A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the effects of amiloride and hydrochlorothiazide on glucose tolerance in patients with essential hypertension.

Hypertension guidelines advise limiting the dose of thiazide diuretics and avoiding combination with ß-blockade, because of increased risk of diabetes mellitus. We tested whether changes in the 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test could be detected after 4 weeks of treatment with a thiazide and could be avoided by switching to amiloride. Two double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies were performed. In study 1 (41 patients), we found that changes in glucose during a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test could be detected after 4 weeks of treatment with bendroflumethiazide. In study 2, 37 patients with essential hypertension received, in random order, 4 weeks of once-daily treatment with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 to 50 mg, nebivolol 5 to 10 mg, combination (HCTZ 25-50 mg+nebivolol 5-10 mg), amiloride (10-20 mg), and placebo. Each drug was force titrated at 2 weeks and separated by a 4-week placebo washout. At each visit, we recorded blood pressure and performed a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Primary outcome was the difference in glucose (over the 2 hours of the oral glucose tolerance test) between 0 and 4 weeks, when HCTZ and amiloride were compared by repeated-measures analysis. For similar blood pressure reductions, there were opposite changes in glucose between the 2 diuretics (P<0.0001). Nebivolol did not impair glucose tolerance, either alone or in combination. There was a negative correlation between Δpotassium and Δ2-hour glucose (r=-0.28; P<0.0001). In 2 crossover studies, 4 weeks of treatment with a thiazide diuretic impaired glucose tolerance. No impairment was seen with K(+)-sparing diuretic or ß(1)-selective blockade. Substitution or addition of amiloride may be the solution to preventing thiazide-induced diabetes mellitus.

The accuracy of central SBP determined from the second systolic peak of the peripheral pressure waveform.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that central aortic blood pressure may be a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than peripheral blood pressure. The central SBP (cSBP) can be estimated from the late systolic shoulder of the radial pulse waveform. We compared the second systolic peak of the radial waveform (pSBP(2)) with the central systolic pressure derived by a generalized transfer function in a large cohort, across a wide age range, of patients from the Anglo-Cardiff Collaborative Trial. We also compared pSBP(2) with the true cSBP measured by cardiac catheterization [invasively measured cSBP (cSBPi)]. METHODS: Noninvasive measurements were made by applanation tonometry using the SphygmoCor device. The aortic pressure waveform was derived from the radial waveform using a validated transfer function. Invasive measures of cSBPi were carried out in a group of 38 patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac angiography, and radial artery pressure waveforms were simultaneously recorded using the SphygmoCor device. RESULTS: Overall, there was a strong correlation (r = 0.99, P<0.001) and good agreement between pSBP(2) and the derived cSBP (mean difference +/- SD 1 +/- 4 mmHg). However, there was a systematic bias with a greater difference between these measures at lower average pressures. There was also a strong correlation and good agreement between the invasively measured cSBPi and pSBP(2) (r = 0.92, P<0.001, mean difference 2 +/- 6 mmHg). CONCLUSION: The second systolic shoulder of the peripheral pressure waveform approximates the cSBP in a large cohort of patients across a wide age range, but this may be inaccurate at low SBP values.

The effect of abnormal colour vision on the ability to identify and outline coloured clinical signs and to count stained bacilli in sputum.

AIM: To determine if medical practitioners with congenital colour vision deficiencies (CCVD) are less able to identify and delineate the extent of coloured abnormal signs than those with normal colour vision. METHOD: Twenty-two medical practitioners with CCVD and 17 with normal colour vision, matched for age and gender, were shown 10 photographs. They were asked to identify and outline the extent of the clinical sign in eight that were of vomit or stool (six of these showing fresh blood), one of a skin rash and for one to mark the position of bacilli in sputum stained by the Ziehl-Neelsen method. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the CCVD practitioners and those with normal colour vision in their ability to outline abnormalities in five of the six photographs that showed fresh blood, in the photograph of a rash and in marking the position of bacilli in the photograph of a stained slide. CONCLUSION: Medical practitioners with CCVD are handicapped in their evaluation of the presence and extent of coloured clinical signs. Medical schools should ensure that students with CCVD are aware of their deficiency and know its severity, so they can take special care in clinical practice.

The description of physical signs of illness in photographs by physicians with abnormal colour vision.

BACKGROUND: Physicians with congenital colour vision deficiency (CCVD) have reported difficulties recognising certain physical signs of illness, for example, jaundice, red rashes and pallor, and interpreting coloured charts, diagrams and slide projections. However, there has been little study of the effects of CCVD on the performance of medical practitioners. AIM: The aim of this study was to look for evidence of the effect of CCVD on the ability of physicians to recognise and describe physical signs of illness that have colour as either the main or an important feature. METHOD: Twenty-three general practitioners with CCVD were shown 11 colour photographs depicting colour signs of illness and were asked to describe the signs they saw and rate their confidence in making their descriptions. Their responses were compared to those of 23 age-matched general practitioners with normal colour vision. RESULT: General practitioners with CCVD compared to those with normal colour vision had less ability and confidence in detecting physical signs in the photographs and naming the colours. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support other evidence that physicians with CCVD have difficulties detecting some colour signs of illness and naming the colours. Because of the use of photographs the extent of the problem in clinical practice is unknown but medical practitioners with CCVD should be aware of the possibility of failing to detect or correctly assess physical signs that are characterised by colour.