1. Home
  2. Humans

Humans

The Unrecognized Prevalence of Primary Aldosteronism

Author/s: 
Brown, JM, Siddiqui, M, Calhoun, DA, Carey, RM, Hopkins, PN, Williams, GH, Vaidya, A

Background:

Primary aldosteronism is a nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production that causes hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

 

Objective:

To characterize the prevalence of nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production, as well as biochemically overt primary aldosteronism, in relation to blood pressure.

 

Design:

Cross-sectional study.

 

Setting:

4 U.S. academic medical centers.

 

Participants:

Participants with normotension (n = 289), stage 1 hypertension (n = 115), stage 2 hypertension (n = 203), and resistant hypertension (n = 408).

 

Measurements:

Participants completed an oral sodium suppression test, regardless of aldosterone or renin levels, as a confirmatory diagnostic for primary aldosteronism and to quantify the magnitude of renin-independent aldosterone production. Urinary aldosterone was measured in participants in high sodium balance with suppressed renin activity. Biochemically overt primary aldosteronism was diagnosed when urinary aldosterone levels were higher than 12 µg/24 h.

 

Results:

Every blood pressure category had a continuum of renin-independent aldosterone production, where greater severity of production was associated with higher blood pressure, kaliuresis, and lower serum potassium levels. Mean adjusted levels of urinary aldosterone were 6.5 µg/24 h (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.7 µg/24 h) in normotension, 7.3 µg/24 h (CI, 5.6 to 8.9 µg/24 h) in stage 1 hypertension, 9.5 µg/24 h (CI, 8.2 to 10.8 µg/24 h) in stage 2 hypertension, and 14.6 µg/24 h (CI, 12.9 to 16.2 µg/24 h) in resistant hypertension; corresponding adjusted prevalence estimates for biochemically overt primary aldosteronism were 11.3% (CI, 5.9% to 16.8%), 15.7% (CI, 8.6% to 22.9%), 21.6% (CI, 16.1% to 27.0%), and 22.0% (CI, 17.2% to 26.8%). The aldosterone–renin ratio had poor sensitivity and negative predictive value for detecting biochemically overt primary aldosteronism.

 

Limitation:

Prevalence estimates rely on arbitrary and conventional thresholds, and the study population may not represent nationwide demographics.

 

Conclusion:

The prevalence of primary aldosteronism is high and largely unrecognized. Beyond this categorical definition of primary aldosteronism, there is a prevalent continuum of renin-independent aldosterone production that parallels the severity of hypertension. These findings redefine the primary aldosteronism syndrome and implicate it in the pathogenesis of “essential” hypertension.

 

Primary Funding Source:

National Institutes of Health.

Keywords 
primary aldosteronism hypertension cardiovascular disease

Estimating Lifetime Benefits of Comprehensive Disease-Modifying Pharmacological Therapies in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Comparative Analysis of Three Randomised Controlled Trials

Author/s: 
Vaduganathan, M., Claggett, BL, Jhund, PS, Cunningham, JW, Ferreira, JP, Zannad, F, Packer, M, Fonarow, GC, McMurray, JJV, Solomon, S.D.

Background: Three drug classes (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs], angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors [ARNIs], and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors) reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) beyond conventional therapy consisting of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and β blockers. Each class was previously studied with different background therapies and the expected treatment benefits with their combined use are not known. Here, we used data from three previously reported randomised controlled trials to estimate lifetime gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive therapy versus conventional therapy in patients with chronic HFrEF.

Methods: In this cross-trial analysis, we estimated treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy (ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor) versus conventional therapy (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker) in patients with chronic HFrEF by making indirect comparisons of three pivotal trials, EMPHASIS-HF (n=2737), PARADIGM-HF (n=8399), and DAPA-HF (n=4744). Our primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure; we also assessed these endpoints individually and assessed all-cause mortality. Assuming these relative treatment effects are consistent over time, we then projected incremental long-term gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive disease-modifying therapy in the control group of the EMPHASIS-HF trial (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker).

Findings: The hazard ratio (HR) for the imputed aggregate treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying therapy versus conventional therapy on the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure was 0·38 (95% CI 0·30-0·47). HRs were also favourable for cardiovascular death alone (HR 0·50 [95% CI 0·37-0·67]), hospital admission for heart failure alone (0·32 [0·24-0·43]), and all-cause mortality (0·53 [0·40-0·70]). Treatment with comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy was estimated to afford 2·7 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 8·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) free from cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure and 1·4 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 6·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) of survival compared with conventional therapy.

Interpretation: Among patients with HFrEF, the anticipated aggregate treatment effects of early comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy are substantial and support the combination use of an ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor as a new therapeutic standard.

Funding: None.

Keywords 
CHF patients heart failure pharmacologic management

Aspirin for Primary Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Prevention as Baseline Risk Increases: A Meta-Regression Analysis

Author/s: 
Nudy, M, Cooper, J, Ghahramani, M, Ruzieh, M, Mandrola, J, Foy, AJ

Background

Aspirin is often prescribed for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) however, recent randomized trials (RCTs) have challenged this practice. Despite this, aspirin is commonly recommended for high risk primary prevention. We tested the hypothesis that aspirin is more efficacious for the primary prevention of ASCVD, as the baseline risk increases.

Methods

RCTs that compared aspirin to control for primary prevention and evaluated ASCVD (composite of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke) and major bleeding were included. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A regression analysis was performed using the ASCVD event rate in the control arm of each RCT as the moderator.

Results

Twelve RCTs were identified with 963,829 patient years of follow-up. Aspirin was associated with a reduction in ASCVD (4.7 versus 5.3 events per 1,000 patient years; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.92). There was increased major bleeding among aspirin users (2.5 versus 1.8 events per 1000 patient years, RR 1.41 95% CI, 1.29-1.54). Regression analysis found no relationship between the log rate ratio of ASCVD or major bleeding and incidence of ASCVD in the control arm of each RCT.

Conclusion

Aspirin is associated with a reduction in ASCVD when used for primary prevention; however, it is unlikely to be clinically significant given the increase in bleeding. More importantly, aspirin's treatment effect does not increase as ASCVD risk increases as many hypothesize. There is no suggestion from this data that use of aspirin for higher risk primary prevention patients is beneficial.

Keywords 
aspirin primary prevention Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease myocardial infarction Ischemic Stroke Major Bleeding

Evidenced-Based Pharmacotherapies for Alcohol Use Disorder

Author/s: 
Fairbanks, J, Umbreit, A, Kolla, BP, Karpyak, VM, Schneekloth, TD, Loukianova, LL, Sinha, S

Pathologic alcohol use affects more than 2 billion people and accounts for nearly 6% of all deaths worldwide. There are three medications approved for the treatment of alcohol use disorder by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and long-acting injectable), and acamprosate. Of growing interest is the use of anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol use disorder, although currently none are FDA approved for this indication. Baclofen, a γ-aminobutyric acid B receptor agonist used for spasticity and pain, received temporary approval for alcohol use disorder in France. Despite effective pharmacotherapies, less than 9% of patients who undergo any form of alcohol use disorder treatment receive pharmacotherapies. Current evidence does not support the use of pharmacogenetic testing for treatment individualization. The objective of this review is to provide knowledge on practice parameters for evidenced-based pharmacologic treatment approaches in patients with alcohol use disorder.

Keywords 
alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapy disulfiram naltrexone acamprosate anticonvulsants Baclofen

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Author/s: 
Martineau, AR, Jolliffe, DA, Hooper, RL, Greenberg, L, Aloia, JF, Bergman, P, Dubnov-Raz, G, Esposito, S, Ganmaa, D, Ginde, AA, Goodall, EC, Grant, CC, Griffiths, CJ, Janssens, W, Laaksi, I, Manaseki-Holland S, Mauger D, Murdoch DR, Neale R, Rees JR, Simpson S Jr, Stelmach, I, Kumar, GT, Urashima, M", CA Jr

Objectives To assess the overall effect of vitamin D supplementation on risk of acute respiratory tract infection, and to identify factors modifying this effect.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials.

Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry from inception to December 2015.

Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials of supplementation with vitamin D3 or vitamin D2 of any duration were eligible for inclusion if they had been approved by a research ethics committee and if data on incidence of acute respiratory tract infection were collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome.

Results 25 eligible randomised controlled trials (total 11 321 participants, aged 0 to 95 years) were identified. IPD were obtained for 10 933 (96.6%) participants. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infection among all participants (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.96; P for heterogeneity <0.001). In subgroup analysis, protective effects were seen in those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D without additional bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 0.72 to 0.91) but not in those receiving one or more bolus doses (adjusted odds ratio 0.97, 0.86 to 1.10; P for interaction=0.05). Among those receiving daily or weekly vitamin D, protective effects were stronger in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels <25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 0.17 to 0.53) than in those with baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥25 nmol/L (adjusted odds ratio 0.75, 0.60 to 0.95; P for interaction=0.006). Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.80 to 1.20, P=0.83). The body of evidence contributing to these analyses was assessed as being of high quality.

Conclusions Vitamin D supplementation was safe and it protected against acute respiratory tract infection overall. Patients who were very vitamin D deficient and those not receiving bolus doses experienced the most benefit.

Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014013953.

Keywords 
vitamin D respiratory tract infections dietary supplements

Nonopioid Pharmacologic Treatments for Chronic Pain. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 228

Author/s: 
McDonagh, MS, Selph, SS, Buckley, DI, Holmes, RS, Mauer, K, Ramirez, S, Hsu, FC, Dana, T, Fu, R, Chou

Objectives. To evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of nonopioid pharmacologic agents in patients with specific types of chronic pain, considering effects on pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events.

Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, Embase®, PsycINFO®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) through September 10, 2019, reference lists, data requests, and previous reviews.

Review methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nonopioid pharmacologic agents in patients with chronic pain were selected using predefined criteria and dual review. This review focused on seven common chronic pain conditions (neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, low back pain, chronic headache, sickle cell disease), with effects analyzed at short term (1 to <6 months following treatment completion), intermediate term (≥6 to <12 months), and long term (≥12 months). Magnitude of effects were described as small, moderate, or large using previously defined criteria, and strength of evidence was assessed. Meta-analyses were conducted where data allowed, stratified by duration within each intervention type, using random effects models. We evaluated effect modification through subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including specific drug, dose, study quality, and pain type.

Results. We included 185 RCTs in 221 publications and 5 systematic reviews. In the short term, anticonvulsants (pregabalin, gabapentin, and oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain, pregabalin/gabapentin for fibromyalgia), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressants (duloxetine for neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and low back pain, milnacipran for fibromyalgia), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis) were associated with mostly small improvements (e.g., 5 to 20 points on a 0 to 100 scale) in pain and function. Function was not found to be improved with duloxetine for low back pain or pregabalin/gabapentin for neuropathic pain. Moderate improvement in quality of life was seen with duloxetine in patients with neuropathic pain, and small improvements in patients with osteoarthritis, but evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions for other drugs and conditions. While most comparisons of drugs and doses did not identify differences, diclofenac improved pain and function moderately more than celecoxib. In the intermediate term, limited evidence (1 RCT) showed memantine moderately improved pain, function, and quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia; improvements in pain, but not function, were maintained in the intermediate term with duloxetine and milnacipran for fibromyalgia. Other drugs studied, including acetaminophen (osteoarthritis), capsaicin (neuropathic pain), cannabis (neuropathic pain), amitriptyline (fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain), and cyclobenzaprine (fibromyalgia) had no clear effects. Withdrawal from study due to adverse events was significantly increased with nonopioid drugs, with the greatest increase over placebo seen with cannabis. Large increases in risk of adverse events were seen with pregabalin (blurred vision, cognitive effects, dizziness, peripheral edema, sedation, and weight gain), gabapentin (blurred vision, cognitive effects, sedation, weight gain), and cannabis (nausea, dizziness). Dose viii reductions reduced the risk of some adverse events with SNRI antidepressants. In the short term small increases in risk of major coronary events and moderate increases in serious gastrointestinal events (both short and long term) were found with NSAIDs.

Conclusions. In the short term, small improvements in pain and/or function were seen with SNRI antidepressants for neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and low back pain; pregabalin/gabapentin for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia; oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain; and NSAIDs for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis. Improvement in function was not found with duloxetine for low back pain and pregabalin/gabapentin for neuropathic pain. Intermediate- and long-term outcomes were mostly not assessed. Increased incidence of drug class–specific adverse events led to withdrawal from treatment in some patients, suggesting that careful consideration of patient characteristics is needed in selecting nonopioid drug treatments.

Keywords 
chronic pain non-opioid treatment anticonvulsants serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs NSAID SNRI cannabis

Opioid Treatments for Chronic Pain. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 229

Author/s: 
Chou, R, Hartung, D, Turner, J, Blazina, I, Chan, B, Levander, X, McDonagh, M, Selph, S, Fu, Pappas

Objectives. Chronic pain is common, and opioid therapy is frequently prescribed for this condition. This report updates and expands on a prior Comparative Effectiveness Review on long-term (≥1 year) effectiveness and harms of opioid therapy for chronic pain, including evidence on shorter term (1 to 12 months) outcomes.

Data sources. A prior systematic review (searches through January 2014), electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase®, PsycINFO®, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through August 2019), reference lists, and clinical trials registries.

Review methods. Predefined criteria were used to select studies of patients with chronic pain prescribed opioids that addressed effectiveness or harms versus placebo, no opioid use, or nonopioid pharmacological therapies; different opioid dosing methods; or risk mitigation strategies. Effects were analyzed at short-term (1 to <6 months), intermediate-term (≥6 to <12 months), and long-term (≥12 months) followup. Studies on the accuracy of risk prediction instruments for predicting opioid use disorder or misuse were also included. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted on short-term trials of opioids versus placebo, opioids versus nonopioids, and opioids plus nonopioids versus an opioid or nonopioid alone. Magnitude of effects was classified as small, moderate, or large using predefined criteria, and strength of evidence was assessed.

Results. We included 115 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 40 observational studies, and 7 studies of predictive accuracy; 134 were new to this update. Opioids were associated with small benefits versus placebo in short-term pain, function, and sleep quality. There was a small dose-dependent effect on pain, and effects were attenuated at longer (3 to 6 month) versus shorter (1 to 3 month) followup. Opioids were associated with increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events, gastrointestinal adverse events, somnolence, dizziness, and pruritus versus placebo. In observational studies, opioids were associated with increased risk of an opioid abuse or dependence diagnosis, overdose, all-cause mortality, fractures, falls, and myocardial infarction versus no opioid use; there was evidence of a dose-dependent risk for all outcomes except fracture and falls.

There were no differences between opioids and nonopioid medications in pain, function, or other short-term outcomes. Opioid plus nonopioid combination therapy was associated with little improvement in pain at short-term followup versus an opioid alone. Co-prescription of benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids was associated with increased risk of overdose versus an opioid alone. No RCT evaluated intermediate- or long-term benefits of opioids versus placebo. One trial found stepped therapy starting with opioids to be associated with higher pain intensity and no difference in function or other outcomes versus stepped therapy starting with nonopioid therapy.

Limited evidence indicated no differences between long- and short-acting opioids in effectiveness, but long-acting opioids were associated with increased risk of overdose. One RCT found a taper support intervention associated with greater improvement in function but no difference in pain versus usual care.

Estimates of diagnostic accuracy for various risk prediction instruments were highly inconsistent, and there was no evidence on the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies for improving clinical outcomes, with the exception of one study that found provision of naloxone associated with decreased emergency department visits.

Trials of patients with prescription opioid dependence found buprenorphine maintenance associated with better outcomes than buprenorphine taper and similar effects of methadone versus buprenorphine. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate benefits and harms of opioid therapy in patients at higher risk for opioid use disorder.

Conclusions. At short-term followup, for patients with chronic pain, opioids are associated with small beneficial effects versus placebo but are associated with increased risk of short-term harms and do not appear to be superior to nonopioid therapy. Evidence on intermediate-term and long-term benefits remains very limited, and additional evidence confirms an association between opioids and increased risk of serious harms that appears to be dose-dependent. Research is needed to develop accurate risk prediction instruments, determine effective risk mitigation strategies, clarify risks associated with co-prescribed medications, and identify optimal opioid tapering strategies.

Keywords 
opioid therapy chronic pain comparative review opioid-use disorder methadone Buprenorphine

Treatment of Depression in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 224

Author/s: 
Viswanathan, M, Kennedy, SM, McKeeman, J, Christian, R, Coker-Schwimmer, Cook Middleton, Bann, C, Lux, L, Randolph, Forman-Hoffman, V

Background. Depressive disorders can affect long-term mental and physical health functioning among children and adolescents, including increased risk of suicide. Despite access to several nonpharmacological, pharmacological, and combined treatment options for childhood depression, clinicians contend with sparse evidence and are concerned about harms associated with treatment.

Methods. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and moderators of benefits and harms of available nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments for children and adolescents with a confirmed diagnosis of a depressive disorder (DD)—major depressive disorder (MDD), persistent depressive disorder (previously termed dysthymia) or DD not otherwise specified. We searched five databases and other sources for evidence available from inception to May 29, 2019, dually screened the results, and analyzed eligible studies.

Results. We included in our analyses data from 60 studies (94 articles) that met our review eligibility criteria. For adolescents (study participants’ ages range from 12 to 18 years) with MDD, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), fluoxetine, escitalopram, and combined fluoxetine and CBT may improve depressive symptoms (1 randomized controlled trial [RCT] each, n ranges from 212 to 311); whether the magnitude of improvement is clinically significant is unclear. Among adolescents or children with MDD, CBT plus medications (8–17 years) may be associated with lower rates of relapse (1 RCT [n = 121]). In the same population (6–17 years), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may be associated with improved response (7 RCTs [n = 1,525]; risk difference [RD], 72/1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2 to 24], I2 = 9%) and functional status (5 RCTs [n = 941]; standardized mean difference, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.29]; I2 = 0%). For adolescents or children with any DD (7–18 years), CBT or family therapy may be associated with improvements in symptoms, response, or functional status (1 RCT each, n ranges from 64 to 99). Among children with any DD (7–12 years), family-based interpersonal therapy may be associated with improved symptoms (1 RCT, n = 38). Psychotherapy trials did not report harms. SSRIs may be associated with a higher risk of serious adverse events among adolescents or children with MDD (7–18 years; 9 RCTs [n = 2,206]; RD, 20/1,000 [95% CI, 1 to 440]; I2, 4%) and with a higher risk of withdrawal due to adverse events among adolescents with MDD (12–18 years; 4 RCTs [n = 1,296], RD, 26/1,000 [95% CI, 6 to 45]; I2, 0%). Paroxetine (1 RCT [n = 180]) may be associated with a higher risk of suicidal ideation or behaviors among adolescents with MDD (12–18 years). Evidence was insufficient to judge the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior for other SSRIs for adolescents and children with MDD or other DD (7–18 years) (10 RCTs [n = 2,368]; relative risk, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.45]; I2, 8%). However, this report excluded data on inpatients and those without depressive disorders, whom the Food and Drug Administration included in finding an increased risk of suicidality for all antidepressants across all indications.

Conclusion. Efficacious treatments exist for adolescents with MDD. SSRIs may be associated with increased withdrawal and serious adverse events. No evidence on harms of psychotherapy were identified.

Keywords 
children adolescent child depression treatment cognitive behavioral therapy selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors
Subscribe to Humans