Acetylcysteine has No Mechanistic Effect in Patients at Risk of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Failure of Academic Clinical Science.

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major complication of imaging in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The publication of an academic randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 83) reporting oral (N)-acetylcysteine (NAC) to reduce CIN led to > 70 clinical trials, 23 systematic reviews, and 2 large RCTs showing no benefit. However, no mechanistic studies were conducted to determine how NAC might work; proposed mechanisms included renal artery vasodilatation and antioxidant boosting. We evaluated the proposed mechanisms of NAC action in participants with healthy and diseased kidneys. Four substudies were performed. Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-period crossover studies (n = 8) assessed the effect of oral and intravenous (i.v.) NAC in healthy kidneys in the presence/absence of iso-osmolar contrast (iodixanol). A third crossover study in patients with CKD stage III (CKD3) (n = 8) assessed the effect of oral and i.v. NAC without contrast. A three-arm randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study, recruiting patients with CKD3 (n = 66) undergoing coronary angiography, assessed the effect of oral and i.v. NAC in the presence of contrast. We recorded systemic (blood pressure and heart rate) and renal (renal blood flow (RBF) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR)) hemodynamics, and antioxidant status, plus biomarkers of renal injury in patients with CKD3 undergoing angiography. Primary outcome for all studies was RBF over 8 hours after the start of i.v. NAC/placebo. NAC at doses used in previous trials of renal prophylaxis was essentially undetectable in plasma after oral administration. In healthy volunteers, i.v. NAC, but not oral NAC, increased blood pressure (mean area under the curve (AUC) mean arterial pressure (MAP): mean difference 29 h⋅mmHg, P = 0.019 vs. placebo), heart rate (28 h⋅bpm, P < 0.001), and RBF (714 h⋅mL/min, 8.0% increase, P = 0.006). Renal vasodilatation also occurred in the presence of contrast (RBF 917 h⋅mL/min, 12% increase, P = 0.005). In patients with CKD3 without contrast, only a rise in heart rate (34 h⋅bpm, P = 0.010) and RBF (288 h⋅mL/min, 6.0% increase, P = 0.001) occurred with i.v. NAC, with no significant effect on blood pressure (MAP rise 26 h⋅mmHg, P = 0.156). Oral NAC showed no effect. In patients with CKD3 receiving contrast, i.v. NAC increased blood pressure (MAP rise 52 h⋅mmHg, P = 0.008) but had no effect on RBF (151 h⋅mL/min, 3.0% increase, P = 0.470), GFR (29 h⋅mL/min/1.73m², P = 0.122), or markers of renal injury. Neither i.v. nor oral NAC affected plasma antioxidant status. We found oral NAC to be poorly absorbed and have no reno-protective effects. Intravenous, not oral, NAC caused renal artery vasodilatation in healthy volunteers but offered no protection to patients with CKD3 at risk of CIN. These findings emphasize the importance of mechanistic clinical studies before progressing to RCTs for novel interventions. Thousands were recruited to academic clinical trials without the necessary mechanistic studies being performed to confirm the approach had any chance of working.

Measurement of Heart Rate Using the Polar OH1 and Fitbit Charge 3 Wearable Devices in Healthy Adults During Light, Moderate, Vigorous, and Sprint-Based Exercise: Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate, continuous heart rate measurements are important for health assessment, physical activity, and sporting performance, and the integration of heart rate measurements into wearable devices has extended its accessibility. Although the use of photoplethysmography technology is not new, the available data relating to the validity of measurement are limited, and the range of activities being performed is often restricted to one exercise domain and/or limited intensities. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the validity of the Polar OH1 and Fitbit Charge 3 devices for measuring heart rate during rest, light, moderate, vigorous, and sprint-type exercise. METHODS: A total of 20 healthy adults (9 female; height: mean 1.73 [SD 0.1] m; body mass: mean 71.6 [SD 11.0] kg; and age: mean 40 [SD 10] years) volunteered and provided written informed consent to participate in the study consisting of 2 trials. Trial 1 was split into 3 components: 15-minute sedentary activities, 10-minute cycling on a bicycle ergometer, and incremental exercise test to exhaustion on a motorized treadmill (18-42 minutes). Trial 2 was split into 2 components: 4 × 15-second maximal sprints on a cycle ergometer and 4 × 30- to 50-m sprints on a nonmotorized resistance treadmill. Data from the 3 devices were time-aligned, and the validity of Polar OH1 and Fitbit Charge 3 was assessed against Polar H10 (criterion device). Validity was evaluated using the Bland and Altman analysis, Pearson moment correlation coefficient, and mean absolute percentage error. RESULTS: Overall, there was a very good correlation between the Polar OH1 and Polar H10 devices (r=0.95), with a mean bias of -1 beats·min-1 and limits of agreement of -20 to 19 beats·min-1. The Fitbit Charge 3 device underestimated heart rate by 7 beats·min-1 compared with Polar H10, with a limit of agreement of -46 to 33 beats·min-1 and poor correlation (r=0.8). The mean absolute percentage error for both devices was deemed acceptable (<5%). Polar OH1 performed well across each phase of trial 1; however, validity was worse for trial 2 activities. Fitbit Charge 3 performed well only during rest and nonsprint-based treadmill activities. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with our criterion device, Polar OH1 was accurate at assessing heart rate, but the accuracy of Fitbit Charge 3 was generally poor. Polar OH1 performed worse during trial 2 compared with the activities in trial 1, and the validity of the Fitbit Charge 3 device was particularly poor during our cycling exercises.

Co-ingestion of Antioxidant Drinks With an Unhealthy Challenge Meal Fails to Prevent Post-prandial Endothelial Dysfunction: An Open-Label, Crossover Study in Older Overweight Volunteers.

Eating a high calorie meal is known to induce endothelial dysfunction and it is reported that consuming drinks rich in antioxidants may be protective against this. In this study we assessed the effects of three antioxidant drinks with considerable disparity in their antioxidant content on endothelial function. Seven apparently healthy overweight and older adults (BMI 25-35; mean age 57 ± 3 years; one male, six females) completed four trials in a randomized counterbalanced design. Water (control), orange juice, green tea, or red wine were consumed with a high calorie meal (>900 kcal). Endothelial function was measured by flow-mediated dilatation immediately before (fasted, baseline) and 2 h after the meal. Blood samples were also obtained for lipid and glucose analysis, plasma nitrite ( NO 2 - ) and oxidized low-density lipoprotein (ox-LDL). Participants returned after a minimum 3 days washout to complete the remaining arms of the study. The results found that the high calorie meal induced a substantial increase in triglycerides, but not cholesterol or glucose, at 2 h after meal ingestion. FMD was significantly reduced by ∼35% at this timepoint, but the effect was not attenuated by co-ingestion of any of the antioxidant drinks. Reduced FMD was mirrored by a reduction in NO 2 - , but ox-LDL was not increased at 2 h after the meal. None of the undertaken measures were influenced by the antioxidant drinks. We conclude that co-ingestion of none of our test antioxidant drinks protected against the substantial post-prandial endothelial dysfunction induced by an unhealthy meal challenge in our sample population at a 2 h timepoint.

Iodixanol Has a Favourable Fibrinolytic Profile Compared to Iohexol in Cardiac Patients Undergoing Elective Angiography: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Parallel Group Study.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus and a limited evidence base for choice of contrast agents (CA) in angiography. This study evaluated the impact of iohexol and iodixanol CA on fibrinolytic factors (tissue plasminogen activator [t-PA] and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 [PAI-1]), as well as platelet-monocyte conjugates in cardiac patients undergoing elective angiography in a double-blind, randomised parallel group study. METHODS: Patients (men, 50-70 years old; n = 12) were randomised to receive either iohexol (Omnipaque; n = 6) or iodixanol (Visipaque; n = 6) during elective angiography at Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, UK. Arterial and venous blood samples were drawn prior to CA delivery and following angiography. Assessment of platelet-monocyte conjugation, t-PA and PAI-1 antigen and activity was conducted in samples pre- and post-angiography. OUTCOME: Plasma t-PA antigen was depressed equally in the study groups after angiography, but there was a greater reduction in PAI-1 antigen in the group receiving iodixanol. These findings corresponded to a substantial reduction in t-PA activity in patients receiving iohexol, with no change in those receiving iodixanol (P = 0.023 between the CA groups). Both CAs caused a reduction in platelet-monocyte conjugation, with no difference between the groups. No adverse events were reported during the trial. CONCLUSION: Avoiding reduced plasma t-PA activity might be an important consideration in choosing iodixanol over iohexol in patients at risk of thrombosis following angiography. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN register (ISRCTN51509735) and funded by the Coronary Thrombosis Trust and National Health Service (Highland) R&D Endowments. The funders had no influence over study design or reporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN51509735.