Comparison of sotalol versus amiodarone in maintaining stability of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (Sotalol-Amiodarone Fibrillation Efficacy Trial [Safe-T])

The Sotalol-Amiodarone Fibrillation Efficacy Trial (SAFE-T) is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial in which the effects of sotalol and amiodarone in maintaining stability of sinus rhythm are being examined in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation at 20 Veterans Affairs medical centers. The time to the occurrence of atrial fibrillation or flutter in patients with atrial fibrillation converted to sinus rhythm is the primary outcome measure, with a number of parameters as secondary end points. SAFE-T had randomized 665 patients when enrollment terminated on October 31, 2001. Follow-up of patients continued until October 31, 2002, for a maximum period of 54 months and a minimum period of 12 months for all patients.     

Resistant hypertension: diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Professional Education Committee of the Council for High Blood Pressure Research

Resistant hypertension is a common clinical problem faced by both primary care clinicians and specialists. While the exact prevalence of resistant hypertension is unknown, clinical trials suggest that it is not rare, involving perhaps 20% to 30% of study participants. As older age and obesity are 2 of the strongest risk factors for uncontrolled hypertension, the incidence of resistant hypertension will likely increase as the population becomes more elderly and heavier. The prognosis of resistant hypertension is unknown, but cardiovascular risk is undoubtedly increased as patients often have a history of long-standing, severe hypertension complicated by multiple other cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, sleep apnea, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. The diagnosis of resistant hypertension requires use of good blood pressure technique to confirm persistently elevated blood pressure levels. Pseudoresistance, including lack of blood pressure control secondary to poor medication adherence or white coat hypertension, must be excluded. Resistant hypertension is almost always multifactorial in etiology. Successful treatment requires identification and reversal of lifestyle factors contributing to treatment resistance; diagnosis and appropriate treatment of secondary causes of hypertension; and use of effective multidrug regimens. As a subgroup, patients with resistant hypertension have not been widely studied. Observational assessments have allowed for identification of demographic and lifestyle characteristics associated with resistant hypertension, and the role of secondary causes of hypertension in promoting treatment resistance is well documented; however, identification of broader mechanisms of treatment resistance is lacking. In particular, attempts to elucidate potential genetic causes of resistant hypertension have been limited. Recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of resistant hypertension remain largely empiric due to the lack of systematic assessments of 3 or 4 drug combinations. Studies of resistant hypertension are limited by the high cardiovascular risk of patients within this subgroup, which generally precludes safe withdrawal of medications; the presence of multiple disease processes (eg, sleep apnea, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic disease) and their associated medical therapies, which confound interpretation of study results; and the difficulty in enrolling large numbers of study participants. Expanding our understanding of the causes of resistant hypertension and thereby potentially allowing for more effective prevention and/or treatment will be essential to improve the long-term clinical management of this disorder.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of quetiapine fumarate XR in very heavy-drinking alcohol-dependent patients

Background: Despite advances in developing medications to treat alcohol dependence, few such medications have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Identified molecular targets are encouraging and can lead to the development and testing of new compounds. Atypical antipsychotic medications have been explored with varying results. Prior research suggests that the antipsychotic quetiapine may be beneficial in an alcohol‐dependent population of very heavy drinkers. Methods: In this double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, 224 alcohol‐dependent patients who reported very heavy drinking were recruited across 5 clinical sites. Patients received either quetiapine or placebo and Medical Management behavioral intervention. Patients were stratified on gender, clinical site, and reduction in drinking prior to randomization. Results: No differences between the quetiapine and placebo groups were detected in the primary outcome, percentage heavy‐drinking days, or other drinking outcomes. Quetiapine significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved sleep but had no effect on other nondrinking outcomes. Results from a subgroup analysis suggest that patients who reduced their drinking prior to randomization had significantly better drinking outcomes during the maintenance phase (p < 0.0001). No significant interactions, however, were observed between reducer status and treatment group. Finally, quetiapine was generally well tolerated. Statistically significant adverse events that were more common with quetiapine versus placebo include dizziness (14 vs. 4%), dry mouth (32 vs. 9%), dyspepsia (13 vs. 2%), increased appetite (11 vs. 1%), sedation (15 vs. 3%), and somnolence (34 vs. 9%). Conclusions: This multisite clinical trial showed no efficacy for quetiapine compared with placebo at reducing alcohol consumption in heavy‐drinking alcohol‐dependent patients.     

Azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone reduces blood pressure more effectively than olmesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in stage 2 systolic hypertension

Azilsartan medoxomil, an effective, long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, is a new treatment for hypertension that is also being developed in fixed-dose combinations with chlorthalidone, a potent, long-acting thiazide-like diuretic. We compared once-daily fixed-dose combinations of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone force titrated to a high dose of either 40/25 mg or 80/25 mg with a fixed-dose combination of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil plus the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 40/25 mg. The design was a randomized, 3-arm, double-blind, 12-week study of 1071 participants with baseline clinic systolic blood pressure 160 to 190 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure ≤119 mm Hg. Patients had a mean age of 57 years; 59% were men, 73% were white, and 22% were black. At baseline, mean clinic blood pressure was 165/96 mm Hg and 24-hour mean blood pressure was 150/88 mm Hg. Changes in clinic (primary end point) and ambulatory systolic blood pressures at week 12 were significantly greater in both azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone arms than in the olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide arm (P<0.001). Changes in clinic systolic blood pressure (mean±SE) were -42.5±0.8, -44.0±0.8, and -37.1±0.8 mm Hg, respectively. Changes in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure were -33.9±0.8, -36.3±0.8, and -27.5±0.8 mm Hg, respectively. Adverse events leading to permanent drug discontinuation occurred in 7.9%, 14.5%, and 7.1% of the groups given azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone 40/25 mg, azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone 80/25 mg, and olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 40/25 mg, respectively. This large, forced-titration study has demonstrated superior antihypertensive efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone fixed-dose combinations compared with the maximum approved dose of olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide.     

Sample size determination for longitudinal designs with binary response

In this article, we develop appropriate statistical methods for determining the required sample size while comparing the efficacy of an intervention to a control with repeated binary response outcomes. Our proposed methodology incorporates the complexity of the hierarchical nature of underlying designs and provides solutions when varying attrition rates are present over time. We explore how the between‐subject variability and attrition rates jointly influence the computation of sample size formula. Our procedure also shows how efficient estimation methods play a crucial role in power analysis. A practical guideline is provided when information regarding individual variance component is unavailable. The validity of our methods is established by extensive simulation studies. Results are illustrated with the help of two randomized clinical trials in the areas of contraception and insomnia. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Diabetes and hypertension in severe obesity and effects of gastric bypass-induced weight loss

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the preoperative relationships of hypertension and diabetes mellitus in severe obesity and the effects of gastric bypass (GBP)-induced weight loss. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Severe obesity is associated with multiple comorbidities, particularly hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus, that may affect life expectancy. METHODS: The database of patients who had undergone GBP by one general surgeon at a university hospital between September 1981 and January 2000 was queried as to weight, body mass index (BMI), pre- and postoperative diabetes, hypertension, and other comorbidities, including sleep apnea, hypoventilation, gastroesophageal reflux, degenerative joint disease, urinary incontinence, venous stasis, and pseudotumor cerebri. RESULTS: Of 1,025 patients treated, 15% had type 2 diabetes mellitus and 51% had hypertension. Of those with diabetes, 75% also had hypertension. There was a progressive increase in age between patients who had neither diabetes nor hypertension, either diabetes or hypertension, or both diabetes and hypertension. At 1 year after GBP (91% follow-up), patients lost 66 +/- 18% excess weight (%EWL) or 35 +/- 9% of their initial weight (%WL). Hypertension resolved in 69% and diabetes in 83%. Patients who resolved their hypertension or diabetes had greater %EWL and %WL than those who did not. African-American patients had a higher risk of hypertension than whites before GBP and were less likely to correct their hypertension after GBP. There was significant resolution of other obesity comorbidity problems. At 5 to 7 years after GBP (50% follow-up), %EWL was 59 +/- 24 and %WL was 31 +/- 13; resolution of hypertension was 66% and diabetes 86%. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension may be indirectly related to each other through the effects of obesity, but not directly as to cause and effect. The longer a person remains severely obese, the more likely he or she is to develop diabetes, hypertension, or both. GBP-induced weight loss is effective in correcting diabetes, hypertension, and other comorbidities but is related to the %EWL achieved. Severely obese African-Americans were more likely to have hypertension and respond less well to GBP surgery than whites. These data suggest that GBP surgery for severe obesity should be provided earlier to patients to prevent the development of diabetes and hypertension and their complications.