Labetalol Versus Nifedipine as Antihypertensive Treatment for Chronic Hypertension in Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Data from randomized controlled trials to guide antihypertensive agent choice for chronic hypertension in pregnancy are limited; this study aimed to compare labetalol and nifedipine, additionally assessing the impact of ethnicity on treatment efficacy. Pregnant women with chronic hypertension (12+0-27+6 weeks' gestation) were enrolled at 4 UK centers (August 2014 to October 2015). Open-label first-line antihypertensive treatment was randomly assigned: labetalol- (200-1800 mg/d) or nifedipine-modified release (20-80 mg/d). Analysis included 112 women (98%) who completed the study (labetalol n=55, nifedipine n=57). Maximum blood pressure after randomization was 161/101 mm Hg with labetalol versus 163/105 mm Hg with nifedipine (mean difference systolic: 1.2 mm Hg [-4.9 to 7.2 mm Hg], diastolic: 3.3 mm Hg [-0.6 to 7.3 mm Hg]). Mean blood pressure was 134/84 mm Hg with labetalol and 134/85 mm Hg with nifedipine (mean difference systolic: 0.3 mm Hg [-2.8 to 3.4 mm Hg], and diastolic: -1.9 mm Hg [-4.1 to 0.3 mm Hg]). Nifedipine use was associated with a 7.4-mm Hg reduction (-14.4 to -0.4 mm Hg) in central aortic pressure, measured by pulse wave analysis. No difference in treatment effect was observed in black women (n=63), but a mean 4 mm Hg reduction (-6.6 to -0.8 mm Hg; P=0.015) in brachial diastolic blood pressure was observed with labetalol compared with nifedipine in non-black women (n=49). Labetalol and nifedipine control mean blood pressure to target in pregnant women with chronic hypertension. This study provides support for a larger definitive trial scrutinizing the benefits and side effects of first-line antihypertensive treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN40973936

Planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the optimal time to initiate delivery is unclear because limitation of maternal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of neonatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. Methods: In this parallel-group, non-masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management (usual care) with individual randomisation in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia from 34 to less than 37 weeks' gestation and a singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy. The co-primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity or recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg with a superiority hypothesis. The co-primary perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission up to infant hospital discharge with a non-inferiority hypothesis (non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in incidence). Analyses were by intention to treat, together with a per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN01879376. The trial is closed to recruitment but follow-up is ongoing. Findings: Between Sept 29, 2014, and Dec 10, 2018, 901 women were recruited. 450 women (448 women and 471 infants analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants analysed) to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group (289 [65%] women) compared with the expectant management group (338 [75%] women; adjusted relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·79–0·94; p=0·0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was significantly higher in the planned delivery group (196 [42%] infants) compared with the expectant management group (159 [34%] infants; 1·26, 1·08–1·47; p=0·0034). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group. Interpretation: There is strong evidence to suggest that planned delivery reduces maternal morbidity and severe hypertension compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater neonatal morbidity. This trade-off should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision making on timing of delivery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Chronic hypertension in pregnancy:the impact of ethnicity and superimposed preeclampsia on placental, endothelial and renal biomarkers

Black ethnicity is associated with worse pregnancy outcomes in women with chronic hypertension. Preexisting endothelial and renal dysfunction and poor placentation may contribute, but pathophysiological mechanisms underpinning increased risk are poorly understood. This cohort study aimed to investigate the relationship between ethnicity, superimposed preeclampsia, and longitudinal changes in markers of endothelial, renal, and placental dysfunction in women with chronic hypertension. Plasma concentrations of placental growth factor (PlGF), syndecan-1, renin, and aldosterone and urinary angiotensinogen-to-creatinine ratio (AGTCR), protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR), and albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) were quantified during pregnancy and postpartum in women with chronic hypertension. Comparisons of longitudinal biomarker concentrations were made using log-transformation and random effects logistic regression allowing for gestation. Of 117 women, superimposed preeclampsia was diagnosed in 21% ( n = 25), with 24% ( n = 6) having an additional diagnosis of diabetes. The cohort included 63 (54%) women who self-identified as being of black ethnicity. PlGF concentrations were 67% lower [95% confidence interval (CI) −79 to −48%] and AGTCR, PCR, and ACR were higher over gestation, in women with subsequent superimposed preeclampsia (compared with those without superimposed preeclampsia). PlGF &lt;100 pg/ml at 20–23.9 wk of gestation predicted subsequent birth weight &lt;3rd percentile with 88% sensitivity (95% CI 47–100%) and 83% specificity (95% CI 70–92%). Black women had 43% lower renin (95% CI −58 to −23%) and 41% lower aldosterone (95%CI −45 to −15%) concentrations over gestation. Changes in placental (PlGF) and renal (AGTCR/PCR/ACR) biomarkers predated adverse pregnancy outcome. Ethnic variation in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system exists in women with chronic hypertension in pregnancy and may be important in treatment selection.</jats:p

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease