Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of oral nicardipine in treatment of urgent hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Pharmacologic Treatment of Hypertensive Urgency in the Outpatient Setting: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive urgency (HU), defined as acute severe uncontrolled hypertension without end-organ damage, is a common condition. Despite its association with long-term morbidity and mortality, guidance regarding immediate management is sparse. Our objective was to summarize the evidence examining the effects of antihypertensive medications to treat.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase through May 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

We evaluated prospective controlled clinical trials, case-control studies, and cohort studies of HU in emergency room (ER) or clinic settings. We initially identified 11,223 published articles. We reviewed 10,748 titles and abstracts and identified 538 eligible articles. We assessed the full text for eligibility and included 31 articles written in English that were clinical trials or cohort studies and provided blood pressure data within 48 h of treatment. Studies were appraised for risk of bias using components recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The main outcome measured was blood pressure change with antihypertensive medications. Since studies were too diverse both clinically and methodologically to combine in a meta-analysis, tabular data and a narrative synthesis of studies are presented.

RESULTS

We identified only 20 double-blind randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies, with 262 participants in prospective controlled trials. However, we could not pool the results of studies. In addition, comorbidities and their potential contribution to long-term treatment of these subjects were not adequately addressed in any of the reviewed studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Longitudinal studies are still needed to determine how best to lower blood pressure in patients with HU. Longer-term management of individuals who have experienced HU continues to be an area requiring further study, especially as applicable to care from the generalist.

Systematic review of outcome measures in trials of pediatric anaphylaxis treatment

BACKGROUND

Considerable heterogeneity has been observed in the selection and reporting of disease-specific pediatric outcome measures in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This makes interpretation of results and comparison across trials challenging. Outcome measures in pediatric anaphylaxis trials have never previously been systematically assessed. This systematic review (SR) identified and assessed outcome measures used in RCTs of anaphylaxis treatment in children. As a secondary objective, this SR assessed the evidence for current treatment modalities for anaphylaxis in the pediatric population.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL from 2001 until December 2012. We also searched websites listing ongoing trials. We included randomized and controlled trials of anaphylaxis treatment in patients 0-18 years of age. Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion.

RESULTS

No published studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an alarming absence of RCTs evaluating the treatments for anaphylaxis in children. High quality studies are needed and are possible to design, despite the severe and acute nature of this condition. Consensus about the selection and validation of appropriate outcome measures will enhance the quality of research and improve the care of children with anaphylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42012002685.

Oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies: systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Hypertensive urgencies are defined as severe elevations in blood pressure without evidence of acute or progressive target-organ damage. The need for treatment is considered urgent but allows for slow control using oral or sublingual drugs. If the increase in blood pressure is not associated with risk to life or acute target-organ damage, blood pressure control must be implemented slowly over 24 hours. For hypertensive urgencies, it is not known which class of antihypertensive drug provides the best results and there is controversy regarding when to use antihypertensive drugs and which ones to use in these situations. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies.

METHODS

This systematic review of the literature was developed at the Brazilian Cochrane Center, and in the Discipline of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo - Escola Paulista de Medicina (Unifesp-EPM), in accordance with the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized clinical trials including 769 participants were selected. They showed that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors had a superior effect in treating hypertensive urgencies, evaluated among 223 participants. The commonest adverse event for calcium channel blockers were headache (35/206), flushing (17/172) and palpitations (14/189). For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, the principal side effect was bad taste (25/38).

CONCLUSIONS

There is important evidence in favor of the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for treating hypertensive urgencies, compared with calcium channel blockers, considering the better effectiveness and the lower frequency of adverse effects (like headache and flushing).

H1-antihistamines for the treatment of anaphylaxis: Cochrane systematic review

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic allergic reaction, which can be life-threatening. H(1)-antihistamines are commonly used as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of anaphylaxis. We sought to assess the benefits and harm of H(1)-antihistamines in the treatment of anaphylaxis.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2006); EMBASE (1966 to June 2006); CINAHL (1982 to June 2006) and ISI Web of Science (1945 to July 2006). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material. Randomized and quasi-randomized-controlled trials comparing H(1)-antihistamines with placebo or no intervention were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion.

RESULTS

We found no studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this review, we are unable to make any recommendations for clinical practice. Randomized-controlled trials are needed, although these are likely to prove challenging to design and execute.

H1-antihistamines for the treatment of anaphylaxis with and without shock

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic allergic reaction, which can be life-threatening. H1-antihistamines are commonly used as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harm of H1-antihistamines in the treatment of anaphylaxis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2006);EMBASE (1966 to June 2006); CINAHL (1982 to June 2006) and ISI Web of Science (1945 to July 2006). We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing H1-antihistamines with placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on this review, we are unable to make any recommendations for clinical practice. Randomized controlled trials are needed, although these are likely to prove challenging to design and execute.

Characteristics and management of patients presenting to the emergency department with hypertensive urgency

Few studies have examined the characteristics of patients presenting with hypertensive urgency, factors contributing to their presentation, or their management. The time and cost associated with treatment are unknown. Retrospective analysis of 50 emergency department patients with hypertensive urgency (symptomatic blood pressure (BP) elevation focusing on systolic BP >180 mm Hg or diastolic BP >110 mm Hg) was performed. The hospital database was queried to determine the cost of the average treat-and-release visit. The mean age was 54.3+/-15.6 years; 64% were female; 46% were black; 90% had diagnosed hypertension. The mean presenting BP was 198+/-27.6/109+/-17.3 mm Hg; 66% had systolic BP >180 mm Hg, and 38% had diastolic BP >110 mm Hg. Initially, 30% were not on antihypertensives, and 28% were on monotherapy. Headache (42%) and dizziness (30%) were most frequently reported symptoms. Presentation was most often attributed to running out of medication (16%). IV and oral labetalol were given to 28% and 24% of patients, respectively. Fifty-six percent of patients had no change in baseline therapy at discharge. The average emergency department stay was 5 hours 17 minutes +/- 4 hours 27 minutes. The average cost for similar visits in 2004 was 1543 dollars per visit. Emergency department visits for hypertensive urgency are related mostly to noncompliance. Labetalol was the most frequently used therapy. Management in the primary care office could result in substantial cost savings.

Management of patients with hypertensive urgencies and emergencies: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive urgencies and emergencies are common clinical occurrences in hypertensive patients. Treatment practices vary considerably to because of the lack of evidence supporting the use of one therapeutic agent over another. This paper was designed to review the evidence for various pharmacotherapeutic regimens in the management of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies, in terms of the agents' abilities to reach predetermined "safe" goal blood pressures (BPs), and to prevent adverse events.

METHODS

medline was searched from 1966 to 2001, and the reference lists of all the articles were retrieved and searched for relevant references, and experts in the field were contacted to identify other relevant studies. The Cochrane Library was also searched. Studies that were eligible for inclusion in this review were systematic reviews of randomized control trials (RCTs) and individual RCTs, all-or-none studies, systematic reviews of cohort studies and individual cohort studies, and outcomes research. No language restrictions were used.

RESULTS

None of the trials included in this review identified an optimal rate of BP lowering in hypertensive emergencies and urgencies. The definitions of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies were not consistent, but emergencies always involved target end-organ damage, and urgencies were without such damage. Measures of outcome were not uniform between studies. The 4 hypertensive emergency and 15 hypertensive urgency studies represented 236 and 1,074 patients, respectively. The evidence indicated a nonsignificant trend toward increased efficacy with urapidil compared to nitroprusside for hypertensive emergencies (number needed to treat [NNT] for urapidil to achieve target BP, 12; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], number of patients needed to harm [NNH], 5 to NNT, 40 compared to nitroprusside). Several medications were efficacious in treating hypertensive urgencies, including: nicardipine (NNT for nicardipine compared to plabebo, 2 in one study [95% CI, 1 to 5] and 1 in another [95% CI, 1 to 1]); lacidipine (NNT, 2; 95% CI, 1 to 8 for lacidipine vs nifedipine) or urapidil (NNT for urapidil compared to enalaprilat and nifedipine, 4; 95% CI, 3 to 6); and nitroprusside and fenoldopam (all patients reached target BP in 2 studies). The studies reported 2 cases of cerebral ischemia secondary to nifedipine.

CONCLUSIONS

Many effective agents exist for the treatment of hypertensive crises. Because of the lack of large randomized controlled trials, many questions remain unanswered, such as follow-up times and whether any of the studied agents have mortality benefit.

Comprehensive management of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies

Despite advances in chronic hypertension management, hypertensive emergencies and urgencies remain as serious complications. Much of this relates to poor compliance with effective antihypertensive management. Hypertensive emergencies and urgencies can also be seen as the initial manifestations of hypertension in pregnancy and in the perioperative period. Multiple classes of intravenous antihypertensive drugs are available to treat hypertensive emergencies, and specific agents may have an advantage in a given clinical situation. Orally active agents are used to treat hypertensive urgencies, and include clonidine, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and labetalol. Most patients respond to drug therapy, but problems may arise related to a rapid normalization of blood pressure.