Do current arterial hypertension treatment guidelines apply to systemic lupus erythematosus patients? A critical appraisal

Objective

Arterial hypertension (HTN) is reported to burden up to 74% of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients and contributes significantly to accelerated atherosclerosis and increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Current HTN treatment guidelines have not incorporated lupus patients in their recommendations; whether these guidelines can be fully implemented in SLE is doubtful.

Methods

A critical appraisal of the existing HTN guidelines in regard to SLE is presented in this review, based upon clinical and experimental data. Particular issues addressed are the time of antihypertensive therapy initiation, the optimal blood pressure level, the antihypertensive agent of first-choice and the need for reduction of the total cardiovascular risk in SLE.

Results

Antihypertensive therapy should be recommended at levels of 140/90 mmHg (systolic and diastolic BP, respectively) in newly diagnosed lupus patients without overt target organ involvement. In the case of lupus nephritis (LN) or diabetes mellitus (DM), therapy should be implemented at lower levels, such as 130/80 mmHg. Hypertensive lupus patients should be considered at high or very high CV risk and, consequently, the optimal BP level should be less than 130/80 mmHg. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) seem to be a safe and efficacious first-choice antihypertensive treatment in lupus patients. Total CV risk should be considered and co-morbidities (dyslipidemia, antiphospholipid syndrome, etc.) should be managed promptly.

Conclusions

Current HTN therapeutic guidelines, lacking data from large-scale clinical trials, may not adequately apply to SLE patients. The assessment of the aforementioned recommendations in randomized clinical trials is expected to confirm their value in reducing CV risk in SLE.     

Effectiveness of bedside investigations to diagnose peripheral artery disease among people with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

The accurate identification of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients with diabetes and foot ulceration is important, in order to inform timely management and to plan intervention including revascularisation. A variety of non‐invasive tests are available to diagnose PAD at the bedside, but there is no consensus as to the most useful test, or the accuracy of these bedside investigations when compared to reference imaging tests such as magnetic resonance angiography, computed tomography angiography, digital subtraction angiography or colour duplex ultrasound. Members of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot updated our previous systematic review, to include all eligible studies published between 1980 and 2018. Some 15 380 titles were screened, resulting in 15 eligible studies (comprising 1563 patients, of which >80% in each study had diabetes) that evaluated an index bedside test for PAD against a reference imaging test. The primary endpoints were positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). We found that the most commonly evaluated test parameter was ankle brachial index (ABI) <0.9, which may be useful to suggest the presence of PAD (PLR 6.5) but an ABI value between 0.9 and 1.3 does not rule out PAD (NLR 0.31). A toe brachial index >0.75 makes the diagnosis of PAD less likely (NLR 0.14‐0.24), whereas pulse oximetry may be used to suggest the presence of PAD (if toe saturation < 2% lower than finger saturation; PLR 17.23‐30) or render PAD less likely (NLR 0.2‐0.27). We found that the presence of triphasic tibial waveforms has the best performance value for excluding a diagnosis of PAD (NLR 0.09‐0.28), but was evaluated in only two studies. In addition, we found that beside clinical examination (including palpation of foot pulses) cannot reliably exclude PAD (NLR 0.75), as evaluated in one study. Overall, the quality of data is generally poor and there is insufficient evidence to recommend one bedside test over another. While there have been six additional publications in the last 4 years that met our inclusion criteria, more robust evidence is required to achieve consensus on the most useful non‐invasive bedside test to diagnose PAD.     

Blood pressure target for hypertension in chronic kidney disease: One size does not fit all

There is disagreement between the American and the European guidelines for hypertension management in regard to the optimal blood pressure target in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Randomized clinical trials and meta‐analyses of individual patient data pooled from these trials do not clearly support an intensive blood pressure target for the entire population of CKD patients with hypertension. However, some evidence suggests that in CKD patients with proteinuria strict blood pressure control might confer benefit in terms of renal outcome. Tailored treatment strategy based on the individual’s proteinuric profile and tolerability along with standardization of blood pressure measurement methodology including out‐of‐office evaluation are of paramount importance in patients with CKD.     

Non-acute myocardial infarction-related causes of elevated high-sensitive troponin T in the emergency room: a cross-sectional analysis

To systematically investigate putative causes of non-coronary high-sensitive troponin elevations in patients presenting to a tertiary care emergency department. In this cross-sectional analysis, patients who received serial measurements of high-sensitive troponin T between 1 August 2010 and 31 October 2012 at the Department of Emergency Medicine were included. The following putative causes were considered to be associated with non-acute coronary syndrome-related increases in high-sensitive troponin T: acute pulmonary embolism, renal insufficiency, aortic dissection, heart failure, peri-/myocarditis, strenuous exercise, rhabdomyolysis, cardiotoxic chemotherapy, high-frequency ablation therapy, defibrillator shocks, cardiac infiltrative disorders (e.g., amyloidosis), chest trauma, sepsis, shock, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetic ketoacidosis. During the study period a total of 1,573 patients received serial measurements of high-sensitive troponin T. Of these, 175 patients were found to have acute coronary syndrome leaving 1,398 patients for inclusion in the study. In 222 (30 %) of patients, no putative cause described in the literature could be attributed to the elevation in high-sensitive troponin T observed. The most commonly encountered mechanism underlying the troponin T elevation was renal insufficiency that was present in 286 patients (57 %), followed by cerebral ischemia in 95 patients (19 %), trauma in 75 patients (15 %) and heart failure in 41 patients (8 %). Non-acute coronary syndrome-associated elevation of high-sensitive troponin T levels is commonly observed in the emergency department. Renal insufficiency and acute cerebral events are the most common conditions associated with high-sensitive troponin T elevation.     

The role of soluble P selectin in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism

Introduction

Soluble P selectin (sPsel), a member of the selectin family of cell adhesion receptors, has been proposed as a key molecule in hemostasis and thrombosis mediating platelet rolling, generating procoagulant microparticles and enhancing fibrin deposition. The aim of this study was to examine the role of sPsel in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic review and we used meta-analysis to synthesize data from published studies reporting sPsel levels in patients with i) VTE (deep venous thrombosis; DVT or DVT and pulmonary embolism; PE) and ii) DVT only. Pooled Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were appropriately calculated among patients and controls. Diagnostic performance of sPsel was tested with pooled sensitivity, specificity, Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve.

Results

Eleven studies, comprising of 586 VTE patients and 1,843 controls were deemed eligible. The sPsel was significantly increased after VTE (OR = 2.89, 95%CI = 2.31-3.61, p < 0.001), or DVT only (OR = 2.64, 95%CI = 1.95-3.56, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis evidenced that sPsel was also increased after VTE when evaluating only studies with patients that had no prior medical history (OR = 2.88, 95%CI = 1.98-4.19, p < 0.001). Exclusion of studies including patients with solid organ tumor, HIV or lupus anticoagulants positive patients did not alter findings. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of sPsel was 0.57 (95%CI = 0.30-082, p < 0.001) and 0.73 (95%CI = 0.51-0.90, p < 0.001), respectively and DOR was 4.31 (95%CI = 2.22-8.37, p < 0.01). SROC curve yielded in significant accuracy of sPsel performance (AUC = 0.74, p = 0.05).

Conclusions

The sPsel was significantly elevated in patients with DVT, both uncomplicated and complicated with PE and presented with high levels of diagnostic performance. sPsel is a plasma biomarker that may help in the diagnosis of VTE.