From ABCD to E for endothelin in resistant hypertension.

The potent vasoconstrictor peptide endothelin-1 has long been recognized as a physiological regulator of vascular tone. However, pharmacological blockade of the endothelin-1 pathway has few proven indications thus far. A recent clinical trial for resistant hypertension published in The Lancet may yet herald a new era for endothelin receptor antagonists into the clinical mainstream.

Intensive Ambulance-Delivered Blood-Pressure Reduction in Hyperacute Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of acute stroke, before a distinction can be made between ischemic and hemorrhagic types, is challenging. Whether very early blood-pressure control in the ambulance improves outcomes among patients with undifferentiated acute stroke is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with suspected acute stroke that caused a motor deficit and with elevated systolic blood pressure (≥150 mm Hg), who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after the onset of symptoms, to receive immediate treatment to lower the systolic blood pressure (target range, 130 to 140 mm Hg) (intervention group) or usual blood-pressure management (usual-care group). The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by the score on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days after randomization. The primary safety outcome was any serious adverse event. RESULTS: A total of 2404 patients (mean age, 70 years) in China underwent randomization and provided consent for the trial: 1205 in the intervention group and 1199 in the usual-care group. The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes (interquartile range, 41 to 93), and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 1041 (46.5%) had a hemorrhagic stroke. At the time of patients' arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 159 mm Hg, as compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual-care group. Overall, there was no difference in functional outcome between the two groups (common odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92) but an increase among patients with cerebral ischemia (common odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.60). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, prehospital blood-pressure reduction did not improve functional outcomes in a cohort of patients with undifferentiated acute stroke, of whom 46.5% subsequently received a diagnosis of hemorrhagic stroke. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; INTERACT4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03790800; Chinese Trial Registry number, ChiCTR1900020534.).

Management of Resistant Hypertension.

Resistant hypertension (RH) is a severe form of hypertension associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Although true RH affects less than 10% of the patients receiving antihypertensive therapy, the absolute number is high and continues to increase. The workup of these patients requires screening for secondary hypertension and pseudoresistance, including poor adherence to prescribed medicines and the white-coat phenomenon. The treatment of RH consists of lifestyle modifications and pharmacological therapies. Lifestyle modifications include dietary adjustments, weight loss, physical activity, and limiting alcohol consumption; pharmacological therapies include diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, beta blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and others. Over the last 15 years, interventional approaches have emerged as adjunct treatment options; we highlight catheter-based renal denervation. This review summarizes the rationales and latest clinical evidence and, based thereon, proposes an updated algorithm for the management of RH.

Phase 2 Trial of Baxdrostat for Treatment-Resistant Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Aldosterone synthase controls the synthesis of aldosterone and has been a pharmacologic target for the treatment of hypertension for several decades. Selective inhibition of aldosterone synthase is essential but difficult to achieve because cortisol synthesis is catalyzed by another enzyme that shares 93% sequence similarity with aldosterone synthase. In preclinical and phase 1 studies, baxdrostat had 100:1 selectivity for enzyme inhibition, and baxdrostat at several dose levels reduced plasma aldosterone levels but not cortisol levels. METHODS: In this multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who had treatment-resistant hypertension, with blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg or higher, and who were receiving stable doses of at least three antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic, to receive baxdrostat (0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg) once daily for 12 weeks or placebo. The primary end point was the change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12 in each baxdrostat group as compared with the placebo group. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients completed the trial. Dose-dependent changes in systolic blood pressure of -20.3 mm Hg, -17.5 mm Hg, -12.1 mm Hg, and -9.4 mm Hg were observed in the 2-mg, 1-mg, 0.5-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The difference in the change in systolic blood pressure between the 2-mg group and the placebo group was -11.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -16.4 to -5.5; P<0.001), and the difference in this change between the 1-mg group and the placebo group was -8.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -13.5 to -2.8; P = 0.003). No deaths occurred during the trial, no serious adverse events were attributed by the investigators to baxdrostat, and there were no instances of adrenocortical insufficiency. Baxdrostat-related increases in the potassium level to 6.0 mmol per liter or greater occurred in 2 patients, but these increases did not recur after withdrawal and reinitiation of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with treatment-resistant hypertension who received baxdrostat had dose-related reductions in blood pressure. (Funded by CinCor Pharma; BrigHTN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04519658.).

Zilebesiran, an RNA Interference Therapeutic Agent for Hypertension.

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.).

HIV-Associated Hypertension: Risks, Mechanisms, and Knowledge Gaps.

HIV type 1 (HIV-1) is the causative agent of AIDS. Since the start of the epidemic, HIV/AIDS has been responsible for ≈40 million deaths. Additionally, an estimated 39 million people are currently infected with the virus. HIV-1 primarily infects immune cells, such as CD4+ (cluster of differentiation 4+) T lymphocytes (T cells), and as a consequence, the number of CD4+ T cells progressively declines in people living with HIV. Within a span of ≈10 years, HIV-1 infection leads to the systemic failure of the immune system and progression to AIDS. Fortunately, potent antiviral therapy effectively controls HIV-1 infection and prevents AIDS-related deaths. The efficacy of the current antiviral therapy regimens has transformed the outcome of HIV/AIDS from a death sentence to a chronic disease with a prolonged lifespan of people living with HIV. However, antiviral therapy is not curative, is challenged by virus resistance, can be toxic, and, most importantly, requires lifelong adherence. Furthermore, the improved lifespan has resulted in an increased incidence of non-AIDS-related morbidities in people living with HIV including cardiovascular diseases, renal disease, liver disease, bone disease, cancer, and neurological conditions. In this review, we summarize the current state of knowledge of the cardiovascular comorbidities associated with HIV-1 infection, with a particular focus on hypertension. We also discuss the potential mechanisms known to drive HIV-1-associated hypertension and the knowledge gaps in our understanding of this comorbid condition. Finally, we suggest several directions of future research to better understand the factors, pathways, and mechanisms underlying HIV-1-associated hypertension in the post-antiviral therapy era.

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.

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 (BP) among individuals with uncontrolled hypertension despite lifestyle intervention and medications. The safety and effectiveness of alcohol-mediated RDN have 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 BP (SBP) ≥150 and ≤180 mm Hg, office diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg, and mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP ≥135 and ≤170 mm Hg despite prescription of 2 to 5 antihypertensive medications were enrolled. The primary end point was the baseline-adjusted change in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP 3 months after the procedure. Secondary end points included 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±SD, -10.0±14.2 mm Hg versus -6.8±12.1 mm Hg; treatment difference, -3.2 mm Hg [95% CI, -6.3 to 0.0]; P=0.0487). Subgroup analysis of the primary end point revealed no significant interaction across predefined subgroups. At 3 months, the mean change in office SBP was -12.7±18.3 and -9.7±17.3 mm Hg (difference, -3.0 [95% CI, -7.0 to 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 one 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 SBP compared with sham control. No significant differences between groups in office BP or 6-month major adverse events were observed. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02910414.

Primary Aldosteronism and the Role of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists for the Heart and Kidneys.

Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most common cause of secondary hypertension but is frequently underrecognized and undertreated. Patients with PA are at a markedly increased risk for target organ damage to the heart and kidneys. While patients with unilateral PA can be treated surgically, many patients with PA are not eligible or willing to undergo surgery. Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are highly effective for treating PA and reducing the risk of target organ damage. However, steroidal MRAs are often underprescribed and can be poorly tolerated by some patients due to side effects. Nonsteroidal MRAs reduce adverse renal and cardiovascular outcomes among patients with diabetic kidney disease and are bettertolerated than steroidal MRAs. While their blood pressure-lowering effects remain unclear, these agents may have a potential role in reducing target organ damage in patients with PA.

Treatment for Mild Chronic Hypertension during Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and safety of the treatment of mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure, <160/100 mm Hg) during pregnancy are uncertain. Data are needed on whether a strategy of targeting a blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg reduces the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes without compromising fetal growth. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at a gestational age of less than 23 weeks to receive antihypertensive medications recommended for use in pregnancy (active-treatment group) or to receive no such treatment unless severe hypertension (systolic pressure, ≥160 mm Hg; or diastolic pressure, ≥105 mm Hg) developed (control group). The primary outcome was a composite of preeclampsia with severe features, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks' gestation, placental abruption, or fetal or neonatal death. The safety outcome was small-for-gestational-age birth weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age. Secondary outcomes included composites of serious neonatal or maternal complications, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. RESULTS: A total of 2408 women were enrolled in the trial. The incidence of a primary-outcome event was lower in the active-treatment group than in the control group (30.2% vs. 37.0%), for an adjusted risk ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.92; P<0.001). The percentage of small-for-gestational-age birth weights below the 10th percentile was 11.2% in the active-treatment group and 10.4% in the control group (adjusted risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.31; P = 0.76). The incidence of serious maternal complications was 2.1% and 2.8%, respectively (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.26), and the incidence of severe neonatal complications was 2.0% and 2.6% (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.30). The incidence of any preeclampsia in the two groups was 24.4% and 31.1%, respectively (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.89), and the incidence of preterm birth was 27.5% and 31.4% (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: In pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension, a strategy of targeting a blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg was associated with better pregnancy outcomes than a strategy of reserving treatment only for severe hypertension, with no increase in the risk of small-for-gestational-age birth weight. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CHAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02299414.).

Chlorthalidone vs. Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension-Cardiovascular Events.

BACKGROUND: Whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide for preventing major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension is unclear. METHODS: In a pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned adults 65 years of age or older who were patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and had been receiving hydrochlorothiazide at a daily dose of 25 or 50 mg to continue therapy with hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to chlorthalidone at a daily dose of 12.5 or 25 mg. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure resulting in hospitalization, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non-cancer-related death. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 13,523 patients underwent randomization. The mean age was 72 years. At baseline, hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 25 mg per day had been prescribed in 12,781 patients (94.5%). The mean baseline systolic blood pressure in each group was 139 mm Hg. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was little difference in the occurrence of primary-outcome events between the chlorthalidone group (702 patients [10.4%]) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (675 patients [10.0%]) (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.16; P = 0.45). There were no between-group differences in the occurrence of any of the components of the primary outcome. The incidence of hypokalemia was higher in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group (6.0% vs. 4.4%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large pragmatic trial of thiazide diuretics at doses commonly used in clinical practice, patients who received chlorthalidone did not have a lower occurrence of major cardiovascular outcome events or non-cancer-related deaths than patients who received hydrochlorothiazide. (Funded by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02185417.).

Detailed safety profile of acalabrutinib vs ibrutinib in previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the ELEVATE-RR trial.

ELEVATE-RR demonstrated noninferior progression-free survival and lower incidence of key adverse events (AEs) with acalabrutinib vs ibrutinib in previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We further characterize AEs of acalabrutinib and ibrutinib via post hoc analysis. Overall and exposure-adjusted incidence rate was assessed for common Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor-associated AEs and for selected events of clinical interest (ECIs). AE burden scores based on previously published methodology were calculated for AEs overall and selected ECIs. Safety analyses included 529 patients (acalabrutinib, n = 266; ibrutinib, n = 263). Among common AEs, incidences of any-grade diarrhea, arthralgia, urinary tract infection, back pain, muscle spasms, and dyspepsia were higher with ibrutinib, with 1.5- to 4.1-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rates. Incidences of headache and cough were higher with acalabrutinib, with 1.6- and 1.2-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rate, respectively. Among ECIs, incidences of any-grade atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding were higher with ibrutinib, as were exposure-adjusted incidence rates (2.0-, 2.8-, and 1.6-fold, respectively); incidences of cardiac events overall (the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities system organ class) and infections were similar between arms. Rate of discontinuation because of AEs was lower for acalabrutinib (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.93). AE burden score was higher for ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib overall and for the ECIs atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding. A limitation of this analysis is its open-label study design, which may influence the reporting of more subjective AEs. Overall, event-based analyses and AE burden scores demonstrated higher AE burden overall and specifically for atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and hemorrhage with ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02477696.

Metformin induction of heat shock factor 1 activation and the mitochondrial unfolded protein response alleviate cardiac remodeling in spontaneously hypertensive rats.

Heart failure and cardiac remodeling are both characterized by mitochondrial dysfunction. Healthy mitochondria are required for adequate contractile activity and appropriate regulation of cell survival. In the mammalian heart, enhancement of the mitochondrial unfolded protein response (UPRmt) is cardioprotective under pressure overload conditions. We explored the UPRmt and the underlying regulatory mechanism in terms of hypertension-induced cardiac remodeling and the cardioprotective effect of metformin. Male spontaneously hypertensive rats and angiotensin II-treated neonatal rat cardiomyocytes were used to induce cardiac hypertrophy. The results showed that hypertension induced the formation of aberrant mitochondria, characterized by a reduced mtDNA/nDNA ratio and swelling, as well as lower levels of mitochondrial complexes I to V and inhibition of the expression of one protein subunit of each of complexes I to IV. Such changes eventually enlarged cardiomyocytes and increased cardiac fibrosis. Metformin treatment increased the mtDNA/nDNA ratio and regulated the UPRmt, as indicated by increased expression of activating transcription factor 5, Lon protease 1, and heat shock protein 60, and decreased expression of C/EBP homologous protein. Thus, metformin improved mitochondrial ultrastructure and function in spontaneously hypertensive rats. In vitro analyses revealed that metformin reduced the high levels of angiotensin II-induced mitochondrial reactive oxygen species in such animals and stimulated nuclear translocation of heat shock factor 1 (HSF1). Moreover, HSF1 small-interfering RNA reduced the metformin-mediated improvements in mitochondrial morphology and the UPRmt by suppressing hypertrophic signals and cardiomyocyte apoptosis. These results suggest that HSF1/UPRmt signaling contributes to the beneficial effects of metformin. Metformin-mediated targeting of mitochondrial protein homeostasis and modulation of HSF1 levels have potential therapeutic implications in terms of cardiac remodeling.

Hypertension as Cardiovascular Risk Factor in Chronic Kidney Disease.

Hypertension is the leading modifiable cause of premature death and hence one of the global targets of World Health Organization for prevention. Hypertension also affects the great majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Both hypertension and CKD are intrinsically related, as hypertension is a strong determinant of worse renal and cardiovascular outcomes and renal function decline aggravates hypertension. This bidirectional relationship is well documented by the high prevalence of hypertension across CKD stages and the dual benefits of effective antihypertensive treatments on renal and cardiovascular risk reduction. Achieving an optimal blood pressure (BP) target is mandatory and requires several pharmacological and lifestyle measures. However, it also requires a correct diagnosis based on reliable BP measurements (eg, 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, home BP), especially for populations like patients with CKD where reduced or reverse dipping patterns or masked and resistant hypertension are frequent and associated with a poor cardiovascular and renal prognosis. Even after achieving BP targets, which remain debated in CKD, the residual cardiovascular risk remains high. Current antihypertensive options have been enriched with novel agents that enable to lower the existing renal and cardiovascular risks, such as SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors and novel nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Although their beneficial effects may be driven mostly from actions beyond BP control, recent evidence underline potential improvements on abnormal 24-hour BP phenotypes such as nondipping. Other promising novelties are still to come for the management of hypertension in CKD. In the present review, we shall discuss the existing evidence of hypertension as a cardiovascular risk factor in CKD, the importance of identifying hypertension phenotypes among patients with CKD, and the traditional and novel aspects of the management of hypertensives with CKD.

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.

In hypertension, with or without orthostatic hypotension, more- vs. less-intensive BP therapy improves clinical outcomes.

SOURCE CITATION: Juraschek SP, Hu JR, Cluett JL, et al. Orthostatic hypotension, hypertension treatment, and cardiovascular disease: an individual participant meta-analysis. JAMA. 2023;330:1459-1471. 37847274.

New use of thiazide diuretics vs. nonthiazide antihypertensive drugs was linked to hyponatremia over 2 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Andersson NW, Wohlfahrt J, Feenstra B, et al. Cumulative incidence of thiazide-induced hyponatremia: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177:1-11. 38109740.

Cumulative Incidence of Thiazide-Induced Hyponatremia : A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: According to drug labels, the frequency of thiazide-induced hyponatremia is unknown or uncommon to very rare (that is, <1 in 10 000 to <1 in 100), but the exact burden remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the increase in the cumulative incidence of hyponatremia using thiazide diuretics compared with nonthiazide antihypertensive drugs in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Population and register-based cohort study using target trial emulation. SETTING: Denmark, 1 January 2014 to 31 October 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Two target trials were emulated among persons aged 40 years or older who had no recent prescription for any antihypertensive drug, had no previous hyponatremia, and were eligible for the studied antihypertensive treatments. The first target trial emulation compared new use of bendroflumethiazide (BFZ) versus a calcium-channel blocker (CCB). The second target trial emulation compared new use of hydrochlorothiazide plus a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (HCTZ-RASi; that is, combination pill) versus a RASi alone. MEASUREMENTS: Two-year cumulative incidences of sodium levels less than 130 mmol/L using stabilized inverse probability of treatment-weighted survival curves. RESULTS: The study compared 37 786 new users of BFZ with 44 963 of a CCB and 11 943 new users of HCTZ-RASi with 85 784 of a RASi. The 2-year cumulative incidences of hyponatremia were 3.83% for BFZ and 3.51% for HCTZ-RASi. The risk differences were 1.35% (95% CI, 1.04% to 1.66%) between BFZ and CCB and 1.38% (CI, 1.01% to 1.75%) between HCTZ-RASi and RASi; risk differences were higher with older age and higher comorbidity burden. The respective hazard ratios were 3.56 (CI, 2.76 to 4.60) and 4.25 (CI, 3.23 to 5.59) during the first 30 days since treatment initiation and 1.26 (CI, 1.09 to 1.46) and 1.29 (CI, 1.05 to 1.58) after 1 year. LIMITATION: The study assumed that filled prescriptions equaled drug use, and residual confounding is likely. CONCLUSION: Treatment initiation with thiazide diuretics suggests a more substantial excess risk for hyponatremia, particularly during the first months of treatment, than indicated by drug labeling. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Independent Research Fund Denmark.

Resistant Hypertension in Dialysis: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Management.

Apparent treatment-resistant hypertension is defined as an elevated BP despite the use of ≥3 antihypertensive medications from different classes or the use of ≥4 antihypertensives regardless of BP levels. Among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, using this definition, the prevalence of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension is estimated to be between 18% and 42%. Owing to the lack of a rigorous assessment of some common causes of pseudoresistance, the burden of true resistant hypertension in the dialysis population remains unknown. What distinguishes apparent treatment-resistance from true resistance is white-coat hypertension and adherence to medications. Accordingly, the diagnostic workup of a dialysis patient with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension on dialysis includes the accurate determination of BP control status with the use of home or ambulatory BP monitoring and exclusion of nonadherence to the prescribed antihypertensive regimen. In a patient on dialysis with inadequately controlled BP, despite adherence to therapy with maximally tolerated doses of a ß -blocker, a long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, volume-mediated hypertension is the most important treatable cause of resistance. In daily clinical practice, such patients are often managed with intensification of antihypertensive therapy. However, this therapeutic strategy is likely to fail if volume overload is not adequately recognized or treated. Instead of increasing the number of prescribed BP-lowering medications, we recommend diet and dialysate restricted in sodium to facilitate achievement of dry weight. The achievement of dry weight is facilitated by an adequate time on dialysis of at least 4 hours for delivering an adequate dialysis dose. In this article, we review the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of resistant hypertension among patients on dialysis.

Discontinuation vs. continuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibition before non-cardiac surgery: the SPACE trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Haemodynamic instability is associated with peri-operative myocardial injury, particularly in patients receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers). Whether stopping RAS inhibitors to minimise hypotension, or continuing RAS inhibitors to avoid hypertension, reduces peri-operative myocardial injury remains unclear. METHODS: From 31 July 2017 to 1 October 2021, patients aged ≥60 years undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to either discontinue or continue RAS inhibitors prescribed for existing medical conditions in six UK centres. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were withheld for different durations (2-3 days) before surgery, according to their pharmacokinetic profile. The primary outcome, masked to investigators, clinicians, and patients, was myocardial injury [plasma high-sensitivity troponin-T (hs-TnT) ≥ 15 ng/L within 48 h after surgery, or ≥5 ng/L increase when pre-operative hs-TnT ≥15 ng/L]. Pre-specified adverse haemodynamic events occurring within 48 h of surgery included acute hypertension (>180 mmHg) and hypotension requiring vasoactive therapy. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-two participants were randomized to continue (n = 132) or stop (n = 130) RAS inhibitors. Myocardial injury occurred in 58 (48.3%) patients randomized to discontinue, compared with 50 (41.3%) patients who continued, RAS inhibitors [odds ratio (for continuing): 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.31]. Hypertensive adverse events were more frequent when RAS inhibitors were stopped [16 (12.4%)], compared with 7 (5.3%) who continued RAS inhibitors [odds ratio (for continuing): 0.4; 95% CI 0.16-1.00]. Hypotension rates were similar when RAS inhibitors were stopped [12 (9.3%)] or continued [11 (8.4%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuing RAS inhibitors before non-cardiac surgery did not reduce myocardial injury, and could increase the risk of clinically significant acute hypertension. These findings require confirmation in future studies.