Genetic and stress influences on the prevalence of hypertension among hispanics/latinos in the hispanic community health study/study of latinos (HCHS/SOL).

PURPOSE: The current study examined the effects of chronic stress and a genetic risk score on the presence of hypertension and elevated systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure among Hispanics/Latinos in the target population of Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the participants (N = 11,623) assessed during two clinic visits (Visit 1 2008-2013 & Visit 2 2014-2018), we analysed data from 7,429 adults (50.4% female), aged 18-74, who were genotyped and responded to chronic stress questionnaires. We calculated an unweighted genetic risk score using blood pressure increasing single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) found to be generalisable to Hispanics/Latinos (10 SNPs). Linear and logistic regression models were used to estimate associations between chronic stress and genetic risk score and their interaction, with prevalent Visit 2 SBP or DBP, and hypertension, respectively. Models accounted for sampling weights, stratification, and cluster design. RESULTS: Chronic stress (adjusted OR = 1.18, 95%CI:1.15,1.22) and hypertension genetic risk score (adjusted OR = 1.04, 95%CI:1.01,1.07) were significantly associated with prevalent hypertension, but there was no significant interaction between the chronic stress and genetic risk score on hypertension (p = .49). genetic risk score (b = .32, 95%CI:.08, .55, R2 = .02) and chronic stress (b = .45, 95%CI:.19, .72, R2 = .11) were related to DBP, with no significant interaction (p = .62). Genetic risk score (b = .42, 95%CI:.08, .76, R2 = .01) and chronic stress (b = .80, 95%CI:.34,1.26, R2 = .11) were also related to SBP, with no significant interaction (p = .51). CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate the utility of a genetic risk score for blood pressure and are consistent with literature suggesting chronic stress has a strong, direct association with elevated blood pressure among U.S. Hispanics/Latinos.

Efficacy and safety of dutasteride in patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA) is caused by polyglutamine expansion in the androgen receptor, which results in ligand-dependent toxicity. Animal models have a neuromuscular deficit that is mitigated by androgen-reducing treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the 5α-reductase inhibitor dutasteride in patients with SBMA, and to identify outcome measures for use in future studies of the disease. METHODS: We undertook a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-site clinical trial in ambulatory, symptomatic men with genetically confirmed SBMA. Participants were assigned by random number table to receive dutasteride (0·5 mg per day) or placebo orally for 24 months. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was quantitative muscle assessment (QMA). The final efficacy analysis included all patients who were compliant with study treatment at 24 months. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00303446. FINDINGS: 50 men were randomly assigned to treatment groups (25 dutasteride, 25 placebo), and 44 were included in the efficacy analysis (21 dutasteride, 23 placebo). At 24 months, the placebo group showed a decrease of 4·5% (-0·30 kg/kg) from baseline in weight-scaled muscle strength as indicated by QMA, and the dutasteride group had an increase in strength of 1·3% (0·14 kg/kg); the difference between groups (5·8%, 95% CI -5·9 to 17·6; p=0·28) was not significant. Prespecified secondary outcome measures of creatine kinase, muscle strength and function, motor nerve conduction, activities of daily living, and erectile function did not show a significant difference between the study groups in change from baseline. Quality of life, as measured by the physical component summary of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form version 2, favoured dutasteride (change in score from baseline: placebo, -3·6%, vs dutasteride, 2·1%; p=0·01), whereas the mental component summary favoured placebo (3·3%vs -3·2%; p=0·03). The dutasteride group had fewer patients reporting falls than did the placebo group (9 vs 16; p=0·048); there were no other significant differences in reported adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Our study did not show a significant effect of dutasteride on the progression of muscle weakness in SBMA, although there were secondary indications of both positive and negative effects compared with placebo. A longer trial duration or larger number of patients might be needed to show an effect on disease progression. Performance testing, QMA, and quality of life measures were identified as potentially useful endpoints for future therapeutic trials.