Citations

Background Reductions in blood pressure (BP) control among patients with hypertension were observed early in the COVID‐19 pandemic. The degree to which BP control may have returned to prepandemic levels is unknown. Methods Individuals aged 18 to 85 years with hypertension from 17 health systems participating in the National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network were identified using electronic health record data collected as part of routine care. BP control (percentage of patients whose most recent BP measurement was <140/<90 mm Hg) was estimated in a series of 12‐month rolling measurement periods from 2017 through 2022 (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017; April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018; … January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022). Differences in average BP control between 2022 (January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022) and 2019 (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019) were estimated overall (adjusted for age, sex, and race and ethnicity) and by race and ethnicity (adjusted for age and sex). Results Our sample included 1 193 314 persons with hypertension in 2019 (48.9% aged 65–85 years, 52.9% men, 66.2% non‐Hispanic White) and 1 499 418 individuals in 2022 (50.6% aged 65–85 years, 47.1% men, 62.7% non‐Hispanic White). The weighted average BP control dropped from 65.3% in 2019 to 61.8% in 2020 and then partially recovered to 62.6% in 2022 (adjusted mean difference, −2.6 percentage points [95% CI, −5.0 to −0.2]). Non‐Hispanic Asian individuals experienced the largest temporal drop in BP control, declining from 68.4% in 2019 to 63.9% in 2022. Conclusions BP control was disrupted during the COVID‐19 pandemic and had not fully rebounded to prepandemic levels by the end of 2022. Continued surveillance is needed to determine whether the decline in BP control will persist and will result in future adverse cardiovascular events.

ImportanceMyeloperoxidase is one of the most abundant peroxidase enzymes in activated myeloid cells. Myeloperoxidase inhibitors may have a clinical benefit in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by slowing neurodegeneration via reduced neuroinflammation and oxidative stress.ObjectiveTo determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of verdiperstat, a selective myeloperoxidase inhibitor, in ALS.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsVerdiperstat was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a multicenter, double-blind, perpetual platform design, randomized clinical trial, with sharing of trial infrastructure and placebo data across multiple regimens. The study was conducted at 54 ALS referral centers across the US from July 2020 to April 2022. Adult participants with a diagnosis of clinically possible, probable, laboratory-supported probable, or definite ALS defined by the revised El Escorial criteria were randomized to verdiperstat or regimen-specific placebo. An additional group of participants concurrently randomized to placebo from other regimens was included in the analyses.InterventionsEligible participants were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive oral verdiperstat, 600 mg, twice daily or matching placebo for a planned placebo-controlled duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in disease severity, as measured by a joint model of ALS Functional Rating Scale–Revised and survival, with the treatment effect quantified by the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression of verdiperstat relative to placebo.ResultsA total of 167 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.4] years; 59 [35.3%] female; 108 [64.6%] male) were randomized to either verdiperstat (126 [75.4%]) or to placebo (41 [25.6%]). Among the participants randomized to the verdiperstat regimen, 130 (78%) completed the trial. The estimated DRR was 0.98 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.24; posterior probability = 0.57 for slowing of disease progression [DRR &amp;lt;1]). Verdiperstat was estimated to slow progression by 2% vs placebo (95% credible interval, −23% to 24%; posterior probability 0.57). Verdiperstat was overall safe and well tolerated. Common adverse events in the verdiperstat group were nausea, insomnia, and elevated thyrotropin levels.Conclusions and RelevanceResults demonstrate that treatment with verdiperstat was unlikely to alter disease progression in ALS.Trial RegistrationClinical Trial Identifiers: NCT04297683 and NCT04436510

ImportanceAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal disease. The sigma-1 (σ1) receptor emerged as a target for intervention.ObjectiveTo determine the effects of pridopidine, a σ1-receptor agonist, in ALS.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsPridopidine was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, platform trial. The study was conducted at 54 sites in the US from January 2021 to July 2022 (final follow-up, July 14, 2022). A total of 163 participants with ALS were randomized to receive pridopidine or placebo. An additional 122 concurrently randomized participants were assigned to receive placebo in other regimens and included in the analyses.InterventionsEligible participants were randomized 3:1 to receive oral pridopidine 45 mg twice daily (n = 121) or matching oral placebo (n = 42) for a planned duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in ALS disease severity, analyzed using a bayesian shared parameter model, which has components for function (Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale [ALSFRS-R]) and survival that were linked through an integrated estimate of treatment-dependent disease slowing across these 2 components. This was denoted as the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression on pridopidine relative to placebo. There were 5 key secondary end points: time to 2-point or greater reduction in ALSFRS-R total score among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, rate of decline in slow vital capacity among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, percentage of participants with no worsening in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, time to 1-point or greater change in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, and time to death or permanent assisted ventilation.ResultsAmong 162 patients (mean age, 57.5 years; 35% female) who were randomized to receive the pridopidine regimen and included in the primary efficacy analysis, 136 (84%) completed the trial. In the primary analysis comparing pridopidine vs the combined placebo groups, there was no significant difference between pridopidine and placebo in the primary end point (DRR, 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.80-1.21]; probability of DRR &amp;lt;1, 0.55) and no differences were seen in the components of ALSFRS-R or survival. There was no benefit of pridopidine on the secondary end points. In the safety dataset (pridopidine, n = 121; placebo, n = 163), the most common adverse events were falls (28.1% vs 29.3%, respectively) and muscular weakness (24.0% vs 31.7%, respectively).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this 24-week study, pridopidine did not impact the progression of ALS.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04297683, NCT04615923

Importance The etiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a fatal neurodegenerative disease, is unknown. However, neuroinflammation and complement activation may play a role in disease progression. Objective To determine the effects of zilucoplan, an inhibitor of complement C5, in individuals with ALS. Design, Setting, and Participants Zilucoplan was tested as regimen A of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2 to 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled perpetual platform clinical trial with sharing of trial infrastructure and placebo data across multiple regimens. Regimen A was conducted from August 17, 2020, to May 4, 2022. A total of 162 participants were randomized to receive zilucoplan (122 [75.3%]) or regimen-specific placebo (40 [24.7%]). An additional 124 concurrently randomized participants were randomized to receive placebo in other regimens. Interventions Eligible participants were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive zilucoplan or matching placebo within strata of edaravone and/or riluzole use for a planned duration of 24 weeks. Active drug (zilucoplan, 0.3 mg/kg) and placebo were provided for daily subcutaneous dosing. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was change in disease severity from baseline through 24 weeks as measured by the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) total score and survival, analyzed using a bayesian shared-parameter model and reported as disease rate ratio (DRR; &amp;lt;1 indicating treatment benefit). The study included prespecified rules for early stopping for futility. Outcome analyses were performed in the full analysis set comparing the zilucoplan group with the total shared placebo group (n = 164). Results Among the 162 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 59.6 [11.3]; 99 [61.1%] male), 115 (71.0%) completed the trial. The estimated DRR common to ALSFRS-R and survival was 1.08 (95% credible interval, 0.87-1.31; posterior probability of superiority, 0.24). The trial was stopped early for futility. No unexpected treatment-related risks were identified. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of zilucoplan in ALS, treatment did not alter disease progression. The adaptive platform design of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial made it possible to test a new investigational product with efficient use of time and resources. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04297683

Importance Bioenergetic failure has been proposed as a driver of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). CNM-Au8 is a suspension of gold nanocrystals that catalyzes the conversion of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide hydride into NAD + , resulting in an increase of cellular adenosine triphosphate production. Objective To determine the effects of CNM-Au8 on ALS disease progression. Design, Setting, and Participants CNM-Au8 was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind platform trial. The study was conducted at 54 sites in the US from July 2020 to March 2022 (final follow-up, March 17, 2022). A total of 161 participants with ALS were randomized to receive CNM-Au8 (n = 120) or regimen-specific placebo (n = 41). Data from 123 concurrently randomized placebo participants in other regimens were combined for analyses. Interventions Eligible participants were randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio to receive CNM-Au8 60 mg daily (n = 61), CNM-Au8 30 mg daily (n = 59), or matching placebo (n = 41) for 24 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in ALS disease severity measured by a bayesian shared parameter model of function (based on the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale) and survival, which provided an estimate of the rate of disease progression measured by the disease rate ratio (DRR), with a DRR of less than 1 indicating treatment benefit. Secondary end points included a Combined Assessment of Function and Survival using a joint-rank test, rate of decline in slow vital capacity (percent predicted), and survival free of permanent assisted ventilation. Results Among 161 participants who were randomized within the CNM-Au8 regimen (mean age, 58.4 years; 61 [37.9%] female), 145 (90%) completed the trial. In the primary analysis comparing the combined CNM-Au8 dosage groups vs the combined placebo groups, the primary end point (DRR, 0.97 [95% credible interval, 0.783-1.175]; posterior probability of DRR &amp;lt;1, 0.65) and the 3 secondary end points suggested no benefit or harm of CNM-Au8. In the active (n = 120) vs placebo (n = 163) groups, the most common adverse events were diarrhea (23 [19%] vs 12 [7%]), nausea (17 [14.2%] vs 14 [8.6%]), fatigue (12 [10.8%] vs 30 [18.4%]), and muscular weakness (24 [20%] vs 45 [27.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance No benefit of CNM-Au8 on ALS disease progression was observed at 24 weeks. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04297683 , NCT04414345

Abstract Hypertensive emergencies cause substantial morbidity and mortality, particularly when acute organ injury is present. Careful and effective strategies to reduce blood pressure and diminish the effects of pressure-mediated injury are essential. While the selection of specific antihypertensive medications varies little across different forms of hypertensive emergencies, the intensity of blood pressure reduction to the target pressure differs substantially. Treatment hinges on balancing the positive effects of lowering blood pressure with the potential for negative effects of organ hypoperfusion in patients with altered autoregulatory mechanisms. When patients do not have acute organ injury in addition to severe hypertension, they benefit from a conservative, outpatient approach to blood pressure management. In all cases, long term control of blood pressure is paramount to prevent recurrent hypertensive emergencies and improve overall prognosis. This review discusses the current evidence and guidelines on the evaluation and management of hypertensive emergency.

BACKGROUND COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined. METHODS This secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization–equivalent anti–Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS SARS-CoV-2 anti–S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION In unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors’ antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460. FUNDING Department of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

AbstractBackgroundCOVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials.Study Design and MethodsWe analyzed data pertaining to transfusion‐related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsThe combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic‐type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID‐19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43–1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre‐existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16–4.67). We did not observe any CCP‐attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID‐19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life‐threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion‐associated complications.DiscussionOutpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID‐19.

Background The National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System was established to identify opportunities for blood pressure (BP) control improvement and to provide a mechanism for tracking improvement longitudinally. Methods and Results We conducted a serial cross‐sectional study with queries against standardized electronic health record data in the National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) common data model returned by 25 participating US health systems. Queries produced BP control metrics for adults with well‐documented hypertension and a recent encounter at the health system for a series of 1‐year measurement periods for each quarter of available data from January 2017 to March 2020. Aggregate weighted results are presented overall and by race and ethnicity. The most recent measurement period includes data from 1 737 995 patients, and 11 956 509 patient‐years were included in the trend analysis. Overall, 15% were Black, 52% women, and 28% had diabetes. BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) was observed in 62% (range, 44%–74%) but varied by race and ethnicity, with the lowest BP control among Black patients at 57% (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66–0.94). A new class of antihypertensive medication (medication intensification) was prescribed in just 12% (range, 0.6%–25%) of patient visits where BP was uncontrolled. However, when medication intensification occurred, there was a large decrease in systolic BP (≈15 mm Hg; range, 5–18 mm Hg). Conclusions Major opportunities exist for improving BP control and reducing disparities, especially through consistent medication intensification when BP is uncontrolled. These data demonstrate substantial room for improvement and opportunities to close health equity gaps.

There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency. Methods: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018. Results: 397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants. Conclusion: Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.