High serum immunoglobulin g and m levels predict freedom from adverse cardiovascular events in hypertension: a nested case-control substudy of the Anglo-Scandinavian cardiac outcomes trial

Aims: We aimed to determine whether the levels of total serum IgM and IgG, together with specific antibodies against malondialdehyde-conjugated low-density lipoprotein (MDA-LDL), can improve cardiovascular risk discrimination. Methods and Results: The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) randomized 9098 patients in the UK and Ireland into the Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm. 485 patients that had cardiovascular (CV) events over 5.5 years were age and sex matched with 1367 controls. Higher baseline total serum IgG, and to a lesser extent IgM, were associated with decreased risk of CV events (IgG odds ratio (OR) per one standard deviation (SD) 0.80 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.72,0.89], p < 0.0001; IgM 0.83[0.75,0.93], p = 0.001), and particularly events due to coronary heart disease (CHD) (IgG OR 0.66 (0.57,0.76); p < 0.0001, IgM OR 0.81 (0.71,0.93); p = 0.002). The association persisted after adjustment for a basic model with variables in the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) as well as following inclusion of C-reactive protein (CRP) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NtProBNP). IgG and IgM antibodies against MDA-LDL were also associated with CV events but their significance was lost following adjustment for total serum IgG and IgM respectively. The area under the receiver operator curve for CV events was improved from the basic risk model when adding in total serum IgG, and there was improvement in continuous and categorical net reclassification (17.6% and 7.5% respectively) as well as in the integrated discrimination index. Conclusion: High total serum IgG levels are an independent predictor of freedom from adverse cardiovascular events, particularly those attributed to CHD, in patients with hypertension

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

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

Effects of β blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke

Summary Background Analyses of some randomised trials show that calcium-channel blockers reduce the risk of stroke more than expected on the basis of mean blood pressure alone and that β blockers are less effective than expected. We aimed to investigate whether the effects of these drugs on variability in blood pressure might explain these disparities in effect on stroke risk

A roadmap for optimizing chronic kidney disease patient care and patient-oriented research in the Eastern European nephrology community

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health problem because of its high prevalence, associated complications and high treatment costs. Several aspects of CKD differ significantly in the Eastern European nephrology community compared with Western Europe because of different geographic, socio-economic, infrastructure, cultural and educational features. The two most frequent aetiologies of CKD, DM and hypertension, and many other predisposing factors, are more frequent in the Eastern region, resulting in more prevalent CKD Stages 3-5. Interventions may minimize the potential drawbacks of the high prevalence of CKD in Eastern Europe, which include several options at various stages of the disease, such as raising public, medical personnel and healthcare authorities awareness; early detection by screening high-risk populations; preventing progression and CKD-related complications by training health professionals and patients; promoting transplantation or home dialysis as the preferred modality; disseminating and implementing guidelines and guided therapy and encouraging/supporting country-specific observational research as well as international collaborative projects. Specific ways to significantly impact CKD-related problems in every region of Europe through education, science and networking are collaboration with non-nephrology European societies who have a common interest in CKD and its associated complications, representation through an advisory role within nephrology via national nephrology societies, contributing to the training of local nephrologists and stimulating patient-oriented research. The latter is mandatory to identify country-specific kidney disease-related priorities. Active involvement of patients in this research via collaboration with the European Kidney Patient Federation or national patient federations is imperative to ensure that projects reflect specific patient needs.Peer reviewe

Prevalence of allergic sensitization in the U.S.: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005–2006

Allergic sensitization is an important risk factor for the development of atopic disease. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005–2006 provides the most comprehensive information on IgE-mediated sensitization in the general US population

Dysregulated Nephrin in Diabetic Nephropathy of Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross Sectional Study

Podocyte specific proteins are dysregulated in diabetic nephropathy, though the extent of their expression loss is not identical and may be subject to different regulatory factors. Quantifying the degree of loss may help identify the most useful protein to use as an early biomarker of diabetic nephropathy.Protein expression of synaptopodin, podocin and nephrin were quantified in 15 Type 2 diabetic renal biopsies and 12 control patients. We found statistically significant downregulation of synaptopodin (P<0.0001), podocin (P = 0.0002), and nephrin (P<0.0001) in kidney biopsies of diabetic nephropathy as compared with controls. Urinary nephrin levels (nephrinuria) were then measured in 66 patients with Type 2 diabetes and 10 healthy controls by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Exocell, Philadelphia, PA). When divided into groups according to normo-, micro-, and macroalbuminuria, nephrinuria was found to be present in 100% of diabetic patients with micro- and macroalbuminuria, as well as 54% of patients with normoalbuminuria. Nephrinuria also correlated significantly with albuminuria (rho = 0.89, p<0.001), systolic blood pressure (rho = 0.32, p = 0.007), and correlated negatively with serum albumin (rho = -0.48, p<0.0001) and eGFR (rho = -0.33, p = 0.005).These data suggest that key podocyte-specific protein expressions are significantly and differentially downregulated in diabetic nephropathy. The finding that nephrinuria is observed in a majority of these normoalbuminuric patients demonstrates that it may precede microalbuminuria. If further research confirms nephrinuria to be a biomarker of pre-clinical diabetic nephropathy, it would shed light on podocyte metabolism in disease, and raise the possibility of new and earlier therapeutic targets