Consistency of the estimated target weights and ECW/TBW using BIA after hemodialysis in patients between standing and lying-down positions.

BACKGROUND: As hemodialysis is administered with the patient lying down, the distribution of body fluid is stable in the lying position, which is why this position is recommended for bioimpedance analysis (BIA). Although the InBody S10 is widely used for hemodialysis patients in the lying position, clinicians must make the measurements in person. In contrast, patients can use the InBody 770 to obtain measurements by themselves in the standing position, which may be more convenient. Therefore, this study compared the measurements of hemodialysis patients' estimated target weight and ECW/TBW obtained lying down using the S10 to those obtained in the standing position using the 770. METHODS: This study was conducted among maintenance hemodialysis patients at Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital in October 2020. Measurements from 56 patients before and after hemodialysis were obtained using the 2 machines. Each (S10 or 770) estimated target weight, both pre- and post-hemodialysis, was considered ideal when the ECW/TBW ratio was 0.380. R2 was calculated and the Bland-Altman test was performed. RESULTS: The patients' median age was 64 years old, and 51% were men. The actual ultrafiltration was 2 kg, and the mean TBW change measured using the InBody devices was 1.5 L (R2 = 0.718) for the S10 and 1.7 L (R2 = 0.616) for the 770. The estimated target weight at pre- and post-hemodialysis showed a remarkably high correlation with the patients' actual pre- and post-hemodialysis weight (R2 > 0.095). The correlation between these measurements (lying vs. standing) before and after hemodialysis was also very close (R2 = 1.0000). In addition, ECW/TBW had a good correlation (R2 ≥ 0.970) The Bland-Altman test of dry weight and ECW/TBW yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that patients' estimated target weights in the lying position using the InBody S10 device and in the standing position using the InBody 770 device were consistent in both pre- and post-hemodialysis states.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose amlodipine/losartan and losartan in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled with losartan: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose combination drugs may enhance blood pressure (BP) goal attainment through complementary effects and reduced side effects, which leads to better compliance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of once-daily combination amlodipine/losartan versus losartan. METHODS: This was an 8-week, double-blind, multicenter, randomized phase III study conducted in outpatient hospital clinics. Korean patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on losartan 100 mg were administered amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination versus losartan 100 mg. The main outcome measures were changes in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and BP response rate from baseline values, which were assessed after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: At week 8, both groups achieved significant reductions from baseline in DBP (11.7 ± 7.0 and 3.2 ± 7.9 mmHg), which was significantly greater in the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination (n = 70) group (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination group achieved significantly greater reductions in SBP at week 8 and in SBP and DBP at week 4 compared with the losartan 100 mg (n = 72) group (all p < 0.0001). Response rates were significantly higher in the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg group versus the losartan 100 mg group (81.4% vs 63.9% at week 4, p < 0.0192; 90.0% vs 66.7% at week 8, p < 0.001). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Switching to a fixed-dose combination therapy of amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in BP and superior achievement of BP goals compared with a maintenance dose of losartan 100 mg in Korean patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on losartan 100 mg. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00940680.