Ingestion-time differences in the pharmacodynamics of dual-combination hypertension therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis of published human trials

Pioneering new frontiers in circadian medicine chronotherapies for cardiovascular health

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a global health concern. Circadian medicine improves cardiovascular care by aligning treatments with our body's daily rhythms and their underlying cellular circadian mechanisms. Time-based therapies, or chronotherapies, show special promise in clinical cardiology. They optimize treatment schedules for better outcomes with fewer side effects by recognizing the profound influence of rhythmic body cycles. In this review, we focus on three chronotherapy areas (medication, light, and meal timing) with potential to enhance cardiovascular care. We also highlight pioneering research in the new field of rest, the gut microbiome, novel chronotherapies for hypertension, pain management, and small molecules that targeting the circadian mechanism.

Clinical trial design for assessing hypertension medications: are critical circadian chronopharmacological principles being taking into account?

INTRODUCTION

Clinical hypertension trials typically rely on homeostatic principles, including single time-of-day office blood pressure (BP) measurements (OBPM), rather than circadian chronopharmacological principles, including ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) done around-the-clock to derive the asleep systolic BP (SBP) mean and sleep-time relative SBP decline - jointly the strongest prognosticators of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and true definition of hypertension - to qualify participants and assess outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

Eight chronopharmacological elements are indispensable for design and conduct of hypertension medication trials, mainly those on ingestion-time differences in effects, and also a means of rating quality of investigations. Accordingly, we highlight the findings and shortcomings of: (i) 155 such ingestion-time trials, 83.9% finding at-bedtime/evening treatment more beneficial than conventional upon-awakening/morning treatment; (ii) HOPE and ONTARGET CVD outcomes investigations assessing in the former add-on ramipril at-bedtime and in the latter telmisartan, ramipril, or both in combination in the morning; and (iii) pragmatic TIME CVD outcomes trial.

EXPERT OPINION

Failure to incorporate chronopharmacological principals - including ABPM to derive asleep SBP and SBP dipping to qualify subjects as hypertensive and assess CVD risk - results in deficient study design, dubious findings, and unnecessary medical controversy at the expense of advances in patient care.

Critical appraisal of recent translational chronopharmacology and chronotherapeutic reviews, meta-analyses, and pragmatic patient trials discloses significant deficiencies of design and conduct and suspect findings

The conduct of molecular and laboratory animal circadian rhythm research has increased exponentially in the past few decades, such that today investigations are being performed by scientists of many diverse disciplines. Knowledge gained from past works is now being explored for translational applications to clinical medicine, often termed "circadian medicine," through the implementation of patient trials. However, these trials are being led, more often than not, by investigators who have little or no formal training and in-depth expertise in the methods of human circadian rhythm research, causing them to be deficient in design and produce dubious findings that have already led to unnecessary medical controversy at the expense of advances in patient care. Evidence of the very significant shortcomings of today's translational circadian medicine research is exemplified in two recent publications in well-read reputable medical journals concerning the chronotherapy of blood pressure (BP) medications: one a review and meta-analysis by Maqsood et al. published in the journal Hypertension in 2023 that pertains to ingestion-time differences in the extent of BP reduction exerted by hypertensive medications and the other a report by Mackenzie et al. in the journal Lancet in 2022 that details the results of the pragmatic TIME study that assessed ingestion-time differences in cardiovascular disease outcomes. Herein, we appraise the inaccurate trial selection, lack of quality assessment, and the numerous other shortcomings that culminated in suspect findings and faulty conclusions of the former, as well as the deficiencies in design and conduct of the latter using as reference the eight items identified in 2021 by a working committee of the International Society for Chronobiology and American Association for Medical Chronobiology and Chronotherapeutics as being necessary for high-quality research of circadian rhythm-dependencies of the therapeutic effects of BP-lowering medications. The TIME study when rated for its quality according to the extent to which its investigational methods satisfy all of the eight recommended items attains a very low overall score of + 1 out of a possible range of -1 to + 7. Moreover, our review of the methods of the currently ongoing pragmatic BedMed trial discloses major deficiencies of the same sort rending a poor quality score of + 0.5. Although the focus of this article is the appraisal of the quality of contemporary circadian medicine hypertension chronotherapy research, it additionally exposes the inadequacies and dubious quality of the critique of such manuscripts submitted for publication to influential journals, in that some peer reviewers might also be deficient in the knowledge required to properly rate their merit.