Spironolactone Versus Clonidine as a Fourth-Drug Therapy for Resistant Hypertension: The ReHOT Randomized Study (Resistant Hypertension Optimal Treatment).

The aim of this study is to compare spironolactone versus clonidine as the fourth drug in patients with resistant hypertension in a multicenter, randomized trial. Medical therapy adherence was checked by pill counting. Patients with resistant hypertension (no office and ambulatory blood pressure [BP] monitoring control, despite treatment with 3 drugs, including a diuretic, for 12 weeks) were randomized to an additional 12-week treatment with spironolactone (12.5-50 mg QD) or clonidine (0.1-0.3 mg BID). The primary end point was BP control during office (<140/90 mm Hg) and 24-h ambulatory (<130/80 mm Hg) BP monitoring. Secondary end points included BP control from each method and absolute BP reduction. From 1597 patients recruited, 11.7% (187 patients) fulfilled the resistant hypertension criteria. Compared with the spironolactone group (n=95), the clonidine group (n=92) presented similar rates of achieving the primary end point (20.5% versus 20.8%, respectively; relative risk, 1.01 [0.55-1.88]; P=1.00). Secondary end point analysis showed similar office BP (33.3% versus 29.3%) and ambulatory BP monitoring (44% versus 46.2%) control for spironolactone and clonidine, respectively. However, spironolactone promoted greater decrease in 24-h systolic and diastolic BP and diastolic daytime ambulatory BP than clonidine. Per-protocol analysis (limited to patients with ≥80% adherence to spironolactone/clonidine treatment) showed similar results regarding the primary end point. In conclusion, clonidine was not superior to spironolactone in true resistant hypertensive patients, but the overall BP control was low (≈21%). Considering easier posology and greater decrease in secondary end points, spironolactone is preferable for the fourth-drug therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01643434.

Association of lipoprotein lipase D9N polymorphism with myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: the genetics, outcomes, and lipids in type 2 diabetes (GOLD) study.

The association of polymorphisms affecting lipid metabolism with the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in type 2 diabetes mellitus was investigated. The Genetics, Outcomes and Lipids in type 2 Diabetes (GOLD) Study is a prospective, multicenter study, conducted on 990 patients presenting diabetes and MI (n=386), or diabetes without previous manifestation of stroke, peripheral or coronary arterial disease (n=604), recruited from 27 institutions in Brazil. APO A1 (A/G -75 and C/T +83) and APO C3 (C/G 3'UTR) non-coding sequences, CETP (Taq 1B), LPL (D9N), APO E (epsilon2, epsilon3, epsilon4,), PON-1 (Q192R), and two LCAT variants Arg(147)-->Trp and Tyr(171)-->Stop were tested by PCR-RFLP. There was a higher prevalence of LPL DN genotype (19% vs.12%, p=0.03) and a higher frequency of the N allele (11% vs. 7%) among subjects with MI when compared to controls, with an odds ratio of MI for carriers of 9N allele of 2.46 (95% CI=1.79-3.39, p<0.0001). This association was present in men and women, in non-smokers and in hypertensive patients. A logistic regression model including gender, duration of diabetes, systolic blood pressure, HDL-C, left ventricle hypertrophy and D9N polymorphism showed that the latter still remained significantly associated with MI (OR=1.50, 95% CI=1.02-2.25, p=0.049). These findings suggest that D9N polymorphism can be a useful risk marker for myocardial infarction and that further potential candidate genes should be screened for exploratory analysis and for future therapeutic intervention in diabetes.

Spironolactone Versus Clonidine as a Fourth-Drug Therapy for Resistant Hypertension The ReHOT Randomized Study (Resistant Hypertension Optimal Treatment)

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to compare spironolactone versus clonidine as the fourth drug in patients with resistant hypertension in a multicenter, randomized trial. Medical therapy adherence was checked by pill counting. Patients with resistant hypertension (no office and ambulatory blood pressure [BP] monitoring control, despite treatment with 3 drugs, including a diuretic, for 12 weeks) were randomized to an additional 12-week treatment with spironolactone (12.5-50 mg QD) or clonidine (0.1-0.3 mg BID). The primary end point was BP control during office (<140/90 mm Hg) and 24-h ambulatory (<130/80 mm Hg) BP monitoring. Secondary end points included BP control from each method and absolute BP reduction. From 1597 patients recruited, 11.7% (187 patients) fulfilled the resistant hypertension criteria. Compared with the spironolactone group (n=95), the clonidine group (n=92) presented similar rates of achieving the primary end point (20.5% versus 20.8%, respectively; relative risk, 1.01 [0.55-1.88]; P=1.00). Secondary end point analysis showed similar office BP (33.3% versus 29.3%) and ambulatory BP monitoring (44% versus 46.2%) control for spironolactone and clonidine, respectively. However, spironolactone promoted greater decrease in 24-h systolic and diastolic BP and diastolic daytime ambulatory BP than clonidine. Per-protocol analysis (limited to patients with ≥80% adherence to spironolactone/clonidine treatment) showed similar results regarding the primary end point. In conclusion, clonidine was not superior to spironolactone in true resistant hypertensive patients, but the overall BP control was low (≈21%). Considering easier posology and greater decrease in secondary end points, spironolactone is preferable for the fourth-drug therapy.