First-line drugs for hypertension

Stroke injury, cognitive impairment and vascular dementia

The global burden of ischaemic strokes is almost 4-fold greater than haemorrhagic strokes. Current evidence suggests that 25–30% of ischaemic stroke survivors develop immediate or delayed vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) or vascular dementia (VaD). Dementia after stroke injury may encompass all types of cognitive disorders. States of cognitive dysfunction before the index stroke are described under the umbrella of pre-stroke dementia, which may entail vascular changes as well as insidious neurodegenerative processes. Risk factors for cognitive impairment and dementia after stroke are multifactorial including older age, family history, genetic variants, low educational status, vascular comorbidities, prior transient ischaemic attack or recurrent stroke and depressive illness. Neuroimaging determinants of dementia after stroke comprise silent brain infarcts, white matter changes, lacunar infarcts and medial temporal lobe atrophy. Until recently, the neuropathology of dementia after stroke was poorly defined. Most of post-stroke dementia is consistent with VaD involving multiple substrates. Microinfarction, microvascular changes related to blood–brain barrier damage, focal neuronal atrophy and low burden of co-existing neurodegenerative pathology appear key substrates of dementia after stroke injury. The elucidation of mechanisms of dementia after stroke injury will enable establishment of effective strategy for symptomatic relief and prevention. Controlling vascular disease risk factors is essential to reduce the burden of cognitive dysfunction after stroke. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Vascular Contributions to Cognitive Impairment and Dementia edited by M. Paul Murphy, Roderick A. Corriveau and Donna M. Wilcock.

•

Ischaemic injury is common among long-term stroke survivors

•

About 25% stroke survivors develop dementia with a much greater proportion developing cognitive impairment

•

Risk factors of dementia after stroke include older age, vascular comorbidities, prior stroke and pre-stroke impairment

•

Current imaging and pathological studies suggest 70% of dementia after stroke is vascular dementia

•

Severe white matter changes and medial temporal lobe atrophy as sequelae after ischaemic injury are substrates of dementia

•

Controlling vascular risk factors and prevention strategies related to lifestyle factors would reduce dementia after stroke

Not just chlorthalidone: evidence-based, single tablet, diuretic alternatives to hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension

Accounting for 15 % of deaths worldwide, hypertension is often treated with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (50 million prescriptions annually). HCTZ has a <24-h duration of action, is less potent than chlorthalidone and all major antihypertensive drug classes, and is inferior to four antihypertensive drugs for cardiovascular event (CVE) reduction. If there were alternative diuretics, why prescribe HCTZ? Chlorthalidone is often offered as an alternative to HCTZ, but has limited pharmaceutical formulations. However, there are seven evidence-based, single-tablet, alternative diuretics. For reducing CVE, the following are superior to their comparators: chlorthalidone versus four antihypertensives in multiple hypertensive populations; indapamide versus placebo in elderly Chinese (and versus enalapril for left ventricular hypertrophy), triamterene-HCTZ versus placebo in elderly Europeans, amiloride-HCTZ versus three antihypertensives, and indapamide-perindopril versus placebo in three populations. Additionally, chlorthalidone-azilsartan and spironolactone-HCTZ are potent combinations The aldosterone antagonist component of the latter combination has been shown to reduce total mortality by 30 % in heart failure. Five of these seven have multiple dose formulations. Six cost $4-$77 monthly. In conclusion, based on both scientific and practical grounds, new prescriptions for HCTZ are rarely justified.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of dual alpha and beta blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Drugs with combined alpha and beta blocking activity are commonly prescribed to treat hypertension. However, the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of this class of beta blockers has not been systematically reviewed and quantified.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related effects of various types of dual alpha and beta adrenergic receptor blockers (dual receptor blockers) on systolic and diastolic blood pressure versus placebo in patients with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to October 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Group's Specialised Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized double blind placebo controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies contained a beta blocker monotherapy arm with a fixed dose. Patients enrolled in the studies had primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of the studies was from three to 12 weeks. Drugs in this class of beta blockers are carvedilol, dilevalol and labetalol.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (GW and AL) confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently. RevMan 5.3 was used to synthesize data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies examining the blood pressure lowering efficacy of carvedilol and labetalol in 1493 hypertensive patients. Five of the included studies were parallel design; three were cross-over design. The two largest included studies were unpublished carvedilol studies. The estimates of BP lowering effect (systolic BP/diastolic BP millimeters of mercury; SPB/DBP mm Hg) were -4 mm Hg (95% confidence intervals (CI) -6 to -2)/-3 mm Hg (95% CI -4 to -2) for carvedilol (>1000 subjects) and -10 mm Hg (95% CI -14 to -7)/-7 mm Hg (95% CI -9 to -5) for labetalol (110 subjects). The effect of labetalol is likely to be exaggerated due to high risk of bias. Carvedilol, within the recommended dose range, did not show a significant dose response effect for SBP or DBP. Carvedilol had little or no effect on pulse pressure (-1 mm Hg) and did not change BP variability. Overall, once and twice the starting dose of carvedilol and labetalol lowered BP by -6 mm Hg (95% CI -7 to -4) /-4 mm Hg (95% CI -4 to -3) (low quality evidence) and lowered heart rate by five beats per minute (95% CI -6 to -4) (low quality evidence). Five studies (N = 1412) reported withdrawal due to adverse effects; the risk ratio was 0.88 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.42) (moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides low quality evidence that in patients with mild to moderate hypertension, dual receptor blockers lowered trough BP by an average of -6/-4 mm Hg and reduced heart rate by five beats per minute. Due to the larger sample size from the two unpublished studies, carvedilol provided a better estimate of BP lowering effect than labetalol. The BP lowering estimate from combining carvedilol once and twice the starting doses is -4/-3 mm Hg. Doses higher than the recommended starting dose did not provide additional BP reduction. Higher doses of dual receptor blockers caused more bradycardia than lower doses. Based on indirect comparison with other classes of drugs, the blood pressure lowering effect of dual alpha- and beta-receptor blockers is less than non-selective, beta1 selective and partial agonist beta blockers, as well as thiazides and drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system. Dual blockers also had little or no effect on reducing pulse pressure, which is similar to the other beta-blocker classes, but less than the average reduction of pulse pressure seen with thiazides and drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system. Patients taking dual receptor blockers were not more likely to withdraw from the study compared to patients taking placebo.

Carotid Disease Management: Surgery, Stenting, or Medication

Internal carotid artery stenosis accounts for about 7-10 % of ischemic strokes. Conventional risk factors such as aging, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and smoking increase the risk for carotid atherosclerosis. All patients with carotid stenosis should receive aggressive medical therapy. Carotid revascularization with either endarterectomy or stenting can benefit select patients with severe stenosis. New clinical trials will examine the contemporary role of carotid revascularization relative to optimal medical therapy.

Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of loop diuretics for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Antihypertensive drugs from the thiazide diuretic drug class have been shown to reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. Loop diuretics are indicated and used to treat hypertension, but a systematic review of their blood pressure-lowering efficacy or effectiveness in terms of reducing cardiovascular mortality or morbidity from randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence has not been conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the dose-related decrease in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, or both, as well as adverse events leading to participant withdrawal and adverse biochemical effects (serum potassium, uric acid, creatinine, glucose and lipids profile) due to loop diuretics versus placebo control in the treatment of people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 27 October 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials of at least three weeks duration comparing loop diuretic with a placebo in people with primary hypertension defined as blood pressure greater than 140/90 mmHg at baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We used weighted mean difference and a fixed effects model to combine continuous outcome data. We analysed the drop outs due to adverse effects using relative risk ratio.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials evaluated the dose-related blood pressure-lowering efficacy of five drugs within the loop diuretics class (furosemide 40 mg to 60 mg, cicletanine 100 mg to 150 mg, piretanide 3 mg to 6 mg, indacrinone enantiomer -2.5 mg to -10.0/+80 mg, and etozolin 200 mg) in 460 people with baseline blood pressure of 162/103 mmHg for a mean duration of 8.8 weeks. The best estimate of systolic/diastolic blood pressure-lowering efficacy of loop diuretics was -7.9 (-10.4 to -5.4) mmHg/ -4.4 (-5.9 to -2.8) mmHg. Withdrawals due to adverse effects and serum biochemical changes did not show a significant difference.We performed additional searches in 2012 and 2014, which found no additional trials meeting the minimum inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited number of published RCTs, the systolic/diastolic blood pressure-lowering effect of loop diuretics is -8/-4 mmHg, which is likely an overestimate. We graded the quality of evidence for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure estimates as "low" due to the high risk of bias of included studies and the high likelihood of publication bias. We found no clinically meaningful blood pressure-lowering differences between different drugs within the loop diuretic class. The dose-ranging effects of loop diuretics could not be evaluated. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with loop diuretics because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.

Personalizing the diuretic treatment of hypertension: the need for more clinical and research attention

Neither randomized controlled trials nor efforts to identify genetic markers have been helpful with regard to the goal of individualizing diuretic therapy in the treatment of hypertension, a goal that receives little clinical or research attention. This review will examine, and bring attention to, the considerable yet overlooked information relevant to individualizing diuretic therapy. It will bring attention to clinical, biochemical, and pharmacological clues that can be helpful in identifying who is likely to respond to a diuretic, who needs a stronger diuretic regimen, which diuretic to prescribe, and how to minimize adverse effects. New directions for clinical research aimed at individualizing use in hypertension will be explored. Research and clinical attention to the goal of individualizing diuretic treatment in hypertension need to be renewed, to help us achieve greater hypertension control with fewer adverse effects and lower costs.

Surgical, interventional, and device innovations in the management of hypertension

The prevalence of hypertension around the world has increased significantly with projections for an increasing major global burden of hypertension. Medication-resistant hypertension can be perplexing and frustrating. The existence of these difficult patients results in the need for additional approaches to treatment including surgery, percutaneous interventions, and device management. The sophistication of these techniques has progressed markedly and initial procedures such as classical sympathectomy and renal artery bypass are almost never performed. Newer techniques of angioplasty with stenting, renal artery denervation, and baroreflex activation therapy via electrical stimulation of the carotid baroreceptors are now in use with increasing evidence for significant benefit.

Cost-utility of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-based treatment compared with thiazide diuretic-based treatment for hypertension in elderly Australians considering diabetes as comorbidity

The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-based treatment compared with thiazide diuretic-based treatment for hypertension in elderly Australians considering diabetes as an outcome along with cardiovascular outcomes from the Australian government's perspective.We used a cost-utility analysis to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Data on cardiovascular events and new onset of diabetes were used from the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study, a randomized clinical trial comparing diuretic-based (hydrochlorothiazide) versus ACEI-based (enalapril) treatment in 6083 elderly (age ≥65 years) hypertensive patients over a median 4.1-year period. For this economic analysis, the total study population was stratified into 2 groups. Group A was restricted to participants diabetes free at baseline (n = 5642); group B was restricted to participants with preexisting diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2) at baseline (n = 441). Data on utility scores for different events were used from available published literatures; whereas, treatment and adverse event management costs were calculated from direct health care costs available from Australian government reimbursement data. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 5% per annum. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around utilities and cost data.After a treatment period of 5 years, for group A, the ICER was Australian dollars (AUD) 27,698 (&OV0556; 18,004; AUD 1-&OV0556; 0.65) per QALY gained comparing ACEI-based treatment with diuretic-based treatment (sensitive to the utility value for new-onset diabetes). In group B, ACEI-based treatment was a dominant strategy (both more effective and cost-saving). On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the ICERs per QALY gained were always below AUD 50,000 for group B; whereas for group A, the probability of being below AUD 50,000 was 85%.Although the dispensed price of diuretic-based treatment of hypertension in the elderly is lower, upon considering the potential enhanced likelihood of the development of diabetes in addition to the costs of treating cardiovascular disease, ACEI-based treatment may be a more cost-effective strategy in this population.

Rationale and design of the Measuring Athlete's Risk of Cardiovascular events (MARC) study : The role of coronary CT in the cardiovascular evaluation of middle-aged sportsmen

Background

More than 90 % of exercise-related cardiac arrests occur in men, predominantly those aged 45 years and older with coronary artery disease (CAD) as the main cause. The current sports medical evaluation (SME) of middle-aged recreational athletes consists of a medical history, physical examination, and resting and exercise electrocardiography. Coronary CT (CCT) provides a minimally invasive low radiation dose opportunity to image the coronary arteries. We present the study protocol of the Measuring Athlete’s Risk of Cardiovascular events (MARC) study. MARC aims to assess the additional value of CCT to a routine SME in asymptomatic sportsmen ≥45 years without known CAD.

Design

MARC is a prospective study of 300 asymptomatic sportsmen ≥45 years who will undergo CCT if the SME does not reveal any cardiac abnormalities. The prevalence and determinants of CAD (coronary artery calcium score ≥100 Agatston Units (AU) or ≥50 % luminal stenosis) will be reported. The number needed to screen to prevent the occurrence of one cardiovascular event in the next 5 years, conditional to adequate treatment, will be estimated.

Discussion

We aim to determine the prevalence and severity of CAD and the additional value of CCT in asymptomatic middle-aged (≥45 years) sportsmen whose routine SME revealed no cardiac abnormalities.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12471-014-0630-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for diabetic patients on the basis of postulated advantages for the reduction of diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for hypertension in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in patients with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to November 19, 2014 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to October 19, 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies with at least six months follow-up in people with primary elevated blood pressure (≥130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. Patients with proven secondary hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies, involving 65,733 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large studies at a low risk of bias for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalization, total cardiovascular (CV) events (consisted of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalizations), and ESRF. Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90, ARR 1.2%), and moderate quality evidence that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, ARI 0.7%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence), total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence). The results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11; moderate quality evidence), and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). Results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, we found low quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and low quality evidence that they decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Our analyses do not exclude potentially important differences between first-line RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers on all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; low quality evidence), HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; low quality evidence), and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; low quality evidence).Blood pressure comparisons between RAS inhibitors and other classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.In the protocol, we identified non-fatal serious adverse events (SAE) as a primary outcome. However, when we extracted the data from included studies, none of them reported total SAE in a manner that could be used in the review. Therefore, there is no information about SAE in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found predominantly moderate quality evidence that all-cause mortality is similar when first-line RAS inhibitors are compared to other first-line antihypertensive agents. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. The quality of the evidence comparing first-line beta-blockers and first-line RAS inhibitors was low and the lower risk of total CV events and stroke seen with RAS inhibitors may change with the publication of additional trials. Compared with first-line CCBs, first-line RAS inhibitors reduced HF but increased stroke. The magnitude of the reduction in HF exceeded the increase in stroke. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the primary outcomes.

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg). However, while ACE inhibitors have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in placebo-controlled trials, ARBs have not. Therefore, a comparison of the efficacies of these two drug classes in primary hypertension for preventing total mortality and cardiovascular events is important.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on total mortality and cardiovascular events, and their rates of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs), in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISI Web of Science up to July 2014. We contacted study authors for missing and unpublished information, and also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials enrolling people with uncontrolled or controlled primary hypertension with or without other risk factors. Included trials must have compared an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in a head-to-head manner, and lasted for a duration of at least one year. If background blood pressure lowering agents were continued or added during the study, the protocol to do so must have been the same in both study arms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies with 11,007 participants were included. Of the included studies, five reported data on total mortality, three reported data on total cardiovascular events, and four reported data on cardiovascular mortality. No study separately reported cardiovascular morbidity. In contrast, eight studies contributed data on WDAE. Included studies were of good to moderate quality. There was no evidence of a difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.10), total cardiovascular events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19), or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13). Conversely, a high level of evidence indicated a slightly lower incidence of WDAE for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.8%, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 55 over 4.1 years), mainly attributable to a higher incidence of dry cough with ACE inhibitors. The quality of the evidence for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes was limited by possible publication bias, in that several studies were initially eligible for inclusion in this review, but had no extractable data available for the hypertension subgroup. To this end, the evidence for total mortality was judged to be moderate, while the evidence for total cardiovascular events was judged to be low by the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses found no evidence of a difference in total mortality or cardiovascular outcomes for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors, while ARBs caused slightly fewer WDAEs than ACE inhibitors. Although ACE inhibitors have shown efficacy in these outcomes over placebo, our results cannot be used to extrapolate the same conclusion for ARBs directly, which have not been studied in placebo-controlled trials for hypertension. Thus, the substitution of an ARB for an ACE inhibitor, while supported by evidence on grounds of tolerability, must be made in consideration of the weaker evidence for the efficacy of ARBs regarding mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with ACE inhibitors. Additionally, our data mostly derives from participants with existing clinical sequelae of hypertension, and it would be useful to have data from asymptomatic people to increase the generalizability of this review. Unpublished subgroup data of hypertensive participants in existing trials comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs needs to be made available for this purpose.

Economic cost of primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in Tanzania

Tanzania is facing a double burden of disease, with non-communicable diseases being an increasingly important contributor. Evidence-based preventive measures are important to limit the growing financial burden. This article aims to estimate the cost of providing medical primary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among at-risk patients, reflecting actual resource use and if the World Health Organization (WHO)’s CVD medical preventive guidelines are implemented in Tanzania. In addition, we estimate and explore the cost to patients of receiving these services. Cost data were collected in four health facilities located in both urban and rural settings. Providers’ costs were identified and measured using ingredients approach to costing and resource valuation followed the opportunity cost method. Unit costs were estimated using activity-based and step-down costing methodologies. The patient costs were obtained through a structured questionnaire. The unit cost of providing CVD medical primary prevention services ranged from US$30–41 to US$52–71 per patient per year at the health centre and hospital levels, respectively. Employing the WHO’s absolute risk approach guidelines will substantially increase these costs. The annual patient cost of receiving these services as currently practised was estimated to be US$118 and US$127 for urban and rural patients, respectively. Providers’ costs were estimated from two main viewpoints: ‘what is’, that is the current practice, and ‘what if’, reflecting a WHO guidelines scenario. The higher cost of implementing the WHO guidelines suggests the need for further evaluation of whether these added costs are reasonable relative to the added benefits. We also found considerably higher patient costs, implying that distributive and equity implications of access to care require more consideration. Facility location surfaced as the main explanatory variable for both direct and indirect patient costs in the regression analysis; further research on the influence of other provider characteristics on these costs is important.

Diuretic drugs benefit patients with hypertension more with night-time dosing

OBJECTIVES

Night-time chronotherapy in antihypertensive drugs has been shown to produce better blood pressure control and protect from cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. To date, this has been proven for several drug classes excluding thiazides diuretics. Given the peculiar response of blood pressure to thiazides in black people we sought to determine whether night-time chronotherapy with thiazides produces better control as already shown with other drug classes.

METHODS

A subanalysis of a larger chronotherapy study with antihypertensive drugs in Nigerian Africans was done. The subpopulation of those whose disease was controlled after 12 weeks of diuretic monotherapy was analysed. Those who received drugs in the morning and at night were compared along control lines and some cardiac indices.

RESULTS

Both groups were similar on all scores at baseline. After 12 weeks of monotherapy patients who received drugs at night had significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure though control was achieved with both morning and night-time dosing. Also the left ventricular posterior and septal walls regressed better as well as left ventricular mass in the night-time group.

CONCLUSION

Though equally effective in reducing blood pressure and cardiac indices related to hypertension, patients taking their drugs at night recorded better values. This makes diuretics equally amenable to night-time chronotherapy as other drug classes. This effect should be explored to reduce the morbidity and mortality consequences of hypertension.

Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of monotherapy with thiazide diuretics for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. Although it is established that low-dose thiazides reduce mortality as well as cardiovascular morbidity, the dose-related effect of thiazides in decreasing blood pressure has not been subject to a rigorous systematic review. It is not known whether individual drugs within the thiazide diuretic class differ in their blood pressure-lowering effects and adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the dose-related decrease in systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure due to thiazide diuretics compared with placebo control in the treatment of patients with primary hypertension. Secondary outcomes included the dose-related adverse events leading to patient withdrawal and adverse biochemical effects on serum potassium, uric acid, creatinine, glucose and lipids.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to February 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to February 2014) and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fixed-dose thiazide diuretic monotherapy with placebo for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in the treatment of adult patients with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened articles, assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and determined risk of bias. We combined data for continuous variables using a mean difference (MD) and for dichotomous outcomes we calculated the relative risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 60 randomized, double-blind trials that evaluated the dose-related trough blood pressure-lowering efficacy of six different thiazide diuretics in 11,282 participants treated for a mean duration of eight weeks. The mean age of the participants was 55 years and baseline blood pressure was 158/99 mmHg. Adequate blood pressure-lowering efficacy data were available for hydrochlorothiazide, chlorthalidone and indapamide. We judged 54 (90%) included trials to have unclear or high risk of bias, which impacted on our confidence in the results for some of our outcomes.In 33 trials with a baseline blood pressure of 155/100 mmHg, hydrochlorothiazide lowered blood pressure based on dose, with doses of 6.25 mg, 12.5 mg, 25 mg and 50 mg/day lowering blood pressure compared to placebo by 4 mmHg (95% CI 2 to 6, moderate-quality evidence)/2 mmHg (95% CI 1 to 4, moderate-quality evidence), 6 mmHg (95% CI 5 to 7, high-quality evidence)/3 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 4, high-quality evidence), 8 mmHg (95% CI 7 to 9, high-quality evidence)/3 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 4, high-quality evidence) and 11 mmHg (95% CI 6 to 15, low-quality evidence)/5 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 7, low-quality evidence), respectively.Direct comparison of doses did not show evidence of dose dependence for blood pressure-lowering for any of the other thiazides for which RCT data were available: bendrofluazide, chlorthalidone, cyclopenthiazide, metolazone or indapamide.In seven trials with a baseline blood pressure of 163/88 mmHg, chlorthalidone at doses of 12.5 mg to 75 mg/day reduced average blood pressure compared to placebo by 12.0 mmHg (95% CI 10 to 14, low-quality evidence)/4 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 5, low-quality evidence).In 10 trials with a baseline blood pressure of 161/98 mmHg, indapamide at doses of 1.0 mg to 5.0 mg/day reduced blood pressure compared to placebo by 9 mmHg (95% CI 7 to 10, low-quality evidence)/4 (95% CI 3 to 5, low-quality evidence).We judged the maximal blood pressure-lowering effect of the different thiazides to be similar. Overall, thiazides reduced average blood pressure compared to placebo by 9 mmHg (95% CI 9 to 10, high-quality evidence)/4 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 4, high-quality evidence).Thiazides as a class have a greater effect on systolic than on diastolic blood pressure, therefore thiazides lower pulse pressure by 4 mmHg to 6 mmHg, an amount that is greater than the 3 mmHg seen with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors, and the 2 mmHg seen with non-selective beta-blockers. This is based on an informal indirect comparison of results observed in other Cochrane reviews on ACE inhibitors, ARBs and renin inhibitors compared with placebo, which used similar inclusion/exclusion criteria to the present review.Thiazides reduced potassium, increased uric acid and increased total cholesterol and triglycerides. These effects were dose-related and were least for hydrochlorothiazide. Chlorthalidone increased serum glucose but the evidence was unclear for other thiazides. There is a high risk of bias in the metabolic data. This review does not provide a good assessment of the adverse effects of these drugs because there was a high risk of bias in the reporting of withdrawals due to adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows that hydrochlorothiazide has a dose-related blood pressure-lowering effect. The mean blood pressure-lowering effect over the dose range 6.25 mg, 12.5 mg, 25 mg and 50 mg/day is 4/2 mmHg, 6/3 mmHg, 8/3 mmHg and 11/5 mmHg, respectively. For other thiazide drugs, the lowest doses studied lowered blood pressure maximally and higher doses did not lower it more. Due to the greater effect on systolic than on diastolic blood pressure, thiazides lower pulse pressure by 4 mmHg to 6 mmHg. This exceeds the mean 3 mmHg pulse pressure reduction achieved by ACE inhibitors, ARBs and renin inhibitors, and the 2 mmHg pulse pressure reduction with non-selective beta-blockers as shown in other Cochrane reviews, which compared these antihypertensive drug classes with placebo and used similar inclusion/exclusion criteria.Thiazides did not increase withdrawals due to adverse effects in these short-term trials but there is a high risk of bias for that outcome. Thiazides reduced potassium, increased uric acid and increased total cholesterol and triglycerides.

The Maastricht Study: an extensive phenotyping study on determinants of type 2 diabetes, its complications and its comorbidities

The Maastricht Study is an extensive phenotyping study that focuses on the etiology of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), its classic complications, and its emerging comorbidities. The study uses state-of-the-art imaging techniques and extensive biobanking to determine health status in a population-based cohort of 10,000 individuals that is enriched with T2DM individuals. Enrollment started in November 2010 and is anticipated to last 5-7 years. The Maastricht Study is expected to become one of the most extensive phenotyping studies in both the general population and T2DM participants world-wide. The Maastricht study will specifically focus on possible mechanisms that may explain why T2DM accelerates the development and progression of classic complications, such as cardiovascular disease, retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy and of emerging comorbidities, such as cognitive decline, depression, and gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal and respiratory diseases. In addition, it will also examine the association of these variables with quality of life and use of health care resources. This paper describes the rationale, overall study design, recruitment strategy and methods of basic measurements, and gives an overview of all measurements that are performed within The Maastricht Study.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of nonselective beta-blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers are one of the classes of drugs frequently used to treat hypertension. Quantifying the blood pressure (BP) lowering effects of nonselective beta-blockers provides important information that aids clinical decision making.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related effects of nonselective beta-adrenergic receptor blockers (beta-blockers) on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) as compared with placebo in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to October 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel or cross-over trials. Studies had to contain a nonselective beta-blocker monotherapy arm with a fixed dose. Participants enrolled into the studies had to have primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of studies had to be between three and 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (GW and AL) independently confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs that evaluated the BP lowering effects of seven nonselective beta-blockers in 1264 people with hypertension. Among the 25 RCTs, four were parallel studies and 21 were cross-over studies. Overall, nonselective beta-blockers lowered systolic BP and diastolic BP compared with placebo. Nonselective beta-blockers, in the recommended dose range, did not showed a convincing dose-response relationship by direct comparison. The once (1x) and twice (2x) starting dose subgroups contained the largest sample size. The estimate of BP lowering efficacy for nonselective beta-blockers by combining the 1x and 2x starting dose subgroup was -10 mmHg (95% CI -11 to -8) for systolic BP and -7 mmHg (95% CI -8 to -6) for diastolic BP (low-quality evidence). Nonselective beta-blockers starting at the 1x recommended starting doses lowered heart rate by 12 beats per minute (95% CI 10 to 13) (low-quality evidence). The dose-response relationship in heart rate was evident by both direct and indirect comparison. Due to imprecision, there was no clear evidence of an effect of nonselective beta-blockers on pulse pressure in any dose subgroups except for a small reduction with the 2x starting dose (-2.2 mmHg, 95% CI -3.7 to -0.7) (very low quality evidence). The point estimates in the 1x, four times (4x) and eight times (8x) starting dose subgroups were similar to the 2x starting dose subgroup. Therefore, it would appear that if nonselective beta-blockers do lower pulse pressure, the magnitude is likely to be about 2 mmHg. There were very limited data (two studies) on withdrawals due to adverse effects (risk ratio (RR) 0.84; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.82).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with mild-to-moderate hypertension, nonselective beta-blockers lowered peak BP by a mean of -10/-7 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) and reduced heart rate by 12 beats per minute. Propranolol and penbutolol were the two drugs that contributed to most of the data for nonselective beta-blockers. This estimate is likely exaggerated due to the presence of extreme outliers and other sources of bias. If we removed the extreme outliers from the analysis, the estimate for non-selective beta-blockers was lower (-8/-5 mmHg (systolic/diastolic)). Nonselective beta-blockers did not show a convincing graded dose-response in the recommended dose range for systolic BP and diastolic BP, while higher dose nonselective beta-blockers provided greater reduction of heart rate. Using higher dose nonselective beta-blockers might cause more side effects, such as bradycardia, without producing an additional BP lowering effect. The effect of nonselective beta-blockers on pulse pressure was likely small, at about 2 mmHg.

First-line beta-blockers versus other antihypertensive medications for chronic type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) is a severe and often lethal complication in people with hypertension. Current practice in the treatment of chronic type B aortic dissections is the use of beta-blockers as first-line therapy to decrease aortic wall stress. Other antihypertensive medications, such as calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), have been suggested for the medical therapy of type B TAD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of first-line beta-blockers compared with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for treating chronic type B TAD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) for related reviews. We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register (1946 to 26 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to 24 January 2014), MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE (1974 to 24 January 2014) and ClinicalTrials.gov (to 26 January 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different antihypertensive medications in the treatment of chronic type B TAD to be eligible for inclusion. Total mortality rate was the primary outcome of this review. Secondary outcomes included total non-fatal adverse events relating to TADs and number of people not requiring surgical treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (KC, PL) independently reviewed titles and abstracts and decided on studies to include based on the inclusion criteria. We resolved discrepancies between the two review authors by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

After a thorough review of the search results, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any RCTs that compared first-line beta-blockers with other first-line antihypertensive medications for the treatment of chronic type B TAD. Therefore, there is no RCT evidence to support the current guidelines recommending the use of beta-blockers. RCTs are required to assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers and other antihypertensive medications as first-line treatment of chronic type B TAD.

Lifestyle factors in hypertension drug research: systematic analysis of articles in a leading cochrane report

Established standards for first-line hypertension management include lifestyle modification and behavior change. The degree to which and how lifestyle modification is systematically integrated into studies of first-line drug management for hypertension is of methodological and clinical relevance. This study systematically reviewed the methodology of articles from a recent Cochrane review that had been designed to inform first-line medical treatment of hypertension and was representative of high quality established clinical trials in the field. Source articles (n = 34) were systematically reviewed for lifestyle interventions including smoking cessation, diet, weight loss, physical activity and exercise, stress reduction, and moderate alcohol consumption. 54% of articles did not mention lifestyle modification; 46% contained nonspecific descriptions of interventions. We contend that hypertension management research trials (including drug studies) need to elucidate the benefits and risks of drug-lifestyle interaction, to support the priority of lifestyle modification, and that lifestyle modification, rather than drugs, is seen by patients and the public as a priority for health professionals. The inclusion of lifestyle modification strategies in research designs for hypertension drug trials could enhance current research, from trial efficacy to clinical outcome effectiveness, and align hypertension best practices of a range of health professionals with evidence-based knowledge translation.

Comparative effectiveness of renin-angiotensin system blockers and other antihypertensive drugs in patients with diabetes: systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of different classes of antihypertensive treatments, including monotherapy and combination therapy, on survival and major renal outcomes in patients with diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic literature search of PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to December 2011.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised clinical trials of antihypertensive therapy (angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), α blockers, β blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, and their combinations) in patients with diabetes with a follow-up of at least 12 months, reporting all cause mortality, requirement for dialysis, or doubling of serum creatinine levels.

DATA EXTRACTION

Bayesian network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative effects between treatments as well as the probabilities of ranking for treatments based on their protective effects.

RESULTS

63 trials with 36,917 participants were identified, including 2400 deaths, 766 patients who required dialysis, and 1099 patients whose serum creatinine level had doubled. Compared with placebo, only ACE inhibitors significantly reduced the doubling of serum creatinine levels (odds ratio 0.58, 95% credible interval 0.32 to 0.90), and only β blockers showed a significant difference in mortality (odds ratio 7.13, 95% credible interval 1.37 to 41.39). Comparisons among all treatments showed no statistical significance in the outcome of dialysis. Although the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors compared with ARBs did not reach statistical significance, ACE inhibitors consistently showed higher probabilities of being in the superior ranking positions among all three outcomes. Although the protective effect of an ACE inhibitor plus calcium channel blocker compared with placebo was not statistically significant, the treatment ranking identified this combination therapy to have the greatest probability (73.9%) for being the best treatment on reducing mortality, followed by ACE inhibitor plus diuretic (12.5%), ACE inhibitors (2.0%), calcium channel blockers (1.2%), and ARBs (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses show the renoprotective effects and superiority of using ACE inhibitors in patients with diabetes, and available evidence is not able to show a better effect for ARBs compared with ACE inhibitors. Considering the cost of drugs, our findings support the use of ACE inhibitors as the first line antihypertensive agent in patients with diabetes. Calcium channel blockers might be the preferred treatment in combination with ACE inhibitors if adequate blood pressure control cannot be achieved by ACE inhibitors alone.

ACE-inhibitor induced angio-oedema treated with complement C1-inhibitor concentrate

ACE-inhibitor is an antihypertensive drug which is increasingly used to treat a wide range of medical conditions. A known adverse reaction is angio-oedema of the head and neck, which can become fatal when the upper airway is involved, causing asphyxia. We present a Caucasian man, who developed severe angio-oedema of the tongue and floor of the mouth. He was successfully treated with complement C1-concentrate causing the swelling to regress within 20 min. This treatment option can be an effective alternative to bradykinin antagonists, which might not be available in the emergency room, or more invasive measures like intubation or emergency airway puncture.

Beta blockers for peripheral arterial disease

BACKGROUND

Beta (β) blockers are indicated for use in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, optimal therapy for people with CAD accompanied by intermittent claudication has been controversial because of the presumed peripheral haemodynamic consequences of beta blockers, leading to worsening symptoms of intermittent claudication. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the potential harmful effects of beta blockers on maximum walking distance, claudication distance, calf blood flow, calf vascular resistance and skin temperature when used in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched March 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of both selective (β1) and non-selective (β1 and β2) beta blockers compared with placebo. We excluded trials that compared different types of beta blockers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcome measures were claudication distance in metres, time to claudication in minutes and maximum walking distance in metres and minutes (as assessed by treadmill).Secondary outcome measures included calf blood flow (mL/100 mL/min), calf vascular resistance and skin temperature (ºC).

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs that fulfilled the above criteria, with a total of 119 participants. The beta blockers studied were atenolol, propranolol, pindolol and metoprolol. All trials were of poor quality with the drugs administered over a short time (10 days to two months). None of the primary outcomes were reported by more than one study. Similarly, secondary outcome measures, with the exception of vascular resistance (as reported by three studies), were reported, each by only one study. Pooling of such results was deemed inappropriate. None of the trials showed a statistically significant worsening effect of beta blockers on time to claudication, claudication distance and maximal walking distance as measured on a treadmill, nor on calf blood flow, calf vascular resistance and skin temperature, when compared with placebo. No reports described adverse events associated with the beta blockers studied.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no evidence suggests that beta blockers adversely affect walking distance, calf blood flow, calf vascular resistance and skin temperature in people with intermittent claudication. However, because of the lack of large published trials, beta blockers should be used with caution, if clinically indicated.

Preliminary validation of the Hypertension Self-Care Activity Level Effects (H-SCALE) and clinical blood pressure among patients with hypertension

This study establishes preliminary validation of a measure that assesses hypertension self-care activities with clinical blood pressure (BP). The Hypertension Self-Care Activity Level Effects (H-SCALE) was administered to patients with hypertension to assess levels of self-care. Patients (n=154) were predominantly female (68.6%) and black (79.2%). Greater adherence to self-care was associated with lower systolic and diastolic BP for 5 of the 6 self-care behaviors. Medication adherence was correlated with systolic BP (r=-0.19, P<.05) and weight management adherence was correlated with diastolic BP (r=-0.22, P<.05) after controlling for other covariates. Increased adherence to recommended dietary practices was strongly correlated with higher systolic (r=0.29, P<.05) and diastolic BP (r=0.32, P<.05). The H-SCALE was acceptable for use in clinical settings, and adherence to self-care was generally aligned with lower BP. Assessment of hypertension self-care is important when working with individuals to control their BP.

Which patient and treatment factors are related to successful cardiovascular risk score reduction in general practice? Results from a randomized controlled trial

Background

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death. It is important to identify patient and treatment factors that are related to successful cardiovascular risk reduction in general practice. This study investigates which patient and treatment factors are related to changes in cardiovascular risk estimation, expressed as the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) 10 year risk of cardiovascular mortality.

Methods

179 general practice patients with mild-moderately elevated cardiovascular risk followed a one-year programme which included structured lifestyle and medication treatment by practice nurses, with or without additional self-monitoring. From the patient and treatment data collected as part of the “Self-monitoring and Prevention of RIsk factors by Nurse practitioners in the region of Groningen” randomized controlled trial (SPRING-RCT), the contribution of patient and treatment factors to the change in SCORE was analysed with univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

In multivariate analyses with multiple patient and treatment factors, only SCORE at baseline, and addition of or dose change in lipid lowering or antihypertensive medications over the course of the study were significantly related to change in SCORE.

Conclusions

Our analyses support the targeting of treatment at individuals with a high SCORE at presentation. Lipid lowering medication was added or changed in only 12% of participants, but nevertheless was significantly related to ΔSCORE in this study population. Due to the effect of medication in this practice-based project, the possible additional effect of the home monitoring devices, especially for individuals with no indication for medication, may have been overshadowed.

Trial registration

trialregister.nl NTR2188

Preventive medication use among persons with limited life expectancy

Persons with limited life expectancy (LLE) – less than 1 year – are significant consumers of health care, are at increased risk of polypharmacy and adverse drug events, and have dynamic health statuses. Therefore, medication use among this population must be appropriate and regularly evaluated. The objective of this review is to assess the current state of knowledge and clinical practice presented in the literature regarding preventive medication use among persons with LLE. We searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL using Medical Subject Headings. Broad searches were first conducted using the terms ‘terminal care or therapy’ or ‘advanced disease’ and ‘polypharmacy’ or ‘inappropriate medication’ or ‘preventive medicine’, followed by more specific searches using the terms ‘statins’ or ‘anti-hypertensives’ or ‘bisphosphonates’ or ‘laxatives’ and ‘terminal care’. Frameworks to assess appropriate versus inappropriate medications for persons with LLE, and the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use among this population, are presented. A considerable proportion of individuals with a known terminal condition continue to take chronic disease preventive medications until death despite questionable benefit. The addition of palliative preventive medications is advised. There is an indication that as death approaches the shift from a curative to palliative goal of care translates into a shift in medication use. This literature review is a first step towards improving medication use and decreasing polypharmacy in persons at the end of life. There is a need to develop consensus criteria to assess appropriate versus inappropriate medication use, specifically for individuals at the end of life.

Comparative effectiveness of monotherapies and combination therapies for patients with hypertension: protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Hypertension has been cited as the most common attributable risk factor for death worldwide, and in Canada more than one of every five adults had this diagnosis in 2007. In addition to different lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise, there exist many pharmaco-therapies from different drug classes which can be used to lower blood pressure, thereby reducing the risk of serious clinical outcomes. In moderate and severe cases, more than one agent may be used. The optimal mono- and combination therapies for mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension are unclear, and clinical guidelines provide different recommendations for first line therapy. The objective of this review is to explore the relative benefits and safety of different pharmacotherapies for management of non-diabetic patients with hypertension, whether of a mild or moderate to severe nature.

METHODS/DESIGN

Searches involving MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be used to identify related systematic reviews and relevant randomized trials. The outcomes of interest include myocardial infarction, stroke, incident diabetes, heart failure, overall and cardiovascular related death, and important side effects (cancers, depression, syncopal episodes/falls and sexual dysfunction). Randomized controlled trials will be sought. Two reviewers will independently screen relevant reviews, titles and abstracts resulting from the literature search, and also potentially relevant full-text articles in duplicate. Data will be abstracted and quality will be appraised by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through team discussion. Random effect pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be conducted where deemed appropriate. Analyses will be geared toward studying treatment of mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension separately.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review results will assess the extent of currently available evidence for single agent and multi-agent pharmacotherapies in patients with mild, moderate and severe hypertension, and will provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of a range of important clinical outcomes for clinicians, decision makers and patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42013004459.

Cost-utility analysis of antihypertensive medications in Nigeria: a decision analysis

Background

Many drugs are available for control of hypertension and its sequels in Nigeria but some are not affordable for majority of the populace. This serious pharmacoeconomic question has to be answered by the nation’s health economists. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of drugs from 4 classes of antihypertensive medications commonly used in Nigeria in management of hypertension without compelling indication to use a particular antihypertensive drug.

Methods

The study employed decision analytic modeling. Interventions were obtained from a meta-analysis. The Markov process model calculated clinical outcomes and costs during a life cycle of 30 years of 1000 hypertensive patients stratified by 3 cardiovascular risk groups, under the alternative intervention scenarios. Quality adjusted life year (QALY) was used to quantify clinical outcome. The average cost of treatment for the 1000 patient was tracked over the Markov cycle model of the alternative interventions and results were presented in 2010 US Dollars. Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation, and results presented as cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of parameter perfect information (EVPPI) analyses were also conducted for the hypothetical population.

Results

Thiazide diuretic was the most cost-effective option across the 3 cardiovascular risk groups. Calcium channel blocker was the second best for Moderate risk and high risk with a willingness to pay of at least 2000$/QALY. The result was robust since it was insensitive to the parameters alteration.

Conclusions

The result of this study showed that thiazide diuretic followed by calcium channel blocker could be a feasible strategy in order to ensure that patients in Nigeria with hypertension are better controlled.

A systematic review of recent clinical practice guidelines on the diagnosis, assessment and management of hypertension

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), optimal hypertension control is not achieved in many parts of the world; one of the challenges is the volume of guidelines on this topic and their variable quality. To systematically review the quality, methodology, and consistency of recommendations of recently-developed national CPGs on the diagnosis, assessment and the management of hypertension.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, guidelines' websites and Google were searched for CPGs written in English on the general management of hypertension in any clinical setting published between January 2006 and September 2011. Four raters independently appraised each CPG using the AGREE-II instrument and 2 reviewers independently extracted the data. Conflicts were resolved by discussion or the involvement of an additional reviewer. Eleven CPGs were identified. The overall quality ranged from 2.5 to 6 out of 7 on the AGREE-II tool. The highest scores were for "clarity of presentation" (44.4%-88.9%) and the lowest were for "rigour of development" (8.3%-30% for 9 CGPs). None of them clearly reported being newly developed or adapted. Only one reported having a patient representative in its development team. Systematic reviews were not consistently used and only 2 up-to-date Cochrane reviews were cited. Two CPGs graded some recommendations and related that to levels (but not quality) of evidence. The CPGs' recommendations on assessment and non-pharmacological management were fairly consistent. Guidelines varied in the selection of first-line treatment, adjustment of therapy and drug combinations. Important specific aspects of care (e.g. resistant hypertension) were ignored by 6/11 CPGs. The CPGs varied in methodological quality, suggesting that their implementation might not result in less variation of care or in better health-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

More efforts are needed to promote the realistic approach of localization or local adaptation of existing high-quality CPGs to the national context.

Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm

Background

Systematic reviews have been challenged to consider effects on disadvantaged groups. A priori specification of subgroup analyses is recommended to increase the credibility of these analyses. This study aimed to develop and assess inter-rater agreement for an algorithm for systematic review authors to predict whether differences in effect measures are likely for disadvantaged populations relative to advantaged populations (only relative effect measures were addressed).

Methods

A health equity plausibility algorithm was developed using clinimetric methods with three items based on literature review, key informant interviews and methodology studies. The three items dealt with the plausibility of differences in relative effects across sex or socioeconomic status (SES) due to: 1) patient characteristics; 2) intervention delivery (i.e., implementation); and 3) comparators. Thirty-five respondents (consisting of clinicians, methodologists and research users) assessed the likelihood of differences across sex and SES for ten systematic reviews with these questions. We assessed inter-rater reliability using Fleiss multi-rater kappa.

Results

The proportion agreement was 66% for patient characteristics (95% confidence interval: 61%-71%), 67% for intervention delivery (95% confidence interval: 62% to 72%) and 55% for the comparator (95% confidence interval: 50% to 60%). Inter-rater kappa, assessed with Fleiss kappa, ranged from 0 to 0.199, representing very low agreement beyond chance.

Conclusions

Users of systematic reviews rated that important differences in relative effects across sex and socioeconomic status were plausible for a range of individual and population-level interventions. However, there was very low inter-rater agreement for these assessments. There is an unmet need for discussion of plausibility of differential effects in systematic reviews. Increased consideration of external validity and applicability to different populations and settings is warranted in systematic reviews to meet this need.

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

BACKGROUND

General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. These aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is, therefore, important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes such as blood pressure and serum cholesterol levels.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to July 2012. Two authors screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trialists about additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. For mortality outcomes we analysed the results with random-effects model meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182,880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (155,899 participants, 11,940 deaths), median follow-up time nine years, giving a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (152,435 participants, 4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.17) and eight trials on cancer mortality (139,290 participants, 3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings.We did not find an effect on clinical events or other measures of morbidity but one trial found an increased occurrence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia with screening and one trial found an increased occurence of self-reported chronic disease. One trial found a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared to the control group. No trials compared the total number of prescriptions, but two out of four trials found an increased number of people using antihypertensive drugs. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self-reported health, but this could be due to reporting bias as the trials were not blinded. We did not find an effect on admission to hospital, disability, worry, additional visits to the physician, or absence from work, but most of these outcomes were poorly studied. We did not find useful results on the number of referrals to specialists, the number of follow-up tests after positive screening results, or the amount of surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow-up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow-up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of alpha blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Alpha blockers are occasionally prescribed for hypertension so it is important to determine and compare their effects on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE).

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related systolic and/or diastolic BP lowering efficacy of alpha blockers versus placebo in the treatment of primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

For the updated review, we searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2012), EMBASE (1980 to May 2012) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of fixed-dose monotherapy with an alpha blocker compared with placebo for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. WDAE information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Only 10 trials evaluated the dose-related trough BP lowering efficacy of 4 different alpha blockers in 1175 participants with a baseline BP of 155/101 mm Hg. The data do not suggest that any one alpha blocker is better or worse at lowering BP. The best but unsatisfactory estimate of the trough BP lowering efficacy for alpha blockers is -8/-5 mmHg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited number of published RCTs, the BP lowering effect of alpha blockers is modest; the estimate of the magnitude of trough BP lowering of -8/-5 mmHg is likely an overestimate. There are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between different alpha blockers. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with alpha blockers because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.

Garlic for the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND

Garlic is widely used by patients for its blood pressure lowering effects. A meta-analysis published in 2008 concluded that garlic consumption lowers blood pressure in hypertensive and normotensive patients. Therefore, it is important to review the currently available evidence to determine whether garlic may also have a beneficial role in the reduction of cardiovascular events and mortality rates in patients with hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the use of garlic as monotherapy, in hypertensive patients, lowers the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared to placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

A systematic search for trials was conducted in the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AGRICOLA, AMED, and CINAHL up to November 2011. A hand search of reference lists of identified reviews was conducted. Experts in the area were also contacted to identify trials not found in the electronic search. Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of any garlic preparation versus placebo for the treatment of hypertension were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using the risk of bias tool. Data synthesis and analysis was performed using RevMan 5.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified two randomized controlled trials for inclusion. One trial included 47 hypertensive patients and showed that garlic significantly reduces mean supine systolic blood pressure by 12 mmHg (95% CI 0.56 to 23.44 mmHg, p=0.04) and mean supine diastolic blood pressure by 9 mmHg (95% CI 2.49 to 15.51 mmHg, p=0.007) versus placebo. The authors state that garlic was "free from side effects" and that no serious side effects were reported. There were 3 cases "where a slight smell of garlic was noted."The second trial could not be meta-analysed as they did not report the number of people randomized to each treatment group. They did report that 200 mg of garlic powder given three times daily, in addition to hydrochlorothiazide-triamterene baseline therapy, produced a mean reduction of systolic blood pressure by 10-11 mmHg and of diastolic blood pressure by 6-8 mmHg versus placebo.Neither trial reported clinical outcomes and insufficient data was provided on adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine if garlic provides a therapeutic advantage versus placebo in terms of reducing the risk of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients diagnosed with hypertension. There is also insufficient evidence to determine the difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between patients treated with garlic or placebo.Based on 2 trials in 87 hypertensive patients, it appears that garlic reduces mean supine systolic and diastolic blood pressure by approximately 10-12 mmHg and 6-9 mmHg, respectively, over and above the effect of placebo but the confidence intervals for these effect estimates are not precise and this difference in blood pressure reduction falls within the known variability in blood pressure measurements. This makes it difficult to determine the true impact of garlic on lowering blood pressure.

Lay perspectives on hypertension and drug adherence: systematic review of qualitative research

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise the findings from individual qualitative studies on patients' understanding and experiences of hypertension and drug taking; to investigate whether views differ internationally by culture or ethnic group and whether the research could inform interventions to improve adherence.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of qualitative research using the 2006 UK Economic and Social Research Council research methods programme guidance.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, the British Nursing Index, Social Policy and Practice, and PsycInfo from inception to October 2011.

STUDY SELECTION

Qualitative interviews or focus groups among people with uncomplicated hypertension (studies principally in people with diabetes, established cardiovascular disease, or pregnancy related hypertension were excluded).

RESULTS

59 papers reporting on 53 qualitative studies were included in the synthesis. These studies came from 16 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Iran, Israel, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Tanzania, and Thailand). A large proportion of participants thought hypertension was principally caused by stress and produced symptoms, particularly headache, dizziness, and sweating. Participants widely intentionally reduced or stopped treatment without consulting their doctor. Participants commonly perceived that their blood pressure improved when symptoms abated or when they were not stressed, and that treatment was not needed at these times. Participants disliked treatment and its side effects and feared addiction. These findings were consistent across countries and ethnic groups. Participants also reported various external factors that prevented adherence, including being unable to find time to take the drugs or to see the doctor; having insufficient money to pay for treatment; the cost of appointments and healthy food; a lack of health insurance; and forgetfulness.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-adherence to hypertension treatment often resulted from patients' understanding of the causes and effects of hypertension; particularly relying on the presence of stress or symptoms to determine if blood pressure was raised. These beliefs were remarkably similar across ethnic and geographical groups; calls for culturally specific education for individual ethnic groups may therefore not be justified. To improve adherence, clinicians and educational interventions must better understand and engage with patients' ideas about causality, experiences of symptoms, and concerns about drug side effects.

Comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive medication for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and multiple treatments meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review of evidence from randomized controlled trials to answer the following research question: What are the relative effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease outcomes for healthy people at risk of cardiovascular disease?

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (up to February 2011) and CENTRAL (up to May 2009), and reference lists in recent systematic reviews. Titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance and those potentially fulfilling our inclusion criteria were then assessed in full text. Two reviewers made independent assessments at each step. We selected the following main outcomes: total mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. We also report on angina, heart failure and incidence of diabetes. We conducted a multiple treatments meta-analysis using random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE-instrument.

RESULTS

We included 25 trials. Overall, the results were mixed, with few significant differences, and with no drug-class standing out as superior across multiple outcomes. The only significant finding for total mortality based on moderate to high quality evidence was that beta-blockers (atenolol) were inferior to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (relative risk (RR) 1.14; 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.02 to 1.28). Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors came out inferior to calcium-channel blockers (CCB) regarding stroke-risk (RR 1.19; 1.03 to 1.38), but superior regarding risk of heart failure (RR 0.82; 0.69 to 0.94), both based on moderate quality evidence. Diuretics reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared to beta-blockers (RR 0.82; 0.68 to 0.98), and lowered the risk of heart failure compared to CCB (RR 0.73; 0.62 to 0.84), beta-blockers (RR 0.73; 0.54 to 0.96), and alpha-blockers (RR 0.51; 0.40 to 0.64). The risk of diabetes increased with diuretics compared to ACE-inhibitors (RR 1.43; 1.12 to 1.83) and CCB (RR 1.27; 1.05 to 1.57).

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence, there seems to be little or no difference between commonly used blood pressure lowering medications for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Beta-blockers (atenolol) and alpha-blockers may not be first-choice drugs as they were the only drug-classes that were not significantly superior to any other, for any outcomes. Review registration: CRD database ("PROSPERO") CRD42011001066.

What differentiates primary care physicians who predominantly prescribe diuretics for treating mild to moderate hypertension from those who do not? A comparative qualitative study

Background

Thiazide diuretics are cost-effective for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension, but physicians often opt for more expensive treatment options such as angiotensin II receptor blockers or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. With escalating health care costs, there is a need to elucidate the factors influencing physicians' treatment choices for this highly prevalent chronic condition. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of physicians' decision-making process regarding hypertension treatment choices.

Methods

A comparative qualitative study was conducted in 2009 in the Canadian province of Quebec. Overall, 29 primary care physicians--who are also participating in an electronic health record research program--participated in a semi-structured interview about their prescribing decisions. Physicians were categorized into two groups based on their patterns of prescribing antihypertensive drugs: physicians who predominantly prescribe diuretics, and physicians who predominantly prescribe drug classes other than diuretics. Cases of hypertension that were newly started on antihypertensive therapy were purposely selected from each physician's electronic health record database. Chart stimulated recall interview, a technique utilizing patient charts to probe recall and provide context to physician decision-making during clinical encounters, was used to elucidate reasons for treatment choices. Interview transcripts were synthesized using content analysis techniques, and factors influencing physicians' decision making were inductively generated from the data.

Results

We identified three themes that differentiated physicians who predominantly prescribe diuretics from those who predominantly prescribe other drug classes for the initial treatment of mild to moderate hypertension: a) perceptions about the efficacy of diuretics, b) preferred approach to hypertension management and, c) perceptions about hypertension guidelines. Specifically, physicians had differences in beliefs about the efficacy, safety and tolerability of diuretics, the most effective approach for managing mild to moderate hypertension, and in aggressiveness to achieve treatment targets. Marketing strategies employed by the pharmaceutical industry and practice experience appear to contribute to these differences in management approach.

Conclusions

Physicians preferring more expensive treatment options appear to have several misperceptions about the efficacy, safety and tolerability of diuretics. Efforts to increase physicians' prescribing of diuretics may need to be directed at overcoming these misperceptions.

Critical review of cancer risk associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy

The role of drugs in new cancer occurrence and cancer-related death is a major concern. Recently, a meta-analysis raised the possibility that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) might have an adverse effect on patients. This generated a significant debate until the publication of two further meta-analyses, neither of which demonstrated an increased risk of new cancer occurrence or cancer-related death with the use of ARBs in patients with hypertension, heart failure, and/or nephropathy. This illustrates that the results of meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously and critically as bias, such as selection bias, might lead to erroneous conclusions. Overall, the bulk of evidence today indicates that ARBs are not associated with increased cancer risk.

Thiazide diuretics and the risk of hip fracture

BACKGROUND

Thiazide diuretics are one of the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive agents worldwide. Thiazides reduce urinary calcium excretion. Chronic ingestion of thiazides is associated with higher bone mineral density. It has been suggested that thiazides may prevent hip fracture. However, there are concerns that diuretics, by increasing the risk of fall in elderly, could potentially negate its beneficial effects on hip fracture.

OBJECTIVES

To assess any association between the use of thiazide diuretics and the risk of hip fracture in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched eligible studies up to December 2008 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, the Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects (DARE) and reference lists of previous reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials and observational studies, which assessed the association between thiazide diuretic use and hip fracture.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of each study selected.  The results were summarized descriptively and quantitatively. Cohort studies and case control studies were analysed separately.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomized control trials were found. Twenty-one observational studies with nearly four hundred thousand participants were included. Six of them were cohort studies and 15 were case-control studies. Two cohort studies appear to involve the same cohort so there were only 5 unique ones. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Five cohort studies had low risk of bias and one had moderate risk of bias. Seven case control studies had low risk of bias and 8 had moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that thiazide use was associated with a reduction in risk of hip fracture by 24%, pooled RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.89; p = 0.0009). We chose not to provide a pooled summary statistics for case-control studies because of high heterogeneity (Tau(2) = 0.03, I(2) = 62%, p = 0.0008).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Thiazides appear to reduce the risk of hip fracture based on observational studies. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.  

Primary stroke prevention and hypertension treatment: which is the first-line strategy?

Hypertension (HT) is considered the main classic vascular risk factor for stroke and the importance of lowering blood pressure (BP) is well established. However, not all the benefit of antihypertensive treatment is due to BP reduction per se, as the effect of reducing the risk of stroke differs among classes of antihypertensive agents. Extensive evidences support that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCB) and thiazide diuretics each reduced risk of stroke compared with placebo or no treatment. Therefore, when combination therapy is required, a combination of these antihypertensive classes represents a logical approach. Despite the efficacy of antihypertensive therapy a large proportion of the population, still has undiagnosed or inadequately treated HT, and remain at high risk of stroke. In primary stroke prevention current guidelines recommend a systolic/diastolic BP goal of <140/<90 mmHg in the general population and <130/80 mmHg in diabetics and in subjects with high cardiovascular risk and renal disease. The recent release in the market of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) of ACEI or ARB and CCB should provide a better control of BP. However to confirm the efficacy of the FDC in primary stroke prevention, clinical intervention trials are needed.

Physician perception of blood pressure control and treatment behavior in high-risk hypertensive patients: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

We examined physician perception of blood pressure control and treatment behavior in patients with previous cardiovascular disease and uncontrolled hypertension as defined by European Guidelines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in which 321 primary care physicians throughout Spain consecutively studied 1,614 patients aged ≥18 years who had been diagnosed and treated for hypertension (blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg), and had suffered a documented cardiovascular event. The mean value of three blood pressure measurements taken using standardized procedures was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Mean blood pressure was 143.4/84.9 mmHg, and only 11.6% of these cardiovascular patients were controlled according to 2007 European Guidelines for Hypertension Management target of <130/80 mmHg. In 702 (49.2%) of the 1426 uncontrolled patients, antihypertensive medication was not changed, and in 480 (68.4%) of these cases this was due to the physicians judgment that blood pressure was adequately controlled. In 320 (66.7%) of the latter patients, blood pressure was 130-139/80-89 mmHg. Blood pressure level was the main factor associated (inversely) with no change in treatment due to physician perception of adequate control, irrespective of sociodemographic and clinical factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians do not change antihypertensive treatment in many uncontrolled cardiovascular patients because they considered it unnecessary, especially when the BP values are only slightly above the guideline target. It is possible that the guidelines may be correct, but there is also the possibility that the care by the physicians is appropriate since BP <130/80 mmHg is hard to achieve, and recent reviews suggest there is insufficient evidence to support such a low BP target.