Pharmacotherapy for hypertension-induced left ventricular hypertrophy.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the leading preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death worldwide. One of the clinical effects of hypertension is left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a process of cardiac remodelling. It is estimated that over 30% of people with hypertension also suffer from LVH, although the prevalence rates vary according to the LVH diagnostic criteria. Severity of LVH is associated with a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of death. The role of antihypertensives in the regression of left ventricular mass has been extensively studied. However, uncertainty exists regarding the role of antihypertensive therapy compared to placebo in the morbidity and mortality of individuals with hypertension-induced LVH. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy compared to placebo or no treatment on morbidity and mortality of adults with hypertension-induced LVH. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the following databases for studies: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 26 September 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2020, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 22 September 2020), and Ovid Embase (1974 to 22 September 2020). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also searched Epistemonikos (to 19 February 2021), LILACS BIREME (to 19 February 2021), and Clarivate Web of Science (to 26 February 2021), and contacted authors and funders of the identified trials to obtain additional information and individual participant data. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 12 months' follow-up comparing antihypertensive pharmacological therapy (monotherapy or in combination) with placebo or no treatment in adults (18 years of age or older) with hypertension-induced LVH were eligible for inclusion. The trials must have analysed at least one primary outcome (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or total serious adverse events) to be considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search results, with any disagreements resolved by consensus amongst all review authors. Two review authors carried out the data extraction and analyses. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies following Cochrane methodology. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three multicentre RCTs. We selected 930 participants from the included studies for the analyses, with a mean follow-up of 3.8 years (range 3.5 to 4.3 years). All of the included trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis. We obtained evidence for the review by identifying the population of interest from the trials' total samples. None of the trials provided information on the cause of LVH. The intervention varied amongst the included trials: hydrochlorothiazide plus triamterene with the possibility of adding alpha methyldopa, spironolactone, or olmesartan. Placebo was administered to participants in the control arm in two trials, whereas participants in the control arm of the remaining trial did not receive any add-on treatment. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of additional antihypertensive pharmacological therapy compared to placebo or no treatment on mortality (14.3% intervention versus 13.6% control; risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.40; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); cardiovascular events (12.6% intervention versus 11.5% control; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.55; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and hospitalisation for heart failure (10.7% intervention versus 12.5% control; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 studies; 915 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although both arms yielded similar results for total serious adverse events (48.9% intervention versus 48.1% control; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.16; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total adverse events (68.3% intervention versus 67.2% control; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.34; 2 studies; 915 participants), the incidence of withdrawal due to adverse events may be significantly higher with antihypertensive drug therapy (15.2% intervention versus 4.9% control; RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.66; 1 study; 522 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analyses limited to blinded trials, trials with low risk of bias in core domains, and trials with no funding from the pharmaceutical industry did not change the results of the main analyses. Limited evidence on the change in left ventricular mass index prevented us from drawing any firm conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the effects of adding additional antihypertensive drug therapy on the morbidity and mortality of participants with LVH and hypertension compared to placebo. Although the incidence of serious adverse events was similar between study arms, additional antihypertensive therapy may be associated with more withdrawals due to adverse events. Limited and low-certainty evidence requires that caution be used when interpreting the findings. High-quality clinical trials addressing the effect of antihypertensives on clinically relevant variables and carried out specifically in individuals with hypertension-induced LVH are warranted.

[Conflict of interest policies and disclosure requirements among European Society of Cardiology national cardiovascular journals]. / Políticas de conflictos de intereses y requisitos para su declaración en las revistas cardiovasculares nacionales de la Sociedad Europea de Cardiología.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is used by biomedical journals to guarantee credibility and transparency of the scientific process. Conflict of interest disclosure, however, is not systematically nor consistently dealt with by journals. Recent joint editorial efforts paved the way towards the implementation of uniform vehicles for conflicts of interest disclosure. This paper provides a comprehensive editorial perspective on classical conflict of interest-related issues. New insights into current conflicts of interest policies and practices among European Society of Cardiology national cardiovascular journals, as derived from a cross-sectional survey using a standardized questionnaire, are discussed.

Políticas de conflictos de intereses y requisitos para su declaración en las revistas cardiovasculares nacionales de la Sociedad Europea de Cardiología / Conflict of interest policies and disclosure requirements among european society of cardiology national cardiovascular journals

Las revistas biomédicas utilizan la declaración de posibles conflictos de intereses para garantizar la credibilidad y la transparencia del proceso científico. Sin embargo, las revistas no abordan la declaración de conflictos de intereses de manera sistemática ni uniforme. Recientes esfuerzos editoriales conjuntos han abierto el camino a la aplicación de herramientas uniformes para la declaración de conflictos de intereses. En este artículo se presenta una visión integral sobre cuestiones clásicas relacionadas con los conflictos de intereses desde un punto de vista editorial. Además, a partir de los datos de un estudio transversal basado en el empleo de un cuestionario estandarizado, se comentan nuevas apreciaciones sobre las políticas y los actuales procedimientos editoriales relativos a los conflictos de intereses en las diversas revistas cardiovasculares nacionales de la Sociedad Europea de Cardiología.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is used by biomedical journals to guarantee credibility and transparency of the scientific process. Conflict of interest disclosure, however, is not systematically nor consistently dealt with by journals. Recent joint editorial efforts paved the way towards the implementation of uniform vehicles for conflicts of interest disclosure. This paper provides a comprehensive editorial perspective on classical conflict of interest-related issues. New insights into current conflicts of interest policies and practices among European Society of Cardiology national cardiovascular journals, as derived from a cross-sectional survey using a standardized questionnaire, are discussed.

Cefalalgia cardíaca: cuando la angina es embriagadora / Cardiac cephalalgia: when angina is heady

La angina cafalalgica cardíaca es un fenómeno poco frecuente como manifestación de un evento coronario agudo. Presentamos un caso típico de ésta manifestación que se asocia a la presencia de vasospasmo coronario y flujo coronario muy lento a nivel epicárdico y miocárdico. La presencia de palpitaciones durante la cefalea advirtió a la paciente del probable origen cardíaca de sus síntomas.

Headache angina or heart headache is a rare phenomenon as a manifestation of an acute coronary event. We report a typical case of this event that is associated with the presence of coronary vasospasm and slow coronary flow on myocardial and epicardial levels. The presence of palpitations during the headache warned the patient of probable cardiac origin of their symptoms.