White Coat Hypertension: to Treat or Not to Treat?

Definition of white coat hypertension (WCH) traditionally relies on elevated office blood pressure (BP) during repeated visits concomitant with normal out-of-office BP values, as assessed by home and/or 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring measurements. Accumulating evidence focusing on the association of WCH with target organ damage and, more importantly, with cardiovascular events indicates that the risk conveyed by this condition is intermediate between normotension and sustained hypertension. This article will review a number of issues concerning WCH with particular emphasis on the following: (1) prevalence and clinical correlates, (2) association with target organ damage and cardiovascular events, (3) therapeutic interventions. Data will refer to the original WCH definition, based on out-of-office BP determined by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring; at variance from home BP measurement, this approach rules out the potentially confounding effect of a clinically relevant abnormal BP phenotype such as isolated nocturnal hypertension.     

Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure: to Treat or Not to Treat?

Purpose of review

This review will highlight the frequency and prognostic importance of iron deficiency in patients with chronic heart failure. An overview of the evidence surrounding the use of both oral and intravenous iron will be presented together with discussion around what further data are required to establish what is the optimal long-term treatment strategy.

Recent findings

Several recent randomised controlled studies have suggested that intravenous iron therapy in iron deficient patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction can improve symptoms and quality of life, at least in the short term. There is no evidence of benefit from oral iron.

Summary

Iron deficiency is common in patients with chronic heart failure and is associated with a worse prognosis. Whilst oral iron therapy has been shown to be of no benefit, randomised controlled trials suggest significant improvement in symptoms and quality of life with intravenous iron treatment over 6–12 months. Data are lacking on long-term efficacy, safety and impact on hard outcomes such as death and hospitalisation. Four large trials are currently recruiting patients and will provide definitive answers to these outstanding questions.

     

HDL: To Treat or Not To Treat?

Several studies have shown an inverse relationship between HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) levels and the risk of cardiovascular disease. Low HDL-C levels are commonly present in subjects with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or obesity. These observations have suggested that increasing HDL concentrations might help in decreasing the cardiovascular disease risk. However, despite initial positive results, some recent data from clinical trials with HDL-raising therapies failed to confirm this hypothesis; in addition, data from Mendelian randomization analyses showed that nucleotide polymorphisms associated with increased HDL-C levels did not decrease the risk of myocardial infarction, further challenging the concept that higher HDL-C levels will automatically translate into lower cardiovascular disease risk. Differences in the quality and distribution of HDL particles might partly explain these findings, and in agreement with this hypothesis, some observations have suggested that HDL subpopulation levels may be better predictors of cardiovascular disease than simple HDL-C levels. Thus, it is expected that increased HDL-C levels may be beneficial when associated with an improvement in HDL function, suggesting that pharmacological approaches able to correct or increase HDL functions might produce more reliable clinical benefits.     

Why Would Caregivers Not Want to Treat Their Relative's Alzheimer's Disease?

OBJECTIVES: To determine family caregivers' willingness to use Alzheimer's disease (AD)-slowing medicines and to examine the relationships between this willingness, dementia severity, and caregiver characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: In-home interviews of patients from the Memory Disorders Clinic of the University of Pennsylvania's Alzheimer's Disease Center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred two caregivers of patients with mild to severe AD who were registered at an Alzheimer's disease center. MEASUREMENTS: Subjects participated in an in-home interview to assess their willingness to use a risk-free AD-slowing medicine and a medicine with 3% annual risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. RESULTS: Half of the patients had severe dementia (n=52). Seventeen (17%) of the caregivers did not want their relative to take a risk-free medicine that could slow AD. Half (n=52) did not want their relative to take an AD-slowing medicine that had a 3% annual risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Caregivers who were more likely to forgo risk-free treatment of AD were older (odds ratio (OR)=1.7, P=.04), were depressed (OR=3.66, P=.03), had relatives living in a nursing home (OR=3.6, P=.02), had relatives with more-severe dementia according to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (OR=2.29, P=.03) or Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS) (OR=2.55, P=.002), and rated their relatives' quality of life (QOL) poorly on a single-item global rating (OR=0.25, P=.001) and the 13-item quality-of-life (QOL)-AD scale (OR=0.38, P=.002). Caregivers who were more likely to forgo a risky treatment were nonwhite (OR=6.53, P=.005), had financial burden (OR=2.93, P=.02), and rated their relative's QOL poorly on a single-item global rating (OR=0.61, P=.01) and the QOL-AD (OR=0.56, P=.01). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that caregivers are generally willing to slow the progression of their relative's dementia even into the severe stage of the disease, especially if it can be done without risk to the patient. Clinical trials and practice guidelines should recognize that a caregiver's assessment of patient QOL and the factors that influence it affect a caregiver's willingness to use AD-slowing treatments.     

Prophylaxis to Prevent Infective Endocarditis: To Use or Not to Use?

The American Heart Association (AHA) published their revised guidelines in 2007 in which they markedly limited the recommendations for the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis (IE), except for patients who are at highest risk of adverse outcomes. A recent focused update on valvular heart diseases changed the recommendation for antibiotic use for patients with many underlying heart conditions including mitral valve prolapse (MVP) which were considered as “low risk” heart defects. In this article, we argue that antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered until concrete clinical evidence is provided to dispute against the use of this strategy, especially for patients with MVP. This approach is cost efficient, and provides a chance to prevent a dreadful disease. We have also enlisted 2 clinical cases to support our argument. These are not uncommon clinical scenarios, and emphasize that IE can be fatal in spite of optimum treatment. Patients have the right to make the final decision, and they should be allowed to participate in choosing for or against this approach until adequate clinical evidence is available. Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.