Debate: does it matter how you lower blood pressure?

The evidence base for drug treatment of hypertension is strong. Early trials using thiazide diuretics suggested a shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease. The superiority of newer drugs has been widely advocated but trial evidence does not support an advantage of beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers or alpha-blockers for this outcome. Even meta-analyses have failed to clarify matters. If this issue is to be settled, bigger and better trials of longer duration in high-risk patients are needed. Meanwhile, the importance of rigorous blood pressure control using multiple drugs has been established. This should be the focus of our attention rather than agonising over differences in cause-specific outcomes that may not be generalisable to all patient populations

Assessment of murine collagen-induced arthritis by longitudinal non-invasive duplexed molecular optical imaging

In the present study we evaluated the use of four commercially available fluorescent probes to monitor disease activity in murine CIA and its suppression during glucocorticoid therapy.  Arthritis was induced in male DBA/1 mice by immunization with type II collagen in Complete Freund's Adjuvant, followed by a boost of collagen in PBS. Four fluorescent probes from PerkinElmer in combination [ProSense 750 fluorescent activatable sensor technology (FAST) with Neutrophil Elastase 680 FAST and MMPSense 750 FAST with CatK 680 FAST] were used to monitor disease development from day 5 through to day 40 post-immunization. Fluorescence generated in vivo by the probes was correlated with clinical and histological score and paw measurements.  The fluorescence intensity emitted by each probe was shown to correlate with the conventional measurements of disease. The highest degree of correlation was observed with ProSense 750 FAST in combination with Neutrophil Elastase 680 FAST; these probes were then used to successfully assess CIA suppression during dexamethasone treatment.  We have demonstrated that longitudinal non-invasive duplexed optical fluorescence imaging provides a simple assessment of arthritic disease activity within the joints of mice following the induction of CIA and may represent a powerful tool to monitor the efficacy of drug treatments in preclinical studies

VALUE trial: Long-term blood pressure trends in 13,449 patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk

Background: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) study compares cardiovascular outcomes in 15,314 eligible patients from 31 countries randomized to valsartan or amlodipine-based treatment. Methods: The blood pressure (BP) trends are analyzed in 13,449 of VALUE study patients who had baseline BP and 24 months BP and treatment data. Results: In a cohort of 12,570 patients, baseline 24 and 30 months BP, but not 30 months treatment data, were available. Of 13,449 patients, 92% (N = 12,398) received antihypertensive therapy at baseline. The baseline BP was 153.5/86.9 mm Hg in treated compared to 168.1.8/95.3 mm Hg in 1051 untreated patients. After 6 months both groups had indistinguishable BP values. At 12 months the BP decreased to 141.2/82.9 mm Hg (P < .0001 for systolic BP and diastolic BP versus baseline), at 24 months to 139.1/80 mm Hg (P < .0001 v 12 months), and to 138/79 mm Hg at 30 months (P < .0001 v 24 months). The systolic BP control (<140 mm Hg) at 30 months increased from 21.9% at baseline to 62.2%, the diastolic BP (< 90 mm Hg) from 54.2% to 90.2% and the combined control (<140 and <90 mm Hg) from 18.9% to 60.5%. At 24 months 85.8% of patients were on protocol drugs: monotherapy = 39.7%, added hydrochlorothiazide = 26.6%, add-on drugs = 15.1%, and protocol drugs in nonstandard doses = 4.3%. Conclusions: The achieved BP control exceeds values reported in most published large-scale trials. The VALUE study is executed in regular clinical settings and 92% of the patients received antihypertensive drugs at baseline. When an explicit BP goal is set, and a treatment algorithm is provided, the physicians can achieve better control rates than in their regular practice. Am J Hypertens 2003;16: 544-548 @ 2003 American Journal of Hypertension, Lt

Prevention And Treatment of Hypertension With Algorithm-based therapy (PATHWAY) number 2: protocol for a randomised crossover trial to determine optimal treatment for drug-resistant hypertension.

This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/8/e008951.full.INTRODUCTION: Resistant hypertension is inadequately controlled blood pressure (BP) despite treatment with at least three BP-lowering drugs. A popular hypothesis is that resistant hypertension is due to excessive Na(+)-retention, and that 'further diuretic therapy' will be superior to alternative add-on drugs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Placebo-controlled, random crossover study of fourth-line treatment when added to standard (A+C+D) triple drug therapy: ACE inhibitor or Angiotensin receptor blocker (A) +Calcium channel blocker (C)+Diuretic (D). Patients (aged 18-79 years) with clinical systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg (135 mm Hg in diabetics) and Home BP Monitoring (HBPM) systolic BP average ≥ 130 mm Hg on treatment for at least 3 months with maximum tolerated doses of A+C+D are randomised to four consecutive randomly allocated 12-week treatment cycles with an α-blocker, β-blocker, spironolactone and placebo. The hierarchical coprimary end point is the difference in HBPM average systolic BP between (in order) spironolactone and placebo, spironolactone and the average of the other two active drugs, spironolactone and each of the other two drugs. A key secondary outcome is to determine whether plasma renin predicts the BP response to the different drugs. A sample size of 346 (allowing 15% dropouts) will confer 90% power to detect a 3 mm Hg HBPM average systolic BP difference between any two drugs. The study can also detect a 6 mm Hg difference in HBPM average systolic BP between each patient's best and second-best drug predicted by tertile of plasma renin. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was initiated in May 2009 and results are expected in 2015. These will provide RCT evidence to support future guideline recommendations for optimal drug treatment of resistant hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02369081, EUDract number: 2008-007149-30.The study is funded by a special project grant from the British Heart Foundation (number SP/08/002). Further funding is provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Local Research Networks. BW is supported by the NIHR UCL/UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre

Comparison of single and combination diuretics on glucose tolerance (PATHWAY-3):protocol for a randomised double-blind trial in patients with essential hypertension

INTRODUCTION: Thiazide diuretics are associated with increased risk of diabetes mellitus. This risk may arise from K(+)-depletion. We hypothesised that a K(+)-sparing diuretic will improve glucose tolerance, and that combination of low-dose thiazide with K(+)-sparing diuretic will improve both blood pressure reduction and glucose tolerance, compared to a high-dose thiazide.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel-group, randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial, comparing hydrochlorothiazide 25-50 mg, amiloride 10-20 mg and combination of both diuretics at half these doses. A single-blind placebo run-in of 1 month is followed by 24 weeks of blinded active treatment. There is forced dose-doubling after 3 months. The Primary end point is the blood glucose 2 h after oral ingestion of a 75 g glucose drink (OGTT), following overnight fasting. The primary outcome is the difference between 2 h glucose at weeks 0, 12 and 24. Secondary outcomes include the changes in home systolic blood pressure (BP) and glycated haemoglobin and prediction of response by baseline plasma renin. Eligibility criteria are: age 18-79, systolic BP on permitted background treatment ≥140 mm Hg and home BP ≥130 mm Hg and one component of the metabolic syndrome additional to hypertension. Principal exclusions are diabetes, estimated-glomerular filtration rate &lt;45 mL/min, abnormal plasma K(+), clinic SBP &gt;200 mm Hg or DBP &gt;120 mm Hg (box 2). The sample size calculation indicates that 486 patients will give 80% power at α=0.01 to detect a difference in means of 1 mmol/L (SD=2.2) between 2 h glucose on hydrochlorothiazide and comparators.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PATHWAY-3 was approved by Cambridge South Ethics Committee, number 09/H035/19. The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Eudract number 2009-010068-41 and clinical trials registration number: NCT02351973.</p

Artery tertiary lymphoid organs control aorta immunity and protect against atherosclerosis via vascular smooth muscle cell lymphotoxin β receptors

Tertiary lymphoid organs (TLOs) emerge during nonresolving peripheral inflammation, but their impact on disease progression remains unknown. We have found in aged Apoe−/− mice that artery TLOs (ATLOs) controlled highly territorialized aorta T cell responses. ATLOs promoted T cell recruitment, primed CD4+ T cells, generated CD4+, CD8+, T regulatory (Treg) effector and central memory cells, converted naive CD4+ T cells into induced Treg cells, and presented antigen by an unusual set of dendritic cells and B cells. Meanwhile, vascular smooth muscle cell lymphotoxin β receptors (VSMC-LTβRs) protected against atherosclerosis by maintaining structure, cellularity, and size of ATLOs though VSMC-LTβRs did not affect secondary lymphoid organs: Atherosclerosis was markedly exacerbated in Apoe−/−Ltbr−/− and to a similar extent in aged Apoe−/−Ltbrfl/flTagln-cre mice. These data support the conclusion that the immune system employs ATLOs to organize aorta T cell homeostasis during aging and that VSMC-LTβRs participate in atherosclerosis protection via ATLOs

Monotherapy versus dual therapy for the initial treatment of hypertension (PATHWAY-1): a randomised double-blind controlled trial.

This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BMJ via http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007645INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have suggested that more intensive initial therapy for hypertension results in better long-term blood pressure (BP) control. We test this hypothesis comparing initial monotherapy with dual therapy in the management of essential hypertension. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled trial in patients with essential hypertension. Around 50% of patients studied will be newly diagnosed and the others will be known hypertensives who previously received only monotherapy. The trial is divided into three phases as follows: Phase 1 (Week 0-Week 16): Randomised, parallel-group, masked assignation to either combination or monotherapy. Phase 2 (Week 17-Week 32): Open-label combination therapy. Phase 3 (Week 33-Week 52): Open-label combination therapy plus open-label add-on (if BP is above 140/90 mm Hg). Hierarchical primary end points are: a comparison of home BP (home systolic blood pressure (HSBP)) averaged over the duration of phase 1 and 2 in the combination versus monotherapy arms. If combination is superior in this analysis, then the averaged mean HSBP between initial monotherapy and initial combination therapy at the end of phase 2 will be compared. Secondary end points include: BP control at 1 year; the role of age, baseline renin, sodium status, plasma volume, haemodynamic compensation and peripheral resistance on BP control; validation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence/British Hypertension Society joint guideline algorithm; safety and tolerability of combination therapy; and the impact of combination versus monotherapy on left ventricular mass and aortic pulse wave velocity. A sample size of 536 (268 in each group) will have 90% power to detect a difference in means of 4 mm Hg. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PATHWAY 1 was approved by UK ethics (REC Reference 09/H0308/132). Trial results will be published and all participating subjects will be informed of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UKCRN 4499 and EudraCT number 2008-007749-29 registered 27/08/2009.Funding statement The study is funded by a special project grant from the British Heart Foundation (number SP/08/002). Further funding is provided by Comprehensive Local Research Networks. The losartan and losartan-HCTZ were a generous gift from Dr Paul Robinson, Merck Sharpe Dohme, UK. Acknowledgements BW, PS, MC and MJB are NIHR Senior Investigators