Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Blood pressure-lowering treatment based on cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Cardiovascular disease risk and comparison of different strategies for blood pressure management in rural India

BACKGROUND

Non-optimal blood pressure (BP) levels are a major cause of disease burden globally. We describe current BP and treatment patterns in rural India and compare different approaches to BP lowering in this setting.

METHODS

All individuals aged ≥40 years from 54 villages in a South Indian district were invited and 62,194 individuals (84%) participated in a cross-sectional study. Individual 10-year absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk was estimated using WHO/ISH charts. Using known effects of treatment, proportions of events that would be averted under different paradigms of BP lowering therapy were estimated.

RESULTS

After imputation of pre-treatment BP levels for participants on existing treatment, 76·9% (95% confidence interval, 75.7-78.0%), 5·3% (4.9-5.6%), and 17·8% (16.9-18.8%) of individuals had a 10-year CVD risk defined as low (< 20%), intermediate (20-29%), and high (≥30%, established CVD, or BP > 160/100 mmHg), respectively. Compared to the 19.6% (18.4-20.9%) of adults treated with current practice, a slightly higher or similar proportion would be treated using an intermediate (23·2% (22.0-24.3%)) or high (17·9% (16.9-18.8%) risk threshold for instituting BP lowering therapy and this would avert 87·2% (85.8-88.5%) and 62·7% (60.7-64.6%) more CVD events over ten years, respectively. These strategies were highly cost-effective relative to the current practice.

CONCLUSION

In a rural Indian community, a substantial proportion of the population has elevated CVD risk. The more efficient and cost-effective clinical approach to BP lowering is to base treatment decisions on an estimate of an individual's short-term absolute CVD risk rather than with BP based strategy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registry of India CTRI/2013/06/003753 , 14 June 2013.

Effects of Cardiovascular Risk Factors on Cardiac STAT3

Nuclear, mitochondrial and cytoplasmic signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) regulates many cellular processes, e.g., the transcription or opening of mitochondrial permeability transition pore, and its activity depends on the phosphorylation of Tyr705 and/or Ser727 sites. In the heterogeneous network of cardiac cells, STAT3 promotes cardiac muscle differentiation, vascular element formation and extracellular matrix homeostasis. Overwhelming evidence suggests that STAT3 is beneficial for the heart, plays a role in the prevention of age-related and postpartum heart failure, protects the heart against cardiotoxic doxorubicin or ischaemia/reperfusion injury, and is involved in many cardioprotective strategies (e.g., ischaemic preconditioning, perconditioning, postconditioning, remote or pharmacological conditioning). Ischaemic heart disease is still the leading cause of death worldwide, and many cardiovascular risk factors contribute to the development of the disease. This review focuses on the effects of various cardiovascular risk factors (diabetes, aging, obesity, smoking, alcohol, depression, gender, comedications) on cardiac STAT3 under non-ischaemic baseline conditions, and in settings of ischaemia/reperfusion injury with or without cardioprotective strategies.

A Comparison of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline and the 2017 American Diabetes Association Diabetes and Hypertension Position Statement for U.S. Adults With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To determine the concordance in the prevalence of hypertension and pharmacological antihypertensive treatment recommendations for U.S. adults with diabetes using definitions from the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) blood pressure (BP) guideline and the 2017 American Diabetes Association (ADA) diabetes and hypertension position statement.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data for U.S. adults with diabetes in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2011-2016 (n = 2,266). Diabetes was defined by treatment with glucose-lowering medication, glycosylated hemoglobin ≥6.5%, fasting serum glucose ≥126 mg/dL, or nonfasting serum glucose ≥200 mg/dL. BP was measured three times and antihypertensive medication use was self-reported.

RESULTS

The prevalence (95% CI) of hypertension among U.S. adults with diabetes was 77.1% (73.9, 80.0) and 66.3% (63.4, 69.1) according to the ACC/AHA and ADA definitions, respectively. Also, 22.9% (20.0, 26.1) did not have hypertension according to either definition, and the concordance in hypertension status was 89.2% (87.2, 91.0). Among U.S. adults with diabetes not taking antihypertensive medication, 52.8% (47.7, 57.8) were not recommended to initiate antihypertensive medication by either the ACC/AHA or the ADA document and 22.4% (19.2, 25.9) were recommended to initiate it by both documents (overall concordance 75.2% [70.4, 79.4]). Among those taking antihypertensive medication, 45.3% (41.3, 49.4) and 50.4% (46.5, 54.2) had BP above the goal in neither and both documents, respectively (overall concordance 95.7% [93.4, 97.2]).

CONCLUSIONS

A high percentage of U.S. adults with diabetes are provided identical antihypertensive treatment recommendations by the ACC/AHA BP guideline and the ADA diabetes and hypertension position statement.

Genetic analysis of over 1 million people identifies 535 new loci associated with blood pressure traits

High blood pressure is a highly heritable and modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We report the largest genetic association study of blood pressure traits (systolic, diastolic and pulse pressure) to date in over 1 million people of European ancestry. We identify 535 novel blood pressure loci that not only offer new biological insights into blood pressure regulation but also highlight shared genetic architecture between blood pressure and lifestyle exposures. Our findings identify new biological pathways for blood pressure regulation with potential for improved cardiovascular disease prevention in the future.

Comparison of Frequency of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular and Safety Events With Systolic Blood Pressure <120mm Hg Versus 135-139mm Hg in a Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial Primary Prevention Subgroup

Whether the benefit of intensive blood pressure (BP) control reduces atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk without increasing risks of serious adverse events (SAEs) is unknown. We sought to assess differences in incident ASCVD and SAE with intensive BP control across the spectrum of 10-year ASCVD risk in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). SPRINT randomized 9,361 participants who were ≥50years old and ≥1 CVD risk factor to standard or intensive BP control (<120 or 130 to 139mm Hg). We excluded adults with clinical ASCVD or age ≥80. We included 6,875 participants. We compared hazard ratios (HR) and risk differences (RD) of incident ASCVD events or SAEs in all and across quartiles of baseline risk. Median predicted ASCVD risk was 15.9%. Intensive BP control significantly reduced ASCVD events (HR 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58, 0.97, p = 0.03; RD -0.94; -1.8, -0.1; p = 0.03). There was no difference in effect across quartiles of ASCVD risk. There was a non-significant increase in SAE with intensive BP control (HR 1.08, 1.00, 1.17 p = 0.06; RD 2.1, -0.1, 4.4, p = 0.03), and no difference in this effect across quartiles of risk. In SPRINT participants without baseline clinical ASCVD, the benefit of intensive BP control for primary prevention of ASCVD may extend to lower risk participants without an increase in SAE. In conclusion, lower risk adults with stage 1 hypertension meeting SPRINT eligibility may benefit from initiation of antihypertensives.

Dangers of Overly Aggressive Blood Pressure Control

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent US guidelines have changed the definition of hypertension to ≥ 130/80 mmHg and recommended more intense blood pressure (BP) targets. We summarize the evidence for intense BP treatment and discuss risks that must be considered when choosing treatment goals for individual patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The SPRINT study reported that treating to a systolic BP target of 120 mmHg reduces cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk individuals, supporting more intensive BP reduction than previously recommended. However, recent observational studies have placed emphasis on the BP J-curve phenomenon, where low BPs are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, suggesting that overly aggressive BP targets may sometimes be harmful. We attempt to reconcile these apparent contradictions for the clinician. We also review other potential dangers of aggressive BP targets, including syncope, renal impairment, polypharmacy, drug interactions, subjective drug side-effects, and non-adherence. We suggest a personalized approach to BP drug management considering individual risks, benefits, and preferences when choosing therapeutic targets, recognizing that a goal of 130/80 mmHg should always be considered. Additionally, we recommend an intense focus on lifestyle changes and medication adherence.

Effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular outcomes based on cardiovascular risk: A secondary analysis of the SPRINT trial

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether risk stratification can help choose the most favourable systolic blood pressure target for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

METHODS

To perform a secondary analysis, we obtained the data from SPRINT from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute data repository centre. In SPRINT, an open-label trial, participants without diabetes with systolic blood pressure of ≥130 mmHg were randomly assigned to intensive and standard treatment groups with systolic blood pressure targets of <120 and <140 mmHg, respectively. The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction and other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Here, we have analysed data from participants without cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease aged under 75 years categorised based on the baseline 10-year Framingham risk score (<10% (low risk); ≥10% and <15% (intermediate risk); ≥15% (high risk)).

RESULTS

A total of 4298 patients were included in the analysis. With intensive treatment, there was a significant reduction in the primary outcome events in patients at high risk (0.86% per year vs. 1.81% per year; hazard ratio (HR) 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.85; P = 0.010), and at intermediate risk (0.60% per year vs. 1.46% per year; HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.82; P = 0.014) but not for those at low risk (0.75% per year vs. 0.57% per year; HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.38; P = 0.714).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive systolic blood pressure reduction is beneficial for primary prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients without diabetes with more than low cardiac risk (above 10%).

Features of the clinical picture in patients of middle age with essential hypertension

AIM

To evaluate the presence and the severity of the complaints (headache, dizziness, memory loss, concentration of attention, sleep disturbances, decreased mood, increased anxiety), the state of cognitive functions, emotional status and quality of night sleep in treatment-naïve middle-aged patients with mild to moderate EAH compared to healthy volunteers of the same age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

103 treatment-naïve patients with EAH aged 40-59 years at the enrollment, who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and provided written informed consent (46 men, mean age 53.6±0.8 years) and 50 healthy volunteers (17 men, mean age 51.5±1.0 years) with normal blood pressure (BP) level - control group - were enrolled to the study. Mean EAH duration was 2.9±5.7 years. Cognitive assessment included Montreal cognitive assessment, 10-words learning task, verbal fluency test, TMT, Stroop color and word test. Anxiety and depression were evaluated via Hamilton rating scales (HARS and HDRS). 24-hours ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed according to European guidelines.

RESULTS

70% of patients with EAH complained of memory disturbance, 68% - lack of attention, 22% - sleep disturbances, 12% - dizziness, 9% - headache. It took statistically significant more time for patients with EAH to perform on TMT B (p<0.05), they had significantly higher TMT B - TMT A difference score (p<0.01) and lower mean MoCA score (p<0.05). Patients with EAH had significantly higher mean score in Hamilton anxiety (2.1±3.7) and depression (1.1±2.4) rating scales compared to controls (0.3±0.9 points, p<0.01 and 0.1±0.5 points, p<0.001, respectively). Patients with EAH who complained of sleep disturbances had low sleep quality (8.7±2.8 points). Among patients with EAH who complained about headaches 66.6% had episodic migraine and chronic tension type headache (33.4%). Those patients had a substantial impact of headache on life and daily living according to HIT-6 (mean score - 57.5±6.1). Only 2 patients out of 12 with complains about dizziness had benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and Ménière's disease.

CONCLUSION

Complaints about memory dysfunction, lack of attention, sleep disturbances, less common - dizziness and headaches, are most typical in patients with EAH on the early stages of the disease. They differ from healthy volunteers of the same age by having cognitive impairment and higher anxiety and depression scores. Patients with EAH who complained about sleep disturbances had low sleep quality. Headache in patients with EAH was due to episodic migraine and tension type headache which had a negative impact on life and daily living.

Assessing Cardiovascular Risk to Guide Hypertension Diagnosis and Treatment

Importance

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated the benefit of lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) to 120 mm Hg, yet other trials, such as Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3), did not find consistent benefit. How to incorporate these results into the treatment of those with elevated SBP in the general population is not clear.

Objectives

To assess the representativeness of SPRINT and HOPE-3 relative to patients in the United States and to explore the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk profiles of various populations with elevated SBP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The study examined data from nonpregnant adults aged 20 to 79 years participating in the 2007-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) who had complete data available (n = 14 142), representing 206.9 million US adults. The study was performed from October 1, 2015, to August 2, 2016.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The study estimated the number and characteristics of adults with SBP of 120 mm Hg or higher, including SPRINT and HOPE-3 eligibility, and estimated who may have newly required treatment initiation or intensification if various trial or risk-based criteria were applied.

Results

NHANES included completed clinical evaluations from mobile examination centers on 15 974 adults aged 20 to 79 years (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [15.5] years). The study excluded 182 pregnant women and 1650 adults in whom CVD risk data were unavailable, leaving a final study population of 14 142 (50.5% women [95% CI, 49.6%-51.3%] and 49.5% men [95% CI, 48.6%-50.4%]). An estimated 53.3 million untreated and 19.8 million treated US adults have an SBP in the diagnostic and treatment gray zone (120-139 mm Hg), a small proportion of whom would have been eligible for SPRINT (5.4% untreated, 13.9% treated) or HOPE-3 (13.9% treated, 1.7% untreated). Even among those with prior CVD or high risk of CVD and elevated SBP (120-139 mm Hg), only a few would have qualified for SPRINT (27.0% and 21.9% of untreated and treated patients, respectively) or HOPE-3 (10.6% and 2.1% of untreated and treated, respectively). If blood pressure treatment recommendations were extended to adults with an SBP between 120 and 139 mm Hg, as well as prior CVD or CVD risk of 15% or higher, then 5.8 million untreated adults would be reclassified as treatment eligible; furthermore, 8.5 million treated patients would require medication intensification.

Conclusions and Relevance

Millions of US adults have elevated SBP and high CVD risk, most of whom would not have been eligible for SPRINT. Until more definitive evidence becomes available, clinicians should consider a management paradigm based on CVD risk in addition to blood pressure measurements.

Interventions to support shared decision making for hypertension: A systematic review of controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Hypertension (high blood pressure) is a common long-term health condition. Patient involvement in treating and monitoring hypertension is essential. Control of hypertension improves population cardiovascular outcomes. However, for an individual, potential benefits and harms of treatment are finely balanced. Shared decision making has the potential to align decisions with the preferences and values of patients.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the effectiveness of interventions to support shared decision making in hypertension.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO up to 30 September 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Controlled studies evaluating the effects of shared decision-making interventions for adults with hypertension compared with any comparator in any setting and reporting any outcome measures.

RESULTS

Six studies (five randomized controlled trials) in European primary care were included. Main intervention components were as follows: training for health-care professionals, decision aids, patient coaching and a patient leaflet. Four studies, none at low risk of bias, reported a measure of shared decision making; the intervention increased shared decision making in one study. Four studies reported blood pressure between 6 months and 3 years after the intervention; there was no difference in blood pressure between intervention and control groups in any study. Lack of comparability between studies prevented meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread calls for shared decision making to be embedded in health care, there is little evidence to inform shared decision making for hypertension, one of the most common conditions managed in primary care.

2017 ACC/AHA Blood Pressure Treatment Guideline Recommendations and Cardiovascular Risk

BACKGROUND

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) blood pressure (BP) guideline provides updated recommendations for antihypertensive medication initiation and intensification.

OBJECTIVES

Determine the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events among adults recommended and not recommended antihypertensive medication initiation or intensification by the 2017 ACC/AHA BP guideline.

METHODS

The authors analyzed data for black and white REGARDS (REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke) study participants (age ≥45 years). Systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were measured twice at baseline (2003 to 2007) and averaged. Participants not taking (n = 14,039) and taking (n = 15,179) antihypertensive medication were categorized according to their recommendations for antihypertensive medication initiation and intensification by the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. Overall, 4,094 CVD events (stroke, coronary heart disease, and heart failure) occurred by December 31, 2014.

RESULTS

Among participants not taking antihypertensive medication, 34.4% were recommended pharmacological antihypertensive treatment initiation. The CVD event rate per 1,000 person-years among participants recommended antihypertensive medication initiation with SBP/DBP ≥140/90 mm Hg was 22.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3 to 25.0). Among participants with SBP/DBP 130 to 139/80 to 89 mm Hg, the CVD event rate was 20.5 (95% CI: 18.5 to 22.6) and 3.4 (95% CI: 2.4 to 4.4) for those recommended and not recommended antihypertensive medication initiation, respectively. Among participants taking antihypertensive medication, 62.8% were recommended treatment intensification. The CVD event rate per 1,000 person-years among participants recommended treatment intensification was 33.6 (95% CI: 31.5 to 35.6) and 22.4 (95% CI: 20.8 to 23.9) for those with SBP/DBP ≥140/90 mm Hg and 130 to 139/80 to 89 mm Hg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline would direct antihypertensive medication initiation and intensification to adults with high CVD risk.

Generalizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Controversy over blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for individuals with diabetes is in part due to conflicting perspectives about generalizability of available trial data.

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to estimate how results from the largest clinical trial of intensive BP treatment among adults with diabetes would generalize to the U.S.

POPULATION

METHODS

The authors used transportability methods to reweight individual patient data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial (N = 4,507) of intensive (goal systolic BP <120 mm Hg) versus standard (goal systolic BP <140 mm Hg) treatment to better represent the demographic and clinical risk factors of the U.S. population of adults with diabetes (data from NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] 2005 to 2014, n = 1,943). The primary outcome was the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analysis used weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust standard errors.

RESULTS

The ACCORD BP sample had less racial/ethnic diversity and more elevated cardiovascular risk factors than the NHANES participants. Weighted results significantly favored intensive BP treatment, unlike unweighted results (hazard ratio for primary outcome in intensive versus standard treatment in weighted analyses: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.91; in unweighted analyses: hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.07). Over 5 years, the weighted results estimate a number needed to treat of 34, and number needed to harm of 55.

CONCLUSIONS

After reweighting to better reflect the U.S. adult population with diabetes, intensive BP therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for cardiovascular events. However, data were limited among racial/ethnic minorities and those with lower cardiovascular risk.

Time spent at blood pressure target and the risk of death and cardiovascular diseases

BACKGROUND

The time a patient spends with blood pressure at target level is an intuitive measure of successful BP management, but population studies on its effectiveness are as yet unavailable.

METHOD

We identified a population-based cohort of 169,082 individuals with newly identified high blood pressure who were free of cardiovascular disease from January 1997 to March 2010. We used 1.64 million clinical blood pressure readings to calculate the TIme at TaRgEt (TITRE) based on current target blood pressure levels.

RESULT

The median (Inter-quartile range) TITRE among all patients was 2.8 (0.3, 5.6) months per year, only 1077 (0.6%) patients had a TITRE ≥11 months. Compared to people with a 0% TITRE, patients with a TITRE of 3-5.9 months, and 6-8.9 months had 75% and 78% lower odds of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke (adjusted odds ratios, 0.25 (95% confidence interval: 0.21, 0.31) and 0.22 (0.17, 0.27), respectively). These associations were consistent for heart failure and any cardiovascular disease and death (comparing a 3-5.9 month to 0% TITRE, 63% and 60% lower in odds, respectively), among people who did or did not have blood pressure 'controlled' on a single occasion during the first year of follow-up, and across groups defined by number of follow-up BP measure categories.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current frequency of measurement of blood pressure this study suggests that few newly hypertensive patients sustained a complete, year-round on target blood pressure over time. The inverse associations between a higher TITRE and lower risk of incident cardiovascular diseases were independent of widely-used blood pressure 'control' indicators. Randomized trials are required to evaluate interventions to increase a person's time spent at blood pressure target.

[Management of arterial hypertension]

Arterial hypertension has a high prevalence and is a major risk factor for the development of cardiovascular diseases. It is a major contributor to worldwide morbidity and mortality and hence poses a huge socioeconomic burden. Despite great progress in perception, diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, blood pressure control is inadequate in less than half of the hypertensive patients (<140/90 mm Hg). The diagnosis of arterial hypertension starts in most patients with the conventional office blood pressure measurement. Out-of-office blood pressure measurement is an important adjunct, especially to unmask white-coat hypertension. To reach the right target blood pressure many effective antihypertensive drugs are available. By how much the blood pressure should be lowered is currently a matter of controversy. The 2013 European and the identical German national guidelines recommend a target blood pressure of <140/90 mm Hg for most patients. The recent SPRINT study revealed that some patients may benefit from an even lower blood pressure. This CME-article summarizes recent developments in the management of arterial hypertension and provides tips for daily practice based on these aims.

Effects of High Blood Pressure on Cardiovascular Disease Events Among Chinese Adults With Different Glucose Metabolism

OBJECTIVE

To investigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks caused by blood pressure (BP) of 130-139/80-89 mmHg among Chinese adults with different glucose metabolism.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective population-based cohort of 2,132 adults in Shanghai was established in 2002, and CVD information was collected during 10.9 years of follow-up. After assessing the association between BP categories and incident CVD, we analyzed the risk for CVD by blood glucose categories and BP categories combined by using multiple Cox regression analysis among 1,419 participants at follow-up.

RESULTS

The corresponding incidence of CVD per 1,000 person-years for the BP <130/80 mmHg, 130-139/80-89 mmHg, and ≥140/90 mmHg or treated groups were 3.0, 6.0, and 13.9, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and other factors, BP ≥140/90 mmHg was significantly associated with a higher CVD risk in general (hazard ratio 2.68 [95% CI 1.36-5.25]) and in various blood glucose categories (normoglycemia 2.59, prediabetes 3.03, diabetes mellitus [DM] 4.98). However, BP of 130-139/80-89 mmHg was significantly associated with a higher CVD risk in an estimated baseline 10-year atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk ≥10% (3.82 [1.42-9.78]) or DM (3.54 [1.05-11.88]) but not in the general population or for a baseline 10-year ASCVD risk <10%, normoglycemia, or prediabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

BP of 130-139/80-89 mmHg may result in a significantly higher CVD risk in Chinese adults with an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥10% or DM but not in those with normoglycemia or prediabetes.

Links between blood pressure and medication intake, well-being, stress, physical activity and symptoms reported via a mobile phone-based self-management support system: a cohort study in primary care

OBJECTIVES

To explore relationships between patients' self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) and their concurrent self-reports of medication intake, well-being, stress, physical activity and symptoms.

DESIGN

This study is a secondary analysis of a prospective study exploring the 8-week effectiveness of a mobile phone-based self-management support system for patients with hypertension.

SETTING

Four primary healthcare centres situated in urban and suburban communities in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

50 patients undergoing treatment for hypertension.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Associations between systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and 10 self-report lifestyle-related variables were analysed using linear mixed effects modelling.

RESULTS

Medication intake, better well-being, less stress and greater physical activity were associated variously with lower same-day SBP and DBP. The single strongest association was found between medication intake and SBP, where failure to take medications was associated with an estimated 7.44 mm Hg higher SBP. To a lesser degree, medication intake was also associated with DBP, where DBP was 4.70 mm Hg higher in cases where medications were not taken. Well-being and stress were consistently associated with SBP and DBP, whereas physical activity was associated with only SBP. None of the symptoms-dizziness, headache, restlessness, fatigue or palpitations-were significantly associated with BP.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings that BP was associated with patients' BP management behaviours and experiences of well-being and stress, but not symptoms suggest that enabling persons with hypertension to monitor and track their BP in relation to medication intake, physical activity, well-being, stress and symptoms may be a fruitful way to help them gain first-hand understanding of the importance of adherence and persistence to treatment recommendations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01510301; Pre-results.

Risk factors for incident heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, and valvular heart failure, in a community-based cohort

Background

The lack of effective therapies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) reflects an incomplete understanding of its pathogenesis.

Design

We analysed baseline risk factors for incident HFpEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and valvular heart failure (VHF) in a community-based cohort.

Methods

We recruited 2101 men and 1746 women ≥60 years of age with hypertension, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease (IHD), abnormal heart rhythm, cerebrovascular disease or renal impairment. Exclusion criteria were known heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <50% or valve abnormality >mild in severity. Median follow-up was 5.6 (IQR 4.6-6.3) years.

Results

Median time to heart failure diagnosis in 162 participants was 4.5 (IQR 2.7-5.4) years, 73 with HFpEF, 53 with HFrEF and 36 with VHF. Baseline age and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels were associated with HFpEF, HFrEF and VHF. Pulse pressure, IHD, waist circumference, obstructive sleep apnoea and pacemaker were associated with HFpEF and HFrEF; atrial fibrillation (AF) and warfarin therapy were associated with HFpEF and VHF and peripheral vascular disease and low platelet count were associated with HFrEF and VHF. Additional risk factors for HFpEF were body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, renal dysfunction, low haemoglobin, white cell count and β-blocker, statin, loop diuretic, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and clopidogrel therapies, for HFrEF were male gender and cigarette smoking and for VHF were low diastolic blood pressure and alcohol intake. BMI, diabetes, low haemoglobin, white cell count and warfarin therapy were more strongly associated with HFpEF than HFrEF, whereas male gender and low platelet count were more strongly associated with HFrEF than HFpEF.

Conclusions

Our data suggest a major role for BMI, hypertension, diabetes, renal dysfunction, and inflammation in HFpEF pathogenesis; strategies directed to prevention of these risk factors may prevent a sizeable proportion of HFpEF in the community.

Trial registration number

NCT00400257, NCT00604006 and NCT01581827.

Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of the review published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if 'lower' blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease).

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2018: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included more than 50 participants per group and provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (≤ 135/85 mmHg) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data.We found no change in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; low-quality evidence). Studies reported more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower target group by 8.9/4.5 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group, but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a difference in total mortality, serious adverse events, or total cardiovascular events between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on adverse events, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to examine this topic.

Association of systolic blood pressure with cardiovascular outcomes in elderly patients with hypertension in Northern China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the association of systolic blood pressure (SBP) with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality among elderly hypertensive patients in northern China.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 9655 elderly hypertensive patients from Kailuan study were followed up with the incidence of primary outcomes (composite outcomes including myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause death) and the incidence of secondary outcomes (stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause death). Patients were categorized into five groups on the basis of SBP levels: Q1 (SBP<130 mmHg), Q2 (130≤SBP<140 mmHg), Q3 (140≤SBP<150 mmHg), Q4 (150≤SBP<160 mmHg), and Q5 (SBP≥160 mmHg).

RESULTS

During an average of 7.2±1.6 years of follow-up, patients in the group Q2 had the lowest incidence rates of composite outcomes. Q1 was not associated with a decreased risk of composite outcomes. Interestingly, compared with reference group Q2, the risk of composite outcomes [hazard ratio (HR): 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.75] was significantly increased in the Q3 subgroup with high risk+very high risk for the incidence of ischemic cardiovascular disease (ICVD). Similarly, the risk of composite outcomes (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.01-1.53 and HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.04-1.75) was significantly increased in Q4 subgroups, with both intermediate risk and high risk+very high risk for 10-year ICVD.

CONCLUSION

Elderly hypertensive patients with a high risk of 10-year ICVD were still at a higher risk of developing adverse outcomes even with 140≤SBP<150 mmHg. SBP of less than 130 mmHg was not associated significantly with a reduced risk of developing adverse outcomes.

Estimating the Association of the 2017 and 2014 Hypertension Guidelines With Cardiovascular Events and Deaths in US Adults: An Analysis of National Data

Importance

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guideline recommends lower blood pressure (BP) thresholds for initiating antihypertensive medication and treatment goals than the 2014 evidence-based hypertension guideline.

Objective

To estimate the potential association of the 2017 and 2014 hypertension guidelines with the proportion of US adults defined as being hypertensive or recommended for antihypertensive treatment and with risk reduction of major cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013 to 2016, we estimated the proportions of US adults with hypertension or recommended for antihypertensive treatment according to the 2017 and 2014 hypertension guidelines. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, antihypertensive clinical trials, and population-based cohort studies, we estimated risk reductions of CVD and all-cause mortality assuming the entire US adult population achieved guideline-recommended systolic BP (SBP) treatment goals. Data were analyzed between October 2017 and March 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportions and numbers of individuals with hypertension or recommended for antihypertensive treatment and numbers of CVD and all-cause mortality reduction.

Results

According to the 2017 hypertension guideline, the prevalence of hypertension (BP level ≥130/80 mm Hg) was 45.4% (95% CI, 43.9%-46.9%), representing 105.3 (95% CI, 101.9-108.8) million US adults, which was significantly higher than estimates per the 2014 hypertension guideline (BP level ≥140/90 mm Hg): 32.0% (95% CI, 30.3%-33.6%) or 74.1 (95% CI, 70.3-77.9) million individuals, respectively. Additionally, the proportion of individuals recommended for antihypertensive treatment was significantly higher according to the 2017 hypertension guideline (35.9%; 95% CI, 34.2%-37.5%) compared with the 2014 hypertension guideline (31.1%; 95% CI, 29.6%-32.7%). Achieving the 2017 hypertension guideline SBP treatment goals is estimated to reduce 610 000 (95% CI, 496 000-734 000) CVD events and 334 000 (95% CI, 245 000-434 000) total deaths in US adults 40 years and older. Corresponding estimates after achieving the 2014 hypertension guideline SBP treatment goals were 270 000 (95% CI, 202 000-349 000) and 177 000 (95% CI, 123 000-241 000), respectively. Implementing the 2017 hypertension guideline is estimated to increase 62 000 hypotension and 79 000 acute kidney injury or failure events.

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with the 2014 hypertension guideline, the 2017 hypertension guideline was associated with an increase in the proportion of adults recommended for antihypertensive treatment and a further reduction in major CVD events and all-cause mortality, but a possible increase in the number of adverse events in the United States.

Deleting Death and Dialysis: Conservative Care of Cardio-Vascular Risk and Kidney Function Loss in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

The uremic syndrome, which is the clinical expression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), is a complex amalgam of accelerated aging and organ dysfunctions, whereby cardio-vascular disease plays a capital role. In this narrative review, we offer a summary of the current conservative (medical) treatment options for cardio-vascular and overall morbidity and mortality risk in CKD. Since the progression of CKD is also associated with a higher cardio-vascular risk, we summarize the interventions that may prevent the progression of CKD as well. We pay attention to established therapies, as well as to novel promising options. Approaches that have been considered are not limited to pharmacological approaches but take into account lifestyle measures and diet as well. We took as many randomized controlled hard endpoint outcome trials as possible into account, although observational studies and post hoc analyses were included where appropriate. We also considered health economic aspects. Based on this information, we constructed comprehensive tables summarizing the available therapeutic options and the number and kind of studies (controlled or not, contradictory outcomes or not) with regard to each approach. Our review underscores the scarcity of well-designed large controlled trials in CKD. Nevertheless, based on the controlled and observational data, a therapeutic algorithm can be developed for this complex and multifactorial condition. It is likely that interventions should be aimed at targeting several modifiable factors simultaneously.

Health insurance coverage with or without a nurse-led task shifting strategy for hypertension control: A pragmatic cluster randomized trial in Ghana

BACKGROUND

Poor access to care and physician shortage are major barriers to hypertension control in sub-Saharan Africa. Implementation of evidence-based systems-level strategies targeted at these barriers are lacking. We conducted a study to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of provision of health insurance coverage (HIC) alone versus a nurse-led task shifting strategy for hypertension control (TASSH) plus HIC on systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction among patients with uncontrolled hypertension in Ghana.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Using a pragmatic cluster randomized trial, 32 community health centers within Ghana's public healthcare system were randomly assigned to either HIC alone or TASSH + HIC. A total of 757 patients with uncontrolled hypertension were recruited between November 28, 2012, and June 11, 2014, and followed up to October 7, 2016. Both intervention groups received health insurance coverage plus scheduled nurse visits, while TASSH + HIC comprised cardiovascular risk assessment, lifestyle counseling, and initiation/titration of antihypertensive medications for 12 months, delivered by trained nurses within the healthcare system. The primary outcome was change in SBP from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included lifestyle behaviors and blood pressure control at 12 months and sustainability of SBP reduction at 24 months. Of the 757 patients (389 in the HIC group and 368 in the TASSH + HIC group), 85% had 12-month data available (60% women, mean BP 155.9/89.6 mm Hg). In intention-to-treat analyses adjusted for clustering, the TASSH + HIC group had a greater SBP reduction (-20.4 mm Hg; 95% CI -25.2 to -15.6) than the HIC group (-16.8 mm Hg; 95% CI -19.2 to -15.6), with a statistically significant between-group difference of -3.6 mm Hg (95% CI -6.1 to -0.5; p = 0.021). Blood pressure control improved significantly in both groups (55.2%, 95% CI 50.0% to 60.3%, for the TASSH + HIC group versus 49.9%, 95% CI 44.9% to 54.9%, for the HIC group), with a non-significant between-group difference of 5.2% (95% CI -1.8% to 12.4%; p = 0.29). Lifestyle behaviors did not change appreciably in either group. Twenty-one adverse events were reported (9 and 12 in the TASSH + HIC and HIC groups, respectively). The main study limitation is the lack of cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the additional costs and benefits, if any, of the TASSH + HIC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of health insurance coverage plus a nurse-led task shifting strategy was associated with a greater reduction in SBP than provision of health insurance coverage alone, among patients with uncontrolled hypertension in Ghana. Future scale-up of these systems-level strategies for hypertension control in sub-Saharan Africa requires a cost-benefit analysis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01802372.

[Effective coverage of treatment of hypertension in Mexican adults by states]

Objective:

To estimate the effective coverage (EC) of treatment of hypertension (HT) in Mexican adults in 2012 and compared with those reported in 2006.

Materials and methods:

The National Health and Nutrition Survey 2012 was analyzed. The EC has three dimensions: health need as prevalence of HT, utilization of health services when the need is real and quality as recovering health after the treatment. The EC of treatment of HT was estimated using instrumental variables.

Results:

In 2012, the EC national of treatment of HT was 28.3% (95%CI 26.5-30.1), ranging from Michoacan with 19.3% (15.3-23.4) to State of Mexico with 39.7% in (25.3-54.0). From 2006 to 2012 the national EC increased 22.5%.

Conclusion:

The EC treatment of hypertension is low and heterogeneous. The use of synthetic indicators should be a daily exercise of measurement, because report summarizes the performance of state health systems.

Synergistic effects of blood pressure-lowering drugs and statins: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Synergistic effects of blood pressure-lowering drugs and statins are unknown, but are key to risk-based treatment decision strategies and fixed-combination polypills.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that the combined relative effects of blood pressure-lowering drugs and statins on cardiovascular outcomes are multiplicative.

STUDY SELECTION

Two persons independently searched five data sources and hand-searched reference lists from earliest available to December 2017. We included factorial trials with at least two randomised interventions including one statin versus placebo factor and one blood pressure-lowering drug/more intense blood pressure-lowering regimen versus placebo/less intense regimen factor, and reported cardiovascular events or mortality as outcomes. We tested interactions as departures from additivity or multiplicativity using mixed-effects logistic regression models.

FINDINGS

Seven out of 1017 screened studies fulfilled the selection criteria, contributing a total of 27 020 patients with 857 major cardiovascular events and 725 deaths. The relative risk reduction of major cardiovascular events with active/more intense blood pressure-lowering regimen was not materially different in subgroups randomised to statins (risk ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.00) or placebo (0.94, 0.79 to 1.11). Likewise, statin effects were not substantially different in subgroups randomised to active/more intense blood pressure-lowering regimen (0.69, 0.57 to 0.85) or placebo/less intense regimen (0.80, 0.67 to 0.96). No departures from either additivity or multiplicativity were observed. Heterogeneity was low.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined relative effects of blood pressure-lowering drugs and statins on cardiovascular events were multiplicative. This supports risk-based treatment decision strategies and fixed-combination polypills.

Hypertension

Systemic arterial hypertension is the most important modifiable risk factor for all-cause morbidity and mortality worldwide and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Fewer than half of those with hypertension are aware of their condition, and many others are aware but not treated or inadequately treated, although successful treatment of hypertension reduces the global burden of disease and mortality. The aetiology of hypertension involves the complex interplay of environmental and pathophysiological factors that affect multiple systems, as well as genetic predisposition. The evaluation of patients with hypertension includes accurate standardized blood pressure (BP) measurement, assessment of the patients' predicted risk of atherosclerotic CVD and evidence of target-organ damage, and detection of secondary causes of hypertension and presence of comorbidities (such as CVD and kidney disease). Lifestyle changes, including dietary modifications and increased physical activity, are effective in lowering BP and preventing hypertension and its CVD sequelae. Pharmacological therapy is very effective in lowering BP and in preventing CVD outcomes in most patients; first-line antihypertensive medications include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers and thiazide diuretics.

Effectiveness of blood pressure-lowering drug treatment by levels of absolute risk: post hoc analysis of the Australian National Blood Pressure Study

OBJECTIVES

In many current guidelines, blood pressure (BP)-lowering drug treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is based on absolute risk. However, in clinical practice, therapeutic decisions are often based on BP levels alone. We sought to investigate which approach was superior by conducting a post hoc analysis of the Australian National Blood Pressure (ANBP) cohort, a seminal study establishing the efficacy of BP lowering in 'mild hypertensive' persons.

DESIGN

A post hoc subgroup analysis of the ANBP trial results by baseline absolute risk tertile.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

3244 participants aged 35-69 years in a community-based randomised placebo controlled trial of blood pressure-lowering medication.

INTERVENTIONS

Chlorothiazide500 mg versus placebo.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality and non-fatal events (non-fatal CVD, congestive cardiac failure, renal failure, hypertensive retinopathy or encephalopathy).

RESULTS

Treatment effects were assessed by HR, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. Participants had an average 5-year CVD risk in the intermediate range (10.5±6.5) with moderately elevated BP (mean 159/103 mmHg) and were middle aged (52±8 years). In a subgroup analysis, the relative effects (HR) and absolute effects (absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat) did not statistically differ across the three risk groups except for the absolute benefit in all-cause mortality (p for heterogeneity=0.04). With respect to absolute benefit, drug treatment significantly reduced the number of events in the high-risk group regarding any event with a number needed to treat of 18 (10 to 64), death from any cause with 45 (25 to 196) and major CVD events with 23 (12 to 193).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis confirms that the benefit of treatment was substantial only in the high-risk tertile, reaffirming the rationale of treating elevated blood pressure in the setting of all risk factors rather than in isolation.

How to obtain and maintain favorable results after heart transplantation: keys to success?

We compared survival in our heart recipients with survival rates reported by the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) Registry. As recipient and donor characteristics are changing over time, we studied four different eras. In order to differentiate between short- and long-term survival, we analyzed both overall survival and survival at one year. Obviously, this exercise is only relevant when baseline donor and recipient characteristics are comparable, as these differences may affect the outcome in opposite directions. To overcome this potential bias as much as possible, we calculated the Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT)-scores and the Donor Risk Index (DRI). Looking to our results, we found that our DRIs in the different eras are almost equal to those obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing database in the very same eras. Our IMPACT-scores, on the other hand, seem higher than those reported by ISHLT. Survival after transplantation and conditional on 1-year survival was higher than the outcome reported by the ISHLT Registry. As our operation technique and post-transplant immunosuppressive schedule did not differ from most centers, we speculated on potential factors that might contribute to our positive results. Patient selection and a relatively short waiting time are important contributors to the overall survival benefit. Our centralized follow-up may also have played an important role. Finally, the indefinite compulsory health insurance coverage in our country and easy access to different screening programs might also have influenced our outcome in a positive way. We are well aware that with challenges like donor organ shortage, more and more patients on mechanical circulatory support (MCS) will affect outcomes in the future.

Blood pressure-lowering treatment strategies based on cardiovascular risk versus blood pressure: A meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines have traditionally recommended blood pressure treatment based primarily on blood pressure thresholds. In contrast, using predicted cardiovascular risk has been advocated as a more effective strategy to guide treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to compare outcomes from a blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk with one based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) level.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used individual participant data from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) from 1995 to 2013. Trials randomly assigned participants to either blood pressure-lowering drugs versus placebo or more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering regimens. We estimated 5-y risk of CVD events using a multivariable Weibull model previously developed in this dataset. We compared the two strategies at specific SBP thresholds and across the spectrum of risk and blood pressure levels studied in BPLTTC trials. The primary outcome was number of CVD events avoided per persons treated. We included data from 11 trials (47,872 participants). During a median of 4.0 y of follow-up, 3,566 participants (7.5%) experienced a major cardiovascular event. Areas under the curve comparing the two treatment strategies throughout the range of possible thresholds for CVD risk and SBP demonstrated that, on average, a greater number of CVD events would be avoided for a given number of persons treated with the CVD risk strategy compared with the SBP strategy (area under the curve 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] for the CVD risk strategy versus 0.54 [95% CI 0.53-0.55] for the SBP strategy). Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 150 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 29% (95% CI 26%-31%) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 16% (95% CI 14%-18%) more events for the same number of persons treated. Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 3.8% (95% CI 12.5% fewer to 7.2% more) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 3.1% (95% CI 1.5%-5.0%) more events for the same number of persons treated, although the former estimate was not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, the CVD risk strategy did not appear to be more beneficial than the SBP strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus or established CVD.

CONCLUSIONS

A blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk is more effective than one based on blood pressure levels alone across a range of thresholds. These results support using cardiovascular risk assessment to guide blood pressure treatment decision-making in moderate- to high-risk individuals, particularly for primary prevention.

The J-shaped Curve for Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Historical Context and Recent Updates

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The definition and treatment of hypertension have both changed dramatically over the last century, with recent trials suggesting benefit for lower blood pressure (BP) targets than ever before considered. However, tempering the enthusiasm for more intensive BP targets are long-held concerns that BP reduction below a certain threshold may pose dangers, the so-called "J-curve." In this review, we summarize the evidence for a J-curve in the treatment of hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) reported that achieving a systolic BP target of 120 mmHg reduces cardiovascular disease in high-risk individuals, supporting more intensive BP reduction. However, contemporary observational studies consistently demonstrate a BP J-curve, the threshold of which is often close to the SPRINT target. Studies also suggest that the BP level of this J-curve may vary based on patient characteristics, including age and comorbidities. There is also more compelling evidence for the specific presence of a J-curve between diastolic BP and coronary events, in contrast to conflicting evidence of a J-curve with systolic BP and cardiovascular disease more generally. There is increased risk of coronary events below a diastolic BP of 60-70 mmHg. In comparison, the presence of a systolic J-curve is less clear and some persons at high risk may actually benefit from systolic levels down to 120 mmHg. Therefore, we suggest a personalized approach to BP management considering individual risks, benefits, and preferences when choosing therapeutic targets. Further, well-designed studies are required to support our suggestions and to define J-curve thresholds more clearly.

Should heart age calculators be used alongside absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment?

Background

National estimates of ‘heart age’ by government health organisations in the US, UK and China show most people have an older heart age than current age. While most heart age calculators are promoted as a communication tool for lifestyle change, they may also be used to justify medication when clinical guidelines advocate their use alongside absolute risk assessment. However, only those at high absolute risk of a heart attack or stroke are likely to benefit from medication, and it is not always clear how heart age relates to absolute risk. This article aims to: 1) explain how heart age calculation methods relate to absolute risk guidelines; 2) summarise research investigating whether heart age improves risk communication; and 3) discuss implications for the use of medication and shared decision making in clinical practice.

Main body

There is a large and growing number of heart age models and online calculators, but the clinical meaning of an older heart age result is highly variable. An older heart age result may indicate low, moderate or high absolute risk of a heart attack or stroke in the next 5-10 years, and the same individual may receive a younger or older heart age result depending on which calculator is used. Heart age may help doctors convey the need to change lifestyle, but it cannot help patients make an informed choice about medication to reduce CVD risk.

Conclusion

Interactive heart age tools may be helpful as a communication tool to initiate lifestyle change to reduce risk factors. However, absolute risk should be used instead of heart age to enable informed decision making about medication, to avoid unnecessary treatment of low risk people. Evidence-based decision aids that improve patient understanding of absolute risk should be considered as alternatives to heart age calculators for lifestyle and medication decisions.

Clinical Validity, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Online health information is particularly important for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, where lifestyle changes are recommended until risk becomes high enough to warrant pharmacological intervention. Online information is abundant, but the quality is often poor and many people do not have adequate health literacy to access, understand, and use it effectively.

OBJECTIVE

This project aimed to review and evaluate the suitability of online CVD risk calculators for use by low health literate consumers in terms of clinical validity, understandability, and actionability.

METHODS

This systematic review of public websites from August to November 2016 used evaluation of clinical validity based on a high-risk patient profile and assessment of understandability and actionability using Patient Education Material Evaluation Tool for Print Materials.

RESULTS

A total of 67 unique webpages and 73 unique CVD risk calculators were identified. The same high-risk patient profile produced widely variable CVD risk estimates, ranging from as little as 3% to as high as a 43% risk of a CVD event over the next 10 years. One-quarter (25%) of risk calculators did not specify what model these estimates were based on. The most common clinical model was Framingham (44%), and most calculators (77%) provided a 10-year CVD risk estimate. The calculators scored moderately on understandability (mean score 64%) and poorly on actionability (mean score 19%). The absolute percentage risk was stated in most (but not all) calculators (79%), and only 18% included graphical formats consistent with recommended risk communication guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a plethora of online CVD risk calculators available, but they are not readily understandable and their actionability is poor. Entering the same clinical information produces widely varying results with little explanation. Developers need to address actionability as well as clinical validity and understandability to improve usefulness to consumers with low health literacy.

Potential U.S. Population Impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA High Blood Pressure Guideline

BACKGROUND

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults provides recommendations for the definition of hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) thresholds for initiation of antihypertensive medication, and BP target goals.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the prevalence of hypertension, implications of recommendations for antihypertensive medication, and prevalence of BP above the treatment goal among U.S. adults using criteria from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7).

METHODS

The authors analyzed data from the 2011 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (N = 9,623). BP was measured 3 times following a standardized protocol and averaged. Results were weighted to produce U.S. population estimates.

RESULTS

According to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, the crude prevalence of hypertension among U.S. adults was 45.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43.6% to 47.6%) and 31.9% (95% CI: 30.1% to 33.7%), respectively, and antihypertensive medication was recommended for 36.2% (95% CI: 34.2% to 38.2%) and 34.3% (95% CI: 32.5% to 36.2%) of U.S. adults, respectively. Nonpharmacological intervention is advised for the 9.4% of U.S. adults with hypertension who are not recommended for antihypertensive medication according to the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. Among U.S. adults taking antihypertensive medication, 53.4% (95% CI: 49.9% to 56.8%) and 39.0% (95% CI: 36.4% to 41.6%) had BP above the treatment goal according to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the JNC7 guideline, the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline results in a substantial increase in the prevalence of hypertension, a small increase in the percentage of U.S. adults recommended for antihypertensive medication, and more intensive BP lowering for many adults taking antihypertensive medication.

Evaluation of endothelial function by VOP and inflammatory biomarkers in patients with arterial hypertension

Hypertension is associated with microcirculatory impairment. Our objectives were to evaluate endothelial function and inflammatory biomarkers in patients with resistant (RH) and mild to moderate (MMH) arterial hypertension in comparison to normotensives (control group-CG). Three groups, 25 patients each, have been investigated, by anamnesis, venous occlusion plethysmography (VOP) and serum determination of adhesion molecules (VCAM, ICAM), adiponectin, endothelin and C-reactive protein (CRP). Patients not using statins and with or without blood pressure control were also analyzed. RH group showed smaller percentage increase of maximum forearm blood flow (FBF) (endothelial-dependent vasodilatation) than controls (p < 0.05), but no significant difference could be detected between MMH and CG groups on maximum FBF and minimum vascular resistance post-ischemia. RH and MMH groups showed higher resistance averages compared to controls (p < 0.05). Uncontrolled BP in hypertensive patients showed worse results for blood flow and resistance. Endothelial-independent vasodilatation was not affected. Endothelin levels were higher in RH and MMH groups (p < 0.05) not using statins. CRP was significantly higher only in RH compared to CG (p < 0.05). In conclusion patients with severe hypertension and lack of blood pressure control showed greater impairment of endothelial function with higher CRP and endothelin levels.

Potential US Population Impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA High Blood Pressure Guideline

BACKGROUND

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults provides recommendations for the definition of hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) thresholds for initiation of antihypertensive medication, and BP target goals.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the prevalence of hypertension, implications of recommendations for antihypertensive medication, and prevalence of BP above the treatment goal among US adults using criteria from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7).

METHODS

The authors analyzed data from the 2011 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (N = 9 623). BP was measured 3 times following a standardized protocol and averaged. Results were weighted to produce US population estimates.

RESULTS

According to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, the crude prevalence of hypertension among US adults was 45.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43.6% to 47.6%) and 31.9% (95% CI: 30.1% to 33.7%), respectively, and antihypertensive medication was recommended for 36.2% (95% CI: 34.2% to 38.2%) and 34.3% (95% CI: 32.5% to 36.2%) of US adults, respectively. Nonpharmacological intervention is advised for the 9.4% of US adults with hypertension who are not recommended for antihypertensive medication according to the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. Among US adults taking antihypertensive medication, 53.4% (95% CI: 49.9% to 56.8%) and 39.0% (95% CI: 36.4% to 41.6%) had BP above the treatment goal according to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the JNC7 guideline, the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline results in a substantial increase in the prevalence of hypertension, a small increase in the percentage of US adults recommended for antihypertensive medication, and more intensive BP lowering for many adults taking antihypertensive medication.