Explore the vast range of titles available.

Studies have challenged the appropriateness of accepted blood pressure targets. We hypothesised that different levels of low blood pressure are associated with benefit for some, but harm for other outcomes. In this analysis, we assessed the previously reported outcome data from high-risk patients aged 55 years or older with a history of cardiovascular disease, 70% of whom had hypertension, from the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials investigating ramipril, telmisartan, and their combination, with a median follow-up of 56 months. Detailed descriptions of randomisation and intervention have already been reported. We analysed the associations between mean blood pressure achieved on treatment; prerandomisation baseline blood pressure; or time-updated blood pressure (last on treatment value before an event) on the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospital admission for heart failure; the components of the composite outcome; and all-cause death. Analysis was done by Cox regression analysis, ANOVA, and χ2. These trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101. Recruitment for ONTARGET took place between Dec 1, 2001, and July 31, 2008. TRANSCEND took place between Nov 1, 2001, and May 30, 2004. 30 937 patients were recruited from 733 centres in 40 countries and followed up for a median of 56 months. In ONTARGET, 25 127 patients known to be tolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors were randomly assigned after a run-in period to oral ramipril 10 mg/day (n=8407), telmisartan 80 mg/day (n=8386), or the combination of both (n=8334). In TRANSCEND, 5810 patients who were intolerant to ACE-inhibitors were randomly assigned to oral telmisartan 80 mg/day (n=2903) or placebo (n=2907). Baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) 140 mm Hg or higher was associated with greater incidence of all outcomes compared with 120 mm Hg to less than 140 mm Hg. By contrast, a baseline diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 70 mm Hg was associated with the highest risk for most outcomes compared with all DBP categories 70 mm Hg or more. In 4052 patients with SBP less than 120 mm Hg on treatment, the risk of the composite cardiovascular outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·14, 95% CI 1·03–1·26), cardiovascular death (1·29, 1·12–1·49), and all deaths (1·28, 1·15–1·42) were increased compared with those in whom SBP was 120–140 mm Hg during treatment (HR 1 for all outcomes, n=16099). No harm or benefit was observed for myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospital admission for heart failure. Mean achieved SBP more accurately predicted outcomes than baseline or time-updated SBP, and was associated with the lowest risk at approximately 130 mm Hg, and at 110–120 mm Hg risk increased for the combined outcome, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death except stroke. A mean DBP less than 70 mm Hg (n=5352) during treatment was associated with greater risk of the composite primary outcome (HR 1·31, 95% CI 1·20–1·42), myocardial infarction (1·55, 1·33–1·80), hospital admission for heart failure (1·59, 1·36–1·86) and all-cause death (1·16, 1·06–1·28) than a DBP 70–80 mm Hg (14 305). A pretreatment and mean on-treatment DBP of about 75 mm Hg was associated with the lowest risk. Mean achieved SBP less than 120 mm Hg during treatment was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes except for myocardial infarction and stroke. Similar patterns were observed for DBP less than 70 mm Hg, plus increased risk for myocardial infarction and hospital admission for heart failure. Very low blood pressure achieved on treatment was associated with increased risks of several cardiovascular disease events. These data suggest that the lowest blood pressure possible is not necessarily the optimal target for high-risk patients, although it is not possible to rule out some effect of reverse causality. Boehringer Ingelheim.

Elevated morning and nighttime blood pressures (BP) are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events such as stroke and myocardial infarction. We compared the long-term changes in morning and nighttime BP in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (office systolic BP between 150 and <180 mmHg/diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg; mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) between 140 and <170 mmHg; 1–3 prescribed antihypertensive medications). Eighty patients were randomized to RDN or sham control. In patients taking at least 3 antihypertensive medications at 36 months ( N  = 23 RDN group; N  = 23 sham group), the 24 h ambulatory SBP as well as morning (7:00–9:00AM) and nighttime (1:00–6:00AM) ambulatory SBP were significantly lower for the RDN group compared to sham control (24 h SBP: −20.2 vs. −10.2, p  = 0.0087; morning SBP: −23.9 vs. −8.0 mmHg, p  = 0.029; nighttime SBP: −20.8 vs. −7.2 mmHg, p  = 0.0011). At 36 months, 24 h SBP was controlled to <130 mmHg in 40% of RDN patients in the morning compared to 6% for the sham group; P  = 0.021 and in 80% of the RDN patients at night compared to 39% in the sham group; P  = 0.019. Major adverse events through 36 months were rare in both groups, and there were no renal artery re-interventions or vascular complications. Morning and nighttime SBP were significantly lower in patients prescribed at least 3 antihypertensive medications at 36 months in the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial for RDN compared with sham control. The results suggest RDN has significant benefit when the risk of cardiovascular events is highest.

Renal sympathetic activation plays a key role in the pathogenesis of hypertension, as demonstrated by high renal norepinephrine spillover into plasma of patients with essential hypertension. Renal denervation has demonstrated a significant reduction in blood pressure in unblinded studies of hypertensive patients. The SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial, the first prospective, masked, randomized study of renal denervation versus sham control, failed its primary efficacy end point and raised important questions around potentially confounding factors, such as drug changes and adherence, study population, and procedural methods. The SPYRAL HTN Global Clinical Trial Program is designed to address limitations associated with predicate studies and provide insight into the impact of pharmacotherapy on renal denervation efficacy. The 2 initial trials of the program focus on the effect of renal denervation using the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode renal denervation catheter in hypertensive patients in the absence (SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED) and presence (SPYRAL HTN ON-MED) of antihypertensive medications. The SPYRAL HTN ON-MED study requires patients to be treated with a consistent triple therapy antihypertensive regimen, whereas the SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED study includes a 3- to 4-week drug washout period followed by a 3-month efficacy and safety end point in the absence of antihypertensive medications. The studies will randomize patients with combined systolic-diastolic hypertension to renal denervation or sham procedure. Both studies allow renal denervation treatments in renal artery branches and accessories. These studies will inform the design of the second pivotal phase of the program, which will more definitively analyze the antihypertensive effect of renal denervation.

The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed that initial antihypertensive therapy with benazepril plus amlodipine was superior to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effects of these drug combinations on progression of chronic kidney disease. ACCOMPLISH was a double-blind, randomised trial undertaken in five countries (USA, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland). 11 506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events were randomly assigned via a central, telephone-based interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive benazepril (20 mg) plus amlodipine (5 mg; n=5744) or benazepril (20 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12·5 mg; n=5762), orally once daily. Drug doses were force-titrated for patients to attain recommended blood pressure goals. Progression of chronic kidney disease, a prespecified endpoint, was defined as doubling of serum creatinine concentration or end-stage renal disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1·73 m 2 or need for dialysis). Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950. The trial was terminated early (mean follow-up 2·9 years [SD 0·4]) because of superior efficacy of benazepril plus amlodipine compared with benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. At trial completion, vital status was not known for 143 (1%) patients who were lost to follow-up (benazepril plus amlodipine, n=70; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, n=73). All randomised patients were included in the ITT analysis. There were 113 (2·0%) events of chronic kidney disease progression in the benazepril plus amlodipine group compared with 215 (3·7%) in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (HR 0·52, 0·41–0·65, p<0·0001). The most frequent adverse event in patients with chronic kidney disease was peripheral oedema (benazepril plus amlodipine, 189 of 561, 33·7%; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, 85 of 532, 16·0%). In patients with chronic kidney disease, angio-oedema was more frequent in the benazepril plus amlodipine group than in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group. In patients without chronic kidney disease, dizziness, hypokalaemia, and hypotension were more frequent in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group than in the benazepril plus amlodipine group. Initial antihypertensive treatment with benazepril plus amlodipine should be considered in preference to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide since it slows progression of nephropathy to a greater extent. Novartis.

Hypertension cannot always be adequately controlled with available drugs. We investigated the blood-pressure-lowering effects of the new vasodilatory, selective endothelin type A antagonist, darusentan, in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension. This randomised, double-blind study was undertaken in 117 sites in North and South America, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia. 379 patients with systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or more (≥130 mm Hg if patient had diabetes or chronic kidney disease) who were receiving at least three blood-pressure-lowering drugs, including a diuretic, at full or maximum tolerated doses were randomly assigned to 14 weeks' treatment with placebo (n=132) or darusentan 50 mg (n=81), 100 mg (n=81), or 300 mg (n=85) taken once daily. Randomisation was made centrally via an automated telephone system, and patients and all investigators were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoints were changes in sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressures. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00330369. All randomly assigned participants were analysed. The mean reductions in clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 9/5 mm Hg (SD 14/8) with placebo, 17/10 mm Hg (15/9) with darusentan 50 mg, 18/10 mm Hg (16/9) with darusentan 100 mg, and 18/11 mm Hg (18/10) with darusentan 300 mg (p<0·0001 for all effects). The main adverse effects were related to fluid accumulation. Oedema or fluid retention occurred in 67 (27%) patients given darusentan compared with 19 (14%) given placebo. One patient in the placebo group died (sudden cardiac death), and five patients in the three darusentan dose groups combined had cardiac-related serious adverse events. Darusentan provides additional reduction in blood pressure in patients who have not attained their treatment goals with three or more antihypertensive drugs. As with other vasodilatory drugs, fluid management with effective diuretic therapy might be needed. Gilead Sciences.

In previous clinical trials in high-risk hypertensive patients, paradoxically higher cardiovascular event rates have been reported in patients of normal weight compared with obese individuals. As a prespecified analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial, we aimed to investigate whether the type of hypertension treatment affects patients' cardiovascular outcomes according to their body size. On the basis of body-mass index (BMI), we divided the full ACCOMPLISH cohort into obese (BMI ≥30, n=5709), overweight (≥25 to <30, n=4157), or normal weight (<25, n=1616) categories. The ACCOMPLISH cohort had already been randomised to treatment with single-pill combinations of either benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide or benazepril and amlodipine. We compared event rates (adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, previous cardiovascular events, stroke, or chronic kidney disease) for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke. The analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950. In patients allocated benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide, the primary endpoint (per 1000 patient-years) was 30·7 in normal weight, 21·9 in overweight, and 18·2 in obese patients (overall p=0·0034). However, in those allocated benazepril and amlodipine, the primary endpoint did not differ between the three BMI groups (18·2, 16·9, and 16·5, respectively; overall p=0·9721). In obese individuals, primary event rates were similar with both benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide and benazepril and amlodipine, but rates were significantly lower with benazepril and amlodipine in overweight patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·59–0·94; p=0·0369) and those of normal weight (0·57, 0·39–0·84; p=0·0037). Hypertension in normal weight and obese patients might be mediated by different mechanisms. Thiazide-based treatment gives less cardiovascular protection in normal weight than obese patients, but amlodipine-based therapy is equally effective across BMI subgroups and thus offers superior cardiovascular protection in non-obese hypertension. Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

The fixed-dose combination of any two antihypertensive drugs from different drug classes is typically more effective in reducing blood pressure than a dose increase of component monotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of a vasodilating β blocker (nebivolol) and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (valsartan) in adults with hypertension. We did an 8-week, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial at 401 US sites. Participants (age ≥18 years) with hypertension but with blood pressure less than 180/110 mm Hg were randomly assigned (2:2:2:2:2:2:2:1) by a 24-h interactive web response system in blocks of 15 to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with nebivolol and valsartan fixed-dose combination (5 and 80 mg/day, 5 and 160 mg/day, or 10 and 160 mg/day), nebivolol (5 mg/day or 20 mg/day), valsartan (80 mg/day or 160 mg/day), or placebo. Doses were doubled in weeks 5–8; results are reported according to the final dose. Participants and research staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary and key secondary endpoints were changes from baseline to week 8 in diastolic and systolic blood pressure, respectively. The primary statistical comparison was between the highest fixed-dose combination dose and the highest monotherapy doses; lower doses were then compared if this comparison was positive (Hochberg method for multiple testing). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events. Continuous efficacy parameters were analysed using an ANCOVA model; binary outcomes were analysed using a logistic regression model. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01508026. Between Jan 6, 2012, and March 15, 2013, 4161 patients were randomly assigned (277 to placebo and 554–555 to each active comparator group), 4118 of whom were included in the primary analysis. At week 8, the fixed-dose combination 20 and 320 mg/day group had significantly greater reductions in diastolic blood pressure from baseline than both nebivolol 40 mg/day (least-squares mean difference −1·2 mm Hg, 95% CI −2·3 to −0·1; p=0·030) and valsartan 320 mg/day (−4·4 mm Hg, −5·4 to −3·3; p<0·0001); all other comparisons were also significant, favouring the fixed-dose combinations (all p<0·0001). All systolic blood pressure comparisons were also significant (all p<0·01). At least one treatment-emergent adverse event was experienced by 30–36% of participants in each group. Nebivolol and valsartan fixed-dose combination is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with hypertension. Forest Research Institute.

Background Guidelines recommend physical activity to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events. The association between physical activity and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with and without diabetes is unknown. We assessed the association of self-reported physical activity with renal and CV outcomes in high-risk patients aged ≥ 55 years over a median follow-up of 56 months in post-hoc analysis of a previously randomized trial program. Methods Analyses were done with Cox regression analysis, mixed models for repeated measures, ANOVA and χ 2 -test. 31,312 patients, among them 19,664 with and 11,648 without diabetes were analyzed. Results Physical activity was inversely associated with renal outcomes (doubling of creatinine, end-stage kidney disease (ESRD)) and CV outcomes (CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalization). Moderate activity (at least 2 times/week to every day) was associated with lower risk of renal outcomes and lower incidence of new albuminuria (p < 0.0001 for both) compared to lower exercise levels. Similar results were observed for those with and without diabetes without interaction for renal outcomes (p = 0.097–0.27). Physical activity was associated with reduced eGFR decline with a moderate association between activity and diabetes status (p = 0.05). Conclusions Moderate physical activity was associated with improved kidney outcomes with a threshold at two sessions per week. The association of physical activity with renal outcomes did not meaningfully differ with or without diabetes but absolute benefit of activity was even greater in people with diabetes. Thus, risks were similar between those with diabetes undertaking high physical activity and those without diabetes but low physical activity. Clinical trial registration : http://clinicaltrials.gov.uniqueidentifier :NCT00153101.

BackgroundCatheter-based renal denervation (RDN) reduces blood pressure (BP) throughout the 24-h period, as reported in several randomized sham-controlled trials. Reduction of BP in the early morning hours is especially important due to increased cardiovascular risks during that time.ObjectiveIn this report, we examine the impact of RDN on systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) during the critical morning surge period in a post-hoc analysis of patients in the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial.Methods and resultsAmbulatory BP measurements were collected at baseline and 6 months for treatment and control patient groups over 24-h periods. Average morning BP surge is the difference between average morning BP and average nighttime BP, and the morning surge slope reflects the rate of change of BP from nighttime to morning. Mean morning DBP surge slopes were significantly lower for RDN vs. control groups at 6 months (1.1 vs. 3.6 mmHg/h; p = 0.029). In the RDN group, morning DBP surge slopes were significantly lower at 6 months compared to baseline (1.1 vs. 4.1 mmHg/h; p = 0.006). Similar patterns were observed for mean morning SBP surge slope but did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionsThis decrease in the morning DBP surge slope, an index of the sympathetically-mediated morning BP surge, thus indicates a drop in late morning BP relative to early morning/nocturnal BP in the RDN group. Thus, RDN appears effective in attenuating the slope of morning surge in DBP that might indicate possible benefits in a high-risk hypertensive population.Clinical trial registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02439775), registered May 12, 2015.