Ariel - Volume 9 Number 3

Executive Editor Emily Wofford Business Manager Fredric Jay Matlin University News John Patrick Welch World News George Robert Coar Editorials Editor Steve Levine Features Mark Rubin Brad Feldstein Photo Rick Spaide Circulation Victor Onufreiczuk Lee Wugofski Graphics and Art Steve Hulkower Commons Editor Brenda Peterso

Poor Potential Coverage for 7-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine, Malawi

Streptococcus pneumoniae infections can be prevented by using new conjugate vaccines, but these vaccines have limited serogroup coverage. We report the first serogrouping data from carried and invasive isolates obtained from children and adults in Malawi. The 7-valent vaccine would cover 41% of invasive isolates from children and 25% from adults. A 9-valent vaccine, including types 1 and 5, would cover 66% of invasive isolates from children and 55% from adults

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

Comparison of ethanol septal reduction therapy with surgical myectomy for the treatment of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy

AbstractOBJECTIVESThis study was designed to compare the hemodynamic efficacy of nonsurgical septal reduction therapy (NSRT) by intracoronary ethanol with standard therapy (surgical myectomy) for the treatment of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM).BACKGROUNDNonsurgical septal reduction therapy has gained interest as a new treatment modality for patients with drug-refractory symptoms of HOCM; however, its benefits in comparison to surgery are unknown.METHODSForty-one consecutive NSRT patients at Baylor College of Medicine with one-year follow-up were compared with age- and gradient-matched septal myectomy patients at the Mayo Clinic. All patients had left ventricular outflow obstruction with a resting gradient ≥40 mm Hg and none had concomitant procedures.RESULTSThere were no baseline differences in New York Heart Association class, severity of mitral regurgitation, use of cardiac medications or exercise capacity. One death occurred during NSRT because of dissection of the left anterior descending artery. At one year, all improvements in both groups were similar. After surgical myectomy, more patients were on medications (p < 0.05) and there was a higher incidence of mild aortic regurgitation (p < 0.05). After NSRT, the incidence of pacemaker implantation for complete heart block was higher (22% vs. 2% in surgery; p = 0.02). However, seven of the nine pacemakers in the NSRT group were implanted before a modified ethanol injection technique and the use of contrast echocardiography.CONCLUSIONSNonsurgical septal reduction therapy resulted in a significantly higher incidence of complete heart block, but the risk was reduced with contrast echocardiography and slow ethanol injection. Surgical myectomy resulted in a significantly higher incidence of mild aortic regurgitation. Nonsurgical septal reduction therapy, guided by contrast echocardiography, is an effective procedure for treating patients with HOCM. The hemodynamic and functional improvements at one year are similar to those of surgical myectomy

Barriers and facilitators to adherence to group exercise in institutionalized older people living with dementia: a systematic review

Objectives Research suggests targeted exercise is important for people living with dementia, especially those living in residential care. The aim of this review was to collect and synthesize evidence on the known barriers and facilitators to adherence to group exercise of institutionalized older people living with dementia. Methods We searched all available electronic databases. Additionally, we searched trial registries (clinicaltrial.gov, and WHO ICTRP) for ongoing studies. We searched for and included papers from January 1990 until September 2017 in any language. We included randomized, non-randomized trials. Studies were not eligible if participants were either healthy older people or people suffering from dementia but not living in an institution. Studies were also excluded if they were not focused on barriers and facilitators to adherence to group exercise. Results Using narrative analysis, we identified the following themes for barriers: bio-medical reasons and mental wellbeing and physical ability, relationships dynamics, and socioeconomic reasons. The facilitators were grouped under the following thematic frames: bio-medical benefits and benefits related to physical ability, feelings and emotions and confidence improvements, therapist and group relationships dynamics and activity related reasons. Conclusions We conclude that institutionalized older people living with dementia, even those who are physically frail, incontinent and/or have mild dementia can demonstrate certain level of exercise adherence, and therefore can respond positively to exercise programs. Tailored, individually-adjusted and supported physical activity, led by a knowledgeable, engaging and well communicating therapist/facilitator improves the adherence to group exercise interventions of institutionalized older people living with dementia

Political strategies of external support for democratization

Political strategies of external support to democratization are contrasted and critically examined in respect of the United States and European Union. The analysis begins by defining its terms of reference and addresses the question of what it means to have a strategy. The account briefly notes the goals lying behind democratization support and their relationship with the wider foreign policy process, before considering what a successful strategy would look like and how that relates to the selection of candidates. The literature's attempts to identify strategy and its recommendations for better strategies are compared and assessed. Overall, the article argues that the question of political strategies of external support for democratization raises several distinct but related issues including the who?, what?, why?, and how? On one level, strategic choices can be expected to echo the comparative advantage of the "supporter." On a different level, the strategies cannot be divorced from the larger foreign policy framework. While it is correct to say that any sound strategy for support should be grounded in a theoretical understanding of democratization, the literature on strategies reveals something even more fundamental: divergent views about the nature of politics itself. The recommendations there certainly pinpoint weaknesses in the actual strategies of the United States and Europe but they have their own limitations too. In particular, in a world of increasing multi-level governance strategies for supporting democratization should go beyond preoccupation with just an "outside-in" approach