Search

Background: Angiotensinogen is the sole precursor of angiotensin peptides and has a key role in the pathogenesis of hypertension. Zilebesiran, an investigational RNA interference therapeutic agent with a prolonged duration of action, inhibits hepatic angiotensinogen synthesis., Methods: In this phase 1 study, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either a single ascending subcutaneous dose of zilebesiran (10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, or 800 mg) or placebo and were followed for 24 weeks (Part A). Part B assessed the effect of the 800-mg dose of zilebesiran on blood pressure under low- or high-salt diet conditions, and Part E the effect of that dose when coadministered with irbesartan. End points included safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, and the change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as measured by 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring., Results: Of 107 patients enrolled, 5 had mild, transient injection-site reactions. There were no reports of hypotension, hyperkalemia, or worsening of renal function resulting in medical intervention. In Part A, patients receiving zilebesiran had decreases in serum angiotensinogen levels that were correlated with the administered dose (r = -0.56 at week 8; 95% confidence interval, -0.69 to -0.39). Single doses of zilebesiran (≥200 mg) were associated with decreases in systolic blood pressure (>10 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (>5 mm Hg) by week 8; these changes were consistent throughout the diurnal cycle and were sustained at 24 weeks. Results from Parts B and E were consistent with attenuation of the effect on blood pressure by a high-salt diet and with an augmented effect through coadministration with irbesartan, respectively., Conclusions: Dose-dependent decreases in serum angiotensinogen levels and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure were sustained for up to 24 weeks after a single subcutaneous dose of zilebesiran of 200 mg or more; mild injection-site reactions were observed. (Funded by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03934307; EudraCT number, 2019-000129-39.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: Nonadherence to medication is present in at least 50% of patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. We examined the factors associated with nonadherence as detected by a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)-based urine antihypertensive drug assay., Methods: All urine antihypertensive test results, carried out for uncontrolled hypertension (BP persistently >140/90 mmHg) between January 2015 and December 2016 at a single toxicology laboratory were analysed. Drugs detected were compared with the antihypertensive drugs prescribed. Patients were classified as adherent (all drugs detected), partially nonadherent (at least one prescribed drug detected) or completely nonadherent (no drugs detected). Demographic and clinical parameters were compared between the adherent and nonadherent groups. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine association between nonadherence and demographic and clinical factors., Results: Data on 300 patients from nine hypertension centres across the United Kingdom were analysed. The median age was 59 years, 47% women, 71% Caucasian, median clinic BP was 176/95 mmHg and the median number of antihypertensive drugs prescribed was four. One hundred and sixty-six (55%) were nonadherent to prescribed medication with 20% of these being completely nonadherent. Nonadherence to antihypertensive medication was independently associated with younger age, female sex, number of antihypertensive drugs prescribed, total number of all medications prescribed (total pill burden) and prescription of a calcium channel blocker., Conclusion: This LC-MS/MS urine analysis-based study suggests the majority of patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension are nonadherent to prescribed treatment. Factors that are associated with nonadherence, particularly pill burden, should be taken into account while treating these patients.

Background: In the PATHWAY-2 study of resistant hypertension, spironolactone reduced blood pressure substantially more than conventional antihypertensive drugs. We did three substudies to assess the mechanisms underlying this superiority and the pathogenesis of resistant hypertension., Methods: PATHWAY-2 was a randomised, double-blind crossover trial done at 14 UK primary and secondary care sites in 314 patients with resistant hypertension. Patients were given 12 weeks of once daily treatment with each of placebo, spironolactone 25-50 mg, bisoprolol 5-10 mg, and doxazosin 4-8 mg and the change in home systolic blood pressure was assessed as the primary outcome. In our three substudies, we assessed plasma aldosterone, renin, and aldosterone-to-renin ratio (ARR) as predictors of home systolic blood pressure, and estimated prevalence of primary aldosteronism (substudy 1); assessed the effects of each drug in terms of thoracic fluid index, cardiac index, stroke index, and systemic vascular resistance at seven sites with haemodynamic monitoring facilities (substudy 2); and assessed the effect of amiloride 10-20 mg once daily on clinic systolic blood pressure during an optional 6-12 week open-label runout phase (substudy 3). The PATHWAY-2 trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2008-007149-30, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02369081., Findings: Of the 314 patients in PATHWAY-2, 269 participated in one or more of the three substudies: 126 in substudy 1, 226 in substudy 2, and 146 in substudy 3. Home systolic blood pressure reduction by spironolactone was predicted by ARR (r 2 =0·13, p<0·0001) and plasma renin (r 2 =0·11, p=0·00024). 42 patients had low renin concentrations (predefined as the lowest tertile of plasma renin), of which 31 had a plasma aldosterone concentration greater than the mean value for all 126 patients (250 pmol/L). Thus, 31 (25% [95% CI 17-33]) of 126 patients were deemed to have inappropriately high aldosterone concentrations. Thoracic fluid content was reduced by 6·8% from baseline (95% CI 4·0 to 8·8; p<0·0001) with spironolactone, but not other treatments. Amiloride (10 mg once daily) reduced clinic systolic blood pressure by 20·4 mm Hg (95% CI 18·3-22·5), compared with a reduction of 18·3 mm Hg (16·2-20·5) with spironolactone (25 mg once daily). No serious adverse events were recorded, and adverse symptoms were not systematically recorded after the end of the double-blind treatment. Mean plasma potassium concentrations increased from 4·02 mmol/L (95% CI 3·95-4·08) on placebo to 4·50 (4·44-4·57) on amiloride (p<0·0001)., Interpretation: Our results suggest that resistant hypertension is commonly a salt-retaining state, most likely due to inappropriate aldosterone secretion. Mineralocorticoid receptor blockade by spironolactone overcomes the salt retention and resistance of hypertension to treatment. Amiloride seems to be as effective an antihypertensive as spironolactone, offering a substitute treatment for resistant hypertension., Funding: British Heart Foundation and UK National Institute for Health Research., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) appears to be a better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than daytime BP. The BP lowering effects of most antihypertensive therapies are often greater in the first 12 h compared to the next 12 h. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aims to establish whether evening dosing is more cardioprotective than morning dosing., Methods and Analysis: The TIME study uses the prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point (PROBE) design. TIME recruits participants by advertising in the community, from primary and secondary care, and from databases of consented patients in the UK. Participants must be aged over 18 years, prescribed at least one antihypertensive drug taken once a day, and have a valid email address. After the participants have self-enrolled and consented on the secure TIME website (http://www.timestudy.co.uk) they are randomised to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or the evening. Participant follow-ups are conducted after 1 month and then every 3 months by automated email. The trial is expected to run for 5 years, randomising 10,269 participants, with average participant follow-up being 4 years. The primary end point is hospitalisation for the composite end point of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke (cerebrovascular accident; CVA) or any vascular death determined by record-linkage. Secondary end points are: each component of the primary end point, hospitalisation for non-fatal stroke, hospitalisation for non-fatal MI, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation or death from congestive heart failure. The primary outcome will be a comparison of time to first event comparing morning versus evening dosing using an intention-to-treat analysis. The sample size is calculated for a two-sided test to detect 20% superiority at 80% power., Ethics and Dissemination: TIME has ethical approval in the UK, and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: UKCRN17071; Pre-results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

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., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Introduction: 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., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Hypertension contributes greatly to global disease burden and in many patients current treatments do not adequately control blood pressure (BP). Endothelin-1 (ET-1) is a potent vasoconstrictor that is implicated in the pathogenesis of hypertension, including the hypertension that is often associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the metabolic syndrome. ET receptor antagonists, currently licensed for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension and scleroderma-related digital ulcers, are being investigated for the treatment of hypertension. Clinical trials have addressed the use of ET receptor antagonists as monotherapy in primary hypertension, as an add-on therapy in resistant hypertension and in CKD. This review will evaluate the current evidence regarding the therapeutic potential of ET receptor antagonists in hypertension, as well as highlighting important issues that still need to be addressed.

Ambrisentan is the second selective endothelin-A receptor antagonist to be licensed in Europe, and the first in the United States, for the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). It has been shown to be clinically effective in improving exercise tolerance and functional class. Furthermore, ambrisentan is well tolerated and associated with low rates of liver toxicity and minimal interactions with other medicines commonly used to treat PAH. Overall, current data support a role for ambrisentan in the management of PAH. However, the results of longer-term follow-up studies are still required to fully assess efficacy and safety., (Copyright 2008 Prous Science, S.A.U. or its licensors. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypertension is generally poorly controlled in primary care. One possible intervention for improving control is the harnessing of patient expertise through education and encouragement to challenge their care., Aim: To determine whether encouraging patients to manage their hypertension in an 'expert' manner, by providing them with information in a clear clinical guideline, coupled with an explicit exhortation to become involved in and to challenge their own care if appropriate, would improve their care., Design of Study: Single blind randomised controlled trial of detailed guideline versus standard information., Setting: Single urban general practice over 1 year., Method: Patient-held guideline with written explicit exhortation to challenge care when appropriate. Two hundred and ninety-four of 536 eligible patients on the practice hypertension register were recruited, all of whom were randomised into one of two groups. Two hundred and thirty-six patients completed the study., Primary Outcome: average systolic blood pressure., Secondary Outcomes: proportion of patients with blood pressure < 150 mmHg systolic and < 90 mmHg diastolic, average cholesterol, proportion of patients prescribed statins and aspirin according to guideline, hospital anxiety and depression score. No clinically, or statistically significant differences were found between intervention and control with respect to all parameters or in anxiety and depression levels. Statin and aspirin use improved throughout the course of the study in both groups. Statin use showed a trend (P = 0.02) in favour of control., Conclusion: In this study there was no clinically significant perceived benefit to patients as a result of providing them with a hypertension guideline. Patient guidelines are currently planned for many chronic illnesses. It is important to determine the utility of such interventions before scarce resources are applied to them.

Background: Endothelin (ET) is implicated in the pathophysiology of chronic renal failure (CRF). We therefore studied the systemic and renal hemodynamic effects of ET receptor antagonists in CRF and examined differences between selective ETA, selective ETB, and combined ETA/B receptor blockade., Methods and Results: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 4-way crossover study comparing selective ET receptor antagonists BQ-123 (ETA) and BQ-788 (ETB), given alone and in combination, in acute studies in 8 hypertensive CRF patients and 8 matched healthy controls. BQ-123, alone and in combination with BQ-788, reduced blood pressure in CRF, particularly with BQ-123 alone (mean arterial pressure: controls -4+/-2%, CRF -13+/-2%, P<0.01 versus placebo). In CRF, in the face of this fall in blood pressure, BQ-123 substantially increased renal blood flow (38.8+/-23.9%, P<0.01 versus placebo) and reduced renal vascular resistance (-44.5+/-11.3%, P<0.01 versus placebo) when given alone but not when combined with BQ-788. These changes were accompanied by a reduction in effective filtration fraction. BQ-123, alone or in combination with BQ-788, had minimal effects on the renal circulation in healthy controls, and BQ-788 alone produced both systemic and renal vasoconstriction in CRF and healthy controls., Conclusions: ETA receptor antagonism was highly effective in lowering blood pressure in CRF patients currently treated for hypertension. In addition, there were effects consistent with a renoprotective action. However, because the ETB receptor appears to play a key role in the maintenance of tonic renal vasodilation, combined ETA/B receptor antagonism, although it lowered blood pressure, did not confer these renal benefits.

Objectives: Plasma angiotensin II (ANG II) concentrations are elevated in cirrhosis and have been implicated as a cause of portal hypertension. We aimed to study both the systemic and portal hemodynamics, and tolerability after chronic administration of losartan, an ANG II receptor antagonist., Methods: Twelve patients with preascitic cirrhosis were studied: mean age of 53.8 +/- 3.3 yr; average Child-Pugh score of 5.8 +/- 0.3; alcohol etiology (5), hepatitis B/C (1/3), primary biliary cirrhosis (3). No patients were on diuretics or vasoactive medication. Hemodynamic measurements were performed at baseline and 4 weeks after daily administration of 25 mg losartan., Results: There was no significant change in the hepatic venous pressure gradient (15.4 +/- 1.5 to 13.6 +/- 1.6 mmHg, -11.7%, p = NS), despite a significant reduction in the wedge hepatic venous pressure (20.3 +/- 1.8 to 17.3 +/- 1.8 mmHg, -14.8%, p < 0.05). Cardiac output, hepatic blood flow, systemic vascular resistance, creatinine clearance, and natriuresis were unaffected. The plasma renin activity increased significantly from 2.7 +/- 0.4 to 5.2 +/- 1.1 ng/ml/h (p < 0.05). There was a significant reduction in the mean arterial pressure from 96.9 +/- 3.3 to 89.3 +/- 3.5 mmHg, -7.8 +/- 3.0% (p = 0.02), with 1 patient experiencing symptomatic hypotension., Conclusions: Chronic administration of low-dose losartan does not lead to a significant reduction in the portal pressure gradient. Losartan is unlikely to be useful in the management of patients with early cirrhosis, who are at risk of variceal bleeding.

Hypertension remains the leading cause of cardiovascular disease and premature death globally, affecting half of US adults. A high proportion of hypertensive patients exhibit uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), associated with poor adherence, linked to pill burden and adverse effects. Novel pharmacological strategies are urgently needed to improve BP control. Dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system increases BP through its primary effector, Ang II (angiotensin II), which results in tissue remodeling and end-organ damage. Silencing liver angiotensinogen (the sole source of Ang II) has been achieved using novel RNA therapeutics, including the antisense oligonucleotide, IONIS-AGT (angiotensinogen)-LRX and the small- interfering RNA, zilebesiran. Conjugation to N-acetylgalactosamine enables targeted delivery to hepatocytes, where endosomal storage, slow leakage, and small-interfering RNA recycling (for zilebesiran) result in knockdown over several months. Indeed, zilebesiran has an impressive and durable effect on systolic BP, reduced by up to 20 mm Hg and sustained for 6 months after a single administration, likely due to its very effective knockdown of angiotensinogen, without causing acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia. By contrast, IONIS-AGT-LRX caused less knockdown and marginal effects on BP. Future studies should evaluate any loss of efficacy relating to antidrug antibodies, safety issues associated with long-term angiotensinogen suppression, and broader benefits, especially in the context of common comorbidities such as type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Co-administration of inhibitors of phosphodiesterase type 5 with organic nitrates can cause profound hypotension. • For this reason, it is recommended that sildenafil and organic nitrates are not administered within 24 h of one another. • However, the time course of the interaction between sildenafil and sublingual glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) has not previously been investigated. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • In men with angina there is an interaction between oral sildenafil and sublingual GTN for ≥8 h, but from 6 h this interaction is not more than additive. • These data may be helpful to clinicians who are considering the use of GTN in patients presenting with angina who have received sildenafil within 24 h. AIM To investigate the time course of the hypotensive interaction between sildenafil and glyceryl trinitrate (GTN). METHODS Two double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover studies were performed. Subjects were challenged with sublingual GTN 400 µg at different times after oral sildenafil 100 mg. After each GTN challenge frequent measures of blood pressure (BP) were made. In the first study GTN was given 1–48 h after sildenafil/placebo to 33 healthy men. In the second study GTN was given 1–8 h after sildenafil/placebo to 20 men with stable angina. RESULTS In healthy men there was a greater mean maximum reduction in BP with sildenafil/GTN than with placebo/GTN only at 1 h. In angina patients, there was a greater mean maximum reduction in BP with sildenafil/GTN than with placebo/GTN for up to 8 h. The mean (95% confidence interval) differences in maximum systolic BP reduction (mmHg) at 1, 4, 6 and 8 h were −16 (−12, −21), −12 (−4, −20), −6 (1, −12) and −9 (−3, −15), all P < 0.05 except at 6 h (NS). At 6 and 8 h the interaction was not more than additive, and hypotensive symptoms did not occur. CONCLUSIONS In men with angina there is an interaction on BP reduction between sildenafil and GTN for ≥ 8 h after sildenafil administration, but this is no more than additive from 6 h. These data may be helpful to clinicians who are considering the use of GTN in patients presenting with angina who have received sildenafil within 24 h. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Hypertension: clinical management of primary hypertension in adults," by National Institute for Health and Care Evidence in the 2011 issue.

Background: Studies have suggested that evening dosing with antihypertensive therapy might have better outcomes than morning dosing. The Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aimed to investigate whether evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication improves major cardiovascular outcomes compared with morning dosing in patients with hypertension.Methods: The TIME study is a prospective, pragmatic, decentralised, parallel-group study in the UK, that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with hypertension and taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), without restriction, stratification, or minimisation, to take all of their usual antihypertensive medications in either the morning (0600-1000 h) or in the evening (2000-0000 h). Participants were followed up for the composite primary endpoint of vascular death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Endpoints were identified by participant report or record linkage to National Health Service datasets and were adjudicated by a committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was assessed as the time to first occurrence of an event in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants who submitted at least one follow-up questionnaire. The study is registered with EudraCT (2011-001968-21) and ISRCTN (18157641), and is now complete.Findings: Between Dec 17, 2011, and June 5, 2018, 24 610 individuals were screened and 21 104 were randomly assigned to evening (n=10 503) or morning (n=10 601) dosing groups. Mean age at study entry was 65·1 years (SD 9·3); 12 136 (57·5%) participants were men; 8968 (42·5%) were women; 19 101 (90·5%) were White; 98 (0·5%) were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British (ethnicity was not reported by 1637 [7·8%] participants); and 2725 (13·0%) had a previous cardiovascular disease. By the end of study follow-up (March 31, 2021), median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-5·7), and 529 (5·0%) of 10 503 participants assigned to evening treatment and 318 (3·0%) of 10 601 assigned to morning treatment had withdrawn from all follow-up. A primary endpoint event occurred in 362 (3·4%) participants assigned to evening treatment (0·69 events [95% CI 0·62-0·76] per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3·7%) assigned to morning treatment (0·72 events [95% CI 0·65-0·79] per 100 patient-years; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·83-1·10]; p=0·53). No safety concerns were identified.Interpretation: Evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication was not different from morning dosing in terms of major cardiovascular outcomes. Patients can be advised that they can take their regular antihypertensive medications at a convenient time that minimises any undesirable effects.Funding: British Heart Foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports that the coronary vasoconstriction after coronary angioplasty is attenuated by endothelin A receptor antagonism. Distal coronary vasoconstriction after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA); Study design and subjects; Mechanisms attributed to the coronary vasoconstriction after PTCA.