Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this phase 1 study involving persons with hypertension, zilebesiran (an RNA interference therapeutic agent) was associated with decreases in angiotensin levels and systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

In this randomized trial, the discontinuation of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease did not lead to a significant between-group difference in the long-term rate of decline in the eGFR.

Drug-Drug Interactions between Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs), Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARBs) or diuretics can lead to renal failure and hyperkalemia. Thus, monitoring of serum creatinine and potassium is recommended when a first dispensing of NSAID occur in patients treated with these drugs. We conducted a pharmacoepidemiological retrospective cohort study using data from the French Health Insurance Reimbursement Database to evaluate the proportion of serum creatinine and potassium laboratory monitoring in patients treated with ACEI, ARB or diuretic and receiving a first dispensing of NSAID. We described the first dispensing of NSAID among 3,500 patients of a 4-year cohort (6,633 patients treated with antihypertensive drugs) and analyzed serum creatinine and potassium laboratory monitoring within the 3 weeks after the first NSAID dispensing. General Practitioners were the most frequent prescribers of NSAIDs (85.5%, 95% CI: 84.3-86.6). The more commonly prescribed NSAIDs were ibuprofen (20%), ketoprofen (15%), diclofenac (15%) and piroxicam (12%). Serum creatinine and potassium monitoring was 10.7% (95% CI: 9.5-11.8) in patients treated by ACEIs, ARBs or diuretics. Overall, monitoring was more frequently performed to women aged over 60, treated with digoxin or glucose lowering drugs, but not to patients treated with ACEIs, ARBs or diuretics. Monitoring was more frequent when NSAIDs' prescribers were cardiologists or anesthesiologists. Monitoring of serum creatinine and potassium of patients treated with ACEIs, ARBs or diuretics and receiving a first NSAID dispensing is insufficiently performed and needs to be reinforced through specific interventions.

In 8511 Chinese patients 60 to 80 years of age with hypertension, intensive treatment (systolic blood-pressure target, 110 to <130 mm Hg) resulted in a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than standard treatment (target, 130 to <150 mm Hg). The two groups had similar incidences of adverse events, except for hypotension, which occurred more frequently with intensive treatment.

The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and β blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and β blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril. We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40–79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5–10 mg adding perindopril 4–8 mg as required (amlodipine-based regimen; n=9639) or atenolol 50–100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1·25–2·5 mg and potassium as required (atenolol-based regimen; n=9618). Our primary endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infaction) and fatal CHD. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely after 5·5 years' median follow-up and accumulated in total 106 153 patient-years of observation. Though not significant, compared with the atenolol-based regimen, fewer individuals on the amlodipine-based regimen had a primary endpoint (429 vs 474; unadjusted HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·79–1·02, p=0·1052), fatal and non-fatal stroke (327 vs 422; 0·77, 0·66–0·89, p=0·0003), total cardiovascular events and procedures (1362 vs 1602; 0·84, 0·78–0·90, p<0·0001), and all-cause mortality (738 vs 820; 0·89, 0·81–0·99, p=0·025). The incidence of developing diabetes was less on the amlodipine-based regimen (567 vs 799; 0·70, 0·63–0·78, p<0·0001). The amlodipine-based regimen prevented more major cardiovascular events and induced less diabetes than the atenolol-based regimen. On the basis of previous trial evidence, these effects might not be entirely explained by better control of blood pressure, and this issue is addressed in the accompanying article. Nevertheless, the results have implications with respect to optimum combinations of antihypertensive agents.

Patients with pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease were randomly assigned to inhaled treprostinil or placebo. At 16 weeks, there was a significant improvement in exercise capacity with inhaled treprostinil as compared with placebo as assessed by a 6-minute walk test.

Atenolol is one of the most widely used β blockers clinically, and has often been used as a reference drug in randomised controlled trials of hypertension. However, questions have been raised about atenolol as the best reference drug for comparisons with other antihypertensives. Thus, our aim was to systematically review the effect of atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. Reports were identified through searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, relevant textbooks, and by personal communication with established researchers in hypertension. Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with primary hypertension were included. We identified four studies that compared atenolol with placebo or no treatment, and five that compared atenolol with other antihypertensive drugs. Despite major differences in blood pressure lowering, there were no outcome differences between atenolol and placebo in the four studies, comprising 6825 patients, who were followed up for a mean of 4·6 years on all-cause mortality (relative risk 1·01 [95% CI 0·89–1·15]), cardiovascular mortality (0·99 [0·83–1·18]), or myocardial infarction (0·99 [0·83–1·19]). The risk of stroke, however, tended to be lower in the atenolol than in the placebo group (0·85 [0·72–1·01]). When atenolol was compared with other antihypertensives, there were no major differences in blood pressure lowering between the treatment arms. Our meta-analysis showed a significantly higher mortality (1·13 [1·02–1·25]) with atenolol treatment than with other active treatment, in the five studies comprising 17671 patients who were followed up for a mean of 4·6 years. Moreover, cardiovascular mortality also tended to be higher with atenolol treatment than with other antihypertensive treatment. Stroke was also more frequent with atenolol treatment. Our results cast doubts on atenolol as a suitable drug for hypertensive patients. Moreover, they challenge the use of atenolol as a reference drug in outcome trials in hypertension.

Aldosterone synthase controls the synthesis of aldosterone and has been a pharmacologic target for the treatment of hypertension for several decades. Selective inhibition of aldosterone synthase is essential but difficult to achieve because cortisol synthesis is catalyzed by another enzyme that shares 93% sequence similarity with aldosterone synthase. In preclinical and phase 1 studies, baxdrostat had 100:1 selectivity for enzyme inhibition, and baxdrostat at several dose levels reduced plasma aldosterone levels but not cortisol levels. In this multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who had treatment-resistant hypertension, with blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg or higher, and who were receiving stable doses of at least three antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic, to receive baxdrostat (0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg) once daily for 12 weeks or placebo. The primary end point was the change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12 in each baxdrostat group as compared with the placebo group. A total of 248 patients completed the trial. Dose-dependent changes in systolic blood pressure of -20.3 mm Hg, -17.5 mm Hg, -12.1 mm Hg, and -9.4 mm Hg were observed in the 2-mg, 1-mg, 0.5-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The difference in the change in systolic blood pressure between the 2-mg group and the placebo group was -11.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.4 to -5.5; P<0.001), and the difference in this change between the 1-mg group and the placebo group was -8.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -13.5 to -2.8; P = 0.003). No deaths occurred during the trial, no serious adverse events were attributed by the investigators to baxdrostat, and there were no instances of adrenocortical insufficiency. Baxdrostat-related increases in the potassium level to 6.0 mmol per liter or greater occurred in 2 patients, but these increases did not recur after withdrawal and reinitiation of the drug. Patients with treatment-resistant hypertension who received baxdrostat had dose-related reductions in blood pressure. (Funded by CinCor Pharma; BrigHTN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04519658.).

Treatment of acute stroke, before a distinction can be made between ischemic and hemorrhagic types, is challenging. Whether very early blood-pressure control in the ambulance improves outcomes among patients with undifferentiated acute stroke is uncertain. We randomly assigned patients with suspected acute stroke that caused a motor deficit and with elevated systolic blood pressure (≥150 mm Hg), who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after the onset of symptoms, to receive immediate treatment to lower the systolic blood pressure (target range, 130 to 140 mm Hg) (intervention group) or usual blood-pressure management (usual-care group). The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by the score on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days after randomization. The primary safety outcome was any serious adverse event. A total of 2404 patients (mean age, 70 years) in China underwent randomization and provided consent for the trial: 1205 in the intervention group and 1199 in the usual-care group. The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes (interquartile range, 41 to 93), and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 1041 (46.5%) had a hemorrhagic stroke. At the time of patients' arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 159 mm Hg, as compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual-care group. Overall, there was no difference in functional outcome between the two groups (common odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92) but an increase among patients with cerebral ischemia (common odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.60). In this trial, prehospital blood-pressure reduction did not improve functional outcomes in a cohort of patients with undifferentiated acute stroke, of whom 46.5% subsequently received a diagnosis of hemorrhagic stroke. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; INTERACT4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03790800; Chinese Trial Registry number, ChiCTR1900020534.).

In this randomized trial involving patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, intensive reduction in systolic blood pressure to a target of 110 to 139 mm Hg did not result in a lower rate of death or disability than standard reduction to a target of 140 to 179 mm Hg. An acute hypertensive response in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage is common 1 and may be associated with hematoma expansion and increased mortality. 2 , 3 , 4 The second Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trial 5 (INTERACT2) included patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage who had a systolic blood pressure of 150 to 220 mm Hg within 6 hours after symptom onset. The rate of death or disability among patients randomly assigned to intensive reduction in the systolic blood-pressure level, with a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg within 1 hour, was nonsignificantly lower than the rate among those . . .