Mental Health Professionals' Positions in Relation to Advance Statements: A Foucauldian Discourse Analysis.

Advance Statements enable mental health patients to have their preferences considered in treatment decisions in the event of losing capacity, but their uptake is poor. This is for complex and often conflicting reasons and factors related to service user, clinician, and institutional priorities, which influence clinical practice. A Foucauldian discourse analysis approach was used to explore how 13 mental health clinicians positioned their role in relation to Advance Statements. Five positions emerged from the data: taking account of peoples' wishes, enabling people to have their say (to a point), we know what's best, firefighting with risk, and leverage and liability. Discursive practices demonstrated and reinforced power relations between patients, clinicians, and wider systems. These findings highlight the challenge of legitimizing the knowledge of patients and need for a cultural shift at a systems level, which recognizes the ways Advance Statements meet the needs of all stakeholders.

Endocrine and haemodynamic changes in resistant hypertension, and blood pressure responses to spironolactone or amiloride: the PATHWAY-2 mechanisms substudies.

BACKGROUND: In the PATHWAY-2 study of resistant hypertension, spironolactone reduced blood pressure substantially more than conventional antihypertensive drugs. We did three substudies to assess the mechanisms underlying this superiority and the pathogenesis of resistant hypertension. METHODS: PATHWAY-2 was a randomised, double-blind crossover trial done at 14 UK primary and secondary care sites in 314 patients with resistant hypertension. Patients were given 12 weeks of once daily treatment with each of placebo, spironolactone 25-50 mg, bisoprolol 5-10 mg, and doxazosin 4-8 mg and the change in home systolic blood pressure was assessed as the primary outcome. In our three substudies, we assessed plasma aldosterone, renin, and aldosterone-to-renin ratio (ARR) as predictors of home systolic blood pressure, and estimated prevalence of primary aldosteronism (substudy 1); assessed the effects of each drug in terms of thoracic fluid index, cardiac index, stroke index, and systemic vascular resistance at seven sites with haemodynamic monitoring facilities (substudy 2); and assessed the effect of amiloride 10-20 mg once daily on clinic systolic blood pressure during an optional 6-12 week open-label runout phase (substudy 3). The PATHWAY-2 trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2008-007149-30, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02369081. FINDINGS: Of the 314 patients in PATHWAY-2, 269 participated in one or more of the three substudies: 126 in substudy 1, 226 in substudy 2, and 146 in substudy 3. Home systolic blood pressure reduction by spironolactone was predicted by ARR (r2=0·13, p<0·0001) and plasma renin (r2=0·11, p=0·00024). 42 patients had low renin concentrations (predefined as the lowest tertile of plasma renin), of which 31 had a plasma aldosterone concentration greater than the mean value for all 126 patients (250 pmol/L). Thus, 31 (25% [95% CI 17-33]) of 126 patients were deemed to have inappropriately high aldosterone concentrations. Thoracic fluid content was reduced by 6·8% from baseline (95% CI 4·0 to 8·8; p<0·0001) with spironolactone, but not other treatments. Amiloride (10 mg once daily) reduced clinic systolic blood pressure by 20·4 mm Hg (95% CI 18·3-22·5), compared with a reduction of 18·3 mm Hg (16·2-20·5) with spironolactone (25 mg once daily). No serious adverse events were recorded, and adverse symptoms were not systematically recorded after the end of the double-blind treatment. Mean plasma potassium concentrations increased from 4·02 mmol/L (95% CI 3·95-4·08) on placebo to 4·50 (4·44-4·57) on amiloride (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that resistant hypertension is commonly a salt-retaining state, most likely due to inappropriate aldosterone secretion. Mineralocorticoid receptor blockade by spironolactone overcomes the salt retention and resistance of hypertension to treatment. Amiloride seems to be as effective an antihypertensive as spironolactone, offering a substitute treatment for resistant hypertension. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation and UK National Institute for Health Research.

Combination Therapy Is Superior to Sequential Monotherapy for the Initial Treatment of Hypertension: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for hypertension vary in their preference for initial combination therapy or initial monotherapy, stratified by patient profile; therefore, we compared the efficacy and tolerability of these approaches. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a 1-year, double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 605 untreated patients aged 18 to 79 years with systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥150 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥95 mm Hg. In phase 1 (weeks 0-16), patients were randomly assigned to initial monotherapy (losartan 50-100 mg or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-25 mg crossing over at 8 weeks), or initial combination (losartan 50-100 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-25 mg). In phase 2 (weeks 17-32), all patients received losartan 100 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 to 25 mg. In phase 3 (weeks 33-52), amlodipine with or without doxazosin could be added to achieve target BP. Hierarchical primary outcomes were the difference from baseline in home systolic BP, averaged over phases 1 and 2 and, if significant, at 32 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, and difference in home systolic BP responses between tertiles of plasma renin. Home systolic BP after initial monotherapy fell 4.9 mm Hg (range: 3.7-6.0 mm Hg) less over 32 weeks (P<0.001) than after initial combination but caught up at 32 weeks (difference 1.2 mm Hg [range: -0.4 to 2.8 mm Hg], P=0.13). In phase 1, home systolic BP response to each monotherapy differed substantially between renin tertiles, whereas response to combination therapy was uniform and at least 5 mm Hg more than to monotherapy. There were no differences in withdrawals due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Initial combination therapy can be recommended for patients with BP >150/95 mm Hg. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00994617.

Effect of amiloride, or amiloride plus hydrochlorothiazide, versus hydrochlorothiazide on glucose tolerance and blood pressure (PATHWAY-3): a parallel-group, double-blind randomised phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Potassium depletion by thiazide diuretics is associated with a rise in blood glucose. We assessed whether addition or substitution of a potassium-sparing diuretic, amiloride, to treatment with a thiazide can prevent glucose intolerance and improve blood pressure control. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, randomised, double-blind trial in 11 secondary and two primary care sites in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years; had clinic systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher and home systolic blood pressure of 130 mmHg or higher on permitted background drugs of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, ß blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or direct renin inhibitors (previously untreated patients were also eligible in specific circumstances); and had at least one component of the metabolic syndrome in addition to hypertension. Patients with known diabetes were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 24 weeks of daily oral treatment with starting doses of 10 mg amiloride, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide, or 5 mg amiloride plus 12·5 mg hydrochlorothiazide; all doses were doubled after 12 weeks. Random assignment was done via a central computer system. Both participants and investigators were masked to assignment. Our hierarchical primary endpoints, assessed on a modified intention-to-treat basis at 12 and 24 weeks, were the differences from baseline in blood glucose measured 2 h after a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), compared first between the hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride groups, and then between the hydrochlorothiazide and combination groups. A key secondary endpoint was change in home systolic blood pressure at 12 and 24 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00797862, and the MHRA, Eudract number 2009-010068-41, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2009, and Dec 15, 2014, 145 patients were randomly assigned to amiloride, 146 to hydrochlorothiazide, and 150 to the combination group. 132 participants in the amiloride group, 134 in the hydrochlorothiazide group, and 133 in the combination group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. 2 h glucose concentrations after OGTT, averaged at 12 and 24 weeks, were significantly lower in the amiloride group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group (mean difference -0·55 mmol/L [95% CI -0·96 to -0·14]; p=0·0093) and in the combination group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group (-0·42 mmol/L [-0·84 to -0·004]; p=0·048). The mean reduction in home systolic blood pressure during 24 weeks did not differ significantly between the amiloride and hydrochlorothiazide groups, but the fall in blood pressure in the combination group was significantly greater than that in the hydrochlorothiazide group (p=0·0068). Hyperkalaemia was reported in seven (4·8%) patients in the amiloride group and three (2·3%) patients in the combination group; the highest recorded potassium concentration was 5·8 mmol/L in a patient in the amiloride group. 13 serious adverse events occurred but the frequency did not differ significantly between groups. INTERPRETATION: The combination of amiloride with hydrochlorothiazide, at doses equipotent on blood pressure, prevents glucose intolerance and improves control of blood pressure compared with montherapy with either drug. These findings, together with previous data about morbidity and mortality for the combination, support first-line use of amiloride plus hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients who need treatment with a diuretic. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health Research.

Contrasting mortality risks among subgroups of treated hypertensive patients developing new-onset diabetes.

AIMS: Hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) frequently cluster together and synergistically increase cardiovascular risk. Among those who develop DM during treatment for hypertension (new-onset diabetes, NOD), it is unclear whether NOD reflects a separate entity associated with increased risk or merely reflects accelerated presentation of DM. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data on 15 089 hypertensive patients attending the Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic. The date at first hospital encounter either with diagnosis of diabetes or prescription of anti-hyperglycaemic medication were considered as the onset of diabetes. Cox proportional hazard models (including propensity score matching) were employed to study associations between diabetes status, early and late NOD (diagnosis <10 years or >10 years from first clinic visit) and cause-specific mortality. There were 2516 patients (16.7%) with DM, of whom 1862 (12.3%) had NOD [early NOD = 705 (4.6%); late NOD = 1157 (7.6%)]. The incidence rate of NOD was 8.2 per 1000 person-years. The total time at risk was 239 929 person-years [median survival: 28.1 years (inter-quartile range: 16.2-39.9)]. Compared with non-diabetic individuals, prevalent DM [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-2.2] and time varying NOD status (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.06-1.17) were associated with increased adjusted all-cause mortality. Early NOD (HR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6) was associated with increased in mortality risk, but not late NOD (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83-1.01). Results were consistent in the propensity score matched analyses. CONCLUSION: Although 1-in-8 hypertensive patients develop NOD, mortality is increased only in the 1-in-20 who develop early NOD. Further studies are warranted to determine if early identification of such individuals should provide an alert for intensification of therapeutic interventions.

Spironolactone versus placebo, bisoprolol, and doxazosin to determine the optimal treatment for drug-resistant hypertension (PATHWAY-2): a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal drug treatment for patients with resistant hypertension is undefined. We aimed to test the hypotheses that resistant hypertension is most often caused by excessive sodium retention, and that spironolactone would therefore be superior to non-diuretic add-on drugs at lowering blood pressure. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-79 years with seated clinic systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater (or ≥135 mm Hg for patients with diabetes) and home systolic blood pressure (18 readings over 4 days) 130 mm Hg or greater, despite treatment for at least 3 months with maximally tolerated doses of three drugs, from 12 secondary and two primary care sites in the UK. Patients rotated, in a preassigned, randomised order, through 12 weeks of once daily treatment with each of spironolactone (25-50 mg), bisoprolol (5-10 mg), doxazosin modified release (4-8 mg), and placebo, in addition to their baseline blood pressure drugs. Random assignment was done via a central computer system. Investigators and patients were masked to the identity of drugs, and to their sequence allocation. The dose was doubled after 6 weeks of each cycle. The hierarchical primary endpoints were the difference in averaged home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and placebo, followed (if significant) by the difference in home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and the average of the other two active drugs, followed by the difference in home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and each of the other two drugs. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with EudraCT number 2008-007149-30, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02369081. FINDINGS: Between May 15, 2009, and July 8, 2014, we screened 436 patients, of whom 335 were randomly assigned. After 21 were excluded, 285 patients received spironolactone, 282 doxazosin, 285 bisoprolol, and 274 placebo; 230 patients completed all treatment cycles. The average reduction in home systolic blood pressure by spironolactone was superior to placebo (-8·70 mm Hg [95% CI -9·72 to -7·69]; p<0·0001), superior to the mean of the other two active treatments (doxazosin and bisoprolol; -4·26 [-5·13 to -3·38]; p<0·0001), and superior when compared with the individual treatments; versus doxazosin (-4·03 [-5·04 to -3·02]; p<0·0001) and versus bisoprolol (-4·48 [-5·50 to -3·46]; p<0·0001). Spironolactone was the most effective blood pressure-lowering treatment, throughout the distribution of baseline plasma renin; but its margin of superiority and likelihood of being the best drug for the individual patient were many-fold greater in the lower than higher ends of the distribution. All treatments were well tolerated. In six of the 285 patients who received spironolactone, serum potassium exceeded 6·0 mmol/L on one occasion. INTERPRETATION: Spironolactone was the most effective add-on drug for the treatment of resistant hypertension. The superiority of spironolactone supports a primary role of sodium retention in this condition. FUNDING: The British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health Research.

Monotherapy versus dual therapy for the initial treatment of hypertension (PATHWAY-1): a randomised double-blind controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have suggested that more intensive initial therapy for hypertension results in better long-term blood pressure (BP) control. We test this hypothesis comparing initial monotherapy with dual therapy in the management of essential hypertension. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled trial in patients with essential hypertension. Around 50% of patients studied will be newly diagnosed and the others will be known hypertensives who previously received only monotherapy. The trial is divided into three phases as follows: Phase 1 (Week 0-Week 16): Randomised, parallel-group, masked assignation to either combination or monotherapy. Phase 2 (Week 17-Week 32): Open-label combination therapy. Phase 3 (Week 33-Week 52): Open-label combination therapy plus open-label add-on (if BP is above 140/90 mm Hg). Hierarchical primary end points are: a comparison of home BP (home systolic blood pressure (HSBP)) averaged over the duration of phase 1 and 2 in the combination versus monotherapy arms. If combination is superior in this analysis, then the averaged mean HSBP between initial monotherapy and initial combination therapy at the end of phase 2 will be compared. Secondary end points include: BP control at 1 year; the role of age, baseline renin, sodium status, plasma volume, haemodynamic compensation and peripheral resistance on BP control; validation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence/British Hypertension Society joint guideline algorithm; safety and tolerability of combination therapy; and the impact of combination versus monotherapy on left ventricular mass and aortic pulse wave velocity. A sample size of 536 (268 in each group) will have 90% power to detect a difference in means of 4 mm Hg. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PATHWAY 1 was approved by UK ethics (REC Reference 09/H0308/132). Trial results will be published and all participating subjects will be informed of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UKCRN 4499 and EudraCT number 2008-007749-29 registered 27/08/2009.

Comparison of single and combination diuretics on glucose tolerance (PATHWAY-3): protocol for a randomised double-blind trial in patients with essential hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Thiazide diuretics are associated with increased risk of diabetes mellitus. This risk may arise from K(+)-depletion. We hypothesised that a K(+)-sparing diuretic will improve glucose tolerance, and that combination of low-dose thiazide with K(+)-sparing diuretic will improve both blood pressure reduction and glucose tolerance, compared to a high-dose thiazide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel-group, randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial, comparing hydrochlorothiazide 25-50 mg, amiloride 10-20 mg and combination of both diuretics at half these doses. A single-blind placebo run-in of 1 month is followed by 24 weeks of blinded active treatment. There is forced dose-doubling after 3 months. The Primary end point is the blood glucose 2 h after oral ingestion of a 75 g glucose drink (OGTT), following overnight fasting. The primary outcome is the difference between 2 h glucose at weeks 0, 12 and 24. Secondary outcomes include the changes in home systolic blood pressure (BP) and glycated haemoglobin and prediction of response by baseline plasma renin. Eligibility criteria are: age 18-79, systolic BP on permitted background treatment ≥ 140 mm Hg and home BP ≥ 130 mm Hg and one component of the metabolic syndrome additional to hypertension. Principal exclusions are diabetes, estimated-glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min, abnormal plasma K(+), clinic SBP >200 mm Hg or DBP >120 mm Hg (box 2). The sample size calculation indicates that 486 patients will give 80% power at α=0.01 to detect a difference in means of 1 mmol/L (SD=2.2) between 2 h glucose on hydrochlorothiazide and comparators. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PATHWAY-3 was approved by Cambridge South Ethics Committee, number 09/H035/19. The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Eudract number 2009-010068-41 and clinical trials registration number: NCT02351973.

Prevention And Treatment of Hypertension With Algorithm-based therapy (PATHWAY) number 2: protocol for a randomised crossover trial to determine optimal treatment for drug-resistant hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Resistant hypertension is inadequately controlled blood pressure (BP) despite treatment with at least three BP-lowering drugs. A popular hypothesis is that resistant hypertension is due to excessive Na(+)-retention, and that 'further diuretic therapy' will be superior to alternative add-on drugs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Placebo-controlled, random crossover study of fourth-line treatment when added to standard (A+C+D) triple drug therapy: ACE inhibitor or Angiotensin receptor blocker (A) +Calcium channel blocker (C)+Diuretic (D). Patients (aged 18-79 years) with clinical systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg (135 mm Hg in diabetics) and Home BP Monitoring (HBPM) systolic BP average ≥ 130 mm Hg on treatment for at least 3 months with maximum tolerated doses of A+C+D are randomised to four consecutive randomly allocated 12-week treatment cycles with an α-blocker, ß-blocker, spironolactone and placebo. The hierarchical coprimary end point is the difference in HBPM average systolic BP between (in order) spironolactone and placebo, spironolactone and the average of the other two active drugs, spironolactone and each of the other two drugs. A key secondary outcome is to determine whether plasma renin predicts the BP response to the different drugs. A sample size of 346 (allowing 15% dropouts) will confer 90% power to detect a 3 mm Hg HBPM average systolic BP difference between any two drugs. The study can also detect a 6 mm Hg difference in HBPM average systolic BP between each patient's best and second-best drug predicted by tertile of plasma renin. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was initiated in May 2009 and results are expected in 2015. These will provide RCT evidence to support future guideline recommendations for optimal drug treatment of resistant hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02369081, EUDract number: 2008-007149-30.

Acetaminophen use and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke in a hypertensive cohort.

Recent data suggest that self-reported acetaminophen use is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and that acetaminophen causes a modest blood pressure rise. There are no randomized trials or studies using verified prescription data of this relationship. We aimed to assess the relationship between verified acetaminophen prescription data and risk of myocardial infarction or stroke in patients with hypertension. We performed a retrospective data analysis using information contained within the UK Clinical Research Practice Datalink. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios for myocardial infarction (primary end point), stroke, and any cardiovascular event (secondary end points) associated with acetaminophen use during a 10-year period. Acetaminophen exposure was a time-dependent variable. A propensity-matched design was also used to reduce potential for confounding. We included 24,496 hypertensive individuals aged ≥ 65 years. Of these, 10,878 were acetaminophen-exposed and 13,618 were not. There was no relationship between risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or any cardiovascular event and acetaminophen exposure on adjusted analysis (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.27; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.38; and hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.37; respectively). Results in the propensity-matched sample (n=4000 per group) and when men and women were analyzed separately were similar. High-frequency users (defined as receiving a prescription for >75% of months) were also not at increased risk. After allowance for potentially confounding variables, the use of acetaminophen was not associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction or stroke in a large cohort of hypertensive patients.

Noninvasive cardiac event monitoring to detect atrial fibrillation after ischemic stroke: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) elevates risk of recurrent stroke but is incompletely identified by standard investigation after stroke, though detection rates correlate with monitoring duration. We hypothesized that 7 days of noninvasive cardiac-event monitoring early after stroke would accelerate detection of AF and thus uptake of effective therapy. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic randomized trial with objective outcome assessment among patients presenting in sinus rhythm with no AF history, within 7 days of ischemic stroke symptom onset. Patients were randomized to standard practice investigations (SP) to detect AF, or SP plus additional monitoring (SP-AM). AM comprised 7 days of noninvasive cardiac-event monitoring reported by an accredited cardiac electrocardiology laboratory. Primary outcome was detection of AF at 14 days. RESULTS: One-hundred patients were enrolled from 2 centers. Within 14 days of stroke, sustained paroxysms of AF were detected in 18% of patients undergoing SP-AM versus 2% undergoing SP (P<0.05). Paroxysms of any-duration were detected in 44% of patients undergoing SP-AM versus 4% undergoing SP (P<0.001). These differences persisted at 90 days. Anticoagulant therapy was commenced within 14 days in 16% of SP-AM patients versus none randomized to SP (P<0.01). This difference persisted to 90 days (22% versus 6%; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Routine noninvasive cardiac-event monitoring after acute stroke enhances detection of paroxysmal AF and early anticoagulation. Extended monitoring should be offered to all eligible patients soon after acute stroke. Guidelines on investigation for AF in stroke patients could be strengthened. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/. Unique identifier: ISRCTN97412358.

Long-term and ultra long-term blood pressure variability during follow-up and mortality in 14,522 patients with hypertension.

Recent evidence indicates that long-term visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) may be an independent cardiovascular risk predictor. The implication of this variability in hypertension clinical practice is unclear. BPV as average real variability (ARV) was calculated in 14,522 treated patients with hypertension in 4 time frames: year 1 (Y1), years 2 to 5 (Y2-5), years 5 to 10 (Y5-10), and years >10 (Y10+) from first clinic visit. Cox proportional hazards models for cause-specific mortality were used in each time frame separately for long-term BPV, across time frames based on ultra long-term BPV, and within each time frame stratified by mean BP. ARV in systolic blood pressure (SBP), termed ARV(SBP), was higher in Y1 (21.3±11.9 mm Hg) in contrast to Y2-5 (17.7±9.9 mm Hg), Y5-10 (17.4±9.6 mm Hg), and Y10+ (16.8±8.5 mm Hg). In all time frames, ARV(SBP) was higher in women (P<0.01) and in older age (P<0.001), chronic kidney disease (P<0.01), and prevalent cardiovascular disease (P<0.01). Higher long-term and ultra long-term BPV values were associated with increased mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality; P for trend, <0.001). This relationship was also evident in subgroups with mean SBP<140 mm Hg in all time frames. Monitoring BPV in clinical practice may facilitate risk reduction strategies by identifying treated hypertensive individuals at high risk, especially those with BP within the normal range.

Serum chloride is an independent predictor of mortality in hypertensive patients.

Chloride (Cl-) is the major extracellular anion in the body, accompanying sodium (Na+), and is primarily derived from dietary sources. Data suggest that increased dietary Cl- intake increases blood pressure, yet paradoxically, higher serum Cl- appears associated with lower mortality and cardiovascular risk. This implies that serum Cl- also reflects risk pathways independent of blood pressure, serum Na+, and bicarbonate (HCO3-). We analyzed 12,968 hypertensive individuals followed up for 35 years, using Cox proportional hazards model to test whether baseline serum Cl- was an independent predictor of mortality. To distinguish the effect of Cl- from Na+ and HCO3-, we adjusted for these electrolytes and also performed the analysis stratified by Na+ /HCO3- and Cl- levels. Generalized estimating equation was used to determine the effect of baseline Cl- on follow-up blood pressure. The total time at risk was 19,7101 person-years. The lowest quintile of serum Cl- (<100 mEq/L) was associated with a 20% higher mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular and noncardiovascular) compared with the remainder of the subjects. A 1 mEq/L increase in serum Cl- was associated with a 1.5% (hazard ratio, 0.985; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-0.99) reduction in all-cause mortality, after adjustment for baseline confounding variables and Na+, K+ , and HCO3- levels. The group with Na+ > 135 and Cl- > 100 had the best survival, and compared with this group, the Na+ >135 and Cl- <100 group had significantly higher mortality (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.31). Low, not high Serum Cl- (<100 mEq/L), is associated with greater mortality risk independent of obvious confounders. Further studies are needed to elucidate the relation between Cl- and risk.

Blood pressure response to patterns of weather fluctuations and effect on mortality.

Very few studies have looked at longitudinal intraindividual blood pressure responses to weather conditions. There are no data to suggest that specific response to changes in weather will have an impact on survival. We analyzed >169 000 clinic visits of 16 010 Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic patients with hypertension. Each clinic visit was mapped to the mean West of Scotland monthly weather (temperature, sunshine, rainfall) data. Percentage change in blood pressure was calculated between pairs of consecutive clinic visits, where the weather alternated between 2 extreme quartiles (Q(1)-Q(4) or Q(4)-Q(1)) or remained in the same quartile (Q(n)-Q(n)) of each weather parameter. Subjects were also categorized into 2 groups depending on whether their blood pressure response in Q(1)-Q(4) or Q(4)-Q(1) were concordant or discordant to Q(n)-Q(n). Generalized estimating equations and Cox proportional hazards model were used to model the effect on longitudinal blood pressure and mortality, respectively. Q(n)-Q(n) showed a mean 2% drop in blood pressure consistently, whereas Q(4)-Q(1) showed a mean 2.1% and 1.6% rise in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively. However, Q(1)-Q(4) did not show significant changes in blood pressure. Temperature-sensitive subjects had significantly higher mortality (1.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.71]; P=0.01) and higher follow-up systolic blood pressure (1.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.24-3.46]; P=0.02) compared with temperature-nonsensitive subjects. Blood pressure response to temperature may be one of the underlying mechanisms that determine long-term blood pressure variability. Knowing a patient's blood pressure response to weather can help reduce unnecessary antihypertensive treatment modification, which may in turn increase blood pressure variability and, thus, risk.

Serum uric acid level, longitudinal blood pressure, renal function, and long-term mortality in treated hypertensive patients.

Uric acid may have a role in the development of hypertension and renal dysfunction. We explored the relationship among longitudinal blood pressure, renal function, and cardiovascular outcomes in a large cohort of patients with treated hypertension. We used data from the Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic database. Patients with a baseline measure of serum uric acid and longitudinal measures of blood pressure and renal function were included. Mortality data were obtained from the General Register Office for Scotland. Generalized estimating equations were used to explore the relationship among quartiles of serum uric acid, blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Cox proportional hazard models were developed to assess mortality relationships. In total, 6984 patients were included. Serum uric acid level did not influence the longitudinal changes in systolic or diastolic blood pressure but was related to change in glomerular filtration rate. In comparison with patients in the first quartile of serum uric acid, the relative decrease in glomerular filtration rate in the fourth was 10.7 (95% confidence interval, 7.9-13.6 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) in men and 12.2 (95% confidence interval, 9.2-15.2 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) in women. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality differed across quartiles of serum uric acid in women only (P<0.001; hazard ratios for all-cause mortality 1.38 [95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.67] for the fourth quartile of serum uric acid compared with the first). Serum uric acid level was not associated with longitudinal blood pressure control in adults with treated hypertension but was related to decline in renal function and mortality in women.

Acetaminophen use and change in blood pressure in a hypertensive population.

OBJECTIVE: Recent data suggest that self-reported acetaminophen use is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and a rise in arterial blood pressure (BP). We investigated the association between acetaminophen use and BP in a large cohort of patients with hypertension using verified prescription data. METHODS: We extracted data from the UK General Practice Research Database for all hypertensive patients aged 65 years or older who were prescribed acetaminophen and had BP measured both before and during acetaminophen treatment. Patients were grouped according to whether their antihypertensive treatment remained unchanged or not during the study period. The change in SBP and DBP during acetaminophen use was determined and compared with the change in BP in a group of nonacetaminophen-exposed people identified using propensity matching. RESULTS: A total of 2754 acetaminophen-exposed individuals were included. BP rose slightly during the period of acetaminophen treatment wherein antihypertensive treatment was unchanged [change in SBP 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-2.5) mmHg and change in DBP 0.5 (95% CI 0.1-1.0) mmHg)]. BP fell when new antihypertensive medications were prescribed. These BP changes were no different to those seen in matched nonacetaminophen-exposed individuals [between-group difference wherein antihypertensive treatment was unchanged was 0.6 (95% CI -0.6 to 1.9) mmHg and 0.5 (-0.1 to 1.1) mmHg for change in SBP and DBP, respectively]. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of a sustained rise in blood pressure caused by acetaminophen treatment in a large population of patients with treated hypertension.

Cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients: comparing single-agent therapy with combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients achieved with combination drug therapy provides the same cardiovascular benefits as with single-agent therapy. BACKGROUND: Drug combinations, most often including hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), are now recommended for routine BP management, but their effects on cardiovascular event rates have not been compared with effective monotherapy. METHODS: We conducted retrospective analyses of the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) data. VALUE compared cardiovascular event rates of valsartan and amlodipine. Patients with BPs not controlled (<140/90  mmHg) by the single agents had HCTZ and, if required, additional drugs of different classes, added. Using data pooled from the two treatment arms, we have now divided patients into those controlled on monotherapy and those controlled or not controlled by combination therapy. The primary study endpoint was first occurrence of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. Comparisons between groups were by Cox regression, adjusted for on-treatment BP, age, prior cardiovascular events and left ventricular hypertrophy; the comparison between the monotherapy and combination therapy controlled groups was based on events occurring after 3 months by when the decision to use monotherapy or combination therapy was made. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 505 of 5924 (8.5%) monotherapy and 511 of 4621 (11.1%) combination therapy controlled patients: hazard ratio was 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90]. If these two groups were matched for baseline BPs and all events included from study baseline, the hazard ratio was 0.76 (95% CI 0.67-0.86). The difference between combination controlled and uncontrolled [434 of 3390 (12.8%)] groups was not significant [hazard ratio 0.90 (95% CI 0.80-1.03], nor when they were matched for baseline BPs [hazard ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11)]. CONCLUSION: Independent of prior cardiovascular history or baseline BP, hypertensive patients requiring combination therapy, which includes a thiazide diuretic for BP control, have a poorer cardiovascular prognosis than those controlled by monotherapy and only a nonsignificantly lower event rate than noncontrolled patients.

Hematocrit predicts long-term mortality in a nonlinear and sex-specific manner in hypertensive adults.

Hematocrit has been inconsistently reported to be a risk marker of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic Study cohort included 10951 hypertensive patients, who had hematocrit measured at their initial clinic visit and followed for ≤35 years. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios for all-cause, cardiovascular, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and noncardiovascular mortality. There were 3484 deaths over a follow-up period of 173245 person-years. Hematocrit was higher in men (median, 0.44; interquartile range, 0.42-0.47) than in women (median, 0.41; interquartile range, 0.38-0.43). The lowest risk for all-cause mortality was seen in quartile 2 for men (range, 0.421-0.440) and women (range, 0.381-0.400). Compared with quartile 2, the adjusted hazard ratios for quartiles 1, 3, and 4 were, respectively, 1.11 (range, 0.97-1.28), 1.19 (range, 1.04-1.37), and 1.22 (range, 1.06-1.39) in men and 1.17 (range, 1.01-1.36), 0.97 (range, 0.83-1.13), and 1.19 (range, 1.04-1.37) in women. Men showed a J-shaped pattern for cardiovascular mortality and a linear pattern for noncardiovascular mortality in cause-specific analysis, whereas in women a U-shaped pattern was observed for noncardiovascular mortality only. Higher baseline hematocrit was associated with higher on-treatment blood pressure during follow-up. Baseline hematocrit did not affect the time to reach target blood pressure. The increased risk of death attributed to higher hematocrit was seen in men and women irrespective of their achievement of target blood pressure, indicating that the risk is independent of the effect of hematocrit on blood pressure. Hypertensive patients with hematocrit levels outside of the sex-specific reference ranges identified in this study should be targeted for more aggressive blood pressure and cardiovascular risk reduction treatment.

Usefulness of heart rate to predict cardiac events in treated patients with high-risk systemic hypertension.

A high heart rate (HR) predicts future cardiovascular events. We explored the predictive value of HR in patients with high-risk hypertension and examined whether blood pressure reduction modifies this association. The participants were 15,193 patients with hypertension enrolled in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and followed up for 5 years. The HR was assessed from electrocardiographic recordings obtained annually throughout the study period. The primary end point was the interval to cardiac events. After adjustment for confounders, the hazard ratio of the composite cardiac primary end point for a 10-beats/min of the baseline HR increment was 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.20). Compared to the lowest HR quintile, the adjusted hazard ratio in the highest quintile was 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.46 to 2.04). Compared to the pooled lower quintiles of baseline HR, the annual incidence of primary end point in the top baseline quintile was greater in each of the 5 study years (all p <0.05). The adjusted hazard ratio for the primary end point in the highest in-trial HR heart rate quintile versus the lowest quintile was 1.53 (95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.85). The incidence of primary end points in the highest in-trial HR group compared to the pooled 4 lower quintiles was 53% greater in patients with well-controlled blood pressure (p <0.001) and 34% greater in those with uncontrolled blood pressure (p = 0.002). In conclusion, an increased HR is a long-term predictor of cardiovascular events in patients with high-risk hypertension. This effect was not modified by good blood pressure control. It is not yet known whether a therapeutic reduction of HR would improve cardiovascular prognosis.