Rationale and design of the Investigator-Steered Project on Intravascular Renal Denervation for Management of Drug-Resistant Hypertension (INSPiRED) trial

Renal denervation for resistant hypertension

BACKGROUND

Resistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different approaches, including a more intensified antihypertensive therapy, lifestyle modifications or both, have largely failed to improve patients' outcomes and to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk. As renal sympathetic hyperactivity is a major driver of resistant hypertension, in the last decade renal sympathetic ablation (renal denervation) has been proposed as a possible therapeutic alternative to treat this condition.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of renal denervation in individuals with resistant hypertension on clinical end points, including fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, quality of life, blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiovascular and metabolic profile and kidney function, as well as the potential adverse events related to the procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 3 November 2020: Cochrane Hypertension's Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (via CENTRAL) and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing trials. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared renal denervation to standard therapy or sham procedure to treat resistant hypertension, without language restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We summarised treatment effects on available clinical outcomes and adverse events using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity in estimated treatment effects using Chi² and I² statistics. We calculated summary treatment estimates as a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, and a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 15 eligible studies (1416 participants). In four studies, renal denervation was compared to sham procedure; in the remaining studies, renal denervation was tested against standard or intensified antihypertensive therapy. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding.  When compared to control, there was low-certainty evidence that renal denervation had little or no effect on the risk of myocardial infarction (4 studies, 742 participants; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.84), ischaemic stroke (5 studies, 892 participants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95), unstable angina (3 studies, 270 participants; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.89) or hospitalisation (3 studies, 743 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.11). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, renal denervation may reduce 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic BP (9 studies, 1045 participants; MD -5.29 mmHg, 95% CI -10.46 to -0.13), ABPM diastolic BP (8 studies, 1004 participants; MD -3.75 mmHg, 95% CI -7.10 to -0.39) and office diastolic BP (8 studies, 1049 participants; MD -4.61 mmHg, 95% CI -8.23 to -0.99). Conversely, this procedure had little or no effect on office systolic BP (10 studies, 1090 participants; MD -5.92 mmHg, 95% CI -12.94 to 1.10). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that renal denervation may not reduce serum creatinine (5 studies, 721 participants, MD 0.03 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.13) and may not increase the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or creatinine clearance (6 studies, 822 participants; MD -2.56 mL/min, 95% CI -7.53 to 2.42).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resistant hypertension, there is low-certainty evidence that renal denervation does not improve major cardiovascular outomes and renal function. Conversely, moderate-certainty evidence exists that it may improve 24h ABPM and diastolic office-measured BP. Future trials measuring patient-centred instead of surrogate outcomes, with longer follow-up periods, larger sample size and more standardised procedural methods are necessary to clarify the utility of this procedure in this population.

Communication skills training for physicians improves health literacy and medical outcomes among patients with hypertension: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Improving the training of physicians about communication skills and patient health literacy (HL) is a major priority that remains an open question. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of communication skills training for physicians on the hypertension outcomes and the health literacy skills, self-efficacy and medication adherence in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP).

Methods

A randomized, controlled trial method was conducted on 240 hypertensive patients and 35 physicians presenting to healthcare clinics in the Mashhad, Iran, from 2013 to 2014. Using stratified blocking with block sizes of 4 and 6, eligible patients with uncontrolled blood pressure were randomly allocated to the intervention and control groups. Physicians in the intervention group received educational training over 3 sessions of Focus –Group Discussion and 2 workshops. The control group received the routine care. The primary outcome was a reduction in systolic and diastolic BP from baseline to 6 months. The secondary outcome was promoting HL skills in hypertensive patients. Data were analyzed using the regression model and bivariate tests.

Results

After the physician communication training, there was a significant improvement in physicians-patient communication skills, hypertension outcomes, medication adherence, and self-efficacy among the patients being managed by the physicians receiving training, compared to the control group.

Conclusion

The educational intervention leads to better BP control; it may have been sufficient training of physicians change to impact counseling, HL and self-efficacy and adherence. The quality of physician-patient communication is an important modifiable element of medical communication that may influences health outcomes in hypertensive Iranian patients.

Trial registration

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT), IRCT20160710028863N24. Registered April 4, 2018 [retrospectively registered].

Adherence to antihypertensive drug treatment in patients with apparently treatment-resistant hypertension in the INSPiRED pilot study

PURPOSE

Drug adherence may be a major problem in the therapy of hypertension and in the diagnosis of therapy resistance. Adherence can be assessed by indirect methods or by direct methods like drug detection in urine with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current analysis included patients with apparently treatment- resistant hypertension (TRH) referred for renal denervation (RDN) and included in the the INSPiRED pilot trial (NCT01505010). Adherence was repeatedly assessed by toxicological urine analysis over a time range of up to 17 months in a total of 18 patients.

RESULTS

In the first urine samples of 18 patients the adherence rate (percentage of number of detected vs. prescribed medical drugs) ranged from 0 to 100% with a median of 73.2%. In further urine samples collected during the following up to 17 months every individual patient exhibited considerable changes in the adherence rate, neither a constancy nor a tendency could be deduced.

CONCLUSIONS

Urine analysis results exhibit variation over time and an assessment at a certain time point cannot be regarded as representative or predictor for future behavior. Therefore, it appears necessary to perform drug adherence testing repeatedly over time.

Renal denervation for resistant hypertension

BACKGROUND

Resistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different approaches, including a more intensified antihypertensive therapy, lifestyle modifications, or both, have largely failed to improve patients' outcomes and to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk. As renal sympathetic hyperactivity is a major driver of resistant hypertension, renal sympathetic ablation (renal denervation) has been recently proposed as a possible therapeutic alternative to treat this condition.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of renal denervation in individuals with resistant hypertension on clinical end points, including fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, quality of life, blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiovascular and metabolic profile, and kidney function, as well as the potential adverse events related to the procedure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to 17 February 2016 using relevant search terms: the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared renal denervation to standard therapy or sham procedure to treat resistant hypertension, without language restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study risks of bias. We summarised treatment effects on available clinical outcomes and adverse events using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity in estimated treatment effects using Chi² and I² statistics. We calculated summary treatment estimates as a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, and a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 12 eligible studies (1149 participants). In four studies, renal denervation was compared to sham procedure; one study compared a proximal ablation to a complete renal artery denervation; in the remaining, renal denervation was tested against standard or intensified antihypertensive therapy.None of the included trials was designed to look at hard clinical end points as primary outcomes.When compared to control, there was low quality evidence that renal denervation did not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (4 studies, 742 participants; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.84), ischaemic stroke (4 studies, 823 participants; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.72), or unstable angina (2 studies, 201 participants; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.06), and moderate quality evidence that it had no effect on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic BP (5 studies, 797 participants; MD 0.28 mmHg, 95% CI -3.74 to 4.29), diastolic BP (4 studies, 756 participants; MD 0.93 mmHg, 95% CI -4.50 to 6.36), office measured systolic BP (6 studies, 886 participants; MD -4.08 mmHg, 95% CI -15.26 to 7.11), or diastolic BP (5 studies, 845 participants; MD -1.30 mmHg, 95% CI -7.30 to 4.69). Furthermore, low quality evidence suggested that this procedure produced no effect on either serum creatinine (3 studies, 736 participants, MD 0.01 mg/dL; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.14), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or creatinine clearance (4 studies, 837 participants; MD -2.09 mL/min, 95% CI -8.12 to 3.95). Based on low-quality evidence, renal denervation significantly increased bradycardia episodes compared to control (3 studies, 220 participants; RR 6.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 36.84), while the risk of other adverse events was comparable or not assessable.Data were sparse or absent for all cause mortality, hospitalisation, fatal cardiovascular events, quality of life, atrial fibrillation episodes, left ventricular hypertrophy, sleep apnoea severity, need for renal replacement therapy, and metabolic profile.The quality of the evidence was low for cardiovascular outcomes and adverse events and moderate for lack of effect on blood pressure and renal function.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with resistant hypertension, there is low quality evidence that renal denervation does not change major cardiovascular events, and renal function. There was moderate quality evidence that it does not change blood pressure and and low quality evidence that it caused an increaseof bradycardia episodes. Future trials measuring patient-centred instead of surrogate outcomes, with longer follow-up periods, larger sample size and more standardized procedural methods are necessary to clarify the utility of this procedure in this population.

Renal Denervation: Where to Now?

Resistant hypertension remains a growing problem worldwide. Renal sympathetic denervation was thought to be a new method for the treatment for resistant hypertension. Early studies demonstrated a marked benefit in patients who underwent renal denervation procedures, but the pivotal SYMPLICITY 3-HTN trial, the only sham-controlled randomized trial performed, did not show a benefit for patients treated with the procedure compared to sham. There is still much to learn about the physiology and anatomy of renal sympathetic pathways as well as careful attention to medication adherence in order to understand the role of renal sympathetic denervation in treating hypertensive patients. While renal denervation technology remains available in clinical practice outside of the USA, we expect further development of this technology in the upcoming years and the continued evaluation of this technology in patients with hypertension as well as other disease states to fully understand its role.

Renal denervation after Symplicity HTN-3: an update

After three years of excessive confidence, overoptimistic expectations and performance of 15 to 20,000 renal denervation procedures in Europe, the failure of a single well-designed US trial—Symplicity HTN-3—to meet its primary efficacy endpoint has cast doubt on renal denervation as a whole. The use of a sound methodology, including randomisation and blinded endpoint assessment was enough to see the typical 25–30 mmHg systolic blood pressure decrease observed after renal denervation melt down to less than 3 mmHg, the rest being likely explained by Hawthorne and placebo effects, attenuation of white coat effect, regression to the mean and other physician and patient-related biases. The modest blood pressure benefit directly assignable to renal denervation should be balanced with unresolved safety issues, such as potentially increased risk of renal artery stenosis after the procedure (more than ten cases reported up to now, most of them in 2014), unclear long-term impact on renal function and lack of morbidity–mortality data. Accordingly, there is no doubt that renal denervation is not ready for clinical use. Still, renal denervation is supported by a strong rationale and is occasionally followed by major blood pressure responses in at-risk patients who may otherwise have remained uncontrolled. Upcoming research programmes should focus on identification of those few patients with truly resistant hypertension who may derive a substantial benefit from the technique, within the context of well-designed randomised trials and independent registries. While electrical stimulation of baroreceptors and other interventional treatments of hypertension are already “knocking at the door”, the premature and uncontrolled dissemination of renal denervation should remain an example of what should not be done, and trigger radical changes in evaluation processes of new devices by national and European health authorities.

Is the failure of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial to meet its efficacy endpoint the "end of the road" for renal denervation?

Resistant hypertension is a common medical problem that is increasing with the advent of an increasingly older and heavier population. The etiology of resistant hypertension is almost always multifactorial, but the results of numerous studies indicate that renal sympathetic activation is a particularly common cause of resistance to antihypertensive treatment. Consistent with the belief in a pivotal role of renal sympathetic stimulation, there has been a growing interest in renal denervation (RDN) treatment strategies. The long-awaited results of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 study disclosed that the reduction in blood pressure by the SYMPLICITY device did not differ from that in the sham-procedure arm of the study. In the present article, we identify several factors that explain why the study failed to demonstrate any benefit from the intervention. The reasons are multifactorial and include inadequate screening at entry and frequent medication changes during the study. Additional problems include the lack of experience of many operators with the SYMPLICITY device and procedure variability, as attested to by a diminished number of ablation "quadrants." Also a factor was the inability of the first generation Medtronic device to allow four ablations to be performed simultaneously. We recommend that future RDN studies adhere to more rigorous screening procedures, and utilize newer multi-site denervation systems that facilitate four ablations simultaneously. Drug optimization should be achieved by monitoring adherence throughout the study. Nevertheless, we are optimistic about a future role of RDN. To optimize chances of success, increased efforts are necessary to identify the appropriate patients for RDN and investigators must use second and third generation denervation devices and techniques.