Effects of a diverse prebiotic fibre supplement on HbA1c, insulin sensitivity and inflammatory biomarkers in pre-diabetes: a pilot placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial.

Prebiotic fibre represents a promising and efficacious treatment to manage pre-diabetes, acting via complementary pathways involving the gut microbiome and viscosity-related properties. In this study, we evaluated the effect of using a diverse prebiotic fibre supplement on glycaemic, lipid and inflammatory biomarkers in patients with pre-diabetes. Sixty-six patients diagnosed with pre-diabetes (yet not receiving glucose-lowering medications) were randomised into treatment (thirty-three) and placebo (thirty-three) interventions. Participants in the treatment arm consumed 20 g/d of a diverse prebiotic fibre supplement, and participants in the placebo arm consumed 2 g/d of cellulose for 24 weeks. A total of fifty-one and forty-eight participants completed the week 16 and week 24 visits, respectively. The intervention was well tolerated, with a high average adherence rate across groups. Our results extend upon previous work, showing a significant change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in the treatment group but only in participants with lower baseline HbA1c levels (< 6 % HbA1c) (P = 0·05; treatment -0·17 ± 0·27 v. placebo 0·07 ± 0·29, mean ± sd). Within the whole cohort, we showed significant improvements in insulin sensitivity (P = 0·03; treatment 1·62 ± 5·79 v. placebo -0·77 ± 2·11) and C-reactive protein (P FWE = 0·03; treatment -2·02 ± 6·42 v. placebo 0·94 ± 2·28) in the treatment group compared with the placebo. Together, our results support the use of a diverse prebiotic fibre supplement for physiologically relevant biomarkers in pre-diabetes.

Effect of Alcohol-Mediated Renal Denervation on Blood Pressure in the Presence of Antihypertensive Medications: Primary Results from the TARGET BP I Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal denervation (RDN) has demonstrated clinically relevant reductions in blood pressure among individuals with uncontrolled hypertension despite lifestyle intervention and medications. The safety and effectiveness of alcohol-mediated RDN has not been formally studied in this indication. METHODS: TARGET BP I is a prospective, international, sham-controlled, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded trial investigating the safety and efficacy of alcohol-mediated RDN. Patients with office systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥150 and ≤180 mmHg, office diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg and mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP ≥135 and ≤170 mmHg, despite prescription of 2-5 antihypertensive medications were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the baseline-adjusted change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP at 3 months post procedure. Secondary endpoints include mean between-group differences in office and ambulatory BP at additional time points. RESULTS: Among 301 patients randomized 1:1 to RDN or sham control, RDN was associated with a significant reduction in 24-hour ambulatory SBP at 3 months (mean ± standard deviation -10.0 ± 14.2 mmHg versus -6.8 ± 12.1 mmHg, treatment difference -3.2 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.3, 0.0 mmHg; P=0.0487). Subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint revealed no significant interaction across predefined subgroups. At 3 months, the mean change in office SBP was -12.7 ± 18.3 mmHg and -9.7 ± 17.3 mmHg (difference, -3.0, 95% CI -7.0, 1.0; P=0.173), for RDN and sham, respectively. No significant differences in ambulatory or office diastolic BP were observed. Adverse safety events through 6 months were uncommon with 1 instance of accessory renal artery dissection in the RDN group (0.7%). No significant between-group differences in medication changes or patient adherence were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol-mediated RDN was associated with a modest but statistically significant reduction in 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP compared with sham control. No significant differences between groups in office BP or 6-month major adverse events were observed.

Personalized Antihypertensive Treatment Optimization With Smartphone-Enabled Remote Precision Dosing of Amlodipine During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PERSONAL-CovidBP Trial).

BACKGROUND: The objective of the PERSONAL-CovidBP (Personalised Electronic Record Supported Optimisation When Alone for Patients With Hypertension: Pilot Study for Remote Medical Management of Hypertension During the COVID-19 Pandemic) trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of smartphone-enabled remote precision dosing of amlodipine to control blood pressure (BP) in participants with primary hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an open-label, remote, dose titration trial using daily home self-monitoring of BP, drug dose, and side effects with linked smartphone app and telemonitoring. Participants aged ≥18 years with uncontrolled hypertension (5-7 day baseline mean ≥135 mm Hg systolic BP or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic BP) received personalized amlodipine dose titration using novel (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 mg) and standard (5 and 10 mg) doses daily over 14 weeks. The primary outcome of the trial was mean change in systolic BP from baseline to end of treatment. A total of 205 participants were enrolled and mean BP fell from 142/87 (systolic BP/diastolic BP) to 131/81 mm Hg (a reduction of 11 (95% CI, 10-12)/7 (95% CI, 6-7) mm Hg, P<0.001). The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses (84%); of those participants, 35% were controlled by 1 mg daily. The majority (88%) controlled on novel doses had no peripheral edema. Adherence to BP recording and reported adherence to medication was 84% and 94%, respectively. Patient retention was 96% (196/205). Treatment was well tolerated with no withdrawals from adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized dose titration with amlodipine was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating primary hypertension. The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses, and with personalization of dose there were no trial discontinuations due to drug intolerance. App-assisted remote clinician dose titration may better balance BP control and adverse effects and help optimize long-term care. REGISTRATION: URL: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04559074.

RNA Interference With Zilebesiran for Mild to Moderate Hypertension: The KARDIA-1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Angiotensinogen is the most upstream precursor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, a key pathway in blood pressure (BP) regulation. Zilebesiran, an investigational RNA interference therapeutic, targets hepatic angiotensinogen synthesis. Objective: To evaluate antihypertensive efficacy and safety of different zilebesiran dosing regimens. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study of zilebesiran vs placebo was performed at 78 sites across 4 countries. Screening initiation occurred in July 2021 and the last patient visit of the 6-month study occurred in June 2023. Adults with mild to moderate hypertension, defined as daytime mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) of 135 to 160 mm Hg following antihypertensive washout, were randomized. Interventions: Randomization to 1 of 4 subcutaneous zilebesiran regimens (150, 300, or 600 mg once every 6 months or 300 mg once every 3 months) or placebo (once every 3 months) for 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was between-group difference in least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to month 3 in 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP. Results: Of 394 randomized patients, 377 (302 receiving zilebesiran and 75 receiving placebo) comprised the full analysis set (93 Black patients [24.7%]; 167 [44.3%] women; mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years). At 3 months, 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP changes from baseline were -7.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -10.3 to -4.4) with zilebesiran, 150 mg, once every 6 months; -10.0 mm Hg (95% CI, -12.0 to -7.9) with zilebesiran, 300 mg, once every 3 months or every 6 months; -8.9 mm Hg (95% CI, -11.9 to -6.0) with zilebesiran, 600 mg, once every 6 months; and 6.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.6-9.9) with placebo. LSM differences vs placebo in change from baseline to month 3 were -14.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -19.2 to -9.0; P < .001) with zilebesiran, 150 mg, once every 6 months; -16.7 mm Hg (95% CI, -21.2 to -12.3; P < .001) with zilebesiran, 300 mg, once every 3 months or every 6 months; and -15.7 mm Hg (95% CI, -20.8 to -10.6; P < .001) with zilebesiran, 600 mg, once every 6 months. Over 6 months, 60.9% of patients receiving zilebesiran had adverse events vs 50.7% patients receiving placebo and 3.6% had serious adverse events vs 6.7% receiving placebo. Nonserious drug-related adverse events occurred in 16.9% of zilebesiran-treated patients (principally injection site reactions and mild hyperkalemia) and 8.0% of placebo-treated patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with zilebesiran across a range of doses at 3-month or 6-month intervals significantly reduced 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP at month 3. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04936035.

Use of Genomics to Develop Novel Therapeutics and Personalize Hypertension Therapy.

Hypertension is a prevalent public health problem, contributing to >10 million deaths annually. Though multiple therapeutics exist, many patients suffer from treatment-resistant hypertension or try several medications before achieving blood pressure control. Genomic advances offer mechanistic understanding of blood pressure variability, therapeutic targets, therapeutic response, and promise a stratified approach to treatment of primary hypertension. Cyclic guanosine monophosphate augmentation, aldosterone synthase inhibitors, and angiotensinogen blockade with silencing RNA and antisense therapies are among the promising novel approaches. Pharmacogenomic studies have also been done to explore the genetic bases underpinning interindividual variability in response to existing therapeutics. A polygenic approach using risk scores is likely to be the next frontier in stratifying responses to existing therapeutics.

Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of Endovascular Ultrasound Renal Denervation or a Sham Procedure 6 Months After Medication Escalation: The RADIANCE Clinical Trial Program.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, sham-controlled RADIANCE-HTN (A Study of the Recor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension) SOLO, RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, and RADIANCE II (A Study of the Recor Medical Paradise System in Stage II Hypertension) trials independently met their primary end point of a greater reduction in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) 2 months after ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) in patients with hypertension. To characterize the longer-term effectiveness and safety of uRDN versus sham at 6 months, after the blinded addition of antihypertensive treatments (AHTs), we pooled individual patient data across these 3 similarly designed trials. METHODS: Patients with mild to moderate hypertension who were not on AHT or with hypertension resistant to a standardized combination triple AHT were randomized to uRDN (n=293) versus sham (n=213); they were to remain off of added AHT throughout 2 months of follow-up unless specified blood pressure (BP) criteria were exceeded. In each trial, if monthly home BP was ≥135/85 mm Hg from 2 to 5 months, standardized AHT was sequentially added to target home BP <135/85 mm Hg under blinding to initial treatment assignment. Six-month outcomes included baseline- and AHT-adjusted change in daytime ambulatory, home, and office SBP; change in AHT; and safety. Linear mixed regression models using all BP measurements and change in AHT from baseline through 6 months were used. RESULTS: Patients (70% men) were 54.1±9.3 years of age with a baseline daytime ambulatory/home/office SBP of 150.5±9.8/151.0±12.4/155.5±14.4 mm Hg, respectively. From 2 to 6 months, BP decreased in both groups with AHT titration, but fewer uRDN patients were prescribed AHT (P=0.004), and fewer additional AHT were prescribed to uRDN patients versus sham patients (P=0.001). Whereas the unadjusted between-group difference in daytime ambulatory SBP was similar at 6 months, the baseline and medication-adjusted between-group difference at 6 months was -3.0 mm Hg (95% CI, -5.7, -0.2; P=0.033), in favor of uRDN+AHT. For home and office SBP, the adjusted between-group differences in favor of uRDN+AHT over 6 months were -5.4 mm Hg (-6.8, -4.0; P<0.001) and -5.2 mm Hg (-7.1, -3.3; P<0.001), respectively. There was no heterogeneity between trials. Safety outcomes were few and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient-data analysis of 506 patients included in the RADIANCE trials demonstrates the maintenance of BP-lowering efficacy of uRDN versus sham at 6 months, with fewer added AHTs. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02649426 and NCT03614260.

Management of edoxaban therapy and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing major or nonmajor surgery: a subanalysis of the EMIT-AF/VTE study.

BACKGROUND: Optimising periprocedural management of direct oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic treatment undergoing major surgeries is an important aspect of balancing the risk of surgery-related bleeding with the risk of thromboembolic events, which may vary by surgery type. METHODS: This subanalysis of the prospective EMIT-AF/VTE programme assessed periprocedural-edoxaban management, according to physicians' decisions, and bleeding and thromboembolic event rates in patients who underwent major vs. nonmajor surgeries. Edoxaban interruption and clinical outcomes were compared between major vs. nonmajor surgeries and between renal function subgroups (creatinine clearance [CrCL] ≤ 50 mL/min vs. > 50 mL/min). RESULTS: We included 276 major and 512 nonmajor surgeries. The median pre- and postprocedural duration of edoxaban interruption in major vs. nonmajor surgeries was 4 vs. 1 days, whereas median duration of interruption for those with preprocedural-only and postprocedural-only interruption was 2 vs. 1 days and 2 vs. 0 days, respectively (P < 0.0001). Rates of all bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were numerically higher in major vs. nonmajor surgeries. Event rates (number of events per 100 surgeries) were low overall (< 6 events per 100 surgeries), independent of renal function subgroups. CONCLUSION: In this subanalysis of the EMIT-AF/VTE programme, periprocedural-edoxaban interruption was significantly longer in patients undergoing major vs. nonmajor surgery. This clinician-driven approach was associated with low rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events following both major and nonmajor surgeries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02950168, registered October 31, 2016; NCT02951039, registered November 1, 2016.

Predictive Factors and Clinical Events Associated with Edoxaban Interruption and Heparin Bridging Strategy: EMIT-AF/VTE.

Patients treated with edoxaban may require diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that involve edoxaban interruption. Although heparin bridging strategies are not recommended, heparin is frequently used in clinical practice. However, whether heparin use decreases thromboembolic risk remains unclear, and the potential for increased periprocedural bleeding remains a concern. Here, we report factors predicting edoxaban interruption and the use of heparin bridging strategies and associated clinical events from Global EMIT-AF/VTE, a multicenter, prospective, noninterventional study (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02950168). Eligible patients are adults with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism treated with edoxaban who underwent a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. Edoxaban interruption, heparin bridging strategies, and clinical event data were collected from 5 days before procedure through 29 days afterwards. Edoxaban was interrupted in 1222/2089 procedures (58.5%); a heparin bridging strategy was used during 178 (14.6%) of these interruptions. Patients who received periprocedural heparin had higher baseline HAS-BLED (2.4±1.0 vs 1.9±1.1, P <0.0001) scores and similar CHA2DS2-VASc (3.6±1.6 vs 3.4±1.6, P = 0.09) scores versus patients who did not. HAS-BLED score >3 and high EHRA procedural risk predicted both edoxaban interruption and the use of a heparin bridging strategy, whereas CHA2DS2-VASc scores did not predict either. Bleeding and ischemic event rates were low; the all-bleeding rate was higher with the use of a heparin bridging strategy versus without (6.2% vs 3.1%, P = 0.04). Periprocedural heparin use was associated with higher bleeding rates, but not with lower thromboembolic risk. Individual patient and procedural bleeding risks appear to contribute more than stroke risk to clinicians' consideration of a heparin bridging strategy.

Selecting patients for interventional procedures to treat hypertension.

Purpose: Interventional approaches to treat hypertension are an emerging option that may be suitable for patients whose BP control cannot be achieved with lifestyle and/or pharmacotherapy and possibly for those who do not wish to take drug therapy.Materials and Methods: Interventional strategies include renal denervation with radiofrequency, ultrasound and alcohol-mediated platforms as well as baroreflex activation therapy and cardiac neuromodulation therapy. Presently renal denervation is the most advanced of the therapeutic options and is currently being commercialised in the EU.Results: It is apparent that RDN is effective in both unmedicated patients and patients with more severe hypertension including those with resistant hypertension.Conclusion: However, at present there is no evidence for the use of RDN in patients with secondary forms of hypertension and thus evaluation to rule these out is necessary before proceeding with a procedure. Furthermore, there are numerous pitfalls in the diagnosis and management of secondary hypertension which need to be taken into consideration. Finally, prior to performing an intervention it is appropriate to document presence/absence of hypertension-mediated organ damage.

RDN has emerged as a safe and effective approach to treat hypertension with BP lowering efficacy equivalent to antihypertensive monotherapy albeit with guaranteed 'adherence'Presently populations most likely to respond to RDN are not clearly defined but given the costs of the procedure it is likely to be initially made available to those with resistant hypertension and those at highest cardiovascular riskThere is no evidence to support the use of RDN in patients with secondary forms of hypertension and thus this should be thoroughly screened for prior to offering the procedure, especially in the setting of resistant hypertensionOptimisation of lifestyle and drug therapy is key to good hypertension management and should be undertaken prior to an invasive procedure such as RDN being offeredThere are numerous pitfalls in the screening process for secondary hypertension which means that hypertension specialists should be involved in this component of the pathwayRDN can be offered by interventional radiologist, interventional cardiologists or angiologists who have had appropriate trainingClinical pathways for RDN must ultimately involve a multidisciplinary team overview with hypertension specialists, interventionists and imaging specialists combining efforts to ensure appropriate patient selection. This without question must involve patients in the decision-making process.

Edoxaban use in the context of dental procedures: analysis from the EMIT-AF/VTE database.

INTRODUCTION: Literature reviews support continuing anticoagulation during dental procedures. However, studies often present grouped anticoagulation data, and information on individual anticoagulant management would be helpful to dentists. The Edoxaban Management in Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures (EMIT-AF/VTE) programme (NCT02950168; NCT02951039) demonstrated low periprocedural bleeding and thrombotic event rates in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving edoxaban. AIMS: To report periprocedural edoxaban interruption and clinical events in patients from EMIT-AF/VTE who underwent dental procedures. METHODS: Dental procedures were categorised by type (cleaning/noncleaning). Edoxaban interruption, bleeding events, and thrombotic events were observed 5 days preprocedure through 29 days postprocedure. RESULTS: Overall, 196 patients underwent 350 cleaning and/or noncleaning procedures; most patients (171/196 [87.2%]) underwent noncleaning procedures (282/350 [80.6%]), whereas 48/196 (24.5%) underwent 68/350 (19.4%) cleaning procedures. Edoxaban was uninterrupted for most cleanings (53/68 [77.9%]). Preprocedural interruption was common for single and multiple tooth extractions (single, 67/100 [67.0%]; multiple, 16/30 [53.3%]). The only major bleeding occurred after an unrelated cleaning. Minor bleeding occurred in 1/68 (1.5%) cleaning and 4/282 (1.4%) noncleaning procedures. There were no thrombotic events. CONCLUSIONS: For most cleanings, edoxaban was not interrupted, whereas preprocedural interruption was more common for tooth extractions. Overall, bleeding rates were low, and no thrombotic events occurred.

Alcohol-mediated renal denervation in patients with hypertension in the absence of antihypertensive medications.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound and radiofrequency renal denervation (RDN) have been shown to safely lower blood pressure (BP) in hypertension. AIMS: The TARGET BP OFF-MED trial investigated the efficacy and safety of alcohol-mediated renal denervation (RDN) in the absence of antihypertensive medications. METHODS: This randomised, blinded, sham-controlled trial was conducted in 25 centres in Europe and the USA. Patients with a 24-hour systolic BP of 135-170 mmHg, an office systolic BP 140-180 mmHg and diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg on 0-2 antihypertensive medications were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in mean 24-hour systolic BP at 8 weeks. Safety endpoints included major adverse events up to 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were randomised; the baseline mean office BP following medication washout was 159.4/100.4±10.9/7.0 mmHg (RDN) and 160.1/98.3±11.0/6.1 mmHg (sham), respectively. At 8 weeks post-procedure, the mean (±standard deviation) 24-hour systolic BP change was â2.9±7.4 mmHg (p=0.009) versus â1.4±8.6 mmHg (p=0.25) in the RDN and sham groups, respectively (mean between-group difference: 1.5 mmHg; p=0.27). There were no differences in safety events between groups. After 12 months of blinded follow-up, with medication escalation, patients achieved similar office systolic BP (RDN: 147.9±18.5 mmHg; sham: 147.8±15.1 mmHg; p=0.68) with a significantly lower medication burden in the RDN group (mean daily defined dose: 1.5±1.5 vs 2.3±1.7; p=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, alcohol-mediated RDN was delivered safely but was not associated with significant BP differences between groups. Medication burden was lower in the RDN group up to 12 months.

Endovascular Ultrasound Renal Denervation to Treat Hypertension: The RADIANCE II Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Two initial sham-controlled trials demonstrated that ultrasound renal denervation decreases blood pressure (BP) in patients with mild to moderate hypertension and hypertension that is resistant to treatment. Objective: To study the efficacy and safety of ultrasound renal denervation without the confounding influence of antihypertensive medications in patients with hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial with patients and outcome assessors blinded to treatment assignment that was conducted between January 14, 2019, and March 25, 2022, at 37 centers in the US and 24 centers in Europe, with randomization stratified by center. Patients aged 18 years to 75 years with hypertension (seated office systolic BP [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg and diastolic BP [DBP] ≥90 mm Hg despite taking up to 2 antihypertensive medications) were eligible if they had an ambulatory SBP/DBP of 135/85 mm Hg or greater and an SBP/DBP less than 170/105 mm Hg after a 4-week washout of their medications. Patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 40 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater and with suitable renal artery anatomy were randomized 2:1 to undergo ultrasound renal denervation or a sham procedure. Patients were to abstain from antihypertensive medications until the 2-month follow-up unless prespecified BP criteria were exceeded and were associated with clinical symptoms. Interventions: Ultrasound renal denervation vs a sham procedure. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change in daytime ambulatory SBP at 2 months. The primary safety composite outcome of major adverse events included death, kidney failure, and major embolic, vascular, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and hypertensive events at 30 days and renal artery stenosis greater than 70% detected at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included mean change in 24-hour ambulatory SBP, home SBP, office SBP, and all DBP parameters at 2 months. Results: Among 1038 eligible patients, 150 were randomized to ultrasound renal denervation and 74 to a sham procedure (mean age, 55 years [SD, 9.3 years]; 28.6% female; and 16.1% self-identified as Black or African American). The reduction in daytime ambulatory SBP was greater with ultrasound renal denervation (mean, -7.9 mm Hg [SD, 11.6 mm Hg]) vs the sham procedure (mean, -1.8 mm Hg [SD, 9.5 mm Hg]) (baseline-adjusted between-group difference, -6.3 mm Hg [95% CI, -9.3 to -3.2 mm Hg], P < .001), with a consistent effect of ultrasound renal denervation throughout the 24-hour circadian cycle. Among 7 secondary BP outcomes, 6 were significantly improved with ultrasound renal denervation vs the sham procedure. No major adverse events were reported in either group. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with hypertension, ultrasound renal denervation reduced daytime ambulatory SBP at 2 months in the absence of antihypertensive medications vs a sham procedure without postprocedural major adverse events. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03614260.

Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of Ultrasound Renal Denervation in the Sham-Controlled RADIANCE II, RADIANCE-HTN SOLO, and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO Trials.

Importance: Ultrasound renal denervation (uRDN) was shown to lower blood pressure (BP) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (HTN). Establishing the magnitude and consistency of the uRDN effect across the HTN spectrum is clinically important. Objective: To characterize the effectiveness and safety of uRDN vs a sham procedure from individual patient-level pooled data across uRDN trials including either patients with mild to moderate HTN on a background of no medications or with HTN resistant to standardized triple-combination therapy. Data Sources: A Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension (RADIANCE-HTN SOLO and TRIO) and A Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Stage II Hypertension (RADIANCE II) trials. Study Selection: Trials with similar designs, standardized operational implementation (medication standardization and blinding of both patients and physicians to treatment assignment), and follow-up. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pooled analysis using individual patient-level data using linear regression models to compare uRDN with sham across the trials. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was baseline-adjusted change in 2-month daytime ambulatory systolic BP (dASBP) between groups. Results: A total of 506 patients were randomized in the 3 studies (uRDN, 293; sham, 213; mean [SD] age, 54.1 [9.3]; 354 male [70.0%]). After a 1-month medication stabilization period, dASBP was similar between the groups (mean [SD], uRDN, 150.3 [9.2] mm Hg; sham, 150.8 [10.5] mm Hg). At 2 months, dASBP decreased by 8.5 mm Hg to mean (SD) 141.8 (13.8) mm Hg among patients treated with uRDN and by 2.9 mm Hg to 147.9 (14.6) mm Hg among patients treated with a sham procedure (mean difference, -5.9; 95% CI, -8.1 to -3.8 mm Hg; P < .001 in favor of uRDN). BP decreases from baseline with uRDN vs sham were consistent across trials and across BP parameters (office SBP: -10.4 mm Hg vs -3.4 mm Hg; mean difference, -6.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, -9.1 to -3.6 mm Hg; home SBP: -8.4 mm Hg vs -1.4 mm Hg; mean difference, -6.8 mm Hg; 95% CI, -8.7 to -4.9 mm Hg, respectively). The BP reductions with uRDN vs sham were consistent across prespecified subgroups. Independent predictors of a larger BP response to uRDN were higher baseline BP and heart rate and the presence of orthostatic hypertension. No differences in early safety end points were observed between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this patient-level pooled analysis suggest that BP reductions with uRDN were consistent across HTN severity in sham-controlled trials designed with a 2-month primary end point to standardize medications across randomized groups. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02649426 and NCT03614260.

Measurement of Vital Signs by Lifelight Software in Comparison to Standard of Care Multisite Development (VISION-MD): Protocol for an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Measuring vital signs (VS) is an important aspect of clinical care but is time-consuming and requires multiple pieces of equipment and trained staff. Interest in the contactless measurement of VS has grown since the COVID-19 pandemic, including in nonclinical situations. Lifelight is an app being developed as a medical device for the contactless measurement of VS using remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) via the camera on smart devices. The VISION-D (Measurement of Vital Signs by Lifelight Software in Comparison to the Standard of Care-Development) and VISION-V (Validation) studies demonstrated the accuracy of Lifelight compared with standard-of-care measurement of blood pressure, pulse rate, and respiratory rate, supporting the certification of Lifelight as a class I Conformité Européenne (CE) medical device. OBJECTIVE: To support further development of the Lifelight app, the observational VISION Multisite Development (VISION-MD) study is collecting high-quality data from a broad range of patients, including those with VS measurements outside the normal healthy range and patients who are critically ill. METHODS: The study is recruiting adults (aged ≥16 years) who are inpatients (some critically ill), outpatients, and healthy volunteers, aiming to cover a broad range of normal and clinically relevant VS values; there are no exclusion criteria. High-resolution 60-second videos of the face are recorded by the Lifelight app while simultaneously measuring VS using standard-of-care methods (automated sphygmomanometer for blood pressure; finger clip sensor for pulse rate and oxygen saturation; manual counting of respiratory rate). Feedback from patients and nurses who use Lifelight is collected via a questionnaire. Data to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Lifelight compared with standard-of-care VS measurement are also being collected. A new method for rPPG signal processing is currently being developed, based on the identification of small areas of high-quality signals in each individual. Anticipated recruitment is 1950 participants, with the expectation that data from approximately 1700 will be used for software development. Data from 250 participants will be retained to test the performance of Lifelight against predefined performance targets. RESULTS: Recruitment began in May 2021 but was hindered by the restrictions instigated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The development of data processing methodology is in progress. The data for analysis will become available from September 2022, and the algorithms will be refined continuously to improve clinical accuracy. The performance of Lifelight compared with that of the standard-of-care measurement of VS will then be tested. Recruitment will resume if further data are required. The analyses are expected to be completed in early 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will support the refinement of data collection and processing toward the development of a robust app that is suitable for routine clinical use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04763746; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04763746. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41533.

Measurement of Vital Signs Using Lifelight Remote Photoplethysmography: Results of the VISION-D and VISION-V Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: The detection of early changes in vital signs (VSs) enables timely intervention; however, the measurement of VSs requires hands-on technical expertise and is often time-consuming. The contactless measurement of VSs is beneficial to prevent infection, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lifelight is a novel software being developed to measure VSs by remote photoplethysmography based on video captures of the face via the integral camera on mobile phones and tablets. We report two early studies in the development of Lifelight. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the Vital Sign Comparison Between Lifelight and Standard of Care: Development (VISION-D) study (NCT04763746) was to measure respiratory rate (RR), pulse rate (PR), and blood pressure (BP) simultaneously by using the current standard of care manual methods and the Lifelight software to iteratively refine the software algorithms. The objective of the Vital Sign Comparison Between Lifelight and Standard of Care: Validation (VISION-V) study (NCT03998098) was to validate the use of Lifelight software to accurately measure VSs. METHODS: BP, PR, and RR were measured simultaneously using Lifelight, a sphygmomanometer (BP and PR), and the manual counting of RR. Accuracy performance targets for each VS were defined from a systematic literature review of the performance of state-of-the-art VSs technologies. RESULTS: The VISION-D data set (17,233 measurements from 8585 participants) met the accuracy targets for RR (mean error 0.3, SD 3.6 vs target mean error 2.3, SD 5.0; n=7462), PR (mean error 0.3, SD 4.0 vs mean error 2.2, SD 9.2; n=10,214), and diastolic BP (mean error -0.4, SD 8.5 vs mean error 5.5, SD 8.9; n=8951); for systolic BP, the mean error target was met but not the SD (mean error 3.5, SD 16.8 vs mean error 6.7, SD 15.3; n=9233). Fitzpatrick skin type did not affect accuracy. The VISION-V data set (679 measurements from 127 participants) met all the standards: mean error -0.1, SD 3.4 for RR; mean error 1.4, SD 3.8 for PR; mean error 2.8, SD 14.5 for systolic BP; and mean error -0.3, SD 7.0 for diastolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: At this early stage in development, Lifelight demonstrates sufficient accuracy in the measurement of VSs to support certification for a Level 1 Conformité Européenne mark. As the use of Lifelight does not require specific training or equipment, the software is potentially useful for the contactless measurement of VSs by nonclinical staff in residential and home care settings. Work is continuing to enhance data collection and processing to achieve the robustness and accuracy required for routine clinical use. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/14326.

Effects of Renal Denervation vs Sham in Resistant Hypertension After Medication Escalation: Prespecified Analysis at 6 Months of the RADIANCE-HTN TRIO Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although early trials of endovascular renal denervation (RDN) for patients with resistant hypertension (RHTN) reported inconsistent results, ultrasound RDN (uRDN) was found to decrease blood pressure (BP) vs sham at 2 months in patients with RHTN taking stable background medications in the Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension (RADIANCE-HTN TRIO) trial. Objectives: To report the prespecified analysis of the persistence of the BP effects and safety of uRDN vs sham at 6 months in conjunction with escalating antihypertensive medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, sham-controlled, clinical trial with outcome assessors and patients blinded to treatment assignment, enrolled patients from March 11, 2016, to March 13, 2020. This was an international, multicenter study conducted in the US and Europe. Participants with daytime ambulatory BP of 135/85 mm Hg or higher after 4 weeks of single-pill triple-combination treatment (angiotensin-receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, and thiazide diuretic) with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 40 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater were randomly assigned to uRDN or sham with medications unchanged through 2 months. From 2 to 5 months, if monthly home BP was 135/85 mm Hg or higher, standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment starting with aldosterone antagonists was initiated under blinding to treatment assignment. Interventions: uRDN vs sham procedure in conjunction with added medications to target BP control. Main Outcomes and Measures: Six-month change in medications, change in daytime ambulatory systolic BP, change in home systolic BP adjusted for baseline BP and medications, and safety. Results: A total of 65 of 69 participants in the uRDN group and 64 of 67 participants in the sham group (mean [SD] age, 52.4 [8.3] years; 104 male [80.6%]) with a mean (SD) eGFR of 81.5 (22.8) mL/min/1.73 m2 had 6-month daytime ambulatory BP measurements. Fewer medications were added in the uRDN group (mean [SD], 0.7 [1.0] medications) vs sham (mean [SD], 1.1 [1.1] medications; P = .045) and fewer patients in the uRDN group received aldosterone antagonists at 6 months (26 of 65 [40.0%] vs 39 of 64 [60.9%]; P = .02). Despite less intensive standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, mean (SD) daytime ambulatory BP at 6 months was 138.3 (15.1) mm Hg with uRDN vs 139.0 (14.3) mm Hg with sham (additional decreases of -2.4 [16.6] vs -7.0 [16.7] mm Hg from month 2, respectively), whereas home SBP was lowered to a greater extent with uRDN by 4.3 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.5-8.1 mm Hg; P = .03) in a mixed model adjusting for baseline and number of medications. Adverse events were infrequent and similar between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, in patients with RHTN initially randomly assigned to uRDN or a sham procedure and who had persistent elevation of BP at 2 months after the procedure, standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment escalation resulted in similar BP reduction in both groups at 6 months, with fewer additional medications required in the uRDN group. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02649426.

Durability of blood pressure reduction after ultrasound renal denervation: three-year follow-up of the treatment arm of the randomised RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial.

BACKGROUND: While the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of renal denervation (RDN) has been established, long-term durability is a key prerequisite for a broader clinical implementation. AIMS: Our aims were to assess the long-term durability of the office BP (OBP)-lowering efficacy, antihypertensive medication (AHM) use, and safety of ultrasound RDN (uRDN). METHODS: Four weeks after withdrawal of AHM, patients with untreated daytime ambulatory BP ≥135/85 mmHg and <170/105 mmHg were randomised to uRDN (n=74) or sham (n=72) in the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial. Initiation of AHM was encouraged for home BP >135/85 mmHg following primary endpoint ascertainment at 2 months. Patients and physicians were unblinded at 6 months.  Results: Fifty-one of 74 patients (age: 53.9±11 years; 67% men) originally randomised to uRDN completed the 36-month follow-up. Initial screening OBP upon study entry was 145/92±14/10 mmHg on a mean of 1.2 AHM (range: 0-2.0). Baseline OBP after AHM washout was 154/99±13/8 mmHg. At 36 months, patients were on an average of 1.3 AHM (range: 0-3.0) with 8 patients on no AHM. OBP decreased by 18/11±15/9 mmHg from baseline to 36 months (p<0.001 for both). Overall, OBP control (<140/90 mmHg) improved from 29.4% at screening to 45.1% at 36 months (p=0.059). For patients uncontrolled at screening (n=36), systolic OBP decreased by 10.8 mmHg (p<0.001) at 36 months on similar AHM (p=0.158). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and effectiveness of uRDN was durable to 36 months, with reduced OBP and improved OBP control despite a similar starting medication burden. No new uRDN-related long-term safety concerns were identified.

Thromboembolic and bleeding risks in edoxaban patients with pacemaker and cardiac monitoring procedures: Outcomes of the Global EMIT program.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data were published on the management of direct oral anticoagulants in the insertion of pacemaker and cardiac monitoring devices. This study describes the management and outcomes of edoxaban, a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor, in patients undergoing pacemaker or monitoring device implantation in routine clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: EMIT-AF/VTE collected data of patients from Europe, Korea, and Taiwan. Timing and duration of periprocedural interruption of edoxaban were at the treating physician's discretion. Pacemakers or monitoring devices were implanted into 136 patients who were evaluated from 5 days pre- until 30 days post-procedure. The primary outcomes were the incidences of acute thromboembolic events (ATE), ischemic events, and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-defined Major Bleeding; secondary outcomes included incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) and perioperative edoxaban interruption times. Conformance with European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Guidance on interruption of direct oral anticoagulant therapy was variable: of the cardiac monitoring device patients, where no interruption of therapy would be expected, nonetheless, 62.5% had interruption of treatment, whereas in pacemaker procedures, where interruption would be expected, 23.4% had no interruption. No ATE or ischemic events occurred. One case of CRNMB and two of minor bleeding occurred. All bleedings occurred more than 3 days after the procedure. CONCLUSION/RELEVANCE: The periprocedural complication risk for edoxaban treated patients undergoing pacemaker or invasive cardiac monitoring implantation was low. This population of patients was well managed in routine practice.

Plasma renin and aldosterone concentrations related to endovascular ultrasound renal denervation in the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial.

OBJECTIVE: The RADIANCE-HTN SOLO trial demonstrated a greater reduction in daytime ambulatory SBP at 2 months by endovascular ultrasound renal denervation than sham procedure. We hypothesized that plasma renin and aldosterone concentrations would be associated with the SBP response to renal denervation. METHODS: Hypertensive patients were randomized to renal denervation (n = 74) or sham (n = 72) after a 4-week washout of antihypertensive medications. In a 53-patient subset, 2-month and 6-month plasma renin and aldosterone concentration were measured. Dietary sodium was not controlled. RESULTS: Mean age of the 29 treatment and 24 sham patients was 54 years; 62% were men; 17% black. Daytime ambulatory SBP fell in the denervation but not the sham group at 2 months (-7.8 ±â€Š10.7 vs. -0.1 ±â€Š10.1 mmHg; P = 0.048). Baseline plasma renin and aldosterone concentrations were in the low-normal range, did not change significantly at 2 months in either group and did not predict response to renal denervation. At 6 months, after the addition of antihypertensive medications, there was a significant rise in renin in the sham but not the denervation group. CONCLUSION: Although renal denervation but not sham resulted in a decrease in daytime ambulatory SBP at 2 months, renin and aldosterone concentrations did neither predict the BP response to renal denervation; nor did they fall after denervation. A rise in renin at 6 months in the sham group likely represents confounding from antihypertensive medications. Whether the BP-lowering effect of renal denervation depends on reducing local intrarenal renin release requires further study.

Predictors of blood pressure response to ultrasound renal denervation in the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO study.

The blood pressure (BP) lowering response to renal denervation (RDN) remains variable with about one-third of patients not responding to ultrasound or radiofrequency RDN. Identification of predictors of the BP response to RDN is needed to optimize patient selection for this therapy. This is a post-hoc analysis of the RADIANCE-HTN SOLO study. BP response to RDN was measured by the change in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure (dASBP) at 2 months post procedure. Univariate regression was used initially to assess potential predictors of outcome followed by multivariate regression analysis. In the univariate analysis, predictors of response to RDN were higher baseline daytime ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (dADBP), the use of antihypertensive medications at screening, and presence of orthostatic hypertension (OHTN) whilst the presence of untreated accessory arteries was a negative predictor of response. Multivariate analysis determined that dADBP and use of antihypertensive medications were predictors of response to RDN with a trend for OHTN to predict response. Obese females also appeared to be better responders to RDN in an interaction model. RDN is more effective in patients with elevated baseline dADBP and those with OHTN, suggesting increased peripheral vascular resistance secondary to heightened sympathetic tone. These assessments are easy to perform in clinical setting and may help in phenotyping patients who will respond better to RDN.