The role of sub-retinal fluid in determining treatment outcomes in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration--a phase IV randomised clinical trial with ranibizumab: the FLUID study.

BACKGROUND: With increasing experience using anti-VEGF therapy for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), ophthalmologists have shifted away from a "one size fits all" to an "individualised" approach based on disease activity with the aim of achieving a fluid-free retina. The FLUID study investigates the non-inferiority of a Treat and Extend (T&E) protocol of 0.5 mg ranibizumab, which allows treatment extension in the presence of incomplete resolution of sub-retinal fluid (SRF) ≤200 µm at the foveal centre relative to a T&E protocol that requires complete resolution of all retinal fluid (i.e., both SRF and intra-retinal fluid [IRF]) in patients with nAMD. METHODS/DESIGN: This 24 month, randomised, phase IV trial has completed recruitment of treatment-naïve patients randomised 1:1 to ranibizumab "intensive" treatment (complete resolution of IRF and SRF) or ranibizumab "relaxed" treatment (resolution of IRF or >200 µm SRF only at foveal centre). Patients in both arms follow a T&E regimen where extension decisions are based upon assessment of lesion activity: loss of ≥5 letters of visual acuity, new haemorrhage, presence of IRF and SRF on an optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan. The determination of SRF is conducted at a reading centre while the assessment of IRF is physician-determined. The primary endpoint is the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to 24 months. Secondary endpoints include the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT) from baseline to 12 and 24 months, the number of ranibizumab injections administered at 12 and 24 months, and the pharmacogenomic assessment of AMD Gene Consortium-identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and their association with treatment response. Three hundred and forty seven (347) patients have been recruited by 16 Australian sites within approximately 16 months. A protocol to adjudicate on SRF has been established by the central reading centre and is demonstrating good concordance with investigator assessment. DISCUSSION: This study will provide important insights into retreatment criteria for managing nAMD using a T&E regimen. The current paper describes the clinical rationale for using a less intensive treatment approach using ranibizumab and details of the treatment protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01972789. Date of registration: 24th October 2013.

Impact of nurse-mediated management on achieving blood pressure goal levels in primary care: Insights from the Valsartan Intensified Primary carE Reduction of Blood Pressure Study.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure targets in individuals treated for hypertension in primary care remain difficult to attain. AIMS: To assess the role of practice nurses in facilitating intensive and structured management to achieve ideal BP levels. METHODS: We analysed outcome data from the Valsartan Intensified Primary carE Reduction of Blood Pressure Study. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to the study intervention or usual care. Within both groups, a practice nurse mediated the management of blood pressure for 439 patients with endpoint blood pressure data (n=1492). Patient management was categorised as: standard usual care (n=348, 23.3%); practice nurse-mediated usual care (n=156, 10.5%); standard intervention (n=705, 47.3%) and practice nurse-mediated intervention (n=283, 19.0%). Blood pressure goal attainment at 26-week follow-up was then compared. RESULTS: Mean age was 59.3±12.0 years and 62% were men. Baseline blood pressure was similar in practice nurse-mediated (usual care or intervention) and standard care management patients (150 ± 16/88 ± 11 vs. 150 ± 17/89 ± 11 mmHg, respectively). Practice nurse-mediated patients had a stricter blood pressure goal of ⩽125/75 mmHg (33.7% vs. 27.3%, p=0.026). Practice nurse-mediated intervention patients achieved the greatest blood pressure falls and the highest level of blood pressure goal attainment (39.2%) compared with standard intervention (35.0%), practice nurse-mediated usual care (32.1%) and standard usual care (25.3%; p<0.001). Practice nurse-mediated intervention patients were almost two-fold more likely to achieve their blood pressure goal compared with standard usual care patients (adjusted odds ratio 1.92, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 2.78; p=0.001). CONCLUSION: There is greater potential to achieve blood pressure targets in primary care with practice nurse-mediated hypertension management.

More rigorous protocol adherence to intensive structured management improves blood pressure control in primary care: results from the Valsartan Intensified Primary carE Reduction of Blood Pressure study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine protocol adherence to structured intensive management in the Valsartan Intensified Primary carE Reduction of Blood Pressure (VIPER-BP) study involving 119 primary care clinics and 1562 randomized participants. METHODS: Prospective criteria for assessing adherence to treatment prescription, uptitration, and visit attendance at 6, 10, 14, and 18 weeks postrandomization were applied to 1038 intervention participants. Protocol adherence scores of 1-5 (least to most adherent) were compared to blood pressure (BP) control during 26 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: Mean age was 59.3 ±â€Š12.0 years, 963 (62%) were men, and 1045 (67%) had longstanding hypertension. Clinic attendance dropped from 91 (week 6) to 83% (week 26) and pharmacological instructions were followed for 93% (baseline) to 61% at week 14 (uptitration failures commonly representing protocol deviations). Overall, 26-week BP levels and BP target attainment ranged from 132 ±â€Š14/79 ±â€Š9 and 51% to 141 ±â€Š15/83 ±â€Š11  mmHg and 19% in those participants subject to the highest (n = 270, 26%) versus least (n = 148, 14%) per protocol adherence, respectively; adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.22 per unit protocol adherence score, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-1.31; for achieving BP target (P < 0.001). Participants with a per protocol score of 4 or 5 (512/1038, 49.3%) were 1.54-fold (95% CI 1.31-1.81; P < 0.001) more likely to achieve their individual BP target compared with usual care. Clinics equipped with a practice nurse significantly influenced protocol adherence (adjusted RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.37; P = 0.004) and individual BP control (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.41; P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: There is considerable potential for structured care management to improve BP control in primary care, especially when optimally applied.

Determinants of achieving early blood pressure control with monotherapy in a primary care setting.

This study sought to identify the determinants of early blood pressure (BP) control associated with monotherapy in hypertensive individuals being managed in the primary care setting. The Valsartan Intensified Primary Care Reduction of Blood Pressure (VIPER-BP) study, was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial of an intensive approach to BP management. During a standardized run-in, 2185 participants commenced monotherapy (valsartan 80 mg/d) for 14 to 28 days. A total of 1978 participants aged 59±12 years (60% men) completed the run-in phase. Of these, 15.1%, 43.5%, and 41.4% participants had an initial BP target of ≤125/75, 130/80, and 140/90 mm Hg, respectively. A total of 416 of 2185 participants (19.0%) subsequently achieved their individual BP target during run-in with a mean BP change of -22.6±12.1/-12.9±8.2 mm Hg vs -4.2±16.2/-3.0±9.6 mm Hg for the rest (P<.001). These early responders were more likely to be women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.80), had lower BP at baseline, were less likely to have been treated previously (or for less time), and had a less stringent BP target. An initial period of monotherapy achieved BP control in a high proportion of hypertensive individuals with key groups (including women and de novo cases) more likely to show an early BP response.

Effect of intensive structured care on individual blood pressure targets in primary care: multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of intensive structured care to optimise blood pressure control based on individual absolute risk targets in primary care. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: General practices throughout Australia, except Northern Territory, 2009-11. PARTICIPANTS: Of 2185 patients from 119 general practices who were eligible for drug treatment for hypertension according to national guidelines 416 (19.0%) achieved their individual blood pressure target during a 28 day run-in period of monotherapy. After exclusions, 1562 participants not at target blood pressure (systolic 150 (SD 17) mm Hg, diastolic 88 (SD 11) mm Hg) were randomised (1:2 ratio) to usual care (n=524) or the intervention (n=1038). INTERVENTION: Computer assisted clinical profiling and risk target setting (all participants) with intensified follow-up and stepwise drug titration (initial angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy or two forms of combination therapy using angiotensin receptor blockers) for those randomised to the intervention. The control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was individual blood pressure target achieved at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were change in mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, absolute risk for cardiovascular disease within five years based on the Framingham risk score, and proportion and rate of adverse events. RESULTS: On an intention to treat basis, there was an 8.8% absolute difference in individual blood pressure target achieved at 26 weeks in favour of the intervention group compared with usual care group (358/988 (36.2%) v 138/504 (27.4%)): adjusted relative risk 1.28 (95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.49, P=0.0013). There was also a 9.5% absolute difference in favour of the intervention group for achieving the classic blood pressure target of ≤ 140/90 mm Hg (627/988 (63.5%) v 272/504 (54.0%)): adjusted relative risk 1.18 (1.07 to 1.29, P<0.001). The intervention group achieved a mean adjusted reduction in systolic blood pressure of 13.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -12.3 to -14.2 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure of 7.7 mm Hg (-7.1 to -8.3 mm Hg) v 10.1 mm Hg (-8.8 to 11.3 mm Hg) and 5.5 mm Hg (-4.7 to -6.2 mm Hg) in the usual care group (P<0.001). Among 1141 participants in whom five year absolute cardiovascular risk scores were calculated from baseline to the 26 week follow-up, the reduction in risk scores was greater in the intervention group than usual care group (14.7% (SD 9.3%) to 10.9% (SD 8.0%); difference -3.7% (SD 4.5%) and 15.0% (SD 10.1%) to 12.4% (SD 9.4%); -2.6% (SD 4.5%): adjusted mean difference -1.13% (95% confidence interval -0.69% to -1.63%; P<0.001). Owing to adverse events 82 (7.9%) participants in the intervention group and 10 (1.9%) in the usual care group had their drug treatment modified. CONCLUSIONS: In a primary care setting intensive structured care resulted in higher levels of blood pressure control, with clinically lower blood pressure and absolute risk of future cardiovascular events overall and with more people achieving their target blood pressure. An important gap in treatment remains though and applying intensive management and achieving currently advocated risk based blood pressure targets is challenging.