Smoking history and pulmonary arterial hypertension: Demographics, onset, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Smoking prevalence and its association with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) outcomes have not been described in patients in the United States. METHODS: Using the US-based Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-term PAH Disease Management (REVEAL), the prevalence, demographics, and outcomes in ever- versus never-smokers with PAH were determined. RESULTS: Ever-smoking status was more prevalent in males (61.7%) than in females (42.9%) enrolled in REVEAL. Ever-smokers were older than never-smokers at the time of PAH diagnosis and REVEAL enrollment. The time to first hospitalization, transplant-free survival, and survival did not differ between ever- and never-smokers overall; however, in newly diagnosed males, ever-smoking was associated with earlier death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.0; p = 0.0199), the composite of transplant or death (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.6; p = 0.0008), and first hospitalization (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.7; p = 0.0063), though smoking exposure (pack-years) did not differ between newly and previously diagnosed males. CONCLUSIONS: REVEAL PAH data demonstrate that smoking prevalence in male PAH patients is disproportionate. The prevalence of cigarette smoking was significantly higher in males than females enrolled in REVEAL. Ever-smoking status was associated with increased age at PAH diagnosis and, in newly diagnosed male PAH patients, earlier time to hospitalization and shorter survival after PAH diagnosis.

Core Protein-Directed Antivirals and Importin ß Can Synergistically Disrupt Hepatitis B Virus Capsids.

Viral structural proteins can have multiple activities. Antivirals that target structural proteins have potential to exhibit multiple antiviral mechanisms. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) core protein (Cp) is involved in most stages of the viral life cycle; it assembles into capsids, packages viral RNA, is a metabolic compartment for reverse transcription, interacts with nuclear trafficking machinery, and disassembles to release the viral genome into the nucleus. During nuclear localization, HBV capsids bind to host importins (e.g., Impß) via Cp's C-terminal domain (CTD); the CTD is localized to the interior of the capsid and is transiently exposed on the exterior. We used HAP12 as a representative Cp allosteric modulator (CpAM), a class of antivirals that inappropriately stimulates and misdirects HBV assembly and deforms capsids. CpAM impact on other aspects of the HBV life cycle is poorly understood. We investigate how HAP12 influences the interactions between empty or RNA-filled capsids with Impß and trypsin in vitro. We show that HAP12 can modulate CTD accessibility and capsid stability, depending on the saturation of HAP12-binding sites. We demonstrate that Impß synergistically contributes to capsid disruption at high levels of HAP12 saturation, using electron microscopy to visualize the disruption and rearrangement of Cp dimers into aberrant complexes. However, RNA-filled capsids resist the destabilizing effects of HAP12 and Impß. In summary, we show host protein-induced catalysis of capsid disruption, an unexpected additional mechanism of action for CpAMs. Potentially, untimely capsid disassembly can hamper the HBV life cycle and also cause the virus to become vulnerable to host innate immune responses. IMPORTANCE The HBV core, an icosahedral complex of 120 copies of the homodimeric core (capsid) protein with or without packaged nucleic acid, is transported to the host nucleus by its interaction with host importin proteins. Importin-core interaction requires the core protein C-terminal domain, which is inside the capsid, to "flip" to the capsid exterior. Core protein-directed drugs that affect capsid assembly and stability have been developed recently. We show that these molecules can, synergistically with importins, disrupt capsids. This mechanism of action, synergism with host protein, has the potential to disrupt the virus life cycle and activate the innate immune system.

Standardization of the Punch Technique for the Implantation of Bone Anchored Auditory Devices: Evaluation of the MIPS Surgical Set.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and assess intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in the insertion of osseointegrated auditory implants with a newly designed surgical instrumentation set through a punch type technique. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Patients who underwent bone anchored auditory implant surgery using the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery (Oticon Medical, Somerset, NJ) surgical set through a punch technique at nine neurotology tertiary referral based practices were identified. Demographic data, skin thickness at implant site, implant used, duration of surgery, adverse intraoperative events, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients comprised the study cohort (32 males, 43 females). Most patients (57. 3%) were aged 51 to 75 years while 30.7% of the cohort comprised those aged 18 to 50 years and 12% were over 75 years. All but two patients received 4 mm fixtured implants and 68% received the Oticon Medical BioHelix implant. Two patients received 3 mm fixture implants and 32% received the Oticon Medical Wide Ponto implant. Mean surgical time was 12.2 minutes (6-45 min, standard deviation of 6.88 min). In three instances, surgery was converted to a linear incision to control brisk bleeding. Skin condition was Holgers 0 to 1 in 91.8%, while 5.5% had Holgers 2, and 2.7% had Holgers 3 at the first postoperative visit. At second postoperative visit, 94.3% had Holgers 0 to 1, 4.3% had Holgers 2, and 1.4% had Holgers 3. All instances of adverse skin reactions were treated with topical or systemic antibiotics and/or local debridement. There were no instances of implant loss. One patient had his implant traumatically displaced to a 45-degree angle necessitating implant replacement at a second site. CONCLUSION: Punch technique placement of osseointegrated auditory implants using the Minimally Invasive Ponto Surgery surgical set represents a safe technique that further simplifies a progressively minimally invasive surgery.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of a co-formulated cocktail of three human monoclonal antibodies targeting Ebola virus glycoprotein in healthy adults: a randomised, first-in-human phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: REGN3470-3471-3479 is a co-formulated cocktail of three human monoclonal antibodies targeting three non-overlapping epitopes on Ebola virus. We investigated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and anti-drug antibodies in healthy adults. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study was done at a phase 1 unit in the USA. Healthy adults, aged 18-60 years, with a body-mass index of 18·0-30·0 kg/m2 were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive a single intravenous dose of REGN3470-3471-3479 or placebo on day 1 (baseline) in one of the four sequential ascending intravenous dose cohorts (3 mg/kg, 15 mg/kg, 60 mg/kg, and 150 mg/kg). Site investigators and participants were masked to the treatment assignment, whereas designated personnel at the site who prepared and generated the study medication were aware of the randomisation treatment assignments. The primary outcome was safety and the secondary outcomes were the pharmacokinetic profiles and immunogenicity. Study assessments were done the day before study drug administration, on the day of drug administration, on day 2 (before discharge), on days 3, 4, 8, 15, 29, 57, 85, 113, and 141, and at the end of study on day 169. The safety analysis included all randomised participants who received study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT002777151. FINDINGS: Between May 18, 2016, and October 27, 2016, 70 adults were screened and 24 participants were enrolled in the study. 18 participants were assigned to and received REGN3470-3471-3479, and six participants were assigned to and received placebo as a single intravenous infusion. 19 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in the combined REGN3470-3471-3479 treatment groups, and four treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in combined placebo groups. Adverse events were transient and mild-to-moderate in severity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was headache (six [33%] of 18 participants in the combined REGN3470-3471-3479 group vs none of six participants in the placebo group. Headaches were mild-to-moderate in severity, with onset between 2 h and 27 days after start of study drug infusion. There were no deaths, serious adverse events, or adverse events that led to study discontinuation. The pharmacokinetics of each antibody was linear, with mean half-lives of 27·3 days for REGN3471, 21·7 days for REGN3470, and 23·3 days for REGN3479. No participants tested positive for anti-REGN3470, anti-REGN3471, or anti-REGN3479 antibodies. INTERPRETATION: REGN3470-3471-3479 was well tolerated, displayed linear pharmacokinetics, and did not lead to detectable immunogenicity. These data support further clinical development of REGN3470-3471-3479 as a single-dose therapeutic drug for acute Ebola virus infection. FUNDING: The Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

A hydrophobic entrance enhances ion current rectification and induces dewetting in asymmetric nanopores.

Hydrophobic interactions and local dewetting of hydrophobic cavities have been identified as a key mechanism for ionic gating in biological voltage-gated channels in a cell membrane. Hydrophobic interactions are responsible for rectification of the channels, i.e. the ability to transport ions more efficiently in one direction compared to the other. We designed single polymer nanopores with a hydrophobic gate on one side in the form of a single layer of C10 or C18 thiols. This nanoporous system behaves like an ionic diode whose direction of rectification is regulated by the pH of the electrolyte. In addition, reversible dewetting of the hydrophobic region of the pore was observed as voltage-dependent ion current fluctuations in time between conducting and non-conducting states. The observations are in accordance with earlier molecular dynamics simulations, which predicted the possibility of spontaneous and reversible dewetting of hydrophobic pores.

Initial combination therapy with amlodipine/valsartan compared with monotherapy in the treatment of hypertension.

Achieving target blood pressure (BP) is influenced by baseline BP. Post hoc analyses of a placebo-controlled trial of amlodipine/valsartan versus monotherapies were conducted to characterize BP control by baseline BP. Hypertensive patients were randomized to amlodipine 10 mg, valsartan 160 or 320 mg, amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 or 10/320 mg, or placebo. Analysis of BP control rates focused on patients receiving the highest combination and monotherapy doses, with adverse events assessed for all doses. Analyses included 834 patients (mean age: 57 years; male: 51.3%; white: 79.4%; stage 2 hypertension: 61%; mean BP: 157/99 mm Hg). Two weeks after starting therapy, BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) rates were greater with amlodipine/valsartan 10/320 mg (49%) versus monotherapies (32%-38%) and placebo (16%). Consistent results were observed in stage 1 and 2 patients. Among patients receiving combination therapy, statistically significant differences were observed at endpoint versus comparators. At all baseline BP levels, the probability of achieving BP lower than 140/90 or lower than 130/80 mm Hg was greater with amlodipine/valsartan than monotherapies and placebo. Overall adverse events incidence was similar with combination versus monotherapies and placebo. Initial therapy with amlodipine/valsartan results in early, more effective BP control compared with monotherapy, irrespective of baseline BP.

Triple combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide vs dual combination therapy with amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide for stage 2 hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with amlodipine/valsartan+hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val+HCTZ) vs dual therapy with Aml+HCTZ in stage 2 hypertensive patients. METHODS: The analysis included patients from an eight-week, multicenter, double-blind study, randomized to Aml/Val 10/160 mg or Aml 10 mg groups, who received add-on HCTZ 12.5 mg at week 4 if mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) was >130 mmHg. RESULTS: Of the patients receiving Aml/Val+HCTZ and Aml+HCTZ, 98% (N = 133/136) and 96% (N = 200/208) completed the study, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar across groups (Caucasians, 80.2%; diabetics, 14.8%; age, 58.6 years [28.2% ≥ 65 years]; body mass index, 31 kg/m(2); mean sitting blood pressure (msBP), 171.5/95.5 mmHg [18% msSBP ≥ 180 mmHg]). Aml/Val+HCTZ provided significantly greater msBP reductions from baseline to week 8 than Aml+HCTZ (30.5/13.8 vs 24.3/8.3 mmHg, P < 0.0001). The incremental msBP reduction (week 4 to 8) with HCTZ added to Aml/Val was greater than when added to Aml (6.9/3.5 vs 3.1/1.0 mmHg, P < 0.01). Treatments were well tolerated with similar overall incidence of adverse events (Aml/Val+HCTZ: 33.8%, Aml+HCTZ: 33.2%). CONCLUSION: Aml/Val+HCTZ provided significantly greater BP reductions than Aml+HCTZ in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Aml/Val+HCTZ triple therapy may be a suitable option for patients requiring more than two agents to reach target BP.

Amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide triple combination therapy in moderate/severe hypertension: Secondary analyses evaluating efficacy and safety.

INTRODUCTION: An 8-week trial of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCTZ) for moderate or severe hypertension demonstrated more-pronounced blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects compared with dual-component therapies. To elucidate the effects of time and baseline BP on the observed responses, exploratory analyses were performed. METHODS: Patients aged 18-85 years with mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) 145 to <200 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP (MSDBP) 100 to <120 mmHg were randomized to Aml 10 mg/Val 320 mg/HCTZ 25 mg; Val 320 mg/HCTZ 25 mg; Aml 10 mg/Val 320 mg; or Aml 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg. During the first 2 weeks, regimens were force-titrated in two stages. RESULTS: All least-square mean reductions in MSSBP and MSDBP (baseline to Week 3 and end of study) were significantly greater with triple therapy than with each dual therapy in the overall population and the severe systolic subgroup (baseline MSSBP > or =180 mmHg; except vs. Aml 10 mg/Val 320 mg at Week 3). At Week 3, more patients on triple therapy achieved MSSBP reductions of > or =-60, > or =-50, > or =-40, > or =-30, and > or =-20 mmHg (2.5%, 9.7%, 23.2%, 46.9% and 74.5%, respectively) than those on dual therapy (1.1%-2%, 5.6%-5.9%, 14.5%-16.7%, 33.5%-39.1%, and 58.8%-65.5%, respectively); this was also true at study endpoint. End-of-study MSSBP reductions were greater in triple-therapy recipients who had higher (vs. lower) baseline MSSBPs. LSM reductions ranged from -27.2 mmHg for baseline MSSBP 145 to <150 mmHg, to > or =49.6 mmHg for baseline MSSBP > or =180 mmHg. All treatments were well tolerated regardless of baseline MSSBP. CONCLUSION: Aml 10 mg/Val 320 mg/HCTZ 25 mg triple therapy is highly effective in reducing BP compared with dual components early in therapy, and systolic BP-lowering effects were proportionate to hypertension severity.

Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hypertension may require combination therapy to attain the blood pressure targets recommended by US and European treatment guidelines. Combination therapy with a calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin II-receptor blocker would be expected to provide enhanced efficacy. OBJECTIVES: Two studies were conducted to compare the efficacy of various combinations of amlodipine and valsartan administered once daily with their individual components and placebo in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [MSDBP] >/=95 and < 110 mm Hg). A secondary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability. METHODS: The 2 studies were multinational, multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials. In study 1, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg once daily, valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg with valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, or placebo. In study 2, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 10 mg once daily, valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 10 mg with valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, or placebo. The primary efficacy variable in both studies was change from baseline in MSDBP at the end of the study. Secondary variables included the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), response rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg or a >/= 10-mm Hg decrease from baseline), and control rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg). Safety was assessed in terms of adverse events (spontaneously reported or elicited by questioning), vital signs, and laboratory values. RESULTS: A total of 1911 patients were randomized to treatment in study 1 (1022 amlodipine + valsartan; 507 valsartan; 254 amlodipine; 128 placebo); 1250 were randomized to treatment in study 2 (419, 415, 207, and 209, respectively). In all treatment groups in both studies, the majority of patients were white (79.5% study 1, 79.4% study 2) and male (53.5% and 50.3%, respectively). The overall mean age was 54.4 years in study 1 and 56.9 years in study 2. The mean weight of patients in study 1 was higher than that in study 2 (88.8 vs 79.7 kg). The overall baseline mean sitting BP was 152.8/99.3 mm Hg in study 1 and 156.7/99.1 mm Hg in study 2. With the exception of a few combinations that included amlodipine 2.5 mg, the combination regimens in both studies were associated with significantly greater reductions in MSDBP and MSSBP compared with their individual components and placebo (P < 0.05). A positive dose response was observed for all combinations. The highest response rate in study 1 was associated with the highest dose of combination therapy (amlodipine 5 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 91.3%). Amlodipine 5 mg, valsartan 320 mg, and placebo were associated with response rates of 71.9%, 73.4%, and 40.9%, respectively. In study 2, the 2 doses of combination therapy were associated with similar response rates (amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 160 mg: 88.5%; amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 87.5%). Amlodipine 10 mg was associated with a response rate of 86.9%; valsartan 160 and 20 mg were associated with response rates of 74.9% and 72.0%, respectively; and placebo was associated with a response rate of 49.3%. Control rates followed a similar pattern. The incidence of peripheral edema with combination therapy was significantly lower compared with amlodipine monotherapy (5.4% vs 8.7%, respectively; P = 0.014), was significantly higher compared with valsartan monotherapy (2.1%; P < 0.001), and did not differ significantly from placebo (3.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In these adult patients with mild to moderate hypertension, the combination of amlodipine + valsartan was associated with significantly greater blood pressure reductions from baseline compared with amlodipine or valsartan monotherapy or placebo. The incidence of peripheral edema was significantly lower with combination therapy than with amlodipine monotherapy.

Amlodipine and valsartan combined and as monotherapy in stage 2, elderly, and black hypertensive patients: subgroup analyses of 2 randomized, placebo-controlled studies.

Patients with difficult to control hypertension typically require 2 or more agents to achieve goal blood pressure (BP) levels. Fixed-dose combination therapies with lower doses generally are well tolerated and more effective than higher-dose monotherapy. The authors performed prespecified and post hoc subgroup analyses of 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of amlodipine and valsartan, alone and in combination, in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Patients were randomized to amlodipine (study 1: 2.5 or 5 mg/d; study 2: 10 mg/d), valsartan (study 1: 40, 80, 160, or 320 mg/d; study 2: 160 or 320 mg/d), combination therapy across the same dose ranges, or placebo. Analyses were performed on changes from baseline in mean sitting systolic and diastolic BP and the occurrence of adverse events in specific subgroups of patients (ie, those with stage 2 hypertension [post hoc], the elderly [65 years or older], and blacks [both prespecified]). Amlodipine + valsartan combination therapy was associated with greater BP-lowering effects in the subgroups compared with each respective monotherapy and placebo. These findings were consistent with the primary efficacy analysis results from the overall study populations. Combination regimens were generally well tolerated by all patient subgroups.

Tolerability and blood pressure-lowering efficacy of the combination of amlodipine plus valsartan compared with lisinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in adult patients with stage 2 hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with hypertension in the United States and Europe fail to achieve the recommended target blood pressure (BP) of <140/90 mm Hg. Combination therapy is required in approximately two thirds of all patients whose BP is >20/10 mm Hg above the goal. Combination therapy with agents having complementary mechanisms of action, such as a calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin II-receptor blacker, would be a potentially useful therapeutic option. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the overall safety profile of combination therapy with amlodipine plus valsartan compared with a combination of lisinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with stage 2 hypertension (mean sitting diastolic BP [MSDBP] >or=110 and <120 mm Hg) over the short term (6 weeks). A secondary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of the 2 regimens in achieving BP reduction. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with amlodipine 5 to 10 mg + valsartan 160 mg or lisinopril 10 to 20 mg + HCTZ 12.5 rig for 6 weeks. Safety assessments included monitoring of all adverse events, vital signs, and hematology and biochemistry variables. Efficacy variables included the changes from baseline in MSDBP and mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP), the response rate (MSDBP <90 mm Hg, or a >or= 10-mm Hg reduction from baseline), and the rate of DBP control (<90 mm Hg). The overall rate of BP control (proportion of patients with MSSBP/MSDBP <140/90 mm Hg) was evaluated in a post hoc analysis. Efficacy variables were summarized at each visit and at the end of the study (week 6, applying last-observation-carried-forward methodology) using descriptive statistics for the intent-to-treat population (all randomized patients with a baseline BP measurement and at least 1 post baseline BP measurement). Subgroup analyses of BP changes were performed in prespecified age groups (<65 and >or=65 years) and post hoc in patients with a baseline systolic BP <180 and >or=180 mm Hg. RESULTS: : Of 130 patients who were randomized to treatment, 128 completed the study: 63 in the amlodipine + valsartan group and 65 in the lisinopril + HCTZ group. The majority of patients in both groups were white (amlodipine + valsartan: 59.4% lisinopril + HCTZ: 60.6%) and female (57.8% and 54.5%, respectively). The mean age was similar in the 2 groups (56.5 and 57.6 years), as was the mean weight (85.1 and 82.0 kg). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Adverse events were mild to moderate in severity, and most were not considered related to study drug. At the 6-week end point, both the amlodipine + valsartan and lisinopril + HCTZ groups had achieved significant reductions from baseline in MSSBP (-35.8 [11.8] and -31.8 [14.7] mm Hg, respectively; both, P < 0.001) and MSDBP (-28.6 [7.7] and -27.6 [8.6] mm Hg; both, P < 0.001). Response rates were similar for the 2 treatment groups (100% and 95.5%), as were rates of DBP control (79.7% and 77.3%). CONCLUSIONS: : The combinations of amlodipine 5 to 10 rug + valsartan 160 mg and lisinopril 10 to 20 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg were well tolerated and efficacious, and both treatments were associated with achievement of BP goals in the majority of these adult patients with stage 2 hypertension.