The Effect of Warfarin Administration Time on Anticoagulation Stability (INRange): A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Without supporting evidence, clinicians commonly recommend that warfarin be taken in the evening. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of administration time (morning vs evening) on the stability of warfarin's anticoagulant effect. METHODS: A total of 236 primary care physicians serving 54 western Canadian communities mailed letters of invitation to all their warfarin-using patients. Eligible patients were community-dwelling warfarin users (any indication) with at least 3 months of evening warfarin use and no plans for discontinuation. Participants were randomized (by web-based allocation) to morning vs continued evening warfarin ingestion. We used the Rosendaal method to determine the proportion of time within therapeutic range (TTR) of the international normalized ratio (INR) blood test month 2 to 7 postrandomization vs the 6 months prerandomization. The primary outcome was the percent change in proportion of time outside target INR range (with an a priori minimum clinically important difference of ±20%). All analyses were intention to treat. RESULTS: Between March 8, 2015 and September 30, 2016, we randomized 109 participants to morning and 108 to evening warfarin use. TTR rose from 71.8% to 74.7% in the morning group, and from 72.6% to 75.6% in the evening group, for a change in TTR of 2.9% in the former vs 3.0% in the latter (difference, -0.1%; P = .97; 95% CI for the difference, -6.1% to 5.9%). The difference in percent change in proportion of time outside the therapeutic INR range (obtained via Hodges-Lehmann estimation of the difference in medians) was 4.4% (P = .62; 95% CI for the difference, -17.6% to 27.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Administration time has no statistically significant nor clinically important impact on the stability of warfarin's anticoagulant effect. Patients should take warfarin whenever regular compliance would be easiest.

Quality of warfarin management in primary care: Determining the stability of international normalized ratios using a nationally representative prospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the stability of warfarin anticoagulation using a nationally representative sample of Canadian primary care patients and providers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care practices associated with the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. PARTICIPANTS: Adult warfarin users with 7 or more evaluable international normalized ratio (INR) readings. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: International normalized ratio time in therapeutic range (TTR) determined using the Rosendaal method; TTR above 75% was considered good INR control and TTR below 60% was considered poor INR control. The primary outcome was the proportion of all warfarin users (using an INR target range of 2.0 to 3.5) with good INR control during their first year taking warfarin who have poor INR control the following year. Secondary outcomes included the TTR using an INR target of 2.0 to 3.0 when restricted to patients with known atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE); and the proportion of INR values below the target of 2.0 and above the targets of 3.0 and 3.5 in the year before the availability of other oral anticoagulants. RESULTS: Among 18 303 adult warfarin users (mean age of 71.0 years, 46.6% female), the median TTR (INR target range of 2.0 to 3.5) was 77.4% (interquartile range of 64.6% to 86.4%). The TTR was above 75% in 56.0% of patients and below 60% in 19.3% of patients. Of those exhibiting good INR control in year 1 of anticoagulation therapy, only 10.2% had poor control the following year. When restricted to patients with known AF or VTE (89.7% with AF and 13.5% with VTE), and assuming an INR target range of 2.0 to 3.0, the TTR was 67.8% (interquartile range of 54.8% to 77.9%). Of these patients, 27.9% had INR values below 2.0, and 19.4% and 8.6% had values above 3.0 and 3.5, respectively. CONCLUSION: Primary care warfarin management produces a TTR comparable to that in randomized trials, with out-of-range INR values 3 times more likely to predispose to thrombosis (INR of < 2.0) than to hemorrhage (INR of > 3.5). A history of good INR control does predict future INR stability and meaningfully informs decisions to switch established warfarin users onto newer agents.

Blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Eight out of 10 major antihypertensive trials in older adults attempted to achieve a target systolic blood pressure (BP) less than 160 mmHg. Collectively these trials demonstrated benefit for treatment, as compared to no treatment, for an older adult with BP greater than 160 mmHg. However an even lower BP target of less than 140 mmHg is commonly applied to all age groups. At the present time it is not known whether a lower or higher BP target is associated with better cardiovascular outcomes in older adults. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a higher (less than 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg) BP target compared to the lower BP target of less than 140/90 mmHg in hypertensive adults 65 years of age or older. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, of at least one year's duration, conducted on hypertensive adults aged 65 years or older, which report the effect on mortality and morbidity of a higher systolic or diastolic BP treatment target (whether ambulatory, home, or office measurements) in the range of systolic BP less than 150 to 160 mmHg or diastolic BP less than 95 to 105 mmHg as compared to a lower BP treatment target of less than 140/90 mmHg or lower. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data for dichotomous outcomes using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and for continuous outcomes we used mean difference (MD). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, institutionalisation, and cardiovascular serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, unplanned hospitalisation, each component of cardiovascular serious adverse events separately (including cerebrovascular disease, cardiac disease, vascular disease, and renal failure), total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse effects, systolic BP achieved, and diastolic BP achieved. MAIN RESULTS: We found and included three unblinded randomised trials in 8221 older adults (mean age 74.8 years), in which higher BP targets of less than 150/90 mmHg (two trials) and less than 160/90 mmHg (one trial) were compared to a lower target of less than 140/90 mmHg. Treatment to the two different BP targets over two to four years failed to produce a difference in any of our primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality (RR 1.24 95% CI 0.99 to 1.54), stroke (RR 1.25 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67) and total cardiovascular serious adverse events (RR 1.19 95% CI 0.98 to 1.45). However, the 95% confidence intervals of these outcomes suggest the lower BP target is probably not worse, and might offer a clinically important benefit. We judged all comparisons to be based on low-quality evidence. Data on adverse effects were not available from all trials and not different, including total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the present time there is insufficient evidence to know whether a higher BP target (less than150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg) or a lower BP target (less than 140/90 mmHg) is better for older adults with high BP. Additional good-quality trials assessing BP targets in this population are needed.

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg). However, while ACE inhibitors have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in placebo-controlled trials, ARBs have not. Therefore, a comparison of the efficacies of these two drug classes in primary hypertension for preventing total mortality and cardiovascular events is important. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on total mortality and cardiovascular events, and their rates of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs), in people with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISI Web of Science up to July 2014. We contacted study authors for missing and unpublished information, and also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials enrolling people with uncontrolled or controlled primary hypertension with or without other risk factors. Included trials must have compared an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in a head-to-head manner, and lasted for a duration of at least one year. If background blood pressure lowering agents were continued or added during the study, the protocol to do so must have been the same in both study arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies with 11,007 participants were included. Of the included studies, five reported data on total mortality, three reported data on total cardiovascular events, and four reported data on cardiovascular mortality. No study separately reported cardiovascular morbidity. In contrast, eight studies contributed data on WDAE. Included studies were of good to moderate quality. There was no evidence of a difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.10), total cardiovascular events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19), or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13). Conversely, a high level of evidence indicated a slightly lower incidence of WDAE for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.8%, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 55 over 4.1 years), mainly attributable to a higher incidence of dry cough with ACE inhibitors. The quality of the evidence for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes was limited by possible publication bias, in that several studies were initially eligible for inclusion in this review, but had no extractable data available for the hypertension subgroup. To this end, the evidence for total mortality was judged to be moderate, while the evidence for total cardiovascular events was judged to be low by the GRADE approach. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses found no evidence of a difference in total mortality or cardiovascular outcomes for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors, while ARBs caused slightly fewer WDAEs than ACE inhibitors. Although ACE inhibitors have shown efficacy in these outcomes over placebo, our results cannot be used to extrapolate the same conclusion for ARBs directly, which have not been studied in placebo-controlled trials for hypertension. Thus, the substitution of an ARB for an ACE inhibitor, while supported by evidence on grounds of tolerability, must be made in consideration of the weaker evidence for the efficacy of ARBs regarding mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with ACE inhibitors. Additionally, our data mostly derives from participants with existing clinical sequelae of hypertension, and it would be useful to have data from asymptomatic people to increase the generalizability of this review. Unpublished subgroup data of hypertensive participants in existing trials comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs needs to be made available for this purpose.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of alpha blockers for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Alpha blockers are occasionally prescribed for hypertension so it is important to determine and compare their effects on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE). OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related systolic and/or diastolic BP lowering efficacy of alpha blockers versus placebo in the treatment of primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: For the updated review, we searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2012), EMBASE (1980 to May 2012) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of fixed-dose monotherapy with an alpha blocker compared with placebo for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. WDAE information was collected from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Only 10 trials evaluated the dose-related trough BP lowering efficacy of 4 different alpha blockers in 1175 participants with a baseline BP of 155/101 mm Hg. The data do not suggest that any one alpha blocker is better or worse at lowering BP. The best but unsatisfactory estimate of the trough BP lowering efficacy for alpha blockers is -8/-5 mmHg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited number of published RCTs, the BP lowering effect of alpha blockers is modest; the estimate of the magnitude of trough BP lowering of -8/-5 mmHg is likely an overestimate. There are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between different alpha blockers. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with alpha blockers because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of potassium-sparing diuretics (that block the epithelial sodium channel) for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Potassium-sparing diuretics, which block the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC), are widely prescribed for hypertension as a second-line drug in patients taking other diuretics (e.g. thiazide diuretics) and much less commonly prescribed as monotherapy. Therefore, it is essential to determine the effects of ENaC blockers on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) when given as a first-line or second-line therapy. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of ENaC blocker therapy as a first-line or second-line drug in patients with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2012), EMBASE (1980 to August 2012) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in patients with primary hypertension that evaluate, for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks, the BP lowering efficacy of: 1) fixed-dose monotherapy with an ENaC blocker compared with placebo; or 2) an ENaC blocker in combination with another class of anti-hypertensive drugs compared with the respective monotherapy (without an ENaC blocker). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. WDAE information was also collected from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: No trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of ENaC blockers as monotherapy in patients with primary hypertension were identified. Only 6 trials evaluated the BP lowering efficacy of low doses of amiloride and triamterene as a second drug in 496 participants with a baseline BP of 151/102 mm Hg. The additional BP reduction caused by the ENaC blocker as a second drug was estimated by comparing the difference in BP reduction between the combination and monotherapy groups. The addition of low doses of amiloride and triamterene in these trials did not reduce BP. An estimate of the dose-related BP lowering efficacy for ENaC blockers was not possible because of a lack of trial data at higher doses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ENaC blockers do not have a statistically or clinically significant BP lowering effect at low doses but trials at higher doses are not available. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with ENaC blockers.

Angiotensin receptor blockers for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (HF) is a prevalent world-wide. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for chronic HF although their role is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefit and harm of ARBs compared with ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or placebo on mortality, morbidity and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with symptomatic HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction or preserved systolic function. SEARCH METHODS: Clinical trials were identified by searching CENTRAL, HTA, and DARE , (The Cochrane Library 2010 Issue 3), as well as MEDLINE (2002 to July 2010), and EMBASE (2002 to July 2010). Reference lists of retrieved articles and systematic reviews were checked for additional studies not identified by the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double blind randomised controlled trials in men and women of all ages who have symptomatic (NYHA Class II to IV) HF and: 1) left ventricular systolic dysfunction, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; or 2) preserved ejection fraction, defined as LVEF >40%. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty two studies evaluated the effects of ARBs in 17,900 patients with a LVEF ≤40% (mean 2.2 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.76, 1.00]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.88, 1.01]) compared with placebo.Total mortality (RR 1.05 [95% CI 0.91, 1.22]), total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.92, 1.08]), MI (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.62, 1.63]), and stroke (RR 1.63 [0.77, 3.44]) did not differ between ARBs and ACEIs but withdrawals due to adverse effects were lower with ARBs (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.52, 0.76]). Combinations of ARBs plus ACEIs increased the risk of withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 1.34 [95% CI 1.19, 1.51]) but did not reduce total mortality or total hospital admissions versus ACEI alone.Two placebo-controlled studies evaluated ARBs in 7151 patients with a LVEF >40% (mean 3.7 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.93, 1.12]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.97, 1.05]) compared with placebo. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were higher with ARBs versus placebo when all patients were pooled irrespective of LVEF (RR 1.06 [95% CI 1.01, 1.12]). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic HF and systolic dysfunction or with preserved ejection fraction, ARBs compared to placebo or ACEIs do not reduce total mortality or morbidity. ARBs are better tolerated than ACEIs but do not appear to be as safe and well tolerated as placebo in terms of withdrawals due to adverse effects. Adding an ARB in combination with an ACEI does not reduce total mortality or total hospital admission but increases withdrawals due to adverse effects compared with ACEI alone.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: The burden of coronary heart disease (CHD) worldwide is one of great concern to patients and healthcare agencies alike. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation aims to restore patients with heart disease to health. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) on mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life of patients with CHD. SEARCH STRATEGY: RCTs have been identified by searching CENTRAL, HTA, and DARE (using The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2009), as well as MEDLINE (1950 to December 2009), EMBASE (1980 to December 2009), CINAHL (1982 to December 2009), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to December 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Men and women of all ages who have had myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), or who have angina pectoris or coronary artery disease defined by angiography. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were selected and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: This systematic review has allowed analysis of 47 studies randomising 10,794 patients to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation or usual care. In medium to longer term (i.e. 12 or more months follow-up) exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation reduced overall and cardiovascular mortality [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.75, 0.99) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.63, 0.87), respectively], and hospital admissions [RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.51, 0.93)] in the shorter term (< 12 months follow-up) with no evidence of heterogeneity of effect across trials. Cardiac rehabilitation did not reduce the risk of total MI, CABG or PTCA. Given both the heterogeneity in outcome measures and methods of reporting findings, a meta-analysis was not undertaken for health-related quality of life. In seven out of 10 trials reporting health-related quality of life using validated measures was there evidence of a significantly higher level of quality of life with exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation than usual care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is effective in reducing total and cardiovascular mortality (in medium to longer term studies) and hospital admissions (in shorter term studies) but not total MI or revascularisation (CABG or PTCA). Despite inclusion of more recent trials, the population studied in this review is still predominantly male, middle aged and low risk. Therefore, well-designed, and adequately reported RCTs in groups of CHD patients more representative of usual clinical practice are still needed. These trials should include validated health-related quality of life outcome measures, need to explicitly report clinical events including hospital admission, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of beta-blockers as second-line therapy for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers are one of the more commonly prescribed classes of anti-hypertensive drugs, both as first-line and second-line. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect on systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects of beta-blocker therapy when given as a second-line drug in adult patients with primary hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966-Aug 2009), EMBASE (1988-Aug 2009) and bibliographic citations of articles and reviews were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized controlled trials comparing a beta-blocker in combination with a drug from another class of anti-hypertensive drugs compared with that drug alone for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality of each included study. MAIN RESULTS: 20 double-blind RCTs evaluated the BP lowering efficacy of beta-blockers as second-line drug in 3744 hypertensive patients (baseline BP of 158/102 mmHg; mean duration of 7 weeks). The BP reduction from adding a beta-blocker as the second drug was estimated by comparing the difference in BP reduction between the combination and monotherapy groups. A reduction in BP was seen with adding a beta-blocker to thiazide diuretics or calcium channel blockers at doses as low as 0.25 times the manufacturer's recommended starting dose. The BP lowering efficacy of beta-blockers as a second drug was 6/4 mmHg at 1 times the starting dose and 8/6 mmHg at 2 times the starting dose. Beta-blockers reduced heart rate by 10 beats/min at 1 to 2 times the starting dose. Beta-blockers did not statistically significantly increase withdrawals due to adverse effects but this was likely due to the lack of reporting of this outcome in 35% of the included RCTs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Addition of a beta-blocker to diuretics or calcium-channel blockers reduces BP by 6/4mmHg at 1 times the starting dose and by 8/6 mmHg at 2 times the starting dose. When the blood pressure lowering effect of beta-blockers from this review was compared to that of thiazide diuretics from our previous review (Chen 2009), second-line beta-blockers reduce systolic BP to the same extent as second-line thiazide diuretics, but reduce diastolic BP to a greater degree. The different effect on diastolic BP means that beta-blockers have little or no effect on pulse pressure whereas thiazides cause a significant dose-related decrease in pulse pressure. This difference in the pattern of BP lowering with beta-blockers as compared to thiazides might be the explanation for the fact that beta-blockers appear to be less effective at reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes than thiazide diuretics, particularly in older individuals.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of potassium-sparing diuretics (that block the epithelial sodium channel) for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Potassium-sparing diuretics, which block the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC), are widely prescribed for hypertension as a second-line drug in patients taking other diuretics (e.g. thiazide diuretics) and much less commonly prescribed as monotherapy. Therefore, it is essential to determine the effects of ENaC blockers on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) when given as a first-line or second-line therapy. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of ENaC blocker therapy as a first-line or second-line drug in patients with primary hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2009), EMBASE (1980 to August 2009) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in patients with primary hypertension that evaluate, for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks, the BP lowering efficacy of: 1) fixed-dose monotherapy with an ENaC blocker compared with placebo; or 2) an ENaC blocker in combination with another class of anti-hypertensive drugs compared with the respective monotherapy (without an ENaC blocker). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. WDAE information was also collected from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: No trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of ENaC blockers as monotherapy in patients with primary hypertension were identified. Only 6 trials evaluated the BP lowering efficacy of low doses of amiloride and triamterene as a second drug in 496 participants with a baseline BP of 151/102 mm Hg. The additional BP reduction caused by the ENaC blocker as a second drug was estimated by comparing the difference in BP reduction between the combination and monotherapy groups. The addition of low doses of amiloride and triamterene in these trials did not reduce BP. An estimate of the dose-related BP lowering efficacy for ENaC blockers was not possible because of a lack of trial data at higher doses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ENaC blockers do not have a statistically or clinically significant BP lowering effect at low doses but trials at higher doses are not available. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with ENaC blockers.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of alpha blockers for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Alpha blockers are occasionally prescribed for hypertension so it is important to determine and compare their effects on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE). OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related systolic and/or diastolic BP lowering efficacy of alpha blockers versus placebo in the treatment of primary hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2009), EMBASE (1980 to April 2009) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of fixed-dose monotherapy with an alpha blocker compared with placebo for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. WDAE information was collected from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Only 10 trials evaluated the dose-related trough BP lowering efficacy of 4 different alpha blockers in 1175 participants with a baseline BP of 155/101 mm Hg. The data do not suggest that any one alpha blocker is better or worse at lowering BP. The best but unsatisfactory estimate of the trough BP lowering efficacy for alpha blockers is -8/-5 mmHg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited number of published RCTs, the BP lowering effect of alpha blockers is modest; the estimate of the magnitude of trough BP lowering of -8/-5 mmHg is likely an overestimate. There are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between different alpha blockers. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with alpha blockers because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of diuretics as second-line therapy for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Diuretics are widely prescribed for hypertension not only as a first-line drug but also as a second-line drug. Therefore, it is essential to determine the effects of diuretics on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) when given as a second-line drug. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the additional reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of diuretic therapy as a second-line drug in patients with primary hypertension SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966-July 2008), EMBASE (1988-July 2008) and bibliographic citations of articles and reviews were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of a diuretic in combination therapy with another class of anti-hypertensive drugs compared with the respective monotherapy (without a diuretic) for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-three double-blind RCTs evaluating a thiazide in 15129 hypertensive patients (baseline BP of 156/101 mmHg) were included. Hydrochlorothiazide was the thiazide used in 49/53 (92%) of the included studies. The additional BP reduction caused by the thiazide as a second drug was estimated by comparing the difference in BP reduction between the combination and monotherapy groups. Thiazides as a second-line drug reduced BP by 6/3 and 8/4 mmHg at doses of 1 and 2 times the manufacturer's recommended starting dose respectively. The BP lowering effect was dose related. The effect was similar to that obtained when thiazides are used as a single agent. Only 3 double-blind RCTs evaluating loop diuretics were identified. These RCTs showed a BP lowering effect of a starting dose of about 6/3 mmHg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Thiazides when given as a second-line drug have a dose related effect to lower blood pressure that is similar to when they are added as a first-line drug. This means that the BP lowering effect of thiazides is additive. Loop diuretics appear to have a similar blood pressure lowering effect as thiazides at 1 times the recommended starting dose. Because of the short duration of the trials and lack of reporting of adverse events, this review does not provide a good estimate of the incidence of adverse effects of diuretics given as a second-line drug.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for hypertension so it is essential to determine and compare their effects on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE). OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related systolic and/or diastolic BP lowering efficacy of ARBs versus placebo in the treatment of primary hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2007), EMBASE (1988 to February 2007) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of fixed-dose monotherapy with an ARB compared with placebo for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. WDAE information was collected from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Forty six RCTs evaluated the dose-related trough BP lowering efficacy of 9 ARBs in 13 451 participants with a baseline BP of 156/101 mm Hg. The data do not suggest that any one ARB is better or worse at lowering BP. A dose of 1/8 or 1/4 of the manufacturers' maximum recommended daily dose (Max) achieved a BP lowering effect that was 60 to 70% of the BP lowering effect of Max. A dose of 1/2 Max achieved a BP lowering effect that was 80% of Max. ARB doses above Max did not significantly lower BP more than Max. Due to evidence of publication bias, the largest trials provide the best estimate of the trough BP lowering efficacy for ARBs as a class of drugs: -8 mm Hg for SBP and -5 mm Hg for DBP. ARBs reduced BP measured 1 to 12 hours after the dose by about 12/7 mm Hg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this review suggests that there are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between available ARBs. The BP lowering effect of ARBs is modest and similar to ACE inhibitors as a class; the magnitude of average trough BP lowering for ARBs at maximum recommended doses and above is -8/-5 mmHg. Furthermore, 60 to 70% of this trough BP lowering effect occurs with recommended starting doses. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with ARBs because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: ACE inhibitors are widely prescribed for hypertension so it is essential to determine and compare their effects on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE). OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related systolic and/or diastolic BP lowering efficacy of ACE inhibitors versus placebo in the treatment of primary hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2007), EMBASE (1988 to February 2007) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of fixed-dose monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor compared with placebo for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. WDAE information was collected from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety two trials evaluated the dose-related trough BP lowering efficacy of 14 different ACE inhibitors in 12 954 participants with a baseline BP of 157/101 mm Hg. The data do not suggest that any one ACE inhibitor is better or worse at lowering BP. A dose of 1/8 or 1/4 of the manufacturer's maximum recommended daily dose (Max) achieved a BP lowering effect that was 60 to 70% of the BP lowering effect of Max. A dose of 1/2 Max achieved a BP lowering effect that was 90% of Max. ACE inhibitor doses above Max did not significantly lower BP more than Max. Combining the effects of 1/2 Max and higher doses gives an estimate of the average trough BP lowering efficacy for ACE inhibitors as a class of drugs of -8 mm Hg for SBP and -5 mm Hg for DBP. ACE inhibitors reduced BP measured 1 to 12 hours after the dose by about 11/6 mm Hg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between different ACE inhibitors. The BP lowering effect of ACE inhibitors is modest; the magnitude of trough BP lowering at one-half the manufacturers' maximum recommended dose and above is -8/-5 mm Hg. Furthermore, 60 to 70% of this trough BP lowering effect occurs with recommended starting doses. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with ACE inhibitors because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.

Effect of medication timing on anticoagulation stability in users of warfarin (the INRange RCT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is an oral anticoagulant medication that disrupts the liver's production of clotting factors. While this medication is highly effective for the prevention of thromboembolic events, it also has a narrow therapeutic range and a vulnerability to interactions with other drugs and vitamin K-containing foods. Warfarin is commonly ingested at dinnertime, the same time of day that dietary vitamin K consumption (found largely in green leafy vegetables) is most variable. While the long half-life of warfarin might make this irrelevant, the ultra short half-life of vitamin K and the possibility of a hepatic first-pass effect for warfarin make it worth evaluating whether morning ingestion of warfarin, when vitamin K levels are consistently low, leads to greater stability of its anticoagulant effect. An examination of the timing of administration on the effectiveness of warfarin has never before been conducted. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a 7-month Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End-point (PROBE) study in which established evening warfarin users (primary care managed Canadian outpatients in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta) will be randomized to either switch to morning ingestion of warfarin (the intervention) or to continue with evening use (the control). The primary outcome is the percent change in the proportion of time spent outside the therapeutic range of the international normalized ratio (INR) blood test. Secondary outcomes include change in proportion of time spent within the therapeutic INR range (TTR), percentage of patients with TTR >75 %, percentage of patients with TTR <60 %, and major warfarin-related cardiovascular events (including all-cause mortality, hospitalization for stroke, hospitalization for GI bleeding, and deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism). We will also compare whether day-to-day variability in the consumption of high vitamin K-containing foods at baseline affects the baseline TTR in this cohort of evening warfarin users. DISCUSSION: This study addresses whether the timing of warfarin ingestion influences the stability of its anticoagulant effect. Should morning ingestion prove superior, the safety and effectiveness of this medication, and hence the prevention of stroke, pulmonary embolus, and major hemorrhage, could potentially be improved with no added cost or inconvenience to the patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02376803 . Registered on 25 February 2015.

Persistent Sexual Dysfunction and Suicidal Ideation in Young Men Treated with Low-Dose Finasteride: A Pharmacovigilance Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Finasteride, a 5α-reductase inhibitor, is marketed in a low dose (1 mg) as a popular therapy for androgenic alopecia in young men. As case reports and small surveys have suggested a link between persistent sexual dysfunction (SD) and suicidal ideation (SI) with low-dose finasteride, the aim of this study was to detect signals of SD and SI secondary to low-dose finasteride use in young men. DESIGN: Retrospective pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis. DATA SOURCE: United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Low-dose finasteride-related adverse event reports for men aged 18-45 years that were submitted to the FAERS between 1998 and 2013 were retrieved. Multi-item Gamma Poisson Shrinker disproportionality analysis was applied to calculate the empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) as an association metric between low-dose finasteride and the events of interest. Signals were defined as associations with thresholds of a CI lower limit of 2.0 or greater. Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Terms denoting to SD and SI were identified to reflect the outcome of interest. In total, of 4910 reports, 577 persistent SD and 39 SI adverse event reports (11.8% and 7.9%, respectively) were identified for young men using low-dose finasteride; 34 (87.2%) of the 39 men with SI also experienced SD. The majority of these events were serious (e.g., contributed to the patient's death, hospitalization, or disability). Low-dose finasteride was associated with more than expected reporting of SD in young men compared with reporting of these events with all other drugs within the database (EBGM 28.0, 95% CI 26.1-30.0). Disproportional reporting in SI events was noted, although it did not reach signal threshold (EBGM 1.72; 95% CI 1.31-2.23). Among serious SD events, 43% led to disability; 28% required medical intervention, including hospitalization; and 5% were life-threatening. Six fatal SD reports were identified. CONCLUSION: Persistent SD might be a potential risk of low-dose finasteride for androgenic alopecia therapy in young men, and this risk might contribute to SI. Our findings provide a strong hypothesis for pharmacoepidemiologic studies to further examine this association.

Comparison of the automated non-invasive oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BpTRU) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in a paediatric population.

BACKGROUND: To directly compare the accuracy of the BpTRU (an automated oscillometric blood pressure device) with standard auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometry in a pediatric population. DESIGN: The BpTRU was connected in parallel with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Two observers measured the blood pressures at the same time as it was being measured by the BpTRU. The observers and the BpTRU were all blinded from each other. METHODS: For each of the demographic data--subject age, sex and arm sizes--the mean, standard deviation (SD) and range was calculated. The difference between the mean BpTRU and the standard reference measurements (observer average) was calculated with SD and ranges. The percentage of measurements within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg agreement was expressed. RESULTS: From the 36 subjects recruited aged 3-18 years, 162 pairs of sitting blood pressures were included. The difference between the mean BpTRU readings and the reference standard measurements (as determined by the observers) was 1.45+/-5.67 mmHg for systolic blood pressures, and -3.24+/-7.39 mmHg for diastolic pressure and 0.20+/-2.47 bpm for heart rate. CONCLUSION: The BpTRU is of similar accuracy in measuring blood pressure in children as it was in an adult population.

Overall accuracy of the BpTRU--an automated electronic blood pressure device.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this report is to combine the data from an earlier adult study with the data from a paediatric study in order to determine the overall accuracy of the BpTRU (BPM-100 model) as compared to the recognized standard, auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer. DESIGN: The individual blood pressure points recorded for both adult and paediatric studies were compared directly to its corresponding observer reference measurements from data collected and stored from the two separate studies. There were 255 sets of readings in the adult study and 162 sets from the paediatric study, which were combined to make 417 pairs of blood pressure readings for this study. METHODS: The overall observer standard reference mean for the 417 measurements was calculated and the difference between this and the overall mean BPM-100 was calculated with SD and ranges. Measurements within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg agreement were expressed as percentages. RESULTS: A total of 121 subjects were included for this study (85 from the adult study and 36 from the paediatric study). From these, 417 paired measurements were recorded. The mean difference between the BpTRU and the reference standard systolic blood pressure (BP) was 0.47+/-5.40 mmHg with 89.2% measurements within 5 mmHg, 96.4% within 10 mmHg and 99.3% within 15 mmHg. The mean difference between the BpTRU and reference diastolic BP was -2.12+/-5.93 mmHg with 81.1% within 5 mmHg, 92.1% within 10 mmHg and 97.6% within 15 mmHg. CONCLUSION: The BpTRU has been shown to be an accurate non-invasive blood pressure monitoring device in the general population over a wide range of ages (3-83 years). This combined study meets all requirements of the Association of Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and achieved a grade 'A' in the BHS protocol.