Resistant or refractory hypertension: it is not just the of number of drugs

Efficacy and safety of community-based moxibustion for primary hypertension: A randomized controlled trial with patient preference arms

Moxibustion has been shown to have a potential antihypertensive effect, but its applicability for the primary care of hypertension is unclear. The authors conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) with patient preference arms to investigate the effect, safety, cost-effectiveness, and compliance of moxibustion in community patients with hypertension. Patients with primary hypertension were enrolled from seven communities randomly or nonrandomly assigned to receive self-administered moxibustion + the original hypertensive regimen or the original hypertensive regimen alone for 6 months. The authors mainly evaluated the effects of moxibustion on hypertensive outcomes and adverse events. As a result, a total of 160 and 240 patients were recruited into the randomized and nonrandomized arms, respectively, with 87.5% completing the follow-up. At month 6, there was a significantly greater reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (difference: -10.57 mmHg), a higher proportion of responders (82.2% vs. 53.7%; odds ratio 4.00), and better improvements in hypertensive symptoms and quality of life (QoL) in the moxibustion group than in the control group in the randomized population, but there was no significant between-group difference in diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The nonrandomized findings showed the same effect direction for all outcomes, except for DBP. All moxibustion-related adverse events were mild. In conclusion, moxibustion can reduce SBP and improve hypertensive symptoms and QoL in community patients with hypertension, with good safety and low cost, although its effect on DBP remains uncertain. The findings suggest that moxibustion may be an appropriate technique for community primary care of hypertension.

A Non-Invasive Method for Detection of Antihypertensive Drugs in Biological Fluids: The Salivary Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Objectives: Arterial hypertension is still the most frequent cause of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality. Antihypertensive treatment has proved effective in reduction of cardiovascular risk. Nevertheless, lifestyle interventions and pharmacological therapy in some cases are ineffective in reaching blood pressure target values, despite full dose and poly-pharmacological treatment. Poor adherence to medications is an important cause of treatment failure. Different methods to assess therapeutic adherence are currently available: Therapeutic drug monitoring in biological fluids has previously demonstrated its efficacy and reliability. Plasma and urine have been already used for this purpose, but they may be affected by some practical limitations. Saliva may represent a feasible alternative.

Methods: Fourteen antihypertensive drugs and two metabolites were simultaneously tested in plasma, urine, and saliva. Tested molecules included: atenolol, nebivolol, clonidine, ramipril, olmesartan, telmisartan, valsartan, amlodipine, nifedipine, doxazosin, chlorthalidone, hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, sacubitril, ramiprilat, and sacubitrilat. Therapeutic drug monitoring was performed using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography, coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). The method has been preliminarily evaluated in a cohort of hypertensive patients.

Results: The method has been validated according to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines. The application on a cohort of 32 hypertensive patients has demonstrated sensibility and specificity of 98% and 98.1%, respectively, with a good feasibility in real-life clinical practice.

Conclusion: Saliva may represent a feasible biological sample for therapeutic drug monitoring by non-invasive collection, prompt availability, and potential accessibility also in out-of-clinic settings.

The incidence of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications in patients with uncontrolled hypertension

Aim. To assess the incidence of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in patients with controlled and uncontrolled hypertension, controlled resistant and uncontrolled resistant hypertension, refractory hypertension, and probably resistant and probably refractory hypertension. Materials and methods. A telephone call was made to 256 patients with hypertension included in the database to assess the incidence of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. All responding patients were divided into 7 groups according to the classification of hypertension based on the achievement/non-achievement of target blood pressure values and the number of drugs taken (controlled and uncontrolled hypertension, controlled resistant and uncontrolled resistant hypertension, refractory hypertension, and probably resistant and probably refractory hypertension). The target blood pressure was considered to be less than 140/90 mm Hg. Patients not adhering to medication were not included in the analysis. Results. The group of controlled hypertension included 146 (57%) patients out of 256, controlled resistant hypertension 36 (14%) patients, uncontrolled hypertension 6 (2.3%) patients, resistant uncontrolled hypertension 22 (8.6%) patients, refractory hypertension 31 (12.1%) patients. The group of probably resistant hypertension 6 (2.3%) patients, probably refractory hypertension 9 (3.5%) patients. Of the 28 events that occurred, 6 were attributed to coronary artery disease (including 3 acute myocardial infarction and 2 coronary artery stenting), 3 strokes, 6 episodes of transient ischemic attack and 10 new cases of atrial fibrillation, and 2 patients had sudden cardiac death. Significantly more often, patients with refractory hypertension developed any event compared with patients with controlled (38.7% versus 3.4%; p=0.005) and resistant hypertension (38.7% versus 13.6%; p=0.04). Also, patients from the group of probably refractory hypertension were more likely to develop events than patients with controlled hypertension (33.3% versus 3.4%; p=0.045). Patients with probably refractory hypertension significantly more often had a stroke than patients with controlled hypertension (22.2% versus 0%; p0.05), and patients with refractory hypertension significantly more often had a transient ischemic attack compared with patients from the group of controlled hypertension (12.9% versus 0.7%; p=0.03). Conclusion. Patients with refractory and probably refractory hypertension are significantly more likely to develop cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications than patients with controlled hypertension.

Russian Medical Society for Arterial Hypertension expert consensus. Resistant hypertension: detection and management

The diagnosis of resistant arterial hypertension allows us to single out a separate group of patients in whom it is necessary to use special diagnostic methods and approaches to treatment. Elimination of reversible factors leading to the development of resistant arterial hypertension, such as non-adherence to therapy, inappropriate therapy, secondary forms of arterial hypertension, leads to an improvement in the patient's prognosis. Most patients with resistant hypertension should be evaluated to rule out primary aldosteronism, renal artery stenosis, chronic kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. The algorithm for examining patients, recommendations for lifestyle changes and a step-by-step therapy plan can improve blood pressure control. It is optative to use the most simplified treatment regimen and long-acting combined drugs. For a separate category of patients, it is advisable to perform radiofrequency denervation of the renal arteries.