The essential issue is whether the TROPHY data support the conclusions reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. The March issue of the American Journal of Hypertension publishes a response from TROPHY study investigators Stevo Julius, MD, ScD, Brent M. Egan, MD, and M. Anthony Schork, PhD, defending the work, while authors of the original AJH editorials, Dr. Stephen Persell, Dr. David W. Baker and Dr. Jay I. Meltzer provide further information to support their earlier observations and indicate that their original criticisms remain unaddressed.
In a letter to the editor entitled "From TROPHY with Pride" Dr. Julius, Dr. Egan and Dr. Schork write, "Both editorials directly or obliquely express suspicion about our motivation in designing TROPHY….About eight years ago, we designed a protocol which used a definition of hypertension acceptable to practicing physicians. Furthermore, we stipulated that there should be an active treatment period followed by a period of withdrawal of treatment, and that both periods should be equally long. We also requested that at the study end the raw data be transferred to TROPHY investigators for independent analysis. We spent several years contacting various sponsors. To our delight the then Astra Merck US, now AstraZeneca LTD, accepted the protocol and funded the study. Thus, TROPHY was designed by a group of experts and arose from an abiding interest in the topic rather than from a suspicious relationship with industry."
The letter goes on to address Dr. Meltzer's criticisms of a change of terminology from “high normal blood pressure” to “prehypertension" and the fact that the home blood pressure measurements data was not published in the primary paper. It continues with a discussion of Dr. Persell's and Dr. Baker's concerns about how TROPHY participants were classified as hypertensive and how time-related blood pressure trends were presented in TROPHY.
"Drs. Persell-Baker suggested formation of a national consensus panel for design of future trials," the letter concludes. "Debates without new data are not useful. Hopefully Dr. Meltzer, as well as Drs. Persell and Baker, will design improved studies, and in due course materially contribute to our knowledge. Generally our study has been very well received and new studies are planned. We are proud to have opened novel avenues for clinical research in hypertension."
Stephen Persell, MD, MPH, and co-author David W. Baker, MD, MPH, both of the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, argue that “We appreciate that Drs. Julius, Egan and Schork responded to our editorial but disagree with their statement that debates without new data are not useful. We live in a country with a healthcare system that has not been able to meet the needs of the public, even for the most well proven therapies and the costs of healthcare continue to rise. It is appropriate for us to critically appraise studies that could influence which treatments are offered to patients.”
Jay I. Meltzer MD, Clinical Specialist in Hypertension in the Nephrology Division of the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, was not convinced by Dr. Julius’ reply. He remains skeptical of the study design, of changes in terminology and in interpretation of data. Most importantly, he includes figures drawn from the original publication of Julius et al (Trial of preventing hypertension, Design and 2-year progress report. Hypertension. 44:146-151, August 2004), as well as the critical figure from the TROPHY final report to permit readers the chance to judge for themselves whether the data supports the contention that hypertension was prevented. He believes that the data confirm his view “that TROPHY did not prove, as claimed, that treatment of high normal blood pressure, or prehypertension, with candesartan for two years prevented the subsequent development of hypertension, but, paradoxically, probably proved the converse, that it did not.”
The reply to the editorials is “From TROPHY with Pride” by Stevo Julius, MD, ScD, Brent M. Egan, MD, and M. Anthony Schork, PhD. The rejoinders are “Response to ‘From TROPHY with Pride’” by Stephen D. Persell, MD, MPH and David W. Baker, MD, MPH; and “Rebuttal of ‘From TROPHY with Pride’” by Jay I. Meltzer MD. All appear in the American Journal of Hypertension, Volume 20/Issue 3 (March 2007), published by Elsevier.
The original editorials are “Studying Interventions to Prevent the Progression from Prehypertension to Hypertension: Does TROPHY Win the Prize?” by Stephen D. Persell, MD, MPH, and David W. Baker, MD, MPH, and “A Specialist in Clinical Hypertension Critiques the TROPHY Trial” by Jay I. Meltzer MD. Both were published in the November 2006 issue of the American Journal of Hypertension, Volume 19/Issue 11.
Yvonne Raiford | alfa
Usher syndrome: Gene therapy restores hearing and balance
25.09.2017 | Institut Pasteur
MRI contrast agent locates and distinguishes aggressive from slow-growing breast cancer
25.09.2017 | Case Western Reserve University
Controlling electronic current is essential to modern electronics, as data and signals are transferred by streams of electrons which are controlled at high speed. Demands on transmission speeds are also increasing as technology develops. Scientists from the Chair of Laser Physics and the Chair of Applied Physics at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) have succeeded in switching on a current with a desired direction in graphene using a single laser pulse within a femtosecond ¬¬ – a femtosecond corresponds to the millionth part of a billionth of a second. This is more than a thousand times faster compared to the most efficient transistors today.
Graphene is up to the job
At the productronica trade fair in Munich this November, the Fraunhofer Institute for Laser Technology ILT will be presenting Laser-Based Tape-Automated Bonding, LaserTAB for short. The experts from Aachen will be demonstrating how new battery cells and power electronics can be micro-welded more efficiently and precisely than ever before thanks to new optics and robot support.
Fraunhofer ILT from Aachen relies on a clever combination of robotics and a laser scanner with new optics as well as process monitoring, which it has developed...
Plants and algae use the enzyme Rubisco to fix carbon dioxide, removing it from the atmosphere and converting it into biomass. Algae have figured out a way to increase the efficiency of carbon fixation. They gather most of their Rubisco into a ball-shaped microcompartment called the pyrenoid, which they flood with a high local concentration of carbon dioxide. A team of scientists at Princeton University, the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University and the Max Plank Institute of Biochemistry have unravelled the mysteries of how the pyrenoid is assembled. These insights can help to engineer crops that remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while producing more food.
A warming planet
Our brains house extremely complex neuronal circuits, whose detailed structures are still largely unknown. This is especially true for the so-called cerebral cortex of mammals, where among other things vision, thoughts or spatial orientation are being computed. Here the rules by which nerve cells are connected to each other are only partly understood. A team of scientists around Moritz Helmstaedter at the Frankfiurt Max Planck Institute for Brain Research and Helene Schmidt (Humboldt University in Berlin) have now discovered a surprisingly precise nerve cell connectivity pattern in the part of the cerebral cortex that is responsible for orienting the individual animal or human in space.
The researchers report online in Nature (Schmidt et al., 2017. Axonal synapse sorting in medial entorhinal cortex, DOI: 10.1038/nature24005) that synapses in...
Whispering gallery mode (WGM) resonators are used to make tiny micro-lasers, sensors, switches, routers and other devices. These tiny structures rely on a...
19.09.2017 | Event News
12.09.2017 | Event News
06.09.2017 | Event News
26.09.2017 | Life Sciences
26.09.2017 | Physics and Astronomy
26.09.2017 | Information Technology