Resistant Hypertension: Disease Burden and Emerging Treatment Options.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To define resistant hypertension (RHT), review its pathophysiology and disease burden, identify barriers to effective hypertension management, and to highlight emerging treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: RHT is defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mm Hg despite concurrent prescription of ≥ 3 or ≥ 4 antihypertensive drugs in different classes or controlled BP despite prescription of ≥ to 4 drugs, at maximally tolerated doses, including a diuretic. BP is regulated by a complex interplay between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, the sympathetic nervous system, the endothelin system, natriuretic peptides, the arterial vasculature, and the immune system; disruption of any of these can increase BP. RHT is disproportionately manifest in African Americans, older patients, and those with diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Amongst drug-treated hypertensives, only one-quarter have been treated intensively enough (prescribed > 2 drugs) to be considered for this diagnosis. New treatment strategies aimed at novel therapeutic targets include inhibition of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2, aminopeptidase A, aldosterone synthesis, phosphodiesterase 5, xanthine oxidase, and dopamine beta-hydroxylase, as well as soluble guanylate cyclase stimulation, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism, and dual endothelin receptor antagonism. The burden of RHT remains high. Better use of currently approved therapies and integrating emerging therapies are welcome additions to the therapeutic armamentarium for addressing needs in high-risk aTRH patients.

Dual endothelin antagonist aprocitentan for resistant hypertension (PRECISION): a multicentre, blinded, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Resistant hypertension is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. The endothelin pathway has been implicated in the pathogenesis of hypertension, but it is currently not targeted therapeutically, thereby leaving this relevant pathophysiological pathway unopposed with currently available drugs. The aim of the study was to assess the blood pressure lowering efficacy of the dual endothelin antagonist aprocitentan in patients with resistant hypertension. METHODS: PRECISION was a multicentre, blinded, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 study, which was done in hospitals or research centres in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia. Patients were eligible for randomisation if their sitting systolic blood pressure was 140 mm Hg or higher despite taking standardised background therapy consisting of three antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic. The study consisted of three sequential parts: part 1 was the 4-week double-blind, randomised, and placebo-controlled part, in which patients received aprocitentan 12·5 mg, aprocitentan 25 mg, or placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; part 2 was a 32-week single (patient)-blind part, in which all patients received aprocitentan 25 mg; and part 3 was a 12-week double-blind, randomised, and placebo-controlled withdrawal part, in which patients were re-randomised to aprocitentan 25 mg or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. The primary and key secondary endpoints were changes in unattended office systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 4 and from withdrawal baseline to week 40, respectively. Secondary endpoints included 24-h ambulatory blood pressure changes. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541174. FINDINGS: The PRECISION study was done from June 18, 2018, to April 25, 2022. 1965 individuals were screened and 730 were randomly assigned. Of these 730 patients, 704 (96%) completed part 1 of the study; of these, 613 (87%) completed part 2 and, of these, 577 (94%) completed part 3 of the study. The least square mean (SE) change in office systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks was -15·3 (SE 0·9) mm Hg for aprocitentan 12·5 mg, -15·2 (0·9) mm Hg for aprocitentan 25 mg, and -11·5 (0·9) mm Hg for placebo, for a difference versus placebo of -3·8 (1·3) mm Hg (97·5% CI -6·8 to -0·8, p=0·0042) and -3·7 (1·3) mm Hg (-6·7 to -0·8; p=0·0046), respectively. The respective difference for 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure was -4·2 mm Hg (95% CI -6·2 to -2·1) and -5·9 mm Hg (-7·9 to -3·8). After 4 weeks of withdrawal, office systolic blood pressure significantly increased with placebo versus aprocitentan (5·8 mm Hg, 95% CI 3·7 to 7·9, p<0·0001). The most frequent adverse event was mild-to-moderate oedema or fluid retention, occurring in 9%, 18%, and 2% for patients receiving aprocitentan 12·5 mg, 25 mg, and placebo, during the 4-week double-blind part, respectively. This event led to discontinuation in seven patients treated with aprocitentan. During the trial, a total of 11 treatment-emergent deaths occurred, none of which were regarded by the investigators to be related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: In patients with resistant hypertension, aprocitentan was well tolerated and superior to placebo in lowering blood pressure at week 4 with a sustained effect at week 40. FUNDING: Idorsia Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Biotech.

A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Prior unblinded studies have suggested that catheter-based renal-artery denervation reduces blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension. METHODS: We designed a prospective, single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. Patients with severe resistant hypertension were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to undergo renal denervation or a sham procedure. Before randomization, patients were receiving a stable antihypertensive regimen involving maximally tolerated doses of at least three drugs, including a diuretic. The primary efficacy end point was the change in office systolic blood pressure at 6 months; a secondary efficacy end point was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure. The primary safety end point was a composite of death, end-stage renal disease, embolic events resulting in end-organ damage, renovascular complications, or hypertensive crisis at 1 month or new renal-artery stenosis of more than 70% at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 535 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) change in systolic blood pressure at 6 months was -14.13±23.93 mm Hg in the denervation group as compared with -11.74±25.94 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group (P<0.001 for both comparisons of the change from baseline), for a difference of -2.39 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.89 to 2.12; P=0.26 for superiority with a margin of 5 mm Hg). The change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was -6.75±15.11 mm Hg in the denervation group and -4.79±17.25 mm Hg in the sham-procedure group, for a difference of -1.96 mm Hg (95% CI, -4.97 to 1.06; P=0.98 for superiority with a margin of 2 mm Hg). There were no significant differences in safety between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This blinded trial did not show a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension 6 months after renal-artery denervation as compared with a sham control. (Funded by Medtronic; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01418261.).

Prevalence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Pulmonary Hypertension in CKD.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is associated with poor outcomes in the dialysis and general populations, but its effect in CKD is unclear. We evaluated the prevalence and predictors of PH measures and their associations with long-term clinical outcomes in patients with nondialysis-dependent CKD. Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study participants who had Doppler echocardiography performed were considered for inclusion. PH was defined as the presence of estimated pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) >35 mmHg and/or tricuspid regurgitant velocity (TRV) >2.5 m/s. Associations between PH, PASP, and TRV and cardiovascular events, renal events, and all-cause mortality were examined using Cox proportional hazards models. Of 2959 eligible participants, 21% (n=625) had PH, with higher rates among those with lower levels of kidney function. In the multivariate model, older age, anemia, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and presence of left ventricular hypertrophy were associated with greater odds of having PH. After adjusting for relevant confounding variables, PH was independently associated with higher risk for death (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.72) and cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.52) but not renal events. Similarly, TRV and PASP were associated with death and cardiovascular events but not renal events. In this study of patients with CKD and preserved left ventricular systolic function, we report a high prevalence of PH. PH and higher TRV and PASP (echocardiographic measures of PH) are associated with adverse outcomes in CKD. Future studies may explain the mechanisms that underlie these findings.

Impact of Renal Denervation on Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Resistant Hypertension　- Insights From the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with activation of the sympathetic nervous system, and patients with this condition often experience elevated blood pressure (BP), increased BP variability, and nocturnal BP surges. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial was a large prospective, randomized, blinded, sham-controlled trial of renal denervation for treatment of uncontrolled, apparently treatment-resistant hypertension. In a post hoc analysis, we examined the effect of renal denervation vs. sham control on office and ambulatory (including nocturnal) systolic BP in patients with and without OSA. 26% (94/364) of renal denervation subjects and 32% (54/171) of sham control subjects had OSA. Baseline office and nighttime systolic BP values were similar in both arms, including in subjects with and without OSA. Compared with sham control, renal denervation reduced the 6-month office systolic BP in subjects with (-17.0±22.4 vs. -6.3±26.1 mmHg, P=0.01) but not in subjects without OSA (-14.7±24.5 vs. -13.4±26.4 mmHg, P=0.64), P=0.07 for the interaction between treatment arm and OSA status. In those with sleep apnea, renal denervation was also associated with a reduction in maximum (-4.8±21.8 vs. 4.5±24.6 mmHg, P=0.03) and average peak (-5.6±20.4 vs. 3.2±22.4 mmHg, P=0.02) nighttime systolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: OSA subjects appeared to be responsive to renal denervation therapy. However, this hypothesis requires prospective testing. (Circ J 2016; 80: 1404-1412).

Predictors of blood pressure response in the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial.

AIMS: The SYMPLICITY HTN-3 randomized, blinded, sham-controlled trial confirmed the safety of renal denervation (RDN), but did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint. Prior RDN studies have demonstrated significant and durable reductions in blood pressure. This analysis investigated factors that may help explain these disparate results. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with resistant hypertension were randomized 2 : 1 to RDN (n = 364) or sham (n = 171). The primary endpoint was the difference in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) change at 6 months. A multivariable analysis identified predictors of SBP change. Additional analyses examined the influence of medication changes, results in selected subgroups and procedural factors. Between randomization and the 6-month endpoint, 39% of patients underwent medication changes. Predictors of office SBP reduction at 6 months were baseline office SBP ≥ 180 mmHg, aldosterone antagonist use, and non-use of vasodilators; number of ablations was a predictor in the RDN group. Non-African-American patients receiving RDN had a significantly greater change in office SBP than those receiving sham; -15.2 ± 23.5 vs. -8.6 ± 24.8 mmHg, respectively (P = 0.012). Greater reductions in office and ambulatory SBP, and heart rate were observed with a higher number of ablations and energy delivery in a four-quadrant pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Post hoc analyses, although derived from limited patient cohorts, reveal several potential confounding factors that may partially explain the unexpected blood pressure responses in both the sham control and RDN groups. These hypothesis-generating data further inform the design of subsequent research to evaluate the potential role of RDN in the treatment of resistant hypertension. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01418261.

Blood pressure treatment and outcomes in hypertensive patients without acute target organ damage: a retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The objective is of the study to evaluate the effect of antihypertensive therapy in emergency department (ED) patients with markedly elevated blood pressure (BP) but no signs/symptoms of acute target organ damage (TOD). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of ED patients age 18 years and older with an initial BP greater than or equal to 180/100 mm Hg and no acute TOD, who were discharged with a primary diagnosis of hypertension. Patients were divided based on receipt of antihypertensive therapy and outcomes (ED revisits and mortality) and were compared. RESULTS: Of 1016 patients, 435 (42.8%) received antihypertensive therapy, primarily (88.5%) oral clonidine. Average age was 49.2 years, and 94.5% were African American. Treated patients more often had a history of hypertension (93.1% vs 84.3%; difference = -8.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12.5 to -4.9) and had higher mean initial systolic (202 vs 185 mm Hg; difference = 16.9; 95% CI, -19.7 to -14.1) and diastolic (115 vs 106 mm Hg; difference = -8.6; 95% CI, -10.3 to -6.9) BP. Emergency department revisits at 24 hours (4.4% vs 2.4%; difference = -2.0; 95% CI, -4.5 to 0.3) and 30 days (18.9% vs 15.2%; difference = -3.7; 95% CI, -8.5 to 0.9) and mortality at 30 days (0.2% vs 0.2%; difference = 0; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.8) and 1 year (2.1% vs 1.6%; difference = -0.5; 95% CI, -2.5 to 1.2) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Revisits and mortality were similar for ED patients with markedly elevated BP but no acute TOD, whether they were treated with antihypertensive therapy, suggesting relative safety with either approach.

Proceedings from Duke resistant hypertension think tank.

To identify patients at increased risk for cardiovascular outcomes, apparent treatment resistant hypertension (aTRH) is defined as having a blood pressure (BP) above goal despite the use of ≥3 antihypertensive therapies of different classes at maximally tolerated doses, ideally including a diuretic. In light of growing scientific interest in the treatment of this group, a multistakeholder think tank was convened to discuss the current state of knowledge, improve the care of these patients, and identify appropriate study populations for future observational and randomized trials in the field. Although recent epidemiologic studies in selected populations estimate that the prevalence of aTRH is 10% to 15% of hypertensive patients, further large-scale observational studies will be needed to better elucidate risk factors. To spur the development of therapies for aTRH, the development of an "aTRH" label for pharmacologic and device therapies with a developmental pathway including treatment added to the use of existing therapies is favored. Although demonstration of adequate BP lowering should be sufficient to gain Food and Drug Administration approval for therapies targeting aTRH, assessment of improvement in quality of life and cardiovascular outcomes is also desirable and considered in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage decisions. Device trials under the aTRH label will need uniform and consistent processes for defining appropriate patient populations as well as postapproval registries assessing both long-term safety and duration of responses. Finally, patients with aTRH are likely to benefit from evaluation by a hypertension team to assure proper patient identification, diagnostic work-up, and therapeutic management before consideration of advanced or novel therapies to lower BP.

Should African Americans with hypertension be treated differently than non-African Americans?

African Americans have a higher burden of hypertension, more severe blood pressure (BP) elevations, more concurrent risk-enhancing co-morbidities (e.g., diabetes), sub-clinical vascular injury at lower non-hypertensive BP levels, lower BP control rates, and significantly greater risk for adverse pressure-related clinical complications (e.g., stroke, heart failure) than whites. Randomized prospective data from hypertension endpoint trials show a virtually identical percentage reduction in CVD risk for a given magnitude of BP lowering, irrespective of the presence or absence of pre-treatment CVD across a broad range of BP down to pre-treatment BP levels of 110/70 mm Hg. These data, mostly emanating from white populations, do not necessarily inform practitioners as to the level below which BP should be lowered in those with established, long-standing hypertension; however, these data do provide support for initiating hypertension treatment at lower than conventional BP thresholds. A Mendelian randomized study examining the impact of life-long lower SBP levels showed that lifelong exposure to 10 mm Hg lower SBP was associated with an 82 % lesser rate of SBP rise per decade and a 58 % lower CHD risk that was much greater than the 22 % reduction in CHD reported for the same magnitude of SBP reduction in clinical trials. Arguably, it is the hypertension treatment paradigm that merits reexamination. Earlier hypertension treatment in all populations prior to the onset of significant pressure-related target organ injury might conceivably prevent, or at least significantly attenuate, the well documented age-related rise in BP seen in most Western societies. In addition, this treatment paradigm might also reduce the significant residual CVD risk observed under the current recommended approach to hypertension treatment. This new approach to therapy would likely have substantial clinical and public health benefits in the high-risk, under-treated African American population that suffers outsized devastating consequences from inadequate control of BP.

Evolving the Role of Black Race in Hypertension Therapeutics.

Black race has been used to guide antihypertensive drug selection for Black patients based on predominant between race (same drug) and intra-race (different drugs) blood pressure (BP) response patterns. Accordingly, thiazide diuretics and calcium antagonists have been recommended over renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and beta blockers for Black patients. Current antihypertensive drug prescribing reflects historical guidance as calcium antagonists and thiazide diuretics are prescribed more and RAS blockers less in Black than White patients. Hypertension control rates in Blacks, lag those for Whites despite their greater use of combination drug therapy and lesser use of monotherapy. This is also true across drug regimens containing any of the 4 recommended classes for initial therapy as well as for evidence-based combination drug therapy (calcium antagonist or thiazide diuretic + RAS blocker) regimens for which there is no known racial disparity in BP response. Current recommendations acknowledge the need for combination drug therapy in most, especially in Black patients. One exemplary comprehensive hypertension control program achieved >80% control rates in Black and White patients with minimal racial disparity while utilizing a race-agnostic therapeutic algorithm. Black patients manifest robust, if not outsized, BP responses to diet/lifestyle modifications. Importantly, race neither appears to be a necessary nor sufficient consideration for the selection of effective drug therapy. Accordingly, we urge the initiation of adequately intense race-agnostic drug therapy coupled with greater emphasis on diet/lifestyle modifications for Black patients as the cornerstone of a race-informed approach to hypertension therapeutics.

Orthostatic Hypotension in Adults With Hypertension: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Although orthostatic hypotension (OH) has long been recognized as a manifestation of autonomic dysfunction, a growing body of literature has identified OH as a common comorbidity of hypertension. This connection is complex, related to pathophysiology in blood pressure regulation and the manner by which OH is derived as the difference between 2 blood pressure measurements. While traditional therapeutic approaches to OH among patients with neurodegenerative disorders focus on increasing upright blood pressure to prevent cerebral hypoperfusion, the management of OH among patients with hypertension is more nuanced; resting hypertension is itself associated with adverse outcomes among these patients. Although there is substantial evidence that intensive blood pressure treatment does not cause OH in the majority of patients with essential hypertension, some classes of antihypertensive agents may unmask OH in patients with an underlying autonomic impairment. Practical steps to manage OH among adults with hypertension start with (1) a thorough characterization of its patterns, triggers, and cause; (2) review and removal of aggravating factors (often pharmacological agents not related to hypertension treatment); (3) optimization of an antihypertensive regimen; and (4) adoption of a tailored treatment strategy that avoids exacerbating hypertension. These strategies include countermaneuvers and short-acting vasoactive agents (midodrine, droxidopa). Ultimately, further research is needed on the epidemiology of OH, the impact of hypertension treatment on OH, approaches to the screening and diagnosis of OH, and OH treatment among adults with hypertension to improve the care of these patients and their complex blood pressure pathophysiology.

Misconceptions and Facts About Orthostatic Hypotension.

Orthostatic hypotension (orthostatic hypotension) is a highly prevalent medical condition that is an independent risk factor for falls and mortality. It reflects a condition in which autonomic reflexes are impaired or intravascular volume is depleted, causing a significant reduction in blood pressure upon standing. This disorder is frequently unrecognized until later in its clinical course. Symptoms like orthostatic dizziness do not reliably identify patients with orthostatic hypotension, who are often asymptomatic, lending further to the difficulty of this diagnosis. We summarize 7 clinically important misconceptions about orthostatic hypotension.

The Management of Elevated Blood Pressure in the Acute Care Setting: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Over the past 3 decades, a substantial body of high-quality evidence has guided the diagnosis and management of elevated blood pressure (BP) in the outpatient setting. In contrast, there is a lack of comparable evidence for guiding the management of elevated BP in the acute care setting, resulting in significant practice variation. Throughout this scientific statement, we use the terms acute care and inpatient to refer to care received in the emergency department and after admission to the hospital. Elevated inpatient BP is common and can manifest either as asymptomatic or with signs of new or worsening target-organ damage, a condition referred to as hypertensive emergency. Hypertensive emergency involves acute target-organ damage and should be treated swiftly, usually with intravenous antihypertensive medications, in a closely monitored setting. However, the risk-benefit ratio of initiating or intensifying antihypertensive medications for asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP is less clear. Despite this ambiguity, clinicians prescribe oral or intravenous antihypertensive medications in approximately one-third of cases of asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP. Recent observational studies have suggested potential harms associated with treating asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP, which brings current practice into question. Despite the ubiquity of elevated inpatient BPs, few position papers, guidelines, or consensus statements have focused on improving BP management in the acute care setting. Therefore, this scientific statement aims to synthesize the available evidence, provide suggestions for best practice based on the available evidence, identify evidence-based gaps in managing elevated inpatient BP (asymptomatic and hypertensive emergency), and highlight areas requiring further research.

Editors' Commentary on the 2023 ESH Management of Arterial Hypertension Guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines are ideally suited to the provision of advice on the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure (BP). The recently published European Society of Hypertension (ESH) 2023 ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension is the latest in a long series of high BP clinical practice guidelines. It closely resembles the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/ESH guidelines, with incremental rather than major changes. Although the ESH guidelines are primarily written for European clinicians and public health workers, there is a high degree of concordance between its recommendations and those in the other major BP guidelines. Despite the large number of national and international BP guidelines around the world, general population surveys demonstrate that BP guidelines are not being well implemented in any part of the world. The level of BP, which is the basis for diagnosis and management, continues to be poorly measured in routine clinical practice and control of hypertension remains suboptimal, even to a conservative BP target such as a systolic/diastolic BP <140/90 mm Hg. BP guidelines need to focus much more on implementation of recommendations for accurate diagnosis and strategies for improved control in those being treated for hypertension. An evolving body of implementation science can assist in meeting this goal. Given the enormous health, social, and financial burden of high BP, better diagnosis and management should be an imperative for clinicians, government, and others responsible for the provision of health care services. Hopefully, the 2023 ESH will help enable this.

Clinical Outcomes in Hypertensive Emergency: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background To study the prevalence and types of hypertension-mediated organ damage and the prognosis of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with hypertensive emergencies. Methods and Results PubMed was queried from inception through November 30, 2021. Studies were included if they reported the prevalence or prognosis of hypertensive emergencies in patients presenting to the ED. Studies reporting data on hypertensive emergencies in other departments were excluded. The extracted data were arcsine transformed and pooled using a random-effects model. Fifteen studies (n=4370 patients) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrates that the prevalence of hypertensive emergencies was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.40%-0.70%) in all patients presenting to ED and 35.9% (95% CI, 26.7%-45.5%) among patients presenting in ED with hypertensive crisis. Ischemic stroke (28.1% [95% CI, 18.7%-38.6%]) was the most prevalent hypertension-mediated organ damage, followed by pulmonary edema/acute heart failure (24.1% [95% CI, 19.0%-29.7%]), hemorrhagic stroke (14.6% [95% CI, 9.9%-20.0%]), acute coronary syndrome (10.8% [95% CI, 7.3%-14.8%]), renal failure (8.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-15.5%]), subarachnoid hemorrhage (6.9% [95% CI, 3.9%-10.7%]), encephalopathy (6.1% [95% CI, 1.9%-12.4%]), and the least prevalent was aortic dissection (1.8% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.8%]). Prevalence of in-hospital mortality among patients with hypertensive emergency was 9.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-24.6%). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate a pattern of hypertension-mediated organ damage primarily affecting the brain and heart, substantial cardiovascular renal morbidity and mortality, as well as subsequent hospitalization in patients with hypertensive emergencies presenting to the ED.

Recruitment, Retention, and Future Direction for a Heart Health Education and Risk Reduction Intervention Led by Community Health Workers in an African American Majority City.

Heart disease is a leading cause of death for African Americans. A community-academic partnership cross-trained community health workers to engage African American adults in a 6-month heart health education and risk reduction intervention. We conducted a one-group feasibility study using a one group (pre-posttest) design. A total of 100 adults were recruited from 27 zip codes in an African American majority city through community-based organizations (46%), churches (36%), and home visits (12%). Ninety-six percent were African American; 55% were female, 39% were male, and 6% were transgender. Their mean age was 44.6 years (SD = 15.9). Ninety-two percent had health insurance. Seventy-six percent of participants averaged blood pressure (BP) readings > 130/80 mmHg. Eleven percent of participants had a 30% or higher probability of developing cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years. Six-month follow-up was completed with 96% of participants. There were statistically significant increases in knowledge and in perception of personal risk for heart disease. However, slightly more participants (n = 77, 80.2%) had BP > 130/80 mmHg. The Community Advisory Group recommended expanding the intervention to 12 months and incorporating telehealth with home BP monitoring. Limited intervention duration did not meet longer term objectives such as better control of high BP and sharing risk reduction planning with primary care providers.

Does Vitamin D Provide Added Benefit to Antihypertensive Therapy in Reducing Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Determined by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance?

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and vitamin D deficiency have been linked to hypertension (HTN) and cardiovascular disease, particularly in African Americans (AAs). Our objective was to determine if the addition of vitamin D to antihypertensive therapy would lead to greater regression of LV mass index (LVMI) as determined by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) after 1 year in vitamin D deficient AA patients with uncontrolled HTN and LVH. METHODS: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center study. AA patients with HTN (systolic blood pressure [BP] >160 mm Hg), increased LVMI, and vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/ml) were randomized. All patients received antihypertensive therapy combined with biweekly 50,000 IU vitamin D3 (vitamin D group, n = 55) or placebo (placebo group, n = 58). RESULTS: At 1 year, there were no statistical differences between the vitamin D and placebo groups in LVMI (-14.1 ± 14.6 vs. -16.9 ± 13.1 g/m2; P = 0.34) or systolic BP (-25.6 ± 32.1 vs. -25.7 ± 25.6 mm Hg; P = 0.99) reduction, respectively. Serum vitamin D levels increased significantly in the vitamin D group compared with placebo (12.7 ± 2.0 vs. 1.8 ± 8.2 ng/ml; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this high-risk cohort of AAs we did not find an association between vitamin D supplementation and differential regression of LVMI or reduction in systolic BP. However, our study suffered from a small sample size with low statistical power precluding a definitive conclusion on the therapeutic benefit of vitamin D in such patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Trial Number NCT01360476. Full trial protocol is available from corresponding author.

Finerenone in Black Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and CKD: A Post hoc Analysis of the Pooled FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD Trials.

Rationale & Objective: In FIDELITY, finerenone improved cardiorenal outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis explored the efficacy and safety of finerenone in Black patients. Study Design: Subanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Setting & Participants: Patients with T2D and CKD. Intervention: Finerenone or placebo. Outcomes: Composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; composite of kidney failure, sustained ≥57% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline from baseline maintained for ≥4 weeks, or renal death. Results: Of the 13,026 patients, 522 (4.0%) self-identified as Black. Finerenone demonstrated similar effects on the cardiovascular composite outcome in Black (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.51-1.24]) and non-Black patients (HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79-0.96; P = 0.5 for interaction]). Kidney composite outcomes were consistent in Black (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.43-1.16]) and non-Black patients (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P = 0.9 for interaction]). Finerenone reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio by 40% at month 4 (least-squares mean treatment ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.52-0.69; P < 0.001]) in Black patients and 32% at month 4 (least-squares mean treatment ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.66-0.70; P < 0.001]) in non-Black patients, versus placebo. Chronic eGFR decline (month 4 to end-of-study) was slowed in Black and non-Black patients treated with finerenone versus placebo (between-group difference, 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, 0.33-2.44; P = 0.01] and 1.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, 0.89-1.28; P < 0.001], respectively). Safety outcomes were similar between subgroups. Limitations: Small number of Black patients; analysis was not originally powered to determine an interaction effect based on Black race. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of finerenone appears consistent in Black and non-Black patients with CKD and T2D. Funding: Bayer AG. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02540993, NCT02545049. Plain-Language Summary: Diabetes is a major cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), affecting more Black adults than White adults. Most adults with CKD ultimately die from heart and vascular complications (eg, heart attack and stroke) rather than kidney failure. This analysis of 2 recent trials shows that the drug finerenone was beneficial for patients with diabetes and CKD. Along with reducing kidney function decline and protein in the urine, it also decreased heart and vascular issues and lowered blood pressure in both Black and non-Black adults with diabetes and CKD. These findings have promising implications for slowing the progression of CKD and protecting against cardiovascular problems in diverse populations.

Subclinical hypertensive heart disease in black patients with elevated blood pressure in an inner-city emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine the point prevalence of subclinical hypertensive heart disease in a cohort of urban emergency department (ED) patients with elevated blood pressure. METHODS: A convenience sample of hypertensive (blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mm Hg on 2 measurements) patients aged 35 years or older with no history of cardiac or renal disease who presented to a single urban ED and were asymptomatic from a cardiovascular perspective (ie, no symptoms of dyspnea or chest pain) were enrolled. All patients underwent a standardized evaluation (including echocardiography), and subclinical hypertensive heart disease was defined by the presence of one or more of the following criterion-based echocardiographic [corrected] findings: left-ventricular hypertrophy, systolic dysfunction, or diastolic dysfunction. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were included. Mean age was 49.8 years (SD 8.3 years), 93.8% were black, and 51.6% were men. Nearly all (93.8%) had a history of hypertension, and many (68.3%) were receiving antihypertensive therapy at baseline. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 183.9 mm Hg (SD 25.1 mm Hg) and 109.5 mm Hg (SD 14.4 mm Hg), respectively. Subclinical hypertensive heart disease was found in 146 patients (90.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 85.2% to 94.3%), with most (n=131) displaying evidence of diastolic dysfunction (89.7%; 95% CI 83.7% to 93.7%). Left-ventricular hypertrophy was also common (n=89; 61.0%; 95% CI 52.9% to 68.5%) and was often (but not exclusively) present in those with diastolic filling abnormalities (n=75; 57.3%; 95% CI 48.7% to 65.4%). CONCLUSION: In our largely black cohort of ED patients with elevated blood pressure, subclinical hypertensive heart disease was highly prevalent, suggesting the need for coordinated efforts to reduce cardiac consequences of hypertension in such inner-city communities.