Showing papers by "Sverre E. Kjeldsen published in 2014"

2013 ESH/ESC Practice guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension

Abstract: ABPMambulatory blood pressure monitoringACEangiotensin converting enzymeARBangiotensin receptor blockerA-Vatrio-ventricularBBbeta-blockerBPblood pressureCHDcoronary heart diseaseCKDchronic kidney d...

Adjusted Drug Treatment Is Superior to Renal Sympathetic Denervation in Patients With True Treatment-Resistant Hypertension

Abstract: We aimed to investigate for the first time the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) versus clinically adjusted drug treatment in true treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) after excluding patients with confounding poor drug adherence. Patients with apparent TRH (n=65) were referred for RDN, and those with secondary and spurious hypertension (n=26) were excluded. TRH was defined as office systolic BP (SBP) >140 mm Hg, despite maximally tolerated doses of ≥3 antihypertensive drugs including a diuretic. In addition, ambulatory daytime SBP >135 mm Hg after witnessed intake of antihypertensive drugs was required, after which 20 patients had normalized BP and were excluded. Patients with true TRH were randomized and underwent RDN (n=9) performed with Symplicity Catheter System versus clinically adjusted drug treatment (n=10). The study was stopped early for ethical reasons because RDN had uncertain BP-lowering effect. Office SBP and diastolic BP in the drug-adjusted group changed from 160±14/88±13 mm Hg (±SD) at baseline to 132±10/77±8 mm Hg at 6 months (P<0.0005 and P=0.02, SBP and diastolic BP, respectively) and in the RDN group from 156±13/91±15 to 148±7/89±8 mm Hg (P=0.42 and P=0.48, SBP and diastolic BP, respectively). SBP and diastolic BP were significantly lower in the drug-adjusted group at 6 months (P=0.002 and P=0.004, respectively), and absolute changes in SBP were larger in the drug-adjusted group (P=0.008). Ambulatory BPs changed in parallel to office BPs. Our data suggest that adjusted drug treatment has superior BP lowering effects compared with RDN in patients with true TRH. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01673516.

Blood pressure changes after renal denervation at 10 European expert centers

Abstract: We did a subject-level meta-analysis of the changes (Δ) in blood pressure (BP) observed 3 and 6 months after renal denervation (RDN) at 10 European centers. Recruited patients (n=109; 46.8% women; mean age 58.2 years) had essential hypertension confirmed by ambulatory BP. From baseline to 6 months, treatment score declined slightly from 4.7 to 4.4 drugs per day. Systolic/diastolic BP fell by 17.6/7.1 mm Hg for office BP, and by 5.9/3.5, 6.2/3.4, and 4.4/2.5 mm Hg for 24-h, daytime and nighttime BP (P0.03 for all). In 47 patients with 3- and 6-month ambulatory measurements, systolic BP did not change between these two time points (P0.08). Normalization was a systolic BP of <140 mm Hg on office measurement or <130 mm Hg on 24-h monitoring and improvement was a fall of 10 mm Hg, irrespective of measurement technique. For office BP, at 6 months, normalization, improvement or no decrease occurred in 22.9, 59.6 and 22.9% of patients, respectively; for 24-h BP, these proportions were 14.7, 31.2 and 34.9%, respectively. Higher baseline BP predicted greater BP fall at follow-up; higher baseline serum creatinine was associated with lower probability of improvement of 24-h BP (odds ratio for 20-μmol l(-1) increase, 0.60; P=0.05) and higher probability of experiencing no BP decrease (OR, 1.66; P=0.01). In conclusion, BP responses to RDN include regression-to-the-mean and remain to be consolidated in randomized trials based on ambulatory BP monitoring. For now, RDN should remain the last resort in patients in whom all other ways to control BP failed, and it must be cautiously used in patients with renal impairment.

Updated national and international hypertension guidelines: a review of current recommendations.

Abstract: Despite the availability of effective pharmacological treatments to aid the control of blood pressure, the global rate of uncontrolled blood pressure remains high. As such, further measures are required to improve blood pressure control. Recently, several national and international guidelines for the management of hypertension have been published. These aim to provide easily accessible information for healthcare professionals and patients to aid the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. In this review, we have compared new and current guidelines from the American and International Societies of Hypertension; the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention; the panel appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee; the European Societies of Hypertension and Cardiology; the French Society of Hypertension; the Canadian Hypertension Education Program; the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK); the Taiwan Society of Cardiology and the Chinese Hypertension League. We have identified consensus opinion regarding best practises for the management of hypertension and have highlighted any discrepancies between the recommendations. In general there is good agreement between the guidelines, however, in some areas, such as target blood pressure ranges for the elderly, further trials are required to provide sufficient high-quality evidence to form the basis of recommendations.

[Re: Renal sympathetic denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension].

Abstract: Background Renal denervation (RDN) has been introduced as a potential new treatment for patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, defined as a blood pressure above 140/90 mm Hg despite treatment with at least three antihypertensive drugs. We present an overview of this type of treatment, describe the method and discuss its possible future uses. Method The review is based on a discretionary selection of relevant articles from our archive, our own experience and a literature search in PubMed. Results The use of RDN for treatment-resistant hypertension is based on a single randomised study with a total of 104 patients, in which the intervention group experienced a fall in blood pressure of 32/12 mm Hg, while blood pressure in the control group remained unchanged. More than 16,000 patients, particularly in Germany, have been treated on this basis. In the USA, data from a larger randomised study (n = 530) that includes sham surgery are awaited before any decision is made on whether to approve the method for use. Interpretation Before RDN can become recommended treatment in Norway, more evidence is required that the method lowers blood pressure, and that this reduces morbidity and mortality.

Eligibility for Renal Denervation Experience at 11 European Expert Centers

Abstract: Based on the SYMPLICITY studies and CE (Conformite Europeenne) certification, renal denervation is currently applied as a novel treatment of resistant hypertension in Europe. However, information on the proportion of patients with resistant hypertension qualifying for renal denervation after a thorough work-up and treatment adjustment remains scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation and the reasons for noneligibility at 11 expert centers participating in the European Network COordinating Research on renal Denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension (ENCOReD). The analysis included 731 patients. Age averaged 61.6 years, office blood pressure at screening was 177/96 mm Hg, and the number of blood pressure-lowering drugs taken was 4.1. Specialists referred 75.6% of patients. The proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation according to the SYMPLICITY HTN-2 criteria and each center's criteria was 42.5% (95% confidence interval, 38.0%-47.0%) and 39.7% (36.2%-43.2%), respectively. The main reasons of noneligibility were normalization of blood pressure after treatment adjustment (46.9%), unsuitable renal arterial anatomy (17.0%), and previously undetected secondary causes of hypertension (11.1%). In conclusion, after careful screening and treatment adjustment at hypertension expert centers, only ≈40% of patients referred for renal denervation, mostly by specialists, were eligible for the procedure. The most frequent cause of ineligibility (approximately half of cases) was blood pressure normalization after treatment adjustment by a hypertension specialist. Our findings highlight that hypertension centers with a record in clinical experience and research should remain the gatekeepers before renal denervation is considered.

Hyperresponders vs. nonresponder patients after renal denervation: do they differ?

Abstract: Background:Blood pressure (BP) response after renal denervation (RDN) is highly variable. Besides baseline BP, no reliable predictors of response have been consistently identified. The differences between patients showing a major BP decrease after RDN vs. nonresponders have not been studied so far.A

Renal Denervation after Symplicity HTN-3: An Update

Abstract: After three years of excessive confidence, overoptimistic expectations and performance of 15 to 20,000 renal denervation procedures in Europe, the failure of a single well-designed US trial—Symplicity HTN-3—to meet its primary efficacy endpoint has cast doubt on renal denervation as a whole. The use of a sound methodology, including randomisation and blinded endpoint assessment was enough to see the typical 25–30 mmHg systolic blood pressure decrease observed after renal denervation melt down to less than 3 mmHg, the rest being likely explained by Hawthorne and placebo effects, attenuation of white coat effect, regression to the mean and other physician and patient-related biases. The modest blood pressure benefit directly assignable to renal denervation should be balanced with unresolved safety issues, such as potentially increased risk of renal artery stenosis after the procedure (more than ten cases reported up to now, most of them in 2014), unclear long-term impact on renal function and lack of morbidity–mortality data. Accordingly, there is no doubt that renal denervation is not ready for clinical use. Still, renal denervation is supported by a strong rationale and is occasionally followed by major blood pressure responses in at-risk patients who may otherwise have remained uncontrolled. Upcoming research programmes should focus on identification of those few patients with truly resistant hypertension who may derive a substantial benefit from the technique, within the context of well-designed randomised trials and independent registries. While electrical stimulation of baroreceptors and other interventional treatments of hypertension are already “knocking at the door”, the premature and uncontrolled dissemination of renal denervation should remain an example of what should not be done, and trigger radical changes in evaluation processes of new devices by national and European health authorities.

Clinical Implications of the 2013 ESH/ESC Hypertension Guidelines: Targets, Choice of Therapy, and Blood Pressure Monitoring

Abstract: The European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2013 guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension included simplified blood pressure (BP) targets across patient groups, more balanced discussion on monotherapy vs. combination therapy, as well as reconfirmation of the importance of out-of-office BP measurements. In light of these updates, we wished to review some issues raised and take a fresh look at the role of calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy; an established antihypertensive class that appears to be a favorable choice in many patients. Relaxed BP targets for high-risk hypertensive patients in the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines were driven by a lack of commanding evidence for an aggressive approach. However, substantial evidence demonstrates cardiovascular benefits from more intensive BP lowering across patient groups. Individualized treatment of high-risk patients may be prudent until more solid evidence is available. Individual patient profiles and preferences and evidence for preferential therapy benefits should be considered when deciding upon the optimal antihypertensive regimen. CCBs appear to be a positive choice for monotherapy, and in combination with other agent classes, and may provide specific benefits beyond BP lowering. Ambulatory and home BP monitoring have an increasing role in defining the diagnosis and prognosis of hypertension (especially non-sustained); however, their value for comprehensive diagnosis and appropriate treatment selection should be more widely acknowledged. In conclusion, further evidence may be required on BP targets in high-risk patients, and optimal treatment selection based upon individual patient profiles and comprehensive diagnosis using out-of-office BP measurements may improve patient management.

Heart Rate as a Predictor of Stroke in High-risk, Hypertensive Patients with Previous Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack

Abstract: Background Risk factors for first stroke are well established, but less is known about risk factors for recurrent stroke. In the present analysis, we aimed to assess the effect of heart rate and other possible predictors of stroke in a hypertensive population with previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Methods The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial was a multicentre, double-masked, randomized controlled, parallel group trial comparing the effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker (valsartan) and a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) in patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk. We used Cox proportional hazard models to investigate the effect of baseline variables on the risk of stroke. Quadratic terms of the continuous variables were entered in the models to test for linearity. Results Of 15,245 patients included in the trial, 3014 had a previous stroke or TIA at baseline and were included in the present analysis. Stroke recurrence occurred in 239 patients (7.9%) during a median of 4.5 years of follow-up. Resting heart rate (per 10 beats per minute; hazard ratio [HR], 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-6.58) and diabetes mellitus at baseline (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.03-2.10) were significantly associated with an increased risk of stroke recurrence in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions In high-risk, hypertensive patients with previous stroke or TIA, resting heart rate was the strongest predictor of recurrent stroke.

Diabetes and CVD risk during angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker treatment in hypertension: a study of 15,990 patients.

Abstract: Differences in clinical effectiveness between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the primary treatment of hypertension are unknown. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the prevention of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients treated with ARBs or ACEis. Patients initiated on enalapril or candesartan treatment in 71 Swedish primary care centers between 1999 and 2007 were included. Medical records data were extracted and linked with nationwide hospital discharge and cause of death registers. The 11 725 patients initiated on enalapril and 4265 on candesartan had similar baseline characteristics. During a mean follow-up of 1.84 years, 36 482 patient-years, the risk of new diabetes onset was lower in the candesartan group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69–0.96, P=0.01) compared with the enalapril group. No difference between the groups was observed in CVD risk (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87–1.13, P=0.86). More patients discontinued treatment in the enalapril group (38.1%) vs the candesartan group (27.2%). In a clinical setting, patients initiated on candesartan treatment had a lower risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes and lower rates of drug discontinuation compared with patients initiated on enalapril. No differences in CVD risk were observed.

Nifedipine plus candesartan combination increases blood pressure control regardless of race and improves the side effect profile: DISTINCT randomized trial results

Abstract: Objectives:DISTINCT (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS – Candesartan Therapy) aimed to determine the dose–response and tolerability of nifedipine GITS and/or candesartan cilexetil therapy in participants with hypertension.Methods:In this 8-week, multinational, m

Persistence of left ventricular hypertrophy is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with lower achieved systolic pressure during antihypertensive treatment.

Abstract: Aim. To determine if persistence of electrocardiographic (ECG) left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) during aggressive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering would identify patients at increased risk. Methods and results. Adjudicated outcomes were examined in relation to the presence of LVH by mean in-treatment Cornell product (CP) in 463 hypertensive patients with mean in-treatment SBP ≤ 130 mmHg randomly assigned to losartan- or atenolol-based treatment. During mean follow-up of 4.4 ± 1.3 years, persistence of mean CP > 2440 mm ms in 211 patients (45.6%) was associated with significantly higher 4-year rates of cardiovascular death (8.9% vs 3.4%, p = 0.003), myocardial infarction (7.0% vs 3.3%, p = 0.010), stroke (8.5% vs 2.1%, p = 0.002), the composite endpoint of these events (20.0% vs 7.0%, p < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (14.9% vs 10.0%, p = 0.015). In multivariate Cox analyses, adjusting for a propensity score for CP LVH, randomized treatment and Framingham risk score entered as standard cov...

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with resistant hypertension and improving patients' adherence.

Abstract: N onadherence to drug therapy is a major problem in the treatment of patients with apparent treatmentresistant hypertension (TRH). Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a useful tool for detecting and reducing nonadherence leading to effective blood pressure (BP) control. In this issue of Journal of Hypertension, Chung et al. [1] have assessed cost-effectiveness of TDM by using a Markov model to evaluate life-years, quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in TRH patients receiving either TDM-optimized therapy or standard best medical therapy. Efficacy of TDM was modeled by reducing risk of hypertension-related morbidity and mortality. Cost analyses were performed from a payer’s perspective. In the age group of 60-yearolds, TDM gained 1.07 QALYs in men and 0.97 QALYs in women at additional costs of s3854 and s3922, respectively. Given a willingness-to-pay threshold of s35 000 per QALY gained, the probability of TDM being cost-effective was at least 95% in all age groups from 30 to 90 years. Results were influenced mostly by the frequency of TDM testing, the rate of nonresponders to TDM and the magnitude of effect of TDM on BP. Thus, Chung et al. [1] found that TDM presents a cost-effective healthcare intervention in patients diagnosed with TRH and this finding is valid for a wide range of patients, independent of sex and age. It has been known for decades that poor drug adherence is a major problem among patients with apparent TRH [2,3] and it was pointed out as the number one problem in an algorithm for the management of apparent TRH [2]. Before hypertension can be considered resistant to a rational tripledrug regimen in maximal doses, the physician should rule out poor adherence to the treatment regimen (including dietary and other nonpharmacological advice), adverse drug interactions, pseudotolerance (due to fluid retention),

Renal sympathetic denervation in the aftermath of Symplicity HTN-3.

Abstract: The Lancet has been instrumental in publishing studies on renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) in hypertension and, accordingly, has strongly contributed to the promotion of this technology to be ap...

Renal denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension - Oslo RDN, Symplicity HTN-3 and INSPiRED randomized trials.

Abstract: More than 10% of patients treated for hypertension have persistently uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) despite prescription of antihypertensive drugs (1). Renal sympathetic denervation is an old con...

Renal Denervation After Symplicity HTN-3 - Back to Basics. Review of the Evidence.

Abstract: Renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) has been proposed as a new treatment modality in patients with apparent treatment resistant hypertension, a condition defined as office blood pressure elevation despite prescription of at least three antihypertensive drugs including a diuretic. However, the impressive fall in blood pressure reported after RDN in Symplicity HTN-2, the first randomised study, and multiple observational studies has not been confirmed in the US sham-controlled trial Symplicity HTN-3 and four subsequent prospective randomised studies, all published or presented in 2014. The blood pressure reduction documented in earlier studies may be largely due to non-specific effects such as improvement of drug adherence in initially poorly adherent patients (Hawthorne effect), placebo effect and regression to the mean. The overall blood pressure lowering effect of RDN seems rather limited and the characteristics of true responders remain largely unknown. Accordingly, RDN is not ready for clinical practice. In most patients with apparent drug-resistant hypertension, drug monitoring and subsequent improvement of drug adherence may prove more effective and cost-beneficial to achieve blood pressure control. In the meantime, research should aim at identifying characteristics of those few patients adherent to drug treatment and with true resistant hypertension who may respond to RDN.

Hypertension management by practice guidelines.

Abstract: Since first published in 2003, European and other guidelines on hypertension management have ranked among the most cited papers in the medical literature (see 1). Although progress has been made ov...

Original article Telmisartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg for the management of patients with hypertension

Abstract: Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of telmisartan 40 mg (T40) or 80 mg (T80) plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (H12.5) single-pill combinations (SPCs) with telmisartan monotherapies, in a pooled analysis of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Methods: Six phase 3, double-blind studies of 8 weeks’ duration that assessed the T/H12.5 SPC and T40 or T80 monotherapy, were included in the analysis. Data was pooled separately for the two T40 non-responder studies (T40 NR group, two T80 non-responder studies (T80 NR group), and the two factorial design dose– response studies (FD-DR group). Results: After 8 weeks’ treatment, the adjusted mean reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and the SBP, DBP, and blood pressure (BP) goal rates were significantly higher with the T40/H12.5 SPC than T40 in the T40 NR group and with the T80/H12.5 SPC than T80 in the T80 NR group. In the FD-DR group, the adjusted mean reduction in SBP and DBP, and DBP goal rates were significantly higher for T40/H12.5 versus T40. The percentage of patients with an adverse event was numerically higher with T40/H12.5 versus T40 in the T40 NR group, and was similar in telmisartan monotherapies and the T/H12.5 SPCs in the T80 NR group and FD-DR group. A limitation of this study is the retrospective and pooled nature of the analysis. Also,475% of patients were565 years of age, which limits the applicability of the results to older patients. Conclusions: In patients with mild to moderate hypertension, 8 weeks’ treatment with the T/H12.5 SPC is significantly more efficacious than telmisartan monotherapies. The safety and tolerability of the T/H12.5 SPC are comparable to that of telmisartan monotherapy and consistent with that reported in previous studies.

Telmisartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for the management of patients with hypertension

Abstract: Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of telmisartan 40 mg (T40) or 80 mg (T80) plus hydrochlorothiazide 125 mg (H125) single-pill combinations (SPCs) with telmisartan monotherapies, in a pooled analysis of patients with mild to moderate hypertensionMethods:Six phase 3, double-blind studies of 8 weeks’ duration that assessed the T/H125 SPC and T40 or T80 monotherapy, were included in the analysis Data was pooled separately for the two T40 non-responder studies (T40 NR group, two T80 non-responder studies (T80 NR group), and the two factorial design dose–response studies (FD-DR group)Results:After 8 weeks’ treatment, the adjusted mean reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and the SBP, DBP, and blood pressure (BP) goal rates were significantly higher with the T40/H125 SPC than T40 in the T40 NR group and with the T80/H125 SPC than T80 in the T80 NR group In the FD-DR group, the adjusted mean reduction in SBP and DBP, and DBP goal rates were si