Borderline Hypertension

Borderline hypertension was the topic of one of the “Hypertension seminars” arranged by the Hypertension Section at the Östra Hospital, GÖteborg, Sweden. On that occasion Professor Stevo Julius, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, was an invited guest. During the seminar, various aspects of borderline hypertension were discussed, e.g. the natural history, hemodynamics and management of this condition. The present review is based on these discussions.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72079/1/j.0954-6820.1980.tb01235.x.pd

Proinsulin Secretion Is a Persistent Feature of Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE: Abnormally elevated proinsulin secretion has been reported in type 2 and early type 1 diabetes when significant C-peptide is present. We questioned whether individuals with long-standing type 1 diabetes and low or absent C-peptide secretory capacity retained the ability to make proinsulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: C-peptide and proinsulin were measured in fasting and stimulated sera from 319 subjects with long-standing type 1 diabetes (≥3 years) and 12 control subjects without diabetes. We considered three categories of stimulated C-peptide: 1) C-peptide positive, with high stimulated values ≥0.2 nmol/L; 2) C-peptide positive, with low stimulated values ≥0.017 but <0.2 nmol/L; and 3) C-peptide <0.017 nmol/L. Longitudinal samples were analyzed from C-peptide-positive subjects with diabetes after 1, 2, and 4 years. RESULTS: Of individuals with long-standing type 1 diabetes, 95.9% had detectable serum proinsulin (>3.1 pmol/L), while 89.9% of participants with stimulated C-peptide values below the limit of detection (<0.017 nmol/L; n = 99) had measurable proinsulin. Proinsulin levels remained stable over 4 years of follow-up, while C-peptide decreased slowly during longitudinal analysis. Correlations between proinsulin with C-peptide and mixed-meal stimulation of proinsulin were found only in subjects with high stimulated C-peptide values (≥0.2 nmol/L). Specifically, increases in proinsulin with mixed-meal stimulation were present only in the group with high stimulated C-peptide values, with no increases observed among subjects with low or undetectable (<0.017 nmol/L) residual C-peptide. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with long-duration type 1 diabetes, the ability to secrete proinsulin persists, even in those with undetectable serum C-peptide

Hotline update of clinical trials and registries presented at the American College of Cardiology Congress 2010: ACCORD, INVEST, NAVIGATOR, RACE II, SORT OUT III, CSP-474, DOSE, ASPIRE and more

This article gives an overview on a number of novel clinical trials in the field of cardiovascular medicine, which were presented during the Late Breaking Clinical Trial Sessions at the 59th annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Atlanta, USA, from 14th March to 16th March 2010. The data were presented by leading experts in the field with relevant positions in the trials. These comprehensive summaries should provide the readers with the most recent data on diagnostic and therapeutic developments in cardiovascular medicine similar as previously reported (Schirmer SH, van der Laan AM, Bohm M, Mahfoud F in Clin Res Cardiol 98:691–699, 2009; Maier LS, Schirmer SH, Walenta K, Jacobshagen C, Bohm M in Clin Res Cardiol 98:413–419, 2009)

Antihypertensive therapy, new-onset diabetes, and cardiovascular disease

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a worldwide epidemic with considerable health and economic consequences. Diabetes is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in diabetic patients, and decreasing the incidence of diabetes may potentially reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease. This article discusses the clinical trial evidence for modalities associated with a reduction in the risk of new-onset diabetes, with a focus on the role of antihypertensive agents that block the renin–angiotensin system. Lifestyle interventions and the use of antidiabetic, anti-obesity, and lipid-lowering drugs are also reviewed. An unresolved question is whether decreasing the incidence of new-onset diabetes with non-pharmacologic or pharmacologic intervention will also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease. A large ongoing study is investigating whether the treatment with an oral antidiabetic drug or an angiotensin-receptor blocker will reduce the incidence of new-onset diabetes and cardiovascular disease in patients at high risk for developing diabetes

Comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive medication for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and multiple treatments meta-analysis

Background: We conducted a systematic review of evidence from randomized controlled trials to answer the following research question: What are the relative effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease outcomes for healthy people at risk of cardiovascular disease? Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (up to February 2011) and CENTRAL (up to May 2009), and reference lists in recent systematic reviews. Titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance and those potentially fulfilling our inclusion criteria were then assessed in full text. Two reviewers made independent assessments at each step. We selected the following main outcomes: total mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. We also report on angina, heart failure and incidence of diabetes. We conducted a multiple treatments meta-analysis using random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE-instrument. Results: We included 25 trials. Overall, the results were mixed, with few significant dif-ferences, and with no drugclass standing out as superior across multiple outcomes. The only significant finding for total mortality based on moderate to high quality evidence was that beta-blockers (atenolol) were inferior to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (relative risk (RR) 1.14; 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.02 to 1.28). Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)- inhibitors came out inferior to calcium-channel blockers (CCB) regarding stroke-risk (RR 1.19; 1.03 to 1.38), but superior regarding risk of heart failure (RR 0.82; 0.69 to 0.94), both based on moderate quality evidence. Diuretics reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared to beta-blockers (RR 0.82; 0.68 to 0.98), and lowered the risk of heart failure compared to CCB (RR 0.73; 0.62 to 0.84), beta-blockers (RR 0.73; 0.54 to 0.96), and alpha-blockers (RR 0.51; 0.40 to 0.64). The risk of diabetes increased with diuretics compared to ACE-inhibitors (RR 1.43; 1.12 to 1.83) and CCB (RR 1.27; 1.05 to 1.57). Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, there seems to be little or no difference between commonly used blood pressure lowering medications for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Beta-blockers (atenolol) and alpha-blockers may not be first-choice drugs as they were the only drug-classes that were not significantly superior to any other, for any outcomes

Clinical Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT): A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≤ 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events compared to SBP of ≤ 140 mm Hg (standard treatment); however, it is unclear if this effect is similar in all racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: We analyzed SPRINT data within non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and Hispanic subgroups to address this question. High-risk nondiabetic hypertensive patients (N = 9,361; 30% NHB; 11% Hispanic) 50 years and older were randomly assigned to intensive or standard treatment. Primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of a myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or CVD death. RESULTS: Average postbaseline SBP was similar among NHW, NHB, and Hispanics in both treatment arms. Hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval) (intensive vs. standard treatment groups) for primary outcome were 0.70 (0.57–0.86), 0.71 (0.51–0.98), 0.62 (0.33–1.15) (interaction P value = 0.85) in NHW, NHB, and Hispanics. CVD mortality HRs were 0.49 (0.29–0.81), 0.77 (0.37–1.57), and 0.17 (0.01–1.08). All-cause mortality HRs were 0.61 (0.47–0.80), 0.92 (0.63–1.35), and 1.58 (0.73–3.62), respectively. A test for differences among racial/ethnic groups in the effect of treatment assignment on all-cause mortality was not significant (Hommel-adjusted P value = 0.062) after adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Targeting a SBP goal of ≤ 120 mm Hg compared to ≤ 140 mm Hg led to similar SBP control and was associated with similar benefits and risks among all racial ethnic groups, though NHBs required an average of ~0.3 more medications

COVID-19 Vaccination-Related Delayed Adverse Events among Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

BACKGROUND: The safety profile of COVID-19 vaccination is well documented, but hesitancy among people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, often immunocompromised, remains high, partially due to a scarcity of data on safety over a longer term. We herein aimed to assess delayed adverse events (DAEs) occurring &gt;7 days after COVID-19 vaccination in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) versus other rheumatic autoimmune diseases (rAIDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (nrAIDs), and healthy controls (HCs).METHODS: Self-reported data were captured within the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD)-2 online survey, which comprised &gt;150 centres and responses from 106 countries, between February and June 2022. Logistic regression analysis adjusting for important confounders (age, sex, ethnicity) was used to compare groups.RESULTS: Of 7203 eligible individuals, 882 (12.2%) patients had SLE, 3161 (43.9%) patients had rAIDs, 426 (5.9%) patients had nrAIDs, and 2734 (38.0%) were HCs. SLE patients had a median age of 39 years (IQR: 31-50); 93.7% were women. SLE patients reported, more frequently, major DAEs (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2-2.0; p = 0.001) and hospitalisation (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.4-3.4; p &lt; 0.001) compared to HCs, severe rashes (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.3-4.2; p = 0.004) compared to people with rAIDS, and hospitalisation (OR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-4.9; p = 0.029) as well as several minor DAEs compared to people with nrAIDs. Differences were observed between vaccines in terms of frequency of major DAEs and hospitalisations, with the latter seen more frequently in patients receiving the Moderna vaccine. People with SLE with no autoimmune multimorbidity less frequently reported overall minor DAEs compared to SLE patients with comorbid nrAIDs (OR: 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3-1.0; p = 0.036).CONCLUSION: Hospitalisations post-vaccination were more frequent in SLE patients than in HCs. Monitoring of SLE patients following COVID-19 vaccination can help in identifying DAEs early, informing patients about expected DAEs, and supporting patients, especially those with autoimmune multimorbidity.</p

Whole-exome rare-variant analysis of Alzheimer's disease and related biomarker traits

INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing evidence of a role of rare genetic variation in the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD), limited attention has been paid to its contribution to AD-related biomarker traits indicative of AD-relevant pathophysiological processes. METHODS: We performed whole-exome gene-based rare-variant association studies (RVASs) of 17 AD-related traits on whole-exome sequencing (WES) data generated in the European Medical Information Framework for Alzheimer's Disease Multimodal Biomarker Discovery (EMIF-AD MBD) study (n = 450) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data from ADNI (n = 808). RESULTS: Mutation screening revealed a novel probably pathogenic mutation (PSEN1 p.Leu232Phe). Gene-based RVAS revealed the exome-wide significant contribution of rare coding variation in RBKS and OR7A10 to cognitive performance and protection against left hippocampal atrophy, respectively. DISCUSSION: The identification of these novel gene-trait associations offers new perspectives into the role of rare coding variation in the distinct pathophysiological processes culminating in AD, which may lead to identification of novel therapeutic and diagnostic targets

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)