Combination Therapy Is Superior to Sequential Monotherapy for the Initial Treatment of Hypertension:A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Guidelines for hypertension vary in their preference for initial combination therapy or initial monotherapy, stratified by patient profile; therefore, we compared the efficacy and tolerability of these approaches. Methods and Results: We performed a 1‐year, double‐blind, randomized controlled trial in 605 untreated patients aged 18 to 79 years with systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥150 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥95 mm Hg. In phase 1 (weeks 0–16), patients were randomly assigned to initial monotherapy (losartan 50–100 mg or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5–25 mg crossing over at 8 weeks), or initial combination (losartan 50–100 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5–25 mg). In phase 2 (weeks 17–32), all patients received losartan 100 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 to 25 mg. In phase 3 (weeks 33–52), amlodipine with or without doxazosin could be added to achieve target BP. Hierarchical primary outcomes were the difference from baseline in home systolic BP, averaged over phases 1 and 2 and, if significant, at 32 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, and difference in home systolic BP responses between tertiles of plasma renin. Home systolic BP after initial monotherapy fell 4.9 mm Hg (range: 3.7–6.0 mm Hg) less over 32 weeks (P<0.001) than after initial combination but caught up at 32 weeks (difference 1.2 mm Hg [range: −0.4 to 2.8 mm Hg], P=0.13). In phase 1, home systolic BP response to each monotherapy differed substantially between renin tertiles, whereas response to combination therapy was uniform and at least 5 mm Hg more than to monotherapy. There were no differences in withdrawals due to adverse events. Conclusions: Initial combination therapy can be recommended for patients with BP >150/95 mm Hg. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00994617

Non-invasive cardiac imaging techniques and vascular tools for the assessment of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Cardiovascular disease is the major cause of mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus. The criteria for the selection of those asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes who should undergo cardiac screening and the therapeutic consequences of screening remain controversial. Non-invasive techniques as markers of atherosclerosis and myocardial ischaemia may aid risk stratification and the implementation of tailored therapy for the patient with type 2 diabetes. In the present article we review the literature on the implementation of non-invasive vascular tools and cardiac imaging techniques in this patient group. The value of these techniques as endpoints in clinical trials and as risk estimators in asymptomatic diabetic patients is discussed. Carotid intima–media thickness, arterial stiffness and flow-mediated dilation are abnormal long before the onset of type 2 diabetes. These vascular tools are therefore most likely to be useful for the identification of ‘at risk’ patients during the early stages of atherosclerotic disease. The additional value of these tools in risk stratification and tailored therapy in type 2 diabetes remains to be proven. Cardiac imaging techniques are more justified in individuals with a strong clinical suspicion of advanced coronary heart disease (CHD). Asymptomatic myocardial ischaemia can be detected by stress echocardiography and myocardial perfusion imaging. The more recently developed non-invasive multi-slice computed tomography angiography is recommended for exclusion of CHD, and can therefore be used to screen asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes, but has the associated disadvantages of high radiation exposure and costs. Therefore, we propose an algorithm for the screening of asymptomatic diabetic patients, the first step of which consists of coronary artery calcium score assessment and exercise ECG

Pharmacology of MDMA- and Amphetamine-Like New Psychoactive Substances

New psychoactive substances (NPS) with amphetamine-, aminoindan-, and benzofuran basic chemical structures have recently emerged for recreational drug use. Detailed information about their psychotropic effects and health risks is often limited. At the same time, it emerged that the pharmacological profiles of these NPS resemble those of amphetamine or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Amphetamine-like NPS induce psychostimulation and euphoria mediated predominantly by norepinephrine (NE) and dopamine (DA) transporter (NET and DAT) inhibition and transporter-mediated release of NE and DA, thus showing a more catecholamine-selective profile. MDMA-like NPS frequently induce well-being, empathy, and prosocial effects and have only moderate psychostimulant properties. These MDMA-like substances primarily act by inhibiting the serotonin (5-HT) transporter (SERT) and NET, also inducing 5-HT and NE release. Monoamine receptor interactions vary considerably among amphetamine- and MDMA-like NPS. Clinically, amphetamine- and MDMA-like NPS can induce sympathomimetic toxicity. The aim of this chapter is to review the state of knowledge regarding these substances with a focus on the description of the in vitro pharmacology of selected amphetamine- and MDMA-like NPS. In addition, it is aimed to provide links between pharmacological profiles and in vivo effects and toxicity, which leads to the conclusion that abuse liability for amphetamine-like NPS may be higher than for MDMA-like NPS, but that the risk for developing the life-threatening serotonin syndrome may be increased for MDMA-like NPS

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified