Dataset Information

Monotherapy versus dual therapy for the initial treatment of hypertension (PATHWAY-1): a randomised double-blind controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Previous studies have suggested that more intensive initial therapy for hypertension results in better long-term blood pressure (BP) control. We test this hypothesis comparing initial monotherapy with dual therapy in the management of essential hypertension. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The study is a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled trial in patients with essential hypertension. Around 50% of patients studied will be newly diagnosed and the others will be known hypertensives who previously received only monotherapy. The trial is divided into three phases as follows: Phase 1 (Week 0-Week 16): Randomised, parallel-group, masked assignation to either combination or monotherapy. Phase 2 (Week 17-Week 32): Open-label combination therapy. Phase 3 (Week 33-Week 52): Open-label combination therapy plus open-label add-on (if BP is above 140/90 mm Hg). Hierarchical primary end points are: a comparison of home BP (home systolic blood pressure (HSBP)) averaged over the duration of phase 1 and 2 in the combination versus monotherapy arms. If combination is superior in this analysis, then the averaged mean HSBP between initial monotherapy and initial combination therapy at the end of phase 2 will be compared. Secondary end points include: BP control at 1 year; the role of age, baseline renin, sodium status, plasma volume, haemodynamic compensation and peripheral resistance on BP control; validation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence/British Hypertension Society joint guideline algorithm; safety and tolerability of combination therapy; and the impact of combination versus monotherapy on left ventricular mass and aortic pulse wave velocity. A sample size of 536 (268 in each group) will have 90% power to detect a difference in means of 4 mm Hg. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:PATHWAY 1 was approved by UK ethics (REC Reference 09/H0308/132). Trial results will be published and all participating subjects will be informed of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:UKCRN 4499 and EudraCT number 2008-007749-29 registered 27/08/2009.

SUBMITTER: MacDonald TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4539389 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Monotherapy versus dual therapy for the initial treatment of hypertension (PATHWAY-1): a randomised double-blind controlled trial.

MacDonald Thomas M TM Williams Bryan B Caulfield Mark M Cruickshank J Kennedy JK McInnes Gordon G Sever Peter P Webb David J DJ Mackenzie Isla S IS Salsbury Jackie J Morant Steve S Ford Ian I Brown Morris J MJ

BMJ open 20150807 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Previous studies have suggested that more intensive initial therapy for hypertension results in better long-term blood pressure (BP) control. We test this hypothesis comparing initial monotherapy with dual therapy in the management of essential hypertension.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>The study is a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled trial in patients with essential hypertension. Around 50% of patients studied will be newly diagnosed and the others wi ...[more]

PMID: 26253566

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNew treatments are needed to shorten the time required to cure tuberculosis and to treat drug-resistant strains. The fluoroquinolone moxifloxacin is a promising new agent that might have additive activity to existing antituberculosis agents. We assessed the activity and safety of moxifloxacin in the initial stage of tuberculosis treatment.MethodsWe undertook a phase II, double-blind, randomised controlled trial of a regimen that included moxifloxacin in adults with sputum smear-positive tuberculosis at one hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 170 participants received isoniazid, rifampicin, and pyrazinamide at standard doses and were assigned by permuted block randomisation to receive either moxifloxacin (400 mg) with an ethambutol placebo (n=85) or ethambutol (15-20 mg/kg) plus moxifloxacin placebo (n=85) 5 days per week for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients whose sputum culture had converted to negative by week 8. Analysis was by modified intention to treat (ITT); patients whose baseline cultures were negative, contaminated, or contained drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, all missing 8-week results were deemed treatment failures. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00082173.Findings74 patients assigned to the moxifloxacin group and 72 in the ethambutol group were included in the modified ITT population. 125 patients had 8-week data (moxifloxacin n=64, ethambutol n=61); the main reason for absence of data was culture contamination. At 8 weeks, culture conversion to negative had occurred in 59 (80%) of 74 patients in the moxifloxacin group compared with 45 (63%) of 72 in the ethambutol group (difference 17.2%, 95% CI 2.8-31.7; p=0.03). There were 16 adverse events (eight in each group) in 12 patients. Only one event was judged related to study drug (grade 3 cutaneous reaction in the ethambutol group).InterpretationMoxifloxacin improved culture conversion in the initial phase of tuberculosis treatment. Trials to assess whether moxifloxacin can be used to shorten the duration of tuberculosis treatment are justified.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclosporin A (CsA) monotherapy with CsA plus methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). PATIENTS AND METHODS:120 patients with active RA, rheumatoid factor positive and/or erosive, were randomly allocated to receive CsA with MTX (n=60) or CsA with placebo (n=60). Treatment with CsA was started in all patients at 2.5 mg/kg/day and increased to a maximum of 5 mg/kg/day in 16 weeks. MTX was started at 7.5 mg/week and increased to a maximal dose of 15 mg/week at week 16. Primary outcomes were clinical remission (Pinals criteria) and radiological damage (Larsen score), at week 48. RESULTS:Treatment was discontinued prematurely in 27 patients in the monotherapy group (21 because of inefficacy, and six because of toxicity) and in 26 patients in the combination therapy group (14 and 12, respectively). At week 48, clinical remission was achieved in four patients in the monotherapy group and in six patients in the combination therapy group (p=0.5). The median Larsen score increased to 10 (25th, 75th centiles: 3.5; 13.3) points in the monotherapy group and to 4 (1.0; 10.5) points in the combination therapy group (p=0.004). 28/60 (47%) of patients in the monotherapy group v 34/60 (57%) of patients in the combination therapy group had reached an American college of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (p=0.36) at week 48; 15/60 (25%) v 29/60 (48%) of patients had reached an ACR50 response (p=0.013); and 7 (12%) v 12 (20%) of patients had reached an ACR70 response (p=0.11). Their was a tendency towards more toxicity in the combination therapy group. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with early RA, neither CsA plus MTX combination therapy nor CsA monotherapy is very effective in inducing clinical remission. Combination therapy is probably better at improving clinical disease activity, and definitely better at slowing radiological progression. Combination therapy should still be compared with methotrexate monotherapy.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy. DESIGN:Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol. SETTING:11 palliative care sites in Australia. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours. INTERVENTIONS:Based on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:A ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change. RESULTS:Response to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In the per protocol analysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Complete per protocol response rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm. CONCLUSION:This study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN 12615000177550.

Project description:BackgroundOptimal drug treatment for patients with resistant hypertension is undefined. We aimed to test the hypotheses that resistant hypertension is most often caused by excessive sodium retention, and that spironolactone would therefore be superior to non-diuretic add-on drugs at lowering blood pressure.MethodsIn this double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-79 years with seated clinic systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater (or ≥135 mm Hg for patients with diabetes) and home systolic blood pressure (18 readings over 4 days) 130 mm Hg or greater, despite treatment for at least 3 months with maximally tolerated doses of three drugs, from 12 secondary and two primary care sites in the UK. Patients rotated, in a preassigned, randomised order, through 12 weeks of once daily treatment with each of spironolactone (25-50 mg), bisoprolol (5-10 mg), doxazosin modified release (4-8 mg), and placebo, in addition to their baseline blood pressure drugs. Random assignment was done via a central computer system. Investigators and patients were masked to the identity of drugs, and to their sequence allocation. The dose was doubled after 6 weeks of each cycle. The hierarchical primary endpoints were the difference in averaged home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and placebo, followed (if significant) by the difference in home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and the average of the other two active drugs, followed by the difference in home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and each of the other two drugs. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with EudraCT number 2008-007149-30, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02369081.FindingsBetween May 15, 2009, and July 8, 2014, we screened 436 patients, of whom 335 were randomly assigned. After 21 were excluded, 285 patients received spironolactone, 282 doxazosin, 285 bisoprolol, and 274 placebo; 230 patients completed all treatment cycles. The average reduction in home systolic blood pressure by spironolactone was superior to placebo (-8·70 mm Hg [95% CI -9·72 to -7·69]; p<0·0001), superior to the mean of the other two active treatments (doxazosin and bisoprolol; -4·26 [-5·13 to -3·38]; p<0·0001), and superior when compared with the individual treatments; versus doxazosin (-4·03 [-5·04 to -3·02]; p<0·0001) and versus bisoprolol (-4·48 [-5·50 to -3·46]; p<0·0001). Spironolactone was the most effective blood pressure-lowering treatment, throughout the distribution of baseline plasma renin; but its margin of superiority and likelihood of being the best drug for the individual patient were many-fold greater in the lower than higher ends of the distribution. All treatments were well tolerated. In six of the 285 patients who received spironolactone, serum potassium exceeded 6·0 mmol/L on one occasion.InterpretationSpironolactone was the most effective add-on drug for the treatment of resistant hypertension. The superiority of spironolactone supports a primary role of sodium retention in this condition.FundingThe British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundExenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has neuroprotective effects in preclinical models of Parkinson's disease. We investigated whether these effects would be apparent in a clinical trial.MethodsIn this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with moderate Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of exenatide 2 mg or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks in addition to their regular medication, followed by a 12-week washout period. Eligible patients were aged 25-75 years, had idiopathic Parkinson's disease as measured by Queen Square Brain Bank criteria, were on dopaminergic treatment with wearing-off effects, and were at Hoehn and Yahr stage 2·5 or less when on treatment. Randomisation was by web-based randomisation with a two strata block design according to disease severity. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the adjusted difference in the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the practically defined off-medication state at 60 weeks. All efficacy analyses were based on a modified intention-to-treat principle, which included all patients who completed any post-randomisation follow-up assessments. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01971242) and is completed.FindingsBetween June 18, 2014, and March 13, 2015, 62 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 32 to exenatide and 30 to placebo. Our primary analysis included 31 patients in the exenatide group and 29 patients in the placebo group. At 60 weeks, off-medication scores on part 3 of the MDS-UPDRS had improved by 1·0 points (95% CI -2·6 to 0·7) in the exenatide group and worsened by 2·1 points (-0·6 to 4·8) in the placebo group, an adjusted mean difference of -3·5 points (-6·7 to -0·3; p=0·0318). Injection site reactions and gastrointestinal symptoms were common adverse events in both groups. Six serious adverse events occurred in the exenatide group and two in the placebo group, although none in either group were judged to be related to the study interventions.InterpretationExenatide had positive effects on practically defined off-medication motor scores in Parkinson's disease, which were sustained beyond the period of exposure. Whether exenatide affects the underlying disease pathophysiology or simply induces long-lasting symptomatic effects is uncertain. Exenatide represents a major new avenue for investigation in Parkinson's disease, and effects on everyday symptoms should be examined in longer-term trials.FundingMichael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Project description:BackgroundOxytocin is an effective drug for induction of labour, but is associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need of immediate delivery are the most common. Discontinuation of oxytocin once the active phase of labour is established could reduce the adverse effects. The objective is to investigate how the caesarean section rate is affected when oxytocin stimulation is discontinued in the active phase of labour compared to labours where oxytocin is continued.MethodsCONDISOX is a double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted at Danish and Dutch Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The first participant was recruited on April 8 2016. Based on a clinically relevant relative reduction in caesarean section rate of 7%, an alpha of 0.05, a beta of 80%, we aim for 1200 participating women (600 in each arm). The CONDISOX trial includes women at a gestational age of 37-42 complete weeks of pregnancy, who have uterine activity stimulated with oxytocin infusion for the induction of labour. Women are randomised when the active phase of labour becomes established, to study medication containing either oxytocin (continuous group) or placebo (discontinued group) infusion. Women are stratified by birth site, indication for oxytocin stimulation (induction of labour, prelabour rupture of membranes) and parity (nulliparous, parous +/- previous caesarean section). We will compare the primary outcome, caesarean section rate, in the two groups using a chi-square test with a p-value of 0.05. If superiority is not demonstrated, we have a pre-defined post hoc non-inferiority boundary (margin, delta) at 1.09. Secondary outcomes include duration of the active phase of labour, incidence of uterine tachysystole, postpartum haemorrhage, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, Apgar score, umbilical arterial blood pH, and birth experience.DiscussionThe high frequency of oxytocin use and the potential risks of both maternal and fetal adverse effects of oxytocin emphasise the need to determine the optimal oxytocin regime for induction of labour.Trial registrationNCT02553226 (registered September 17, 2015). Eudra-CT number: 2015-002942-30.

Dataset Information

Monotherapy versus dual therapy for the initial treatment of hypertension (PATHWAY-1): a randomised double-blind controlled trial.

Publications

Monotherapy versus dual therapy for the initial treatment of hypertension (PATHWAY-1): a randomised double-blind controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets