Effect of Drug Monitoring on Adherence and Blood Pressure: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Drug concentration in blood or urine is an acknowledged method to detect non-adherence. Observational studies suggest that informing patients about low or absent serum drug levels improves blood pressure (BP). We performed a multicenter randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) could improve drug adherence and BP in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and reduced adherence to antihypertensive drugs.

METHODS

Patients were ≥18 years on stable treatment with at least two antihypertensive agents. We planned to randomize 80 non-adherent patients with a systolic daytime ambulatory BP (ABPM) ≥135 mmHg to TDM-intervention or not. The control group and the study-personnel who measured BP remained uninformed about serum drug measurements throughout. All patients and physicians were blinded for BPs. Lifestyle advice and detailed information on disease process and importance of BP treatment were given to both groups.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2022, we randomized 46 diagnosed non-adherent from a total of 606 patients with uncontrolled hypertension. The TDM-group had a 6.7 (±14.5) mmHg reduction from 147.9 (±10.3) to 141.1 (±14.1) mmHg, and the control group experienced a 7.3 (±13.2) mmHg reduction from 147.1 (±9.2) to 139.1 (±17.4) mmHg, p=0.9 between groups. Adherence improved in both groups, 73% in the TDM group and 59% in the control group became adherent at three months, p=0.51.

CONCLUSIONS

In our prospective multicenter clinical trial of uncontrolled and non-adherent hypertensive patients, we found no additional effect of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) on blood pressure and drug adherence compared with standard care.

Rationale for the Inclusion of β-Blockers Among Major Antihypertensive Drugs in the 2023 European Society of Hypertension Guidelines

We address the reasons why, unlike other guidelines, in the 2023 guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension β-blockers (BBs) have been regarded as major drugs for the treatment of hypertension, at the same level as diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. We argue that BBs, (1) reduce blood pressure (the main factor responsible for treatment-related protection) not less than other drugs, (2) reduce pooled cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in placebo-controlled trials, in which there has also been a sizeable reduction of all major cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes, (3) have been associated with a lower global cardiovascular protection in 2 but not in several other comparison trials, in which the protective effect of BBs versus the other major drugs has been similar or even greater, with a slightly smaller or no difference of global benefit in large trial meta-analyses and a similar protective effect when comparisons extend to BBs in combination versus other drug combinations. We mention the large number of cardiac and other comorbidities for which BBs are elective drugs, and we express criticism against the exclusion of BBs because of their lower protective effect against stroke in comparison trials, because, for still uncertain reasons, differences in protection against cause-specific events (stroke, heart failure, and coronary disease) have been reported for other major drugs. These partial data cannot replace global benefits as the main deciding factor for drug choice, also because in the general hypertensive population whether and which type of event might occur is unknown.

Medical Measures in Hypertensives Considered Resistant

BACKGROUND

Patients with resistant hypertension are the group of hypertensive patients with the highest cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

All rules and guidelines for treatment of hypertension should be followed strictly to obtain blood pressure (BP) control in resistant hypertension. The mainstay of treatment of hypertension, also for resistant hypertension, is pharmacological treatment, which should be tailored to each patient's specific phenotype. Therefore, it is pivotal to assess nonadherence to pharmacological treatment as this remains the most challenging problem to investigate and manage in the setting of resistant hypertension.

RESULTS

Once adherence has been confirmed, patients must be thoroughly worked-up for secondary causes of hypertension. Until such possible specific causes have been clarified, the diagnosis is apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH). Surprisingly few patients remain with true TRH when the various secondary causes and adherence problems have been detected and resolved. Refractory hypertension is a term used to characterize the treatment resistance in hypertensive patients using ≥5 antihypertensive drugs. All pressor mechanisms may then need blockage before their BPs are reasonably controlled.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with resistant hypertension need careful and sustained follow-up and review of their medications and dosages at each term since medication adherence is a very dynamic process.

Rationale of treatment recommendations in the 2023 ESH hypertension guidelines

No abstract available.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence

BACKGROUND

More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension.

METHODS

HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

RESULTS

For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

2023 ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension: Endorsed by the International Society of Hypertension (ISH) and the European Renal Association (ERA)

DOCUMENT REVIEWERS

Luis Alcocer (Mexico), Christina Antza (Greece), Mustafa Arici (Turkey), Eduardo Barbosa (Brazil), Adel Berbari (Lebanon), Luís Bronze (Portugal), John Chalmers (Australia), Tine De Backer (Belgium), Alejandro de la Sierra (Spain), Kyriakos Dimitriadis (Greece), Dorota Drozdz (Poland), Béatrice Duly-Bouhanick (France), Brent M. Egan (USA), Serap Erdine (Turkey), Claudio Ferri (Italy), Slavomira Filipova (Slovak Republic), Anthony Heagerty (UK), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Dagmara Hering (Poland), Sang Hyun Ihm (South Korea), Uday Jadhav (India), Manolis Kallistratos (Greece), Kazuomi Kario (Japan), Vasilios Kotsis (Greece), Adi Leiba (Israel), Patricio López-Jaramillo (Colombia), Hans-Peter Marti (Norway), Terry McCormack (UK), Paolo Mulatero (Italy), Dike B. Ojji (Nigeria), Sungha Park (South Korea), Priit Pauklin (Estonia), Sabine Perl (Austria), Arman Postadzhian (Bulgaria), Aleksander Prejbisz (Poland), Venkata Ram (India), Ramiro Sanchez (Argentina), Markus Schlaich (Australia), Alta Schutte (Australia), Cristina Sierra (Spain), Sekib Sokolovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Jonas Spaak (Sweden), Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios (Greece), Bruno Trimarco (Italy), Thomas Unger (The Netherlands), Bert-Jan van den Born (The Netherlands), Anna Vachulova (Slovak Republic), Agostino Virdis (Italy), Jiguang Wang (China), Ulrich Wenzel (Germany), Paul Whelton (USA), Jiri Widimsky (Czech Republic), Jacek Wolf (Poland), Grégoire Wuerzner (Switzerland), Eugene Yang (USA), Yuqing Zhang (China).

Effect of antihypertensive treatment in isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) - systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in middle-aged and elderly is associated with high cardiovascular risk, but no randomised controlled trial has assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in ISH using today's definition, i.e. systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. Studies with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing more intensive versus less intensive BP targets, or active drug versus placebo, were included if the mean baseline SBP was ≥140 mmHg and the mean baseline DBP was <90 mmHg. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative risks from each trial were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline and attained SBP level.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials, including 113,105 participants (mean age 67 years; mean blood pressure 149/83 mmHg) were included in the analysis. Overall, treatment reduced the risk of MACE by 9% (relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.93). Treatment was more effective if baseline SBP was ≥160 mmHg (RR 0.77, 95% CIs 0.70-0.86) compared to 140-159 mmHg (RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.95; p = 0.002 for interaction), but provided equal additional benefit across all attained SBP levels (RR 0.80, 95% CIs 0.70-0.92 for <130 mmHg, RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.96 for 130-139 mmHg, and RR 0.87, 95% CIs 0.82-0.93 for ≥140 mmHg; p = 0.070 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension, regardless of baseline SBP, to target SBP <140 mmHg and even <130 mmHg if well tolerated.

Late outcomes of renal denervation are more favourable than early ones: facts or fancies?

Following second-generation randomized trials, there is evidence that renal denervation (RDN) decreases blood pressure (BP), although to a lesser extent than suggested in the initial controlled and observational studies. The recent publication of the 36-month follow-up of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial has raised expectations, suggesting increasing, late benefits of the procedure, despite initially negative results. These findings come after those obtained at 36 months in the sham-controlled trial SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and in the Global Symplicity Registry. However, they are susceptible to biases inherent in observational studies (after unblinding for sham-control) and non-random, substantial attrition of treatment groups at 36 months, and used interpolation of missing BPs. More importantly, in SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and Symplicity HTN-3, long-term BP changes in patients from the initial RDN group were compared with those in a heterogeneous control group, including both control patients who did not benefit from RDN and patients who eventually crossed over to RDN. In crossover patients, the last BP before RDN was imputed to subsequent follow-up. In Symplicity HTN-3, this particular approach led to the claim of increasing long-term benefits of RDN. However, comparison of BP changes in patients from the RDN group and control patients who did not undergo RDN, without imputation of BPs from crossover patients, does not support this view. The good news is that despite the suggestion of sympathetic nerve regrowth after RDN in some animal models, there is no strong signal in favour of a decreasing effect of RDN over time, up to 24 or even 36 months. Still, current data do not support a long-term increase in the effect of RDN and the durability of RDN-related BP reduction remains to be formally demonstrated.

How to optimize the use of diuretics in patients with heart failure?

Considering the pathophysiology and clinical presentation of heart failure, using diuretics or drugs with diuretic properties is indispensable for adequate management of heart failure patients. However, in clinical practice, fluid expansion is often undiagnosed, and diuretic therapy is not always adequately titrated. Today, several drug classes with diuretic properties are available in addition to classical thiazides, thiazide-like, and loop diuretics. The purpose of this short review is to discuss different ways to optimize diuretic therapy using currently available drugs. Several approaches are considered, including a combination of diuretics to obtain a sequential nephron blockade, use of a drug combining a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and an inhibitor of the metabolism of natriuretic peptides (ARNI), prescription of potassium binders to maintain and up-titrate RAS blockers and mineralocorticoid antagonists, and finally use of inhibitors of renal reabsorption of glucose through the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 system. Optimal use of these various drug classes should improve the quality of life and reduce the need for hospital admissions and mortality in heart failure patients.

Sex Differences in Atrial Fibrillation and Associated Complications in Hypertensive Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The LIFE Study

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on whether biological differences account for the higher risk of stroke seen in females compared to males with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

Capitalizing on The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial randomizing 9,193 patients and followed for at least four years, we aimed to identify sex differences in the risk of stroke in the presence of AF in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH).

RESULTS

342 Patients had a history of AF, and 669 developed new-onset AF. History of AF and new-onset AF were more prevalent among males (5.0% vs. 2.9% and 3.0% vs. 0.9%) in patients aged 55-63 years, but the relative difference decreased with age. Females with new-onset AF tended to have a higher risk of stroke than males (HR 1.52 [95% CI 0.95-2.43]). However, females with a history of AF did not have a higher risk than males (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.5-1.6]). In patients with new-onset AF, the relative higher stroke risk in females increased with age. Among patients with a history of AF, stroke risk was comparable and increased with age in both sexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with hypertension and LVH, females with new-onset AF had a higher risk of stroke than males, especially in patients above 64 years. However, the risk did not differ between the sexes among patients with a history of AF.

Middle-Aged and Older Patients With Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: Higher Mortality With Drug Treated Systolic Blood Pressure Below 130 mm Hg

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% of people with hypertension have left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) detected by ECG or echocardiography. Because patients with LVH have poor myocardial microcirculation, they may be too sensitive to lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) too much due to a lack of myocardial perfusion pressure. We aimed to investigate whether the average achieved SBP <130 mm Hg may cause harm in patients with LVH in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial (VALUE).

METHODS

Of the 15 245 VALUE participants, we identified 13 803 patients without cardiovascular events during the first 6 months after randomization. Of these, 2458 patients had electrocardiographic LVH (ECG-LVH). Cox analyses adjusted for age, gender, and baseline variables compared cardiac and all-cause mortality and other prespecified end points for patients who achieved average SBP 130 to 139 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=4863; ECG-LVH group n=929) and <130 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=2107; ECG-LVH group n=305). Reference groups were patients who achieved average SBP ≥140 mm Hg following the first excluded 6 months (No-LVH group n=4375; ECG-LVH group n=1224).

RESULTS

The No-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had a significantly lower incidence of several cardiovascular end points. The ECG-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had higher cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 1.98 [95% CIs, 1.06-3.70]; P=0.032) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CIs, 1.17-2.60]; P=0.007), and SBP <130 mm Hg was not associated with a reduction in any end point.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings may be seen as a signal that caution is warranted when treating middle-aged and older patients with electrocardiographic or echocardiographic LVH to SBP <130 mm Hg.