Roberto Pisoni

REFRACTORY HYPERTENSION: DEFINITION, PREVALENCE AND PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich).

Diverse Effects of Increasing Lisinopril Doses on Lipid Abnormalities in Chronic Nephropathies

Background—Dyslipidemia frequently complicates chronic nephropathies and increases the risk of renal and cardiovascular events. This might be ameliorated by drugs, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, which effectively reduce proteinuria. Methods and Results—In this longitudinal study, we evaluated the extent to which uptitration of the ACE inhibitor lisinopril to maximum tolerated doses (median [range]: 30 [10 to 40] mg/d) ameliorated proteinuria and dyslipidemia in 28 patients with nondiabetic chronic nephropathies. Maximum lisinopril doses significantly and safely reduced proteinuria, serum total, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides without substantially affecting serum HDL and renal hemodynamics. Proteinuria already decreased at 10 mg/d. Serum lipids progressively and dose-dependently decreased during uptitration to maximum doses. Reduction in total and LDL cholesterol correlated with increases in serum albumin/total protein concentration and oncotic pressure, peaked at lisinopril maximum doses, and persisted after treatment withdrawal. Despite less proteinuria reduction, hypercholesterolemia decreased more (and reflected the increase in serum albumin) in hypoalbuminemic than in normoalbuminemic patients who, despite more proteinuria reduction, had less decrease in cholesterol and no changes in serum albumin. Changes in serum triglycerides were independent of changes in serum proteins, were strongly correlated with lisinopril doses (r =−0.89, P =0.003) and recovered promptly after treatment withdrawal. Lisinopril was well tolerated, did not affect renal hemodynamics, and caused symptomatic, reversible hypotension in only two patients. Conclusions—In chronic nephropathies, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor uptitration to maximum tolerated doses safely ameliorated hypertriglyceridemia by a direct, dose-dependent effect, and hypercholesterolemia through amelioration of the nephrotic syndrome, particularly in patients with more severe hypoalbuminemia.

REFRACTORY HYPERTENSION: EVIDENCE OF HEIGHTENED SYMPATHETIC ACTIVITY AS A CAUSE OF ANTIHYPERTENSIVE TREATMENT FAILURE

Refractory hypertension is an extreme phenotype of treatment failure defined as uncontrolled blood pressure in spite of ≥5 classes of antihypertensive agents, including chlorthalidone and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. A prospective evaluation of possible mechanisms of refractory hypertension has not been done. The goal of this study was to test for evidence of heightened sympathetic tone as indicated by 24-hour urinary normetanephrine levels, clinic and ambulatory heart rate (HR), HR variability, arterial stiffness as indexed by pulse wave velocity, and systemic vascular resistance compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. Forty-four consecutive patients, 15 with refractory and 29 with controlled resistant hypertension, were evaluated prospectively. Refractory hypertensive patients were younger (48±13.3 versus 56.5±14.1 years; P=0.038) and more likely women (80.0 versus 51.9%; P=0.047) compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. They also had higher urinary normetanephrine levels (464.4±250.2 versus 309.8±147.6 µg per 24 hours; P=0.03), higher clinic HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6 bpm; P=0.001) and 24-hour ambulatory HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6; P=0.0018), higher pulse wave velocity (11.8±2.2 versus 9.4±1.5 m/s; P=0.009), reduced HR variability (4.48 versus 6.11; P=0.03), and higher systemic vascular resistance (3795±1753 versus 2382±349 dyne·s·cm5·m2; P=0.008). These findings are consistent with heightened sympathetic tone being a major contributor to antihypertensive treatment failure and highlight the need for effective sympatholytic therapies in patients with refractory hypertension.Refractory hypertension is an extreme phenotype of treatment failure defined as uncontrolled blood pressure in spite of ≥5 classes of antihypertensive agents, including chlorthalidone and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. A prospective evaluation of possible mechanisms of refractory hypertension has not been done. The goal of this study was to test for evidence of heightened sympathetic tone as indicated by 24-hour urinary normetanephrine levels, clinic and ambulatory heart rate (HR), HR variability, arterial stiffness as indexed by pulse wave velocity, and systemic vascular resistance compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. Forty-four consecutive patients, 15 with refractory and 29 with controlled resistant hypertension, were evaluated prospectively. Refractory hypertensive patients were younger (48±13.3 versus 56.5±14.1 years; P =0.038) and more likely women (80.0 versus 51.9%; P =0.047) compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. They also had higher urinary normetanephrine levels (464.4±250.2 versus 309.8±147.6 µg per 24 hours; P =0.03), higher clinic HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6 bpm; P =0.001) and 24-hour ambulatory HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6; P =0.0018), higher pulse wave velocity (11.8±2.2 versus 9.4±1.5 m/s; P =0.009), reduced HR variability (4.48 versus 6.11; P =0.03), and higher systemic vascular resistance (3795±1753 versus 2382±349 dyne·s·cm5·m2; P =0.008). These findings are consistent with heightened sympathetic tone being a major contributor to antihypertensive treatment failure and highlight the need for effective sympatholytic therapies in patients with refractory hypertension. # Novelty and Significance {#article-title-44}

Influence of Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure on Effects of Intensive Compared With Standard Blood Pressure Control

Background: In individuals with a low diastolic blood pressure (DBP), the potential benefits or risks of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering are unclear. Methods: SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was a randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of intensive (target <120 mm Hg) and standard (target <140 mm Hg) SBP control in 9361 older adults with high blood pressure at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular disease events. All-cause death and incident chronic kidney disease were secondary outcomes. This post hoc analysis examined whether the effects of the SBP intervention differed by baseline DBP. Results: Mean baseline SBP and DBP were 139.7±15.6 and 78.1±11.9 mm Hg, respectively. Regardless of the randomized treatment, baseline DBP had a U-shaped association with the hazard of the primary cardiovascular disease outcome. However, the effects of the intensive SBP intervention on the primary outcome were not influenced by baseline DBP level (P for interaction=0.83). The primary outcome hazard ratio for intensive versus standard treatment was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.57–1.07) in the lowest DBP quintile (mean baseline DBP, 61±5 mm Hg) and 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.90) in the upper 4 DBP quintiles (mean baseline DBP, 82±9 mm Hg), with an interaction P value of 0.78. Results were similar for all-cause death and kidney events. Conclusions: Low baseline DBP was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease events, but there was no evidence that the benefit of the intensive SBP lowering differed by baseline DBP. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Impact of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Management by Tertiles of Blood Pressure in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial)

Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control improved outcomes in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Our objective was to expand on reported findings by analysis of baseline characteristics, primary outcomes, adverse events, follow-up blood pressure, and medication use differences by baseline SBP (tertile 1 [T1], <132; tertile 2 [T2], 132–145; and tertile 3 [T3], >145 mm Hg). Participants with higher baseline SBP tertile were more often women and older, had higher cardiovascular risk, and lower utilization of antihypertensive medications, statins, and aspirin. Achieved SBP in both treatment arms was slightly higher in T2 and T3 compared with T1 and fewer in the T3 groups achieved SBP targets compared with T1 and T2 groups. The primary composite outcome with intensive versus standard SBP treatment was reduced by 30% in T1, 23% in T2, and 17% in T3 with no evidence of an interaction (P=0.77). Event rates were lower in the intensive arm, and there was no evidence that this benefit differed by SBP tertile. There was no difference in the hazard for serious adverse events in any of the 3 tertiles. Medication utilization differed across the SBP tertiles at baseline with a lesser percentage of diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker drugs in the higher tertiles—a finding that reversed during the trial. The beneficial effects of intensive SBP lowering were not modified by the level of baseline SBP. Within the parameters of this population, these findings add support for clinicians to treat blood pressure to goal irrespective of baseline SBP.

Clinical Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT): A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract BACKGROUND The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≤ 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events compared to SBP of ≤ 140 mm Hg (standard treatment); however, it is unclear if this effect is similar in all racial/ethnic groups. METHODS We analyzed SPRINT data within non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and Hispanic subgroups to address this question. High-risk nondiabetic hypertensive patients (N = 9,361; 30% NHB; 11% Hispanic) 50 years and older were randomly assigned to intensive or standard treatment. Primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of a myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or CVD death. RESULTS Average postbaseline SBP was similar among NHW, NHB, and Hispanics in both treatment arms. Hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval) (intensive vs. standard treatment groups) for primary outcome were 0.70 (0.57–0.86), 0.71 (0.51–0.98), 0.62 (0.33–1.15) (interaction P value = 0.85) in NHW, NHB, and Hispanics. CVD mortality HRs were 0.49 (0.29–0.81), 0.77 (0.37–1.57), and 0.17 (0.01–1.08). All-cause mortality HRs were 0.61 (0.47–0.80), 0.92 (0.63–1.35), and 1.58 (0.73–3.62), respectively. A test for differences among racial/ethnic groups in the effect of treatment assignment on all-cause mortality was not significant (Hommel-adjusted P value = 0.062) after adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION Targeting a SBP goal of ≤ 120 mm Hg compared to ≤ 140 mm Hg led to similar SBP control and was associated with similar benefits and risks among all racial ethnic groups, though NHBs required an average of ~0.3 more medications. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION Trial Number NCT01206062, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01206062.

Refractory HypertensionNovelty and Significance

Refractory hypertension is an extreme phenotype of treatment failure defined as uncontrolled blood pressure in spite of ≥5 classes of antihypertensive agents, including chlorthalidone and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. A prospective evaluation of possible mechanisms of refractory hypertension has not been done. The goal of this study was to test for evidence of heightened sympathetic tone as indicated by 24-hour urinary normetanephrine levels, clinic and ambulatory heart rate (HR), HR variability, arterial stiffness as indexed by pulse wave velocity, and systemic vascular resistance compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. Forty-four consecutive patients, 15 with refractory and 29 with controlled resistant hypertension, were evaluated prospectively. Refractory hypertensive patients were younger (48±13.3 versus 56.5±14.1 years; P=0.038) and more likely women (80.0 versus 51.9%; P=0.047) compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. They also had higher urinary normetanephrine levels (464.4±250.2 versus 309.8±147.6 µg per 24 hours; P=0.03), higher clinic HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6 bpm; P=0.001) and 24-hour ambulatory HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6; P=0.0018), higher pulse wave velocity (11.8±2.2 versus 9.4±1.5 m/s; P=0.009), reduced HR variability (4.48 versus 6.11; P=0.03), and higher systemic vascular resistance (3795±1753 versus 2382±349 dyne·s·cm5·m2; P=0.008). These findings are consistent with heightened sympathetic tone being a major contributor to antihypertensive treatment failure and highlight the need for effective sympatholytic therapies in patients with refractory hypertension.Refractory hypertension is an extreme phenotype of treatment failure defined as uncontrolled blood pressure in spite of ≥5 classes of antihypertensive agents, including chlorthalidone and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. A prospective evaluation of possible mechanisms of refractory hypertension has not been done. The goal of this study was to test for evidence of heightened sympathetic tone as indicated by 24-hour urinary normetanephrine levels, clinic and ambulatory heart rate (HR), HR variability, arterial stiffness as indexed by pulse wave velocity, and systemic vascular resistance compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. Forty-four consecutive patients, 15 with refractory and 29 with controlled resistant hypertension, were evaluated prospectively. Refractory hypertensive patients were younger (48±13.3 versus 56.5±14.1 years; P =0.038) and more likely women (80.0 versus 51.9%; P =0.047) compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. They also had higher urinary normetanephrine levels (464.4±250.2 versus 309.8±147.6 µg per 24 hours; P =0.03), higher clinic HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6 bpm; P =0.001) and 24-hour ambulatory HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6; P =0.0018), higher pulse wave velocity (11.8±2.2 versus 9.4±1.5 m/s; P =0.009), reduced HR variability (4.48 versus 6.11; P =0.03), and higher systemic vascular resistance (3795±1753 versus 2382±349 dyne·s·cm5·m2; P =0.008). These findings are consistent with heightened sympathetic tone being a major contributor to antihypertensive treatment failure and highlight the need for effective sympatholytic therapies in patients with refractory hypertension. # Novelty and Significance {#article-title-44}

Refractory HypertensionNovelty and Significance: Evidence of Heightened Sympathetic Activity as a Cause of Antihypertensive Treatment Failure

Refractory hypertension is an extreme phenotype of treatment failure defined as uncontrolled blood pressure in spite of ≥5 classes of antihypertensive agents, including chlorthalidone and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. A prospective evaluation of possible mechanisms of refractory hypertension has not been done. The goal of this study was to test for evidence of heightened sympathetic tone as indicated by 24-hour urinary normetanephrine levels, clinic and ambulatory heart rate (HR), HR variability, arterial stiffness as indexed by pulse wave velocity, and systemic vascular resistance compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. Forty-four consecutive patients, 15 with refractory and 29 with controlled resistant hypertension, were evaluated prospectively. Refractory hypertensive patients were younger (48±13.3 versus 56.5±14.1 years; P=0.038) and more likely women (80.0 versus 51.9%; P=0.047) compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. They also had higher urinary normetanephrine levels (464.4±250.2 versus 309.8±147.6 µg per 24 hours; P=0.03), higher clinic HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6 bpm; P=0.001) and 24-hour ambulatory HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6; P=0.0018), higher pulse wave velocity (11.8±2.2 versus 9.4±1.5 m/s; P=0.009), reduced HR variability (4.48 versus 6.11; P=0.03), and higher systemic vascular resistance (3795±1753 versus 2382±349 dyne·s·cm5·m2; P=0.008). These findings are consistent with heightened sympathetic tone being a major contributor to antihypertensive treatment failure and highlight the need for effective sympatholytic therapies in patients with refractory hypertension.Refractory hypertension is an extreme phenotype of treatment failure defined as uncontrolled blood pressure in spite of ≥5 classes of antihypertensive agents, including chlorthalidone and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. A prospective evaluation of possible mechanisms of refractory hypertension has not been done. The goal of this study was to test for evidence of heightened sympathetic tone as indicated by 24-hour urinary normetanephrine levels, clinic and ambulatory heart rate (HR), HR variability, arterial stiffness as indexed by pulse wave velocity, and systemic vascular resistance compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. Forty-four consecutive patients, 15 with refractory and 29 with controlled resistant hypertension, were evaluated prospectively. Refractory hypertensive patients were younger (48±13.3 versus 56.5±14.1 years; P =0.038) and more likely women (80.0 versus 51.9%; P =0.047) compared with patients with controlled resistant hypertension. They also had higher urinary normetanephrine levels (464.4±250.2 versus 309.8±147.6 µg per 24 hours; P =0.03), higher clinic HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6 bpm; P =0.001) and 24-hour ambulatory HR (77.8±7.7 versus 68.8±7.6; P =0.0018), higher pulse wave velocity (11.8±2.2 versus 9.4±1.5 m/s; P =0.009), reduced HR variability (4.48 versus 6.11; P =0.03), and higher systemic vascular resistance (3795±1753 versus 2382±349 dyne·s·cm5·m2; P =0.008). These findings are consistent with heightened sympathetic tone being a major contributor to antihypertensive treatment failure and highlight the need for effective sympatholytic therapies in patients with refractory hypertension. # Novelty and Significance {#article-title-44}