Dataset Information

Effects of Anti-TNF alpha Therapy on Blood Pressure in Resistant Hypertensive Subjects: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The cytokine tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) is elevated in resistant hypertension (RH), but the effects of a TNF-α inhibitor in this population is unknown.

Objective

The aim of this trial was to evaluate whether a single dose of infliximab controlled by placebo acutely reduces blood pressure (BP) in RH subjects.

Methods

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial was conducted, and randomized RH subjects received either infliximab or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in mean BP levels relative to the baseline immediately after the infusion obtained by continuously beat-to-beat non-invasive hemodynamic assessment. Secondary endpoints included changes in office, ambulatory and central BP measurements; endothelial function; and inflammatory biomarkers after 7 days. The level of significance accepted was alpha=0.05.

Results

Ten RH subjects were enrolled. The primary endpoint analysis showed an acute decrease in mean BP values (mean of differences ± standard deviation = -6.3 ± 7.2 mmHg, p=0.02) from baseline, after the application of infliximab compared with placebo. Diastolic BP levels (-4.9 ± 5.5 mmHg, p=0.02), but not systolic BP levels (-9.4 ± 19.7 mmHg, p=0.16), lowered after infliximab infusion. No further significant differences were identified in either the other hemodynamic parameters or in secondary endpoints, except for TNF-α levels, which increased continuously after infliximab infusion. No adverse events were reported during the protocol.

Conclusions

A single-dose of infliximab decreased the mean and diastolic BP levels immediately after its infusion, when compared to the placebo in RH. The anti-TNF-α therapy was found to be safe and well-tolerated. The results of this proof-of-concept are hypothesis-generating and need to be further investigated. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; 116(3):443-451).

SUBMITTER: Faria AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8159563 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Treatment for epistaxis includes application of intranasal vasoconstrictors. These medications have a precaution against use in patients with hypertension. Given that many patients who present with epistaxis are hypertensive, these warnings are commonly overridden by clinical necessity. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to determine the effects of intranasal vasoconstrictors on blood pressure. METHODS:We conducted a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from November 2014 through July 2016. Adult patients being discharged from the emergency department (ED) at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) were recruited. Patients were ineligible if they had a contraindication to study medications, had a history of hypertension, were currently taking antihypertensive or antidysrhythmic medications, or had nasal abnormalities, such as epistaxis. Subjects were randomized to one of four study arms (phenylephrine 0.25%; oxymetazoline 0.05%; lidocaine 1% with epinephrine 1:100,000; or bacteriostatic 0.9% sodium chloride [saline]). Blood pressure and heart rate were measured every 5 min for 30 min. RESULTS:Sixty-eight patients were enrolled in the study; of these, 63 patients completed the study (oxymetazoline, n = 15; phenylephrine, n = 20; lidocaine with epinephrine, n = 11; saline, n = 17). We did not observe any significant differences in mean arterial pressure over time between phenylephrine and saline, oxymetazoline and saline, or lidocaine with epinephrine and saline. The mean greatest increases from baseline in mean arterial pressure, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate for each treatment group were also not significantly different from the saline group. CONCLUSIONS:Intranasal vasoconstrictors did not significantly increase blood pressure in patients without a history of hypertension. Our findings reinforce the practice of administering these medications to patients who present to the ED with epistaxis, regardless of high blood pressure.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Melatonin, secreted by the pineal gland during the night phase, is a regulator of the biological clock and sleep tendency. Totally blind subjects frequently report severe, periodic sleep problems, with 50%-75% of cases displaying non-24-hour sleep-wake disorder (N24HSWD) due to inability to synchronize with the environmental day-night cycle. Melatonin immediate-release preparations are reportedly effective in N24HSWD. Here, we studied the efficacy and safety of prolonged-release melatonin (PRM), a registered drug for insomnia, for sleep disorders in totally blind subjects living in normal social environments. The primary endpoint was demonstration of clinically meaningful effects on sleep duration (upper confidence interval [CI] limit >20 minutes whether significant or not) to allow early decision-making on further drug development in this indication. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov registry - NCT00972075. METHODS:In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-principle study, 13 totally blind subjects had 2 weeks' placebo run-in, 6 weeks' randomized (1:1) PRM (Circadin(®)) or placebo nightly, and 2 weeks' placebo run-out. Outcome measures included daily voice recorded sleep diary, Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5), and safety. RESULTS:Mean nightly sleep duration improved by 43 minutes in the PRM and 16 minutes in the placebo group (mean difference: 27 minutes, 95% CI: -14.4 to 69 minutes; P=0.18; effect size: 0.82) meeting the primary endpoint. Mean sleep latency decreased by 29 minutes with PRM over placebo (P=0.13; effect size: 0.92) and nap duration decreased in the PRM but not placebo group. The variability in sleep onset/offset and latency tended to decrease during PRM but not placebo treatment. The potentially beneficial effects of PRM persisted during the 2 weeks of discontinuation period, consistent with clock stabilizing effects. PRM was well-tolerated, adverse events were of mild or moderate severity and similar between PRM and placebo. CONCLUSION:Nightly use of PRM may potentially improve patient-reported sleep difficulties in totally blind individuals trying to adhere to normal social lifestyle. A larger study powered to demonstrate a statistically significant effect is warranted.