got a very nice voice!
I see this song moving up pretty far in the charts, just give it time! Too amazing to ignore, raw with emotion!
It's such a amazing song!V 87 Comments
Points of Authority is the first song I know from Linkin Park from Cartoon Network.This should be in top ten.Awesome music video.
The best song in the world!
This song is so awesome can't believe its not at least in the top 30 it shows the more calm side of Linkin Park it shows its one of their more deep songs.
I actually don't care that it's like "not cool", but it's really not! This is like one of the most beautiful song by Linkin Park. It shouldn't be on the first place, but IT SHOULD BE AT LEAST ON the 40th place! - kirillyanukovich
No no no noo! Very bad list! How can this so special song be here?V 1 Comment
No, this is better than most songs that are higher on this list!
Definitely one of the best in Reanimation. Why so low? 73rd? No one likes old Linkin apark anymore...
It's on here twice...
REALLY?!?! This low!... the new fans of Linkin Park suck, only liking their new rap. It's still good, but their old heavy stuff is great.V 1 Comment
Number 4 in my list, better than most songs in the top 10.
This song is highly energetic! It definitely does not deserve to be at this position.. Lp has given everything in this song.. The lyrics is awesome!
This is easily the best.
The Rap is full of rage, if you mix the rap (4rm The Untitled) with the Reff of 'In The End', YOU WILL GET THE BEST FROM IN THE END
You will love this song. Just like Krwlng, the lyrics are all separated in to like, 6 minutes worth of music. You will love it, and garenteed, you won't regret listening to it
"Shut Up (Blood Is Pouring)! "
Wonderful song, remix of in the end - hyuganejix
Very good remix of the original "in the end" song
Bottom of the list?
It certainly equals the original in the end
Though not better than the original
' it certainly equals 'in the end', though not better'? You crazy!
Lyrically Enth E Nd is not as good as the original, but in means of catchiness and the groove ya get, Enth E Nd prevails!
Linkin Park old school!
May not be released but the best song in my opinion
I am really glad I didn't give up on Linkin Park, even if I wanted to. I hated A Thousand Suns and Living Things but The Hunting Party was just what I wanted it to be. And Keys to the Kingdom was Linkin Park's way to tell their fans: "We're back! ". Hopefully they will do more albums like that one because it was total dope, especially Keys.
The Hunting Party is amazing, Chester your screams are insane, I love every song on the album
Just like faint! I mean its just rocking when you reach the climax of the song! JUST love IT!
I love the first verse. Best lyrics ever!V 10 Comments
Awesome song ever heard with catchup lyrics. It makes me wow with hip hop dance. The song amazes up with lot of meanings. The lyrics are awesome. If you could just hear you will never regret
Its not the best of the Hunting Party, but hey can anyone deny that this song sounds like Hybrid Theory? This song is awesome!
Did you listen to mike's rapping in there! Also page Hamilton fits in perfectly
0%. duh.V 9 Comments
It's an interesting song, the music itself is catchy. The lyrics though, they address an important issue. Especially for those in the music industry who, save the urban lower class and police, encounter that issue the most.
The above comment is a generalization which does not always apply, I know, blah blah blah political correctness insert here.
WHY IS THIS SO LOW IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! I liked it from the first time I heard it! The lyrics give me chills, but they're so so amazing, the choruses are great too, this song is one of my favorites!
WHAT. This song is the only one that makes me cry! It's scary because it's about running away from yourself! What's not to like? It's so realistic!
This song is really... really... good. Like it needs to be way higher.V 1 Comment
Victimized is Linkin Park's best song yet, it's the most hardest LP song and Chester screams really cool on this song. It's perfect. This deserves to be higher.
I think Victimized is their best song, but maybe its too short to be a top 10... But common, 215? It deserve at least a top 25
This list is stupid. They shouldn't allow anyone to add something cause half of these songs aren't even songs. Page two is just crap. a lot of good songs are on this page. The list should just add just the real songs instead of anyone adding random stuff.
217? WHY?V 9 Comments
Related ListsTop 10 Most Aggressive Linkin Park Songs Best Songs From Linkin Park's Living Things Best Songs From Linkin Park's A Thousand Suns Best Songs From Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory Top 10 Most Mellow Linkin Park Songs
9 years, 325 days old
Top Remixes (459)
2. In the End
3. A Place for My Head
View All 459

domain: artistic


text:
It is no secret that the energy sector has been under tremendous pressure over the last several months. It’s hard to imagine that the fundamentals could get much worse:
* The domestic supply overhang of crude oil has brought prices back down to their March lows. Crude oil futures are down nearly 30% over the last 6 weeks.
* Leading global economic indicators point to a further slowdown in Emerging Markets which will further dampen commodity demand.
* The deal with Iran, if approved, will just add to global supply worries.

domain: economics


text:
Officers from Newark, Irvington to be hired back
Some police officers in Newark and Irvington will be getting their jobs back.
In March, 31 officers were laid off in Irvington, which was nearly a third of its police force. The state is now letting Irvington restructure some of its debt load, and the police chief says the laid off officers can return to work Monday.
Newark is also moving forward on a deal to bring back about 50 of the 167 officers who were laid off this past December. The city has obtained the money it needed through grants, furloughs and through concessions by the police union over salaries, pensions and health benefits.


text:
Welcome back to The Beat‘s weekly crowdfunding comics round-up! Comics creators and publishers are converging in San Diego this week for San Diego Comic-Con, but there are still plenty of new comics to support on Kickstarter and you don’t even have to stand in line. Each week we’ll spotlight comics projects we think would be a great investment, whether it’s a one-shot story or a sprawling anthology. This week even includes Bun & Tea, a new serial comics magazine.
Let’s get going!
1. BUN & TEA #1
Goal: $4981 USD
Ends: Thursday, August 15 2019 2:52 PM EST
Creators: Anthology through Bleating Heart Press
Best Value Tier: $5 USD for a 65-page PDF
BUN & TEA is approximately 65 pages long per month (that’s about three times the usual length of an American monthly issue), but—! It’s a magazine! So while B&T has plenty of comics stories (50 of those pages will contain graphic narrative), it comes with all the magazine-y trimmings. Like a quiz. Who doesn’t want a quiz?
BUN & TEA is something that hasn’t been seen for a minute in comics: a full-blown magazine containing single installments of several serialized stories. Curated by editorial powerhouse Claire Napier, BUN & TEA features a dozen stories by creators like Kumail Rizvi and Nick Morino, along with more traditional entertainment magazine content, like quizzes. The Kickstarter is for the first issue of a potential six-series run. I’ve been eagerly awaiting the launch of this one — it should be an excellent project. At the very least, please watch the incredible introductory video and pledge a dollar in appreciation.
2. Women Do Not Creep By Daylight: A Ghost Story
Goal: $12,500 USD
Ends: Fri, August 23 2019, 6:00 PM EST.
Creators: Vera Greentea, Kyla Vanderklugt through Greentea Publishing
Best Value Tier: $3 USD for a digital copy, $20 USD plus shipping for a digital and print copy, and a door hanger. Both tiers include a wallpaper and a digital sketchbook.
After her father is killed in the line of duty, Kate and her mom are forced to find work. They soon find themselves hired by the Lady of Castle Carrickdain, to work in an old ruin rumored to be haunted by a ghost with a backwards head… If you enjoy gothic horror about a castle ruined by its own dark secrets, come check out our comic WOMEN DO NOT CREEP BY DAYLIGHT.
Even just the preview images for this one-shot comic are eerie and a little unnerving. Women Do Not Creep By Daylight feels like it’s from a different era in a way that’s fitting for a haunted house tale — there should always be something a little strange and out-of-time. The art is gorgeous and Greentea Publishing is an experienced crowdfunding publisher, plus the idea of a spooky door hanger reward is too fun to pass up.
3. Worst Job Ever #1
Goal: $3700 USD
Ends: Saturday, August 10, 2019 8:55 PM EST
Creators: Denny Connolly, Sloane Leong
Best Value Tier: $3 USD a digital copy, $12 USD plus shipping for a physical copy and sticker pack
While Nemo’s friends are heading off to become witches, band managers, and astronauts; she’s stuck working the overnight at a public library where she battles monsters, spirits, and nihilistic philosophers who attempt to break their way out of novels. It doesn’t pay well, but at least she gets out of late fees.
First and foremost you should do yourself a favor and purchase anything by Sloane Leong, written or illustrated. Leong is a stellar artist with an eye for color and framing, and her expressive art paired with writer Denny Connolly’s delightfully weird premise is a perfect fit. Though Connolly notes there’s potential for future issues, this is a self-contained story in its own right, and it looks like it’ll be a fun one.
4. Cognition: Volume One
Goal: $3731 USD
Ends: Sunday, August 11 2019 9:30 AM EST
Creators: Ken Reynolds, Sam Bentley
Best Value Tier: $5 USD for a PDF, $25 plus shipping for a physical copy, PDF, and metal bookmark hook
This tale recounts the exploits of a steam-powered automaton with a human soul and a demonically possessed mouse. They are spiritually linked, and cannot escape each other. Using their shared demonic power they battle ghouls and monsters for The British Occult Secret Service (B.O.S.S.), under the eye of spymaster magician Silas Pope, at the height of the Golden age of the Victorian Era.
If you’re a Hellboy fan you may enjoy Cognition’s slightly more vintage take on the genre. Reynolds’ script has a dry wit to it, and Bentley strikes a skillful balance between the spooky supernatural premise and Reynolds’ humor. Part of what makes this campaign so appealing is that you can read a full issue for free to see if it strikes your fancy, and the unique backer rewards — the metal bookmark hook is a gorgeous and clever offering, and available as its own tier even if you decide against buying the full collection.
5. BURN Chapter 2
Goal: $30000 USD
Ends: Saturday, July 27 2019 3:29 PM EST
Creators: Amanda Johnson, Jacob Bouvet
Best Value Tier: $10 USD plus shipping for physical and digital copies of BURN 1 and 2
BURN is an ongoing, romance, drama comic from Amanda Johnson and Jacob Bouvet. This campaign is for a print edition of the already complete second chapter of the story. BURN is the story of Ben and Charlie, a gay couple in the 1950s. After the violent encounter with a couple of good-old-boys in the last issue, our couple and their compatriots find themselves on the run with the law not far behind.
BURN is another campaign with the added benefit of a free preview. This is the second installment of a digital-first LINE Webtoon series, meaning you can head back to the beginning and see if the series is for you before you pledge for the collected editions (which are perfect for binge-readers like me). Amanda Johnson’s art is immediately engrossing in its warmth and emotiveness; it’s definitely worth giving the series a look.
The following campaigns from previous round-ups are still running:

domain: entertainment