Gender difference in the response to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a diuretic in hypertensive patients of African descent.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in decreasing blood pressure in African patients is controversial. OBJECTIVE: We examined the ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) response to a diuretic and an ACE inhibitor in hypertensive patients of East African descent and evaluated the individual characteristics that determined treatment efficacy. DESIGN: A single-blind randomized AB/BA crossover design. SETTING: Hypertensive families of East African descent from the general population in the Seychelles. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two (29 men and 23 women) out of 62 eligible hypertensive patients were included.Main outcome measures ABP response to 20 mg lisinopril (LIS) daily and 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) daily given for a 4-week period.Results The daytime systolic/diastolic ABP response to HCT was 4.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-8.6]/3.6 (1.0-6.2) mmHg for men and 12.9 (9.2-16.6)/6.3 (3.7-8.8) mmHg for women. With LIS the response was 18.8 (15.0-22.5)/14.6 (12.0-17.1) mmHg for men and 12.4 (8.7-16.2)/7.7 (5.1-10.2) mmHg for women. The night-time systolic/diastolic response to HCT was 5.0 (0.6-9.4)/2.7 [(-0.4)-5.7] mmHg for men and 11.5 (7.1-16.0)/5.7 (2.6-8.8) mmHg for women, and to LIS was 18.7 (14.2-22.1)/15.4 (12.4-18.5) mmHg for men and 3.5 [(-1.0)-7.9]/2.3 [(-0.8)-5.4] mmHg for women. Linear regression analyses showed that gender is an independent predictor of the ABP responses to HCT and to LIS. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertensive patients of African descent responded better to LIS than to HCT. Men responded better to LIS than to HCT and women responded similarly to both drugs.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the neuromodulation appropriateness consensus committee.

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications. METHODS: The NACC used literature reviews, expert opinion, clinical experience, and individual research. Authors consulted the Practice Parameters for the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain (2006), systematic reviews (1984 to 2013), and prospective and randomized controlled trials (2005 to 2013) identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Neurostimulation is relatively safe because of its minimally invasive and reversible characteristics. Comparison with medical management is difficult, as patients considered for neurostimulation have failed conservative management. Unlike alternative therapies, neurostimulation is not associated with medication-related side effects and has enduring effect. Device-related complications are not uncommon; however, the incidence is becoming less frequent as technology progresses and surgical skills improve. Randomized controlled studies support the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in treating failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. Similar studies of neurostimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain, postamputation pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and other causes of nerve injury are needed. International guidelines recommend spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory angina; other indications, such as congestive heart failure, are being investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate neurostimulation is safe and effective in some chronic pain conditions. Technological refinements and clinical evidence will continue to expand its use. The NACC seeks to facilitate the efficacy and safety of neurostimulation.