Forum for Science, Industry and Business

Sponsored by:     3M 
Search our Site:

 

Prominent hypertension specialists question results of TROPHY study on hypertension

30.10.2006
There may be as many as 70 million Americans with prehypertension. If these people can be treated pharmacologically to avoid or delay progression to clinical hypertension, there would be significant benefits to them and the overall health of the population.

The recent TROPHY study seems to lead to that conclusion. However, two editorials published in the November issue of the American Journal of Hypertension emphatically argue that the study is flawed and the conclusions reached are misleading.

Persons with prehypertension, generally defined as having a systolic blood pressure in the range of 120-139 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure of 80-89, will usually develop hypertension at the rate of about 10% per year. The recent Trial of Preventing Hypertension (TROPHY) examined whether treating patients with candesartan for two years resulted in a sustained reduction in the incidence of high blood pressure after the drug was discontinued. The TROPHY study concluded that the treatment significantly reduced the risk of incident hypertension over the four year study.

According to Stephen Persell, MD, MPH, TROPHY results are likely invalid. He and co-author David W. Baker, MD, MPH, both of the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, argue that the study used an unusual definition of incident hypertension which could not accurately discriminate whether the drug had a sustained effect. They demonstrate that because blood pressure readings taken during active treatment were combined with readings taken after treatment had ended, a difference between treatment and placebo could appear even if blood pressures were identical after the treatment had ended. They also analyze how the results could be misleading due to the methods used to calculate the mean blood pressures.

In the second editorial, Jay I. Meltzer MD, Clinical Specialist in Hypertension in the Nephrology Division of the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, also zeros in on the study endpoint. He argues that clinical practitioners would require a more realistic, classical definition of incident hypertension than was used in TROPHY.

Dr. Meltzer also identifies two other issues in the study. He explains, "Further straining the question of applicability is the confusion between what the authors said they would do and what they actually did. They renamed TROPHY a 'feasibility' study, without specifically defining the term. It usually means a pilot study, but TROPHY was not designed as a pilot…Clinicians rightly suspect bias when the trial language is changed post hoc to allow more accommodation to the data." Finally, he argues that the major conclusion that the drug did prevent the development of hypertension was compromised by the choice of an arbitrary endpoint.

Persell and Baker caution that "the consequences of drawing erroneous conclusions from studies of treatments to prevent progression from pre-hypertension to hypertension are enormous. An expert panel of statisticians and trial methodologists without ties to pharmaceutical companies should be convened to provide consensus recommendations for how future studies addressing the prevention of hypertension should be conducted and reported. Computer models should also be used to confirm that the study methodology would not make it appear that a treatment for prehypertension had sustained benefits when, in fact, none existed."

Dr. Meltzer is equally direct. "What conclusions might actually be appropriate? TROPHY proved that two years of candesartan treatment of patients with 'high normal' or 'prehypertension' did not prevent or delay the development of hypertension, but instead caused a 'slow unmasking.' Reasonable acceptance of the author's own predetermined guidelines for the interpretation of 'slow unmasking' would have necessitated publishing a negative study, which, paradoxically, could have been a great benefit to the hypertension literature. Instead, TROPHY was presented in a way that enables those who want to believe in the original idea despite the evidence against it, still can and still do. Even as the authors trumpet candesartan's success in the paper's conclusions and in public presentations, the conclusion section of TROPHY paradoxically states that they do not advocate treating the 25 million people with prehypertension, but don't explain why."

Yvonne Raiford | EurekAlert!
Further information:
http://www.elsevierhealth.com/

More articles from Studies and Analyses:

nachricht Some brain tumors may respond to immunotherapy, new study suggests
11.12.2018 | Columbia University Irving Medical Center

nachricht Climate change and air pollution damaging health and causing millions of premature deaths
30.11.2018 | International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

All articles from Studies and Analyses >>>

The most recent press releases about innovation >>>

Die letzten 5 Focus-News des innovations-reports im Überblick:

Im Focus: Data use draining your battery? Tiny device to speed up memory while also saving power

The more objects we make "smart," from watches to entire buildings, the greater the need for these devices to store and retrieve massive amounts of data quickly without consuming too much power.

Millions of new memory cells could be part of a computer chip and provide that speed and energy savings, thanks to the discovery of a previously unobserved...

Im Focus: An energy-efficient way to stay warm: Sew high-tech heating patches to your clothes

Personal patches could reduce energy waste in buildings, Rutgers-led study says

What if, instead of turning up the thermostat, you could warm up with high-tech, flexible patches sewn into your clothes - while significantly reducing your...

Im Focus: Lethal combination: Drug cocktail turns off the juice to cancer cells

A widely used diabetes medication combined with an antihypertensive drug specifically inhibits tumor growth – this was discovered by researchers from the University of Basel’s Biozentrum two years ago. In a follow-up study, recently published in “Cell Reports”, the scientists report that this drug cocktail induces cancer cell death by switching off their energy supply.

The widely used anti-diabetes drug metformin not only reduces blood sugar but also has an anti-cancer effect. However, the metformin dose commonly used in the...

Im Focus: New Foldable Drone Flies through Narrow Holes in Rescue Missions

A research team from the University of Zurich has developed a new drone that can retract its propeller arms in flight and make itself small to fit through narrow gaps and holes. This is particularly useful when searching for victims of natural disasters.

Inspecting a damaged building after an earthquake or during a fire is exactly the kind of job that human rescuers would like drones to do for them. A flying...

Im Focus: Topological material switched off and on for the first time

Key advance for future topological transistors

Over the last decade, there has been much excitement about the discovery, recognised by the Nobel Prize in Physics only two years ago, that there are two types...

All Focus news of the innovation-report >>>

Anzeige

Anzeige

VideoLinks
Industry & Economy
Event News

ICTM Conference 2019: Digitization emerges as an engineering trend for turbomachinery construction

12.12.2018 | Event News

New Plastics Economy Investor Forum - Meeting Point for Innovations

10.12.2018 | Event News

EGU 2019 meeting: Media registration now open

06.12.2018 | Event News

 
Latest News

Data use draining your battery? Tiny device to speed up memory while also saving power

14.12.2018 | Power and Electrical Engineering

Tangled magnetic fields power cosmic particle accelerators

14.12.2018 | Physics and Astronomy

In search of missing worlds, Hubble finds a fast evaporating exoplanet

14.12.2018 | Physics and Astronomy

VideoLinks
Science & Research
Overview of more VideoLinks >>>