Safety and efficacy of candesartan versus valsartan combined with amlodipine on peripheral and central blood pressure

INTRODUCTION

"Amlodipine/valsartan" or "amlodipine/candesartan" combinations represent two effective antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, a study has yet to be done to evaluate the effect of amlodipine/candesartan on central blood pressure and compare it with amlodipine/valsartan combination. To see how "amlodipine plus candesartan combination" reduces peripheral and central blood pressure compared to the most studied combination, "amlodipine plus valsartan".

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty-six patients were randomized in an open-label, prospective study by 1:1 ratio to two groups. Group I (n=42) received the amlodipine and valsartan combination, and group II (n=44) received the amlodipine and candesartan combination. Peripheral and central blood pressure (CBP) was measured at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Both treatment groups reduced peripheral systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. There was no significant difference between and within both groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed more reduction in peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) after 12 weeks of treatment (p=<0.001). Both groups decreased CBP without significant differences between groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed additional efficacy in decreasing CSBP after 12 weeks (p=<0.001). The two treatment groups did not exert significant efficacy in lowering heart rate (HR) and augmentation index% (AIx%).

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the amlodipine 10mg/candesartan 16mg combination was non-inferior to the amlodipine 10mg/valsartan 160mg combination in terms of reducing peripheral and CBP over time.

The preparedness and knowledge of pharmacists and general practitioners in managing human monkeypox: a highly spreading infectious disease

BACKGROUND

After the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of pharmacists was emphasized in the battle against highly spreading and infectious diseases like human Monkeypox (hMPV).

AIM

Assess the hMPV knowledge of the community, clinical pharmacists, and general practitioners (GPs) and raise their awareness about hMPV.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire was distributed randomly to Egyptian community pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, and GPs from all governorates. The questionnaire was divided into two sections: one for demographic information and the other for hMPV knowledge (nature of the disease, incubation period, transmission, symptoms, Prophylaxis, Prevention, and management). The evidence-based answers were provided after completing the submission. Data were descriptively analyzed using IBM SPSS software.

RESULTS

From a total of 753 respondents, only 710 participants were included in the final data analysis. The % of respondents who presented good total knowledge scores about hMPV was comparable between study groups (P = 0.826). There were no differences between groups identifying different disease clinical characteristics (P = 0.689) and hMPV management (P = 0.324). Community pharmacists had better knowledge scores than GPs in the prevention and prophylaxis domain (P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists and GPs have good and similar knowledge levels of hMPV. However, a gap exists in recognizing the right hMPV incubation period, prophylaxis, and omitting antibiotics from hMPV management. Pharmacists and GPs are the frontline health care providers (HCPs), so they would require more knowledge enhancement about such contagious diseases to offer the best possible patient care.

The impact of mindfulness-based stress reduction on psychological health among patients with chronic diseases during COVID-19 outbreak lockdown

Background

The emergence of COVID-19 has spurred a wide range of psychological morbidities. However, its influence on a vulnerable population with chronic conditions is less addressed. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the psychological health among patients with chronic diseases during the elevated psychiatric distress associated with the outbreak and examine the efficacy and feasibility of mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention (MBSR). The study involved 149 participants recruited from university hospital outpatient clinics. Patients were allocated into two groups: MBSR training program and control group. Standardized questionnaires were administered to assess depression, anxiety and stress prior to the MBSR program and at completion of the training after 8 weeks.

Results

The results showed that MBSR intervention improved psychological distress and decreased the mean scores of depression, anxiety and stress.

Conclusions

Mindfulness training program based on audio and smartphone was feasible and effective when it was applied to patients with chronic diseases and showed positive impact on negative psychological stress domains. These findings pave the way for the integration of psychological support for patients with chronic illnesses in clinical settings.

Effect of Fixed-dose Combination Amlodipine/Valsartan in Comparison to Two Drug Combination Nebivolol/Valsartan on 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure

BACKGROUND

Nebivolol has a dual mechanism of action, exerting a moderate b- blockade effect and reducing peripheral arterial resistance, as a result, the antihypertensive effect of nebivolol may be higher than that of a potent vasodilator CCB such as amlodipine.

AIM

The study evaluated the effect of two nebivolol/valsartan on 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure versus amlodipine/valsartan in grade II or III hypertension patients or having uncontrolled BP despite treatment. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a powerful method to monitor the changes in blood pressure over the 24 hour.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 74 from 90 patients continued the study. Fourty patients received amlodipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (group I), and thirty-four patients received nebivolol 5 mg/ valsartan 160 mg (group II). Peripheral blood pressure readings were measured at randomization at 6 and 12 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure was measured at randomization and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Both drug combinations showed high efficacy in reducing peripheral and 24 hour ambulatory BP. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in lowering peripheral systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 weeks. Furthermore, both groups failed to show any significant difference in reducing 24 hour SBP and DBP. Regarding day SBP, the blood pressure dropped by -5.63 ± 14.87 in group I and -6.25 ± 11.59 in group II (p = 0.844). Also, group I reduced the day DBP average by -2.53 ± 9.83 and group II by -3.61 ± 9.78 (p = 0.640). In addition, both drug combinations had no statistically significant difference in lowering night SBP and DBP average.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment groups reached the target ambulatory blood pressure, and there was no statistically significant difference between both groups as a regard reduction in all ambulatory blood pressure readings.

The Impact of an SGLT2 Inhibitor versus Ursodeoxycholic Acid on Liver Steatosis in Diabetic Patients

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is related to metabolic syndrome via insulin resistance, where preventing disease progression is crucial in the management process. The study included 240 NAFLD patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomly allocated into empagliflozin 25 mg (EMPA group), ursodeoxycholic acid 250 mg (UDCA group), or the control group (placebo). The study outcomes included: changes in liver fat content (LFC; %) (utilizing the Dixon-based MRI-PDFF approach), liver enzymes, lipid and glycemic profiles, FIB-4 index, and non-alcoholic fatty liver score (NFS). All endpoints were assessed at baseline and after 6 months. EMPA outperformed UDCA and placebo in decreasing LFC (−8.73% vs. −5.71% vs. −1.99%; p < 0.0001). In post-treatment ultrasound images and MRI-PDFF calculations, more patients had normal fatty liver grade (no steatosis or LFC < 6.5%) with EMPA compared to UDCA. EMPA and UDCA showed significant regression in the FIB-4 index (−0.34 vs. −0.55; p = 0.011) and NFS scores (−1.00 vs. −1.11; p = 0.392), respectively. UDCA achieved higher reductions in insulin resistance than EMPA (p = 0.03); however, only EMPA significantly increased beta-cell function (54.20; p = 0.03). When exploring the differences between the two drugs, EMPA was better in decreasing LFC (%), while UDCA achieved higher reductions in liver fibrosis scores. Both showed a similar safety profile in managing liver steatosis.

Target Blood Pressure and Combination Therapy: Focus on Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Combination with Either Calcium Channel Blockers or Beta Blockers

BACKGROUND

The target blood pressure has changed many times in the guidelines in past years. However, there is always a question; is it good to lower blood pressure below 120/80 or not? Control of blood pressure in hypertension is very important in reducing hypertension-modified organ damage. So, the guidelines recommend combining more than one antihypertensive drug to reach the target blood pressure goal.

RESULTS

Combination therapy is recommended by guidelines to reach the blood pressure goal. The guidelines recommend many combinations, such as the combination of angiotensin receptor blockers with either calcium channel blockers (CCB) or beta-blocker (BB). Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination with CCB has gained superiority over other antihypertension drug combinations because it reduces blood pressure and decreases the incidence of CV events and organ damage. BB combinations are recommended by guidelines in patients with ischemic events but not all hypertensive patients. Unfortunately, the new generation BB, for example, nebivolol, has a vasodilator effect, making it new hope for BB.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy is a must in treating the hypertensive patient. The new generation BBs may change the recommendations of guidelines because they have an effect that is similar to CCBs.

Efficacy and Safety of Ombitasvir plus Paritaprevir, Ritonavir and Ribavirin in Non-cirrhotic Treatment-naïve and Treatment-experienced Egyptians with Chronic HCV Genotype-4 Infection

Hepatitis C virus genotype 4 (HCV-GT4) is a risk factor for cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver failure. A combination of three new direct-acting antivirals ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir has been recommended for treatment of HCV-GT4 infection. The current study was aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this combination plus ribavirin in non-cirrhotic, treatment-naïve and -experienced Egyptians with HCV-GT4 infection in a real-world setting. A total of 255 Egyptians with HCV-GT4 infection were enrolled, including 82 treatment-experienced and 173 treatment-naïve patients. All of them completed 12-week treatment protocol of ombitasvir, paritaprevir and ritonavir as an oral dose combination with ribavirin. Virological response (VR) was measured, as well as the biochemical parameters related to treatment efficacy and adverse events at baseline and after treatment, at 4 (VR4) and 12 (VR12) weeks post-treatment. The results showed that the VR4 rates were 98.8% in both groups, and VR12 rates were 97.7% and 96.3% in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients, respectively, with no significant differences found between the groups concerning VR4 (P=0.9) and VR12 (P=0.3). The most common adverse events were headache and fatigue, which were significantly more common (P=0.001 and 0.003, respectively) in treatment-experienced than in treatment-naïve group. The quadruple regimen was well-tolerated, and the reported adverse events were generally mild to moderate. This real-world setting study confirms that the combination of ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir, and ribavirin is highly effective in the treatment of HCV- GT4 infection with a good safety and tolerability profile.

Transradial artery approach in STEMI patients reperfused early and late by either primary PCI or pharmaco-invasive approach

•

There was a non-significant difference regarding LVEF and TIMI flow between both PPCI and PI.

•

Myocardium wall preservation was significant in early PI (P = 0.023)

•

Mean procedural and fluoroscopic time were 35.1 ± 6.1 and 6.3 ± 0.9 min.

•

No reported entry site complications also no difference in primary end point (P = 0.326).

•

It is safe and effective to use TRA in STEMI patients who reperfused by either early or late PPCI or PI.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of transradial artery approach (TRA) in STEMI patients who reperfused early (≤3 h from symptoms onset) or late (>3 h from symptoms onset) by either PPCI or pharmaco-invasive strategy (PI), thrombolysis followed by CA. Therefore, a total 143 STEMI patients (who were presented within 12 h from symptoms onset or 12–24 h with an evidence of ongoing ischemia or suffered from an acute STEMI were randomized for either PI or PPCI. Eighty-two patients were assigned to PI arm while the rest assigned were to PPCI arm. Patients who were taken to a non-PCI capable hospital received streptokinase and were then transferred to our Hospital for CA. TRA was used in the catheterization laboratory for all patients. Each arm was divided according to reperfusion time into early and late subgroups. A primary endpoint was death, shock, congestive heart failure, or reinfarction up to 30 days. There was a non-significant difference regarding LVEF in both arms. Myocardium wall preservation was significant in the early PI arm (P = 0.023). TIMI flow had no discrepancy between both arms (P = 0.569). Mean procedural and fluoroscopic time were 35.1 ± 6.1 and 6.3 ± 0.9 min. There were no reported entry site complications. There was no difference in primary endpoint complications (P = 0.326) considering the different times of patients’ reperfusion (early; P = 0.696 vs. late; P = 0.424). In conclusion, it is safe and effective to use TRA in STEMI patients who reperfused by either early or late PPCI or PI. We recommend PI for STEMI patients with delay presentation if PPCI is not available.

Hepatic artery thrombosis after orthotopic liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Hepatic artery thrombosis after liver transplantation is uncommon, but represents an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to identify the possible risk factors for the development of hepatic artery thrombosis, and the impact of hepatic artery thrombosis on the patients and graft survival.

METHODS

Between January 1994 and June 1998, we reviewed retrospectively a series of 86 liver transplant procedures performed on 81 adult patients. Arterial anomalies of the donor graft, rejection episodes, cold ischemia time, ABO matching, the use of blood/fresh frozen plasma during and after surgery, and the use of heparin as prophylactic anticoagulation therapy were examined as a possible contributing risk factors for the development of hepatic artery thrombosis.

RESULTS

Hepatic artery thrombosis occurred in 7 procedures out of 86 (9%). Early cases of Hepatic artery thrombosis within 15 days after transplant occurred in 4 patients. Late thrombosis occurred in 3 patients. Analysis of potential risk factors for the development of hepatic artery thrombosis was carried out. Five out of 40 patients who did not received prophylactic heparin had hepatic artery thrombosis (12.5%), while only 2 out of 46 patients who received prophylactic heparin had hepatic artery thrombosis 4%. On the other hand, 6 out of the 7 patients developed hepatic artery thrombosis received more than 5 units of blood transfusion during the transplant procedure (11%) while only one patient developed hepatic artery thrombosis who received less than 5 units intra-operatively (3%). Management of hepatic artery thrombosis cases were carried out in the form of: thrombectomy (n = 1), thrombectomy followed by retransplantation (n = 2), and non-surgical or conservative treatment (n = 4). The overall survival rate was (43%) (3 out of 7). Out of four deaths, 3 were directly related to hepatic artery thrombosis while the cause of death iin the remaining patients was attributed to pulmonary sepsis.

CONCLUSION

Early hepatic artery thrombosis leads to death unless quick retransplantation follows. Conservative treatment for the late onset hepatic artery thrombosis on occasion has been useful. The use of postoperative prophylactic anticoagulation therapy might be of benefit in the prevention of hepatic artery thrombosis after liver transplantation. Increased transfusion requirement for red blood cells during transplant procedure was independently associated with increase incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis.