Impact of EMA regulatory label changes on systemic diclofenac initiation, discontinuation, and switching to other pain medicines in Scotland, England, Denmark, and The Netherlands

Purpose: In June 2013 a European Medicines Agency referral procedure concluded that diclofenac was associated with an elevated risk of acute cardiovascular events and contraindications, warnings, and changes to the product information were implemented across the European Union. This study measured the impact of the regulatory action on the prescribing of systemic diclofenac in Denmark, The Netherlands, England, and Scotland. Methods: Quarterly time series analyses measuring diclofenac prescription initiation, discontinuation and switching to other systemic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, paracetamol, opioids, and other chronic pain medication in those who discontinued diclofenac. Absolute effects were estimated using interrupted time series regression. Results: Overall, diclofenac prescription initiations fell during the observation periods of all countries. Compared with Denmark where there appeared to be amore limited effect, the regulatory action was associated with significant immediate reductions in diclofenac initiation in The Netherlands (−0.42%, 95% CI, −0.66% to −0.18%), England (−0.09%, 95% CI, −0.11% to −0.08%), and Scotland (−0.67%, 95% CI, −0.79% to −0.55%); and falling trends in diclofenac initiation in the Netherlands (−0.03%, 95% CI, −0.06% to −0.01% per quarter) and Scotland (−0.04%, 95% CI, −0.05% to −0.02% per quarter). There was no significant impact on diclofenac discontinuation in any country. The regulatory action was associated with modest differences in switching to other pain medicines following diclofenac discontinuation. Conclusions: The regulatory action was associated with significant reductions in overall diclofenac initiation which varied by country and type of exposure. There was no impact on discontinuation and variable impact on switching

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

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

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

Spironolactone versus placebo, bisoprolol, and doxazosin to determine the optimal treatment for drug-resistant hypertension (PATHWAY-2): a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.

This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00257-3BACKGROUND: Optimal drug treatment for patients with resistant hypertension is undefined. We aimed to test the hypotheses that resistant hypertension is most often caused by excessive sodium retention, and that spironolactone would therefore be superior to non-diuretic add-on drugs at lowering blood pressure. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-79 years with seated clinic systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater (or ≥135 mm Hg for patients with diabetes) and home systolic blood pressure (18 readings over 4 days) 130 mm Hg or greater, despite treatment for at least 3 months with maximally tolerated doses of three drugs, from 12 secondary and two primary care sites in the UK. Patients rotated, in a preassigned, randomised order, through 12 weeks of once daily treatment with each of spironolactone (25-50 mg), bisoprolol (5-10 mg), doxazosin modified release (4-8 mg), and placebo, in addition to their baseline blood pressure drugs. Random assignment was done via a central computer system. Investigators and patients were masked to the identity of drugs, and to their sequence allocation. The dose was doubled after 6 weeks of each cycle. The hierarchical primary endpoints were the difference in averaged home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and placebo, followed (if significant) by the difference in home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and the average of the other two active drugs, followed by the difference in home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and each of the other two drugs. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with EudraCT number 2008-007149-30, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02369081. FINDINGS: Between May 15, 2009, and July 8, 2014, we screened 436 patients, of whom 335 were randomly assigned. After 21 were excluded, 285 patients received spironolactone, 282 doxazosin, 285 bisoprolol, and 274 placebo; 230 patients completed all treatment cycles. The average reduction in home systolic blood pressure by spironolactone was superior to placebo (-8·70 mm Hg [95% CI -9·72 to -7·69]; p<0·0001), superior to the mean of the other two active treatments (doxazosin and bisoprolol; -4·26 [-5·13 to -3·38]; p<0·0001), and superior when compared with the individual treatments; versus doxazosin (-4·03 [-5·04 to -3·02]; p<0·0001) and versus bisoprolol (-4·48 [-5·50 to -3·46]; p<0·0001). Spironolactone was the most effective blood pressure-lowering treatment, throughout the distribution of baseline plasma renin; but its margin of superiority and likelihood of being the best drug for the individual patient were many-fold greater in the lower than higher ends of the distribution. All treatments were well tolerated. In six of the 285 patients who received spironolactone, serum potassium exceeded 6·0 mmol/L on one occasion. INTERPRETATION: Spironolactone was the most effective add-on drug for the treatment of resistant hypertension. The superiority of spironolactone supports a primary role of sodium retention in this condition. FUNDING: The British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health Research.The study was funded by a special project grant from the British Heart Foundation (number SP/08/002). Further funding was provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Local Research Networks. BW, PS, MC, and MJB are NIHR Senior Investigators, and are supported by, respectively, the NIHR UCL/UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, the Biomedical Research Centre award to Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, the NIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical research Unit at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre award to Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. Blinded medication was packed by Alan Wong and colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital pharmac

Dietary nitrate prevents progression of carotid subclinical atherosclerosis through blood pressure-independent mechanisms in patients with or at risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aims To test if 6 months' intervention with dietary nitrate and spironolactone could affect carotid subclinical atherosclerosis and stiffness, respectively, vs. placebo/doxazosin, to control for blood pressure (BP). Methods A subgroup of participants in our double-blind, randomized-controlled, factorial VaSera trial had carotid imaging. Patients with hypertension and with/at risk of type 2 diabetes were randomized to active nitrate-containing beetroot juice or placebo nitrate-depleted juice, and spironolactone or doxazosin. Vascular ultrasound for carotid diameter (CD, mm) and intima–media thickness (CIMT, mm) was performed at baseline, 3- and 6-months. Carotid local stiffness (CS, m/s) was estimated from aortic pulse pressure (Arteriograph) and carotid lumen area. Data were analysed by modified intention to treat and using mixed-model effect, adjusted for confounders. Results In total, 93 subjects had a baseline evaluation and 86% had follow-up data. No statistical interactions occurred between the juice and drug arms and BP was similar between the juices and between the drugs. Nitrate-containing vs. placebo juice significantly lowered CIMT (−0.06 [95% confidence interval −0.12, −0.01], P = .034), an overall difference of ~8% relative to baseline; but had no effect on CD or CS. Doxazosin appeared to reduce CS from baseline (−0.34 [−0.62, −0.06]) however, no difference was detected vs. spironolactone (−0.15 [−0.46, 0.16]). No differences were detected between spironolactone or doxazosin on CIMT and CD. Conclusions Our results show that 6 months' intervention with dietary nitrate influences vascular remodelling, but not carotid stiffness or diameter. Neither spironolactone nor doxazosin had a BP-independent effect on carotid structure and function

A study of human resource competencies required to implement community rehabilitation in less resourced settings.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that over one billion persons worldwide have some form of disability. However, there is lack of knowledge and prioritisation of how to serve the needs and provide opportunities for people with disabilities. The community-based rehabilitation (CBR) guidelines, with sufficient and sustained support, can assist in providing access to rehabilitation services, especially in less resourced settings with low resources for rehabilitation. In line with strengthening the implementation of the health-related CBR guidelines, this study aimed to determine what workforce characteristics at the community level enable quality rehabilitation services, with a focus primarily on less resourced settings. METHODOLOGY: This was a two-phase review study using (1) a relevant literature review informed by realist synthesis methodology and (2) Delphi survey of the opinions of relevant stakeholders regarding the findings of the review. It focused on individuals (health professionals, lay health workers, community rehabilitation workers) providing services for persons with disabilities in less resourced settings. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles were included in this review. Three Delphi iterations with 19 participants were completed. Taken together, these produced 33 recommendations for developing health-related rehabilitation services. Several general principles for configuring the community rehabilitation workforce emerged: community-based initiatives can allow services to reach more vulnerable populations; the need for supportive and structured supervision at the facility level; core skills likely include case management, social protection, monitoring and record keeping, counselling skills and mechanisms for referral; community ownership; training in CBR matrix and advocacy; a tiered/teamwork system of service delivery; and training should take a rights-based approach, include practical components, and involve persons with disabilities in the delivery and planning. CONCLUSION: This research can contribute to implementing the WHO guidelines on the interaction between the health sector and CBR, particularly in the context of the Framework for Action for Strengthening Health Systems, in which human resources is one of six components. Realist syntheses can provide policy makers with detailed and practical information regarding complex health interventions, which may be valuable when planning and implementing programmes

Biomarker Report from the Phase II Lamotrigine Trial in Secondary Progressive MS - Neurofilament as a Surrogate of Disease Progression

This work was supported by National MS Society (USA) under the Promise 2010 initiative and the MS Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as part of exploratory analysis for the UK MS Clinical Trial Network. VL is supported by Italian Minister of Health grant for young researcher 2008