Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Despite successful treatment of the culprit artery lesion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation, thrombotic embolisation occurs in some cases, which impairs the prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of deferred stent implantation versus standard PCI in patients with STEMI. We did this open-label, randomised controlled trial at four primary PCI centres in Denmark. Eligible patients (aged >18 years) had acute onset symptoms lasting 12 h or less, and ST-segment elevation of 0·1 mV or more in at least two or more contiguous electrocardiographic leads or newly developed left bundle branch block. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an electronic web-based system with permuted block sizes of two to six, to receive either standard primary PCI with immediate stent implantation or deferred stent implantation 48 h after the index procedure if a stabilised flow could be obtained in the infarct-related artery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospital admission for heart failure, recurrent infarction, and any unplanned revascularisation of the target vessel within 2 years' follow-up. Patients, investigators, and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01435408. Between March 1, 2011, and Feb 28, 2014, we randomly assigned 1215 patients to receive either standard PCI (n=612) or deferred stent implantation (n=603). Median follow-up time was 42 months (IQR 33–49). Events comprising the primary endpoint occurred in 109 (18%) patients who had standard PCI and in 105 (17%) patients who had deferred stent implantation (hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·76–1·29; p=0·92). Procedure-related myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusion or surgery, contrast-induced nephopathy, or stroke occurred in 28 (5%) patients in the conventional PCI group versus 27 (4%) patients in the deferred stent implantation group, with no significant differences between groups. In patients with STEMI, routine deferred stent implantation did not reduce the occurrence of death, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation compared with conventional PCI. Results from ongoing randomised trials might shed further light on the concept of deferred stenting in this patient population. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, and Danish Council for Strategic Research.

Prednisone is commonly used for initial short-term therapy of episodic cluster headaches before preventive medication such as verapamil becomes effective, but this strategy has not been tested in large randomised trials. We aimed to access the safety and efficacy of this treatment approach. This study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in ten specialised headache centres in Germany. Patients with episodic cluster headaches who were aged between 18 and 65 years and within a current pain episode for not more than 30 days, received 100 mg oral prednisone for 5 days followed by tapering of 20 mg every 3 days, or matching placebo (17 days total exposure). All patients received oral verapamil for long-term prevention, starting with 40 mg three times daily and increasing to 120 mg three times daily by day 19; patients then continued with verapamil 120 mg throughout the study. Randomisation was computer-generated at a 1:1 ratio by use of an interactive web-response system, with stratification according to age, sex, and participating site. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were unaware of treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the mean number of attacks within the first week of treatment with prednisone compared with placebo. An attack was defined as a unilateral headache with moderate-to-severe intensity of at least five on a numerical rating scale. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which consisted of all patients who had been randomly assigned to a trial group and received at least one dose of prednisone or placebo. The study was stopped early due to slow recruitment and expired funding. The study was registered with EudraCT (2011–006204–13) and with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00004716). Between April 5, 2013, and Jan 11, 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients dropped out immediately and 116 patients were randomly assigned (57 patients to prednisone and 59 patients to placebo); 109 patients were included in the mITT analysis (53 patients assigned to prednisone and 56 patients assigned to placebo). Participants in the prednisone group had a mean of 7·1 (SD 6·5) attacks within the first week compared with 9·5 (6·0) attacks in the placebo group (difference −2·4 attacks, 95% CI −4·8 to −0·03; p=0·002). Two serious adverse events occurred, both in the placebo group (inguinal hernia and severe deterioration of cluster headache). A total of 270 adverse events were observed: in the prednisone group, 37 (71%) of 52 patients reported 135 adverse events (most common were headache, palpitations, dizziness, and nausea) and in the placebo group, 39 (71%) of 55 patients had 135 adverse events (most common were nausea, dizziness, and headache). Oral prednisone was an effective short-term preventive therapy in our population of patients with episodic cluster headache. Our findings support the use of prednisone as a first-line treatment in parallel to the up-titration of verapamil, although the efficacy of prednisone alongside other long-term prevention requires additional investigation. German Federal Ministry for Education and Research.

Control of blood pressure is a key component of cardiovascular disease prevention, but is difficult to achieve and until recently has been the sole preserve of health professionals. This study assessed whether self-management by people with poorly controlled hypertension resulted in better blood pressure control compared with usual care. This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 24 general practices in the UK. Patients aged 35–85 years were eligible for enrolment if they had blood pressure more than 140/90 mm Hg despite antihypertensive treatment and were willing to self-manage their hypertension. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to self-management, consisting of self-monitoring of blood pressure and self-titration of antihypertensive drugs, combined with telemonitoring of home blood pressure measurements or to usual care. Randomisation was done by use of a central web-based system and was stratified by general practice with minimisation for sex, baseline systolic blood pressure, and presence or absence of diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was change in mean systolic blood pressure between baseline and each follow-up point (6 months and 12 months). All randomised patients who attended follow-up visits at 6 months and 12 months and had complete data for the primary outcome were included in the analysis, without imputation for missing data. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN17585681. 527 participants were randomly assigned to self-management (n=263) or control (n=264), of whom 480 (91%; self-management, n=234; control, n=246) were included in the primary analysis. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased by 12·9 mm Hg (95% CI 10·4–15·5) from baseline to 6 months in the self-management group and by 9·2 mm Hg (6·7–11·8) in the control group (difference between groups 3·7 mm Hg, 0·8–6·6; p=0·013). From baseline to 12 months, systolic blood pressure decreased by 17·6 mm Hg (14·9–20·3) in the self-management group and by 12·2 mm Hg (9·5–14·9) in the control group (difference between groups 5·4 mm Hg, 2·4–8·5; p=0·0004). Frequency of most side-effects did not differ between groups, apart from leg swelling (self-management, 74 patients [32%]; control, 55 patients [22%]; p=0·022). Self-management of hypertension in combination with telemonitoring of blood pressure measurements represents an important new addition to control of hypertension in primary care. Department of Health Policy Research Programme, National Coordinating Centre for Research Capacity Development, and Midlands Research Practices Consortium.

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.

Preclinical research with rodents suggests that the L-type calcium channel blocker isradipine can enhance long-term extinction of conditioned place preference for addictive substances when it is administered in conjunction with extinction training. Although isradipine alone, which is FDA-approved for hypertension, has not shown a direct effect on craving in human drug users, its potential to augment behavioral treatments designed to reduce craving remains unknown. We conducted a triple-blind, randomized placebo-controlled pilot clinical trial of isradipine combined with a novel virtual reality cue exposure therapy (VR-CET) approach with multimodal cues that targeted craving. After 24 hours of abstinence, 78 adults with an ongoing history of daily cigarette use received isradipine (n = 40) or placebo (n = 38) and reported craving levels after each of 10 trials of VR-CET. Consistent with pre-registered hypotheses, the isradipine group had significantly lower mean craving across cue exposure trials at the medication-free 24-hour follow-up (d = -0.42, p = 0.046). There were no serious adverse events; however, side effects such as headache and dizziness occurred more frequently in the isradipine group. The findings of the current study support follow-up clinical trials that specifically test the efficacy of isradipine-augmented VR-CET for reducing smoking relapse rates after an initial quit attempt. clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03083353.

In women with threatened preterm birth, delay of delivery by 48 h allows antenatal corticosteroids to improve neonatal outcomes. For this reason, tocolytics are often administered for 48 h; however, there is no consensus about which drug results in the best maternal and neonatal outcomes. In the APOSTEL III trial we aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine and the oxytocin inhibitor atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth. We did this multicentre, randomised controlled trial in ten tertiary and nine teaching hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. Women with threatened preterm birth (gestational age 25–34 weeks) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral nifedipine or intravenous atosiban for 48 h. An independent data manager used a web-based computerised programme to randomly assign women in permuted block sizes of four, with groups stratified by centre. Clinicians, outcome assessors, and women were not masked to treatment group. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes, which included perinatal mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, sepsis, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, and necrotising enterocolitis. Analysis was done in all women and babies with follow-up data. The study is registered at the Dutch Clinical Trial Registry, number NTR2947. Between July 6, 2011, and July 7, 2014, we randomly assigned 254 women to nifedipine and 256 to atosiban. Primary outcome data were available for 248 women and 297 babies in the nifedipine group and 255 women and 294 babies in the atosiban group. The primary outcome occurred in 42 babies (14%) in the nifedipine group and in 45 (15%) in the atosiban group (relative risk [RR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·61–1·37). 16 (5%) babies died in the nifedipine group and seven (2%) died in the atosiban group (RR 2·20, 95% CI 0·91–5·33); all deaths were deemed unlikely to be related to the study drug. Maternal adverse events did not differ between groups. In women with threatened preterm birth, 48 h of tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban results in similar perinatal outcomes. Future clinical research should focus on large placebo-controlled trials, powered for perinatal outcomes. ZonMw (the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development).

Intravenous diltiazem has experienced numerous supply shortages over the past few years. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of a traditional diltiazem intravenous bolus and continuous infusion protocol to a diltiazem intravenous bolus and oral maintenance protocol for acute rate control in the emergency department. Patients who received intravenous diltiazem in the emergency department between January 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019 were screened. Patients were included if they received the diltiazem intravenous bolus and continuous infusion protocol (IV + infusion group) or the hybrid diltiazem intravenous bolus and oral maintenance protocol (IV + PO group). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with rate control, without need for additional rate control agents or additional boluses during the maintenance phase. A total of 106 patients were matched with 53 patients in each group. For the primary outcome of rate control at four hours, 62.3% of patients in the intravenous bolus + infusion group versus 75.5% of patients in the IV bolus + PO group (p = 0.142) achieved rate control. There was no difference in rates of hypotension or bradycardia between groups. Results of this study demonstrated no difference in acute rate control when using a hybrid IV and oral diltiazem protocol, compared to a traditional IV bolus and infusion strategy. This information supports the further use of a hybrid diltiazem IV and oral protocol, which provides increased flexibility during shortages of either medication.

This study evaluated the efficacy of intravenous (IV) calcium pretreatment for preventing diltiazem-induced hypotension and assessed its safety in adult patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)/atrial flutter (AFL) with rapid ventricular response (RVR). This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 217 adults with AF/AFL and a ventricular rate > 120 beats per minute, who were randomized into three groups: those who received an IV NaCl 0.9 % placebo pretreatment prior to IV diltiazem (PD; 73 patients) and those who received 90 mg (C90D; 71 patients) and 180 mg (C180D; 73 patients) IV calcium chloride pretreatment before IV diltiazem. We compared participants' systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) at baseline and at 5, 10, and 15 min post-treatment, as well as the incidence of adverse events (e.g., hypotension, urticaria, nausea) among the groups. The PD and C90D pretreatment groups had significantly lower HR measurements at 10 and 15 min compared to the C180D group. In addition, at 5 min, the mean SBP in the PD group was significantly lower compared to the C90D and C180D groups. At 10 min, the mean SBP was significantly higher in the C180D group than in the other groups. Furthermore, at 15 min, the mean SBP was significantly higher in both the C90D and C180D groups than in the PD group. There were no significant differences between the calcium pretreatment and placebo groups in terms of the need for additional diltiazem doses or the incidence of adverse events. IV calcium pretreatment effectively prevents diltiazem-induced hypotension in patients with AF/AFL with RVR without compromising the efficacy of diltiazem in achieving and maintaining ventricular rate control. Trial registry: National Library of Medicine Clinical Trial Registry; No.: NCT06494007; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06494007

Background: Hypertension guidelines recommend the use of 2 agents having complementary mechanisms of action when >1 agent is needed to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of combinations of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and amlodipine besylate with those of the component monotherapies in patients with mild to severe hypertension. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled, factorial study. Patients who were naive to antihypertensive therapy or who underwent a washout of previous antihypertensive therapy for up to 2 weeks and had a seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) of 95 to 120 mm Hg were randomized to receive 1 of the following for 8 weeks: OM 10, 20, or 40 mg; amlodipine (AML) 5 or 10 mg; each possible combination of OM and AML; or placebo. The primary end point was the change from baseline in SeDBP at week 8, with secondary end points including the change in seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP), the proportion of patients reaching the BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg; <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes), and the proportions of the intention-to-treat population reaching BP thresholds of <120/80, <130/80, <130/85, and <140/90 mm Hg. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated, with a particular focus on the incidence and severity of edema. Results: Of the 1940 randomized patients, 54.3% were male. The mean age of the study population was 54.0 years and 19.8% were aged ≥65 years. The mean baseline BP was 164/102 mm Hg, and 79.3% of patients had stage 2 hypertension. Combination therapy with OM and AML was associated with dose-dependent reductions in SeDBP (from −13.8 mm Hg with OM/AML 10/5 mg to −19.0 mm Hg with OM/AML 40/10 mg) and SeSBP (from −23.6 mm Hg with OM/AML 20/5 mg to −30.1 mm Hg with OM/AML 40/10 mg) that were significantly greater than the reductions with the corresponding component monotherapies ( P < 0.001). At week 8, the number of patients achieving the BP goal ranged from 57 of 163 (35.0%) to 84 of 158 (53.2%) in the combination-therapy groups, from 32 of 160 (20.0%) to 58 of 160 (36.3%) in the OM monotherapy groups, and from 34 of 161 (21.1%) to 53 of 163 (32.5%) in the AML monotherapy groups ( P < 0.005, combination therapies vs component monotherapies), compared with 14 of 160 (8.8%) in the placebo group. Achievement of the BP thresholds was highest in the combination-therapy groups, with 56.3% and 54.0% of patients achieving a BP <140/90 mm Hg with OM/AML 20/10 and 40/10 mg, respectively. Combination therapy was generally well tolerated, and no unexpected safety concerns emerged in the course of the study. The most common adverse events were edema (ranging from 9.9% [OM 20 mg] to 36.8% [AML 10 mg], compared with 12.3% with placebo) and headache (ranging from 2.5% [OM/AML 10/5 mg] to 8.7% [OM 20 mg], compared with 14.2% with placebo). Conclusion: The combination of OM and AML was effective and well tolerated in this adult population with hypertension.