Treating Primary Aldosteronism-Induced Hypertension: Novel Approaches and Future Outlooks.

Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most common cause of secondary hypertension and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality when compared with blood pressure-matched cases of primary hypertension. Current limitations in patient care stem from delayed recognition of the condition, limited access to key diagnostic procedures, and lack of a definitive therapy option for nonsurgical candidates. However, several recent advances have the potential to address these barriers to optimal care. From a diagnostic perspective, machine-learning algorithms have shown promise in the prediction of PA subtypes, while the development of noninvasive alternatives to adrenal vein sampling (including molecular positron emission tomography imaging) has made accurate localization of functioning adrenal nodules possible. In parallel, more selective approaches to targeting the causative aldosterone-producing adrenal adenoma/nodule (APA/APN) have emerged with the advent of partial adrenalectomy or precision ablation. Additionally, the development of novel pharmacological agents may help to mitigate off-target effects of aldosterone and improve clinical efficacy and outcomes. Here, we consider how each of these innovations might change our approach to the patient with PA, to allow more tailored investigation and treatment plans, with corresponding improvement in clinical outcomes and resource utilization, for this highly prevalent disorder.

A cost-analysis of managing secondary and apparent treatment-resistant hypertension in a specialist multidisciplinary hypertension clinic.

OBJECTIVES: A knowledge gap exists around the costs and budget impact of specialist hypertension clinics. This study reports on the cost of providing care in a multidisciplinary hypertension clinic staffed by nephrologist, endocrinologist and cardiologist, which manages patients with suspected secondary hypertension and/or apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. The aim of this study is to provide the evidence required to inform policy and planning care pathways for this patient group. METHODS: A cost analysis from a healthcare provider perspective using micro-costing techniques was conducted to estimate the direct implementation costs of existing standard practice for the care pathway of patients attending the multidisciplinary hypertension clinic. Sixty-five patients originally recruited for a study of medication adherence in hypertension were included in the sample. RESULTS: The total care-pathway cost per patient, taking into account clinic visits, clinical reviews, investigations and MDT discussion, was estimated to be €3277, on average. For the patient subgroups, the average cost was €5644 for patients diagnosed with primary aldosteronism and €1446 for patients diagnosed with essential hypertension. CONCLUSION: There is significant cost associated with providing specialized hypertension care for patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. Given the high rates of nonadherence in this population, it is likely that some of this cost could be avoided with better detection and management of medication adherence in this challenging population. Future studies should consider the cost-effectiveness of this or similar models of care by exploring the benefit to patients and the wider healthcare context of providing care of this type.

Major disparities in patient-reported adherence compared to objective assessment of adherence using mass spectrometry: A prospective study in a tertiary-referral hypertension clinic.

AIM: Many challenges exist in determining true rates of adherence to antihypertensive medications among individuals in a clinic setting. For the first time, we aimed to compare patient-reported antihypertensive adherence with objective evidence using mass spectrometry spot urinalysis in a tertiary referral clinic setting. METHODS: A prospective observational single-centre cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral hypertension clinic, encompassing antihypertensive initiation and persistence. Patients were referred with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension or for suspected secondary causes. Participants completed a self-reported assessment of antihypertensive adherence and provided a spot urine sample. The presence of antihypertensive medications and/or their respective metabolites was evaluated using high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Patients were determined to be adherent if they demonstrated both self-reported adherence and objective mass spectrometry evidence. RESULTS: Of all 105 eligible participants initially recruited, 73 (69.5%) met the eligibility criteria. Only 27.4% (95% confidence interval 0.2-0.4) of participants demonstrated true adherence to their self-reported antihypertensives, despite 75.3% (0.6-0.8) reporting adherence. Greatest medication adherence was achieved with angiotensin II receptor blockers (61%), with calcium-channel blockers and mineralocorticoid antagonists demonstrating least adherence (38%). CONCLUSION: In patients attending a tertiary hypertension clinic, the combined use of spot urine mass spectrometry and self-reporting identifies higher rates of nonadherence when compared to either modality alone. Both techniques should be combined for more accurate detection of medication adherence.

Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention.

Aspirin's antithrombotic effects have a long-established place in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and its traditional use as a core therapy for secondary prevention of CVD is well recognized. However, with the advent of newer antiplatelet agents and an increasing understanding of aspirin's bleeding risks, its role across the full spectrum of modern CVD prevention has become less certain. As a consequence, recent trials have begun investigating aspirin-free strategies in secondary prevention. For example, a contemporary metanalysis of trials that assessed P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus prolonged (≥ 12 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (which includes aspirin) after percutaneous coronary intervention reported a lower risk of major bleeding and no increase in stent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the P2Y12 monotherapy group. In contrast to secondary prevention, aspirin's role in primary prevention has always been more controversial. While historical trials reported a reduction in MI and stroke, more contemporary trials have suggested diminishing benefit for aspirin in this setting, with no reduction in hard outcomes, and some primary prevention trials have even indicated a potential for harm. In this review, we discuss how changing population demographics, enhanced control of lipids and blood pressure, changes in the definition of outcomes like MI, evolution of aspirin formulations, and updated clinical practice guidelines have all impacted the use of aspirin for primary and secondary CVD prevention.

Interhospital and interindividual variability in secondary prevention: a comparison of outpatients with a history of chronic coronary syndrome versus outpatients with a history of acute coronary syndrome (the iASPIRE Study).

BACKGROUND: Studying variability in the care provided to secondary prevention coronary heart disease (CHD) outpatients can identify interventions to improve their outcomes. METHODS: We studied outpatients who had an index CHD event in the preceding 6-24 months. Eligible CHD events included acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and coronary revascularisation for stable chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). Site training was provided by a core team and data were collected using standardised methods. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2019, we enrolled 721 outpatients at nine Irish study sites; 81% were men and mean age was 63.9 (SD ±8.9) years. The study examination occurred a median of 1.16 years after the index CHD event, which was ACS in 399 participants (55%) and stable-CCS in 322. On examination, 42.5% had blood pressure (BP) >140/90 mm Hg, 63.7% had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >1.8 mmol/L and 44.1% of known diabetics had an HbA1c >7%. There was marked variability in risk factor control, both by study site and, in particular, by index presentation type. For example, 82% of outpatients with prior-ACS had attended cardiac rehabilitation versus 59% outpatients with prior-CCS (p<0.001) and there were also large differences in control of traditional risk factors like LDL-C (p=0.002) and systolic BP (p<0.001) among outpatients with prior-ACS versus prior-CCS as the index presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite international secondary prevention guidelines broadly recommending the same risk factor targets for all adults with CHD, we found marked differences in outpatient risk factor control and management on the basis of hospital location and index CHD presentation type (acute vs chronic). These findings highlight the need to reduce hospital-level and patient-level variability in preventive care to improve outcomes; a lesson that should inform CHD prevention programmes in Ireland and around the world.