R. De Coster

State of the art simulations of aortic haemodynamics feature full fluid-structure interaction (FSI) and coupled 0D boundary conditions. Such analyses require not only significant computational resource but also weeks to months of run time, which compromises the effectiveness of their translation to a clinical workflow. This article employs three computational fluid methodologies, of varying levels of complexity with coupled 0D boundary conditions, to simulate the haemodynamics within a patient-specific aorta. The most comprehensive model is a full FSI simulation. The simplest is a rigid walled incompressible fluid simulation while an alternative middle-ground approach employs a compressible fluid, tuned to elicit a response analogous to the compliance of the aortic wall. The results demonstrate that, in the context of certain clinical questions, the simpler analysis methods may capture the important characteristics of the flow field.

Objective: To determine whether tight control of blood pressure with either a beta blocker or an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor has a specific advantage or disadvantage in preventing the macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes. Design: Randomised controlled trial comparing an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (captopril) with a beta blocker (atenolol) in patients with type 2 diabetes aiming at a blood pressure of < 150/ < 85 mm Hg. Setting 20 hospital based clinics in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Subjects: 1148 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes(mean age 56 years, mean blood pressure 160/94 mm Hg). Of the 758 patients allocated to tight control of blood pressure, 400 were allocated to captopril and 358 to atenolol. 390 patients were allocated to less tight control of blood pressure. Main outcome measures: Predefined clinical end points, fatal and non-fatal, related to diabetes, death related to diabetes, and all cause mortality. Surrogate measures of microvascular and macrovascular disease included urinary albumin excretion and retinopathy assessed by retinal photography. Results: Captopril and atenolol were equally effective in reducing blood pressure to a mean of 144/83 mm Hg and 143/81 mm Hg respectively, with a similar proportion of patients (27% and 31%) requiring three or more antihypertensive treatments. More patients in the captopril group than the atenolol group took the allocated treatment: at their last clinic visit, 78% of those allocated captopril and 65% of those allocated atenolol were taking the drug (P < 0.0001). Captopril and atenolol were equally effective in reducing the risk of macrovascular end points. Similar proportions of patients in the true groups showed deterioration in retinopathy by two grades after nine years (31% in the captopril group and 37% in the atenolol group) and developed clinical grade albuminuria greater than or equal to 300 mg/l (5% and 9%). The proportion of patients with hypoglycaemic attacks was not different between groups, but mean weight gain in the atenolol group was greater (3.4 kg v 1.6 kg). Conclusion: Blood pressure lowering with captopril or atenolol was similarly effective in reducing the incidence of diabetic complications. This study provided no evidence that either drug has any specific beneficial or deleterious effect, suggesting that blood pressure reduction in itself may be more important than the treatment used.

The pharmacokinetics of a novel antipsychotic agent, risperidone, and the prolactin response were studied in 12 dextromethorphan-phenotyped healthy men after administration of 1 mg risperidone intravenously, intramuscularly, and orally. The formation of the equipotent major metabolite, 9-hydroxyrisperidone, exhibited CYP2D6-related polymorphism. The plasma area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity ratio of 9-hydroxyrisperidone to risperidone averaged 3 (intravenous and intramuscular) and 6 (oral administration) in the extensive metabolizers and 0.2 in the poor metabolizers. Risperidone half-life was about 3 hours in extensive metabolizers and 22 hours in poor metabolizers. Risperidone absolute oral bioavailability was 66%. The pharmacokinetics of the active moiety (risperidone plus 9-hydroxyrisperidone) varied little among subjects (mean terminal half-life, 20 +/- 2 1/2 hours; absolute oral and intramuscular bioavailability, 100%). The prolactin response correlated best with the plasma active moiety, which showed little hysteresis. It is concluded that risperidone metabolic polymorphism on increased plasma prolactin is minimal and that the active moiety is clinically relevant.

Hyperprolactinemia is a common clinical disorder that may lead to sexual dysfunction or galactorrhea. It may arise from a variety of etiologies, including the use of antipsychotic agents, presumably because of a dopamine receptor blockade. This analysis was designed to characterize the relationship between risperidone, serum prolactin levels, and possible clinical sequelae. All data from randomized, double-blind studies of risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia were analyzed. The two largest studies (the North American and multinational trials) included 841 patients (259 women, 582 men) with paired prolactin level data and 1,884 patients (554 women, 1,330 men) with data on six adverse events possibly associated with increased prolactin levels (amenorrhea, galactorrhea, and decreased libido in women; erectile dysfunction, ejaculatory dysfunction, gynecomastia, and decreased libido in men). Both risperidone and haloperidol produced dose-related increases in plasma prolactin levels in men and women. Among women, the risperidone dose was not correlated with adverse events, nor were the adverse events correlated with endpoint prolactin levels. Among men, the incidence of adverse events was positively correlated with risperidone dose; however, at risperidone doses of 4 to 10 mg/day the incidence of adverse events was not significantly higher than that observed in patients receiving placebo. Furthermore, adverse events in men were unrelated to plasma prolactin levels. Risperidone-associated increase in serum prolactin levels was not significantly correlated to the emergence of possible prolactin-related side effects.

Objectives: To estimate the economic efficiency of tight blood pressure control, with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or beta blockers, compared with less tight control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Design: Cost effectiveness analysis incorporating within trial analysis and estimation of impact on life expectancy through use of the within trial hazards of reaching a defined clinical end point Use of resources driven by trial protocol and use of resources in standard clinical practice were both considered. Setting: 20 hospital based clinics in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Subjects: 1148 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes from UK prospective diabetes study randomised to tight control of blood pressure (n = 758) or less tight control (n = 390). Main outcome measure: Cost effectiveness ratios based on (a) use of healthcare resources associated with tight control and less tight control and treatment of complications and (b) within trial time free from diabetes related end points, and life years gained. Results: Based an use of resources driven by trial protocol, the incremental cost effectiveness of tight control compared with less tight control was cost saving. Based on use of resources in standard clinical practice, incremental cost per extra year free from end points amounted to pound 1049 (costs and effects discounted at 6'% per year) and pound 434 (costs discounted at 6%, per year and effects not discounted). The incremental cost per life year gained was pound 720 (costs and effects discounted at 6% per year) and pound 291 (costs discounted at 6% per year and effects not discounted). Conclusions: Tight control of blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes substantially reduced the cost of complications, increased the interval without complications and survival, and had a cost effectiveness ratio that compares favourably with many accepted healthcare programmes.