Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults 60 years or older

Isometric Exercise Training and Arterial Hypertension: An Updated Review

Hypertension is recognised as a leading attributable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature mortality. Global initiatives towards the prevention and treatment of arterial hypertension are centred around non-pharmacological lifestyle modification. Exercise recommendations differ between professional and scientific organisations, but are generally unanimous on the primary role of traditional aerobic and dynamic resistance exercise. In recent years, isometric exercise training (IET) has emerged as an effective novel exercise intervention with consistent evidence of reductions in blood pressure (BP) superior to that reported from traditional guideline-recommended exercise modes. Despite a wealth of emerging new data and endorsement by select governing bodies, IET remains underutilised and is not widely prescribed in clinical practice. This expert-informed review critically examines the role of IET as a potential adjuvant tool in the future clinical management of BP. We explore the efficacy, prescription protocols, evidence quality and certainty, acute cardiovascular stimulus, and physiological mechanisms underpinning its anti-hypertensive effects. We end the review with take-home suggestions regarding the direction of future IET research.

Screening for hypertension in adults: protocol for evidence reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update

PURPOSE

To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in a primary care setting for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older. This protocol outlines the scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews and one overview of reviews.

METHODS

To evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension, the Task Force will rely on the relevant key questions from the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force systematic review. In addition, a series of reviews will be conducted to identify, appraise, and synthesize the evidence on (1) the association of blood pressure measurement methods and future cardiovascular (CVD)-related outcomes, (2) thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation, and (3) patient acceptability of hypertension screening methods. For the review of blood pressure measurement methods and future CVD-related outcomes, we will perform a de novo review and search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and within-arm analyses of intervention studies. For the thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation review, we will perform an overview of reviews and update results from a relevant 2019 UK NICE review. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews. For the acceptability review, we will perform a de novo systematic review and search MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies with comparison groups. Websites of relevant organizations, gray literature sources, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews will be hand-searched. Title and abstract screening will be completed by two independent reviewers. Full-text screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will be completed independently by two reviewers. Results from included studies will be synthesized narratively and pooled via meta-analysis when appropriate. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The results of the evidence reviews will be used to inform Canadian recommendations on screening for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This protocol is registered on PROSPERO and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/8w4tz).

Effect of curry leaves in lowering blood pressure among hypertensive Indian patients

Hypertension, commonly known as high or rising blood pressure, is characterized by a consistently elevated blood arterial pressure. It is a significant medical condition called hypertension raises your risk of developing problems with your heart, brain, kidneys, and other organs. Curry leaves work well as a treatment for high blood pressure. Curry leaves are thought to have a potent therapeutic impact for the treatment of high blood pressure since they are low in salt and high in potassium. Therefore, it is of interest to reduce the level of blood pressure among adults in rural area with the help of curry leaves. According to the statistical analysis, the experimental group's post-test mean score for hypertension was 155 with a standard deviation of 13.892 while the control group's post-test mean score was 162 with a standard deviation of 17.20. The estimated unpaired value of t = 11.07 was deemed to be statistically significant at the p 0.05 level and the mean difference was 7. As a result, the null hypothesis was rejected and the research hypothesis was accepted. Giving Curry leaf powder to patients with hypertension as a consequence was an effective intervention.

First-line diuretics versus other classes of antihypertensive drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.

Effect of leisure-time physical activity on blood pressure in people with hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

High blood pressure is a major risk factor for premature death. Leisure-time physical activities have been recommended to control hypertension. Studies examining how leisure-time physical activity affects blood pressure have found mixed results. We aimed to conduct a systematic review examining the effect of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) on lowering blood pressure among adults living with hypertension. We searched studies in Embase, Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Physical Education Index, Scopus and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome variables were systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021260751). We included 17 studies out of 12,046 screened articles in this review. Moderate-intensity LTPA (all types) reduced SBP compared to the non-intervention control group (MD -5.35 mm Hg, 95% CI -8.06 to -2.65, nine trials, n = 531, low certainty of the evidence). Mean DBP was reduced by -4.76 mm Hg (95% CI -8.35 to -1.17, nine trials, n = 531, low certainty of the evidence) in all types of LTPA (moderate intensity) group compared to the non-intervention control group. Leisure-time walking reduced mean SBP by -8.36 mmHg, 95% CI -13.39 to -3.32, three trials, n = 128, low certainty of the evidence). Walking during leisure time reduced -5.03 mmHg mean DBP, 95% CI -8.23 to -1.84, three trials, n = 128, low certainty of the evidence). Performing physical activity during free time probably reduces SBP and DBP (low certainty of the evidence) among adults with hypertension.

Current Management of Hypertension in Older Adults

Hypertension is a major global health issue and it accounts for a big proportion of disability and mortality worldwide even in adults aged 65 years and above. Moreover, advanced age per se is an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events and there is abundant scientific evidence supporting the beneficial effects of blood pressure lowering, within certain limits, in this subset of hypertensive patients. The aim of this review article is to summarize the available evidence regarding the appropriate management of hypertension in this specific subgroup, in an era of a constantly increasing aging population.

Review on the management of cardiovascular risk factors in the elderly

Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) are very prevalent in the elderly population and in addition to predisposing to cardiovascular disease they are related to functional decline, which limits the quality of life in this population. The objective of this work is to offer a review of the current evidence in the management of CVRF in the elderly population. The search strategy was executed in PubMed, Clinicalstrials.org and Embase, to search for clinical trials, observational cohort or cross-sectional studies, reviews, and clinical practice guidelines focused or including elderly population. The results provided were refined after reading the title and abstract, as well as elimination of duplicates, and were finally identified and assessed following the GRADE methodology. A total of 136 studies were obtained for all predefined risk factors, such as sedentary lifestyle, smoking, obesity and metabolic syndrome, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia and alcohol. We described the results of the studies identified and assessed according to their methodological quality in different recommendation sections: diagnostic and prevention, intervention, or treatment in the elderly population. As the main limitation to the results of this review, there is the lack of quality studies whose target population is elderly patients. This issue limits the recommendations that can be made in this population. Due to this reason, comprehensive geriatric assessment seems the best tool currently available to implement the most appropriate treatment plans based on the baseline situation and comorbidity of each elderly patient.

Blood pressure lowering effect of hydrochlorothiazide compared to other diuretics for hypertension

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

This review aims to assess the short‐term (3 to 12 weeks) blood pressure lowering efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide in comparison with other diuretics for primary hypertension in adults, and will build upon the other Cochrane Reviews studying the blood pressure lowering effect of diuretics (Chen 2009; Musini 2009; Musini 2014). The main outcomes of this review will be change in blood pressure, heart rate, and withdrawals due to adverse effects three to 12 weeks after starting the medication.

Heart diseases, hypertension and effects of antihypertensive medications: Is hypertension a true risk factor of heart diseases?

Background

Heart diseases (HD) are the leading cause of deaths in the world. Many studies have been done on the relationships among hypertension, HD and antihypertensive medications. Most of the studies find that hypertension is a significant risk factor of HD, but there are some studies in which hypertension is not a risk factor. As antihypertensive medications are routinely prescribed to prevent HD, it is necessary to evaluate the effects of these and other risk factors of HD.

Data and methods

The relationship between hypertension and HD was analyzed using 6,773,464 medical checkups obtained from the JMDC Claims Database obtained from January 2005 to September 2019. Factors potentially affecting HD, including blood pressures (BP) and usage of antihypertensive medications, were evaluated using 2,861,769 observations. To avoid the causality problem, probit models were used to analyze the probability of an individual who had no history of HD at year t developing HD by year t + 1.

Results

A positive relation between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and HD was found in the equation without any other covariates. However, the significant relation between HD and BP disappeared when the models contained various other factors as covariates. When a 10-year age or longer interval was used in the model, a positive relation between the two variables was found, suggesting that SBP works as a proxy variable. Taking antihypertensive medications greatly increases the probability of developing HD in the next year. Higher levels of cholesterols decrease the probability of developing HD.

Conclusion

Unlike many previous studies, no significant relationship between HD and hypertension was found in the models containing multiple covariates. The accepted relation might actually be spurious, and it is important to select covariates carefully. Taking antihypertensive medications appears to increase the probability of developing HD in the next year, suggesting the need for further research and greater caution in the use of antihypertensive medications.

Evaluation of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Reduction and Association With Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Optimal blood pressure (BP) targets for the prevention of cognitive impairment remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the association of intensive (ie, lower than usual) BP reduction vs standard BP management with the incidence of cognitive decline and dementia in adults with hypertension.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that evaluated the association of intensive systolic BP lowering on cognitive outcomes by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to October 27, 2020.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data screening and extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Random-effects models with the inverse variance method were used for pooled analyses. The presence of potential heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 index.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was cognitive decline. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), cerebrovascular events, serious adverse events, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

From 7755 citations, we identified 16 publications from 5 trials with 17 396 participants (mean age, 65.7 years [range, 63.0-80.5 years]; 10 562 [60.5%] men) and 2 additional ongoing trials. All 5 concluded trials included in quantitative analyses were considered at unclear to high risk of bias. The mean follow-up duration was 3.3 years (range, 2.0 to 4.7 years). Intensive BP reduction was not significantly associated with global cognitive performance (standardized mean difference, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 4 trials; 5246 patients), incidence of dementia (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.32 to 3.67; I2 = 27%; 2 trials; 9444 patients) or incidence of MCI (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14; I2 = 74%; 2 trials; 10 774 patients) when compared with standard treatment. However, a reduction of cerebrovascular events in the intensive group was found (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.93; I2 = 0%; 5 trials; 17 396 patients) without an increased risk of serious adverse events or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, there was no significant association between BP reduction and lower risk of cognitive decline, dementia, or MCI. The certainty of this evidence was rated low because of the limited sample size, the risk of bias of included trials, and the observed statistical heterogeneity. Therefore, current available evidence does not justify the use of lower BP targets for the prevention of cognitive decline and dementia.

Walking for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Increased physical activity has been recommended as an important lifestyle modification for the prevention and control of hypertension. Walking is a low-cost form of physical activity and one which most people can do. Studies testing the effect of walking on blood pressure have revealed inconsistent findings.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of walking as a physical activity intervention on blood pressure and heart rate.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the following Chinese databases up to May 2020: Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature System; National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertation in Taiwan; China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Journals, Theses & Dissertations; and Wanfang Medical Online. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of participants, aged 16 years and over, which evaluated the effects of a walking intervention compared to non-intervention control on blood pressure and heart rate were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Where data were not available in the published reports, we contacted authors. Pooled results for blood pressure and heart rate were presented as mean differences (MDs) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We undertook subgroup analyses for age and sex. We undertook sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of sample size on our findings.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 73 trials met our inclusion criteria. These 73 trials included 5763 participants and were undertaken in 22 countries. Participants were aged from 16 to 84 years and there were approximately 1.5 times as many females as males. The characteristics of walking interventions in the included studies were as follows: the majority of walking interventions was at home/community (n = 50) but supervised (n = 36 out of 47 reported the information of supervision); the average intervention length was 15 weeks, average walking time per week was 153 minutes and the majority of walking intensity was moderate. Many studies were at risk of selection bias and performance bias. Primary outcome We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -4.11 mmHg, 95% CI -5.22 to -3.01; 73 studies, n = 5060). We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces SBP in participants aged 40 years and under (MD -4.41 mmHg, 95% CI -6.17 to -2.65; 14 studies, n = 491), and low-certainty evidence that walking reduces SBP in participants aged 41 to 60 years (MD -3.79 mmHg, 95% CI -5.64 to -1.94, P < 0.001; 35 studies, n = 1959), and those aged 60 years of over (MD -4.30 mmHg, 95% CI -6.17 to -2.44, 24 studies, n = 2610). We also found low certainty-evidence suggesting that walking reduces SBP in both females (MD -5.65 mmHg, 95% CI -7.89 to -3.41; 22 studies, n = 1149) and males (MD -4.64 mmHg, 95% CI -8.69 to -0.59; 6 studies, n = 203). Secondary outcomes We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD -1.79 mmHg, 95% CI -2.51 to -1.07; 69 studies, n = 4711) and heart rate (MD -2.76 beats per minute (bpm), 95% CI -4.57 to -0.95; 26 studies, n = 1747). We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces DBP for participants aged 40 years and under (MD -3.01 mmHg, 95% CI -4.44 to -1.58; 14 studies, n = 491) and low-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces DBP for participants aged 41 to 60 years (MD -1.74 mmHg, 95% CI -2.95 to -0.52; 32 studies, n = 1730) and those aged 60 years and over (MD -1.33 mmHg, 95% CI -2.40 to -0.26; 23 studies, n = 2490). We found moderate-certainty evidence that suggests walking reduces DBP for males (MD -2.54 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to -0.24; 6 studies, n = 203) and low-certainty evidence that walking reduces DBP for females (MD -2.69 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.23; 20 studies, n = 1000). Only 21 included studies reported adverse events. Of these 21 studies, 16 reported no adverse events, the remaining five studies reported eight adverse events, with knee injury being reported five times.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that walking probably reduces SBP. Moderate- or low-certainty evidence suggests that walking may reduce SBP for all ages and both sexes. Low-certainty evidence suggests that walking may reduce DBP and heart rate. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence suggests walking may reduce DBP and heart rate for all ages and both sexes.

NHS Health Checks: an observational study of equity and outcomes 2009-2017

Background

The NHS Health Check cardiovascular prevention programme is now 10 years old.

Aim

To describe NHS Heath Check attendance, new diagnoses, and treatment in relation to equity indicators.

Design and setting

A nationally representative database derived from 1500 general practices from 2009–2017.

Method

The authors compared NHS Health Check attendance and new diagnoses and treatments by age, sex, ethnic group, and deprivation.

Results

In 2013–2017, 590 218 (16.9%) eligible people aged 40–74 years attended an NHS Health Check and 2 902 598 (83.1%) did not attend. South Asian ethnic groups were most likely to attend compared to others, and females more than males. New diagnoses were more likely in attendees than non-attendees: hypertension 25/1000 in attendees versus 9/1000 in non-attendees; type 2 diabetes 8/1000 versus 3/1000; and chronic kidney disease (CKD) 7/1000 versus 4/1000. In people aged ≥65 years, atrial fibrillation was newly diagnosed in 5/1000 attendees and 3/1000 non-attendees, and for dementia 2/1000 versus 1/1000, respectively. Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and CKD were more likely in more deprived groups, and in South Asian, Black African, and Black Caribbean ethnic groups. Attendees were more likely to be prescribed statins (26/1000) than non-attendees (8/1000), and antihypertensive medicines (25/1000 versus 13/1000 non-attendees). However, of the 117 963 people with ≥10% CVD risk who were eligible for statins, only 9785 (8.3%) were prescribed them.

Conclusion

Uptake of NHS Health Checks remains low. Attendees were more likely than non-attendees to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and CKD, and to receive treatment with statins and antihypertensives. Most attendees received neither treatment nor referral. Of those eligible for statins, <10% were treated. Policy reviews should consider a targeted approach prioritising those at highest CVD risk for face-to-face contact and consider other options for those at lower CVD risk.

The effectiveness and safety of Tai Chi for patients with essential hypertension: study protocol for an open-label single-center randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence showed that Tai Chi may have beneficial effects among hypertensive individuals, although the results are not convincing. We aim to conduct a high-quality clinical trial with 24-h BP measurement to provide robust evidence of Tai Chi for essential hypertension.

METHODS

This is an open-label single-center randomized controlled trial with 3 parallel arms. We will compare Tai Chi with walking and waiting-list control. We will recruit 234 hypertensive patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and randomly assign them to 3 different groups. Participants in Tai Chi group will receive a group-format Yang style 24-form Tai Chi exercise program, 3 sessions per week for 12 weeks. The walking group will be asked to walk, 3 sessions per week for 12 weeks. The waiting-list group will not receive any interventions and/or exercise training. The primary outcome is the change in average 24-h systolic blood pressure (SBP) between baseline and 12 weeks after randomization. The secondary outcomes include 24-h Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), average SBP and average DBP during the daytime and night-time, blood pressure (BP) variability, SBP load and DBP load, circadian rhythm of BP, and morning BP surge, endothelial functional indicators, home measured BP, quality of life, adverse events and so on.

DISCUSSION

We expect findings of this trial will provide important insight into application of Tai Chi as an effective and acceptable method for hypertensive patients. Successful completion of this proposed study will also contribute to promotion of Tai Chi in the community in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04267471 , date: February 12, 2020.

Blood pressure targets in adults with hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of this review first published in 2009. When treating elevated blood pressure, doctors usually try to achieve a blood pressure target. That target is the blood pressure value below which the optimal clinical benefit is supposedly obtained. "The lower the better" approach that guided the treatment of elevated blood pressure for many years was challenged during the last decade due to lack of evidence from randomised trials supporting that strategy. For that reason, the standard blood pressure target in clinical practice during the last years has been less than 140/90 mm Hg for the general population of patients with elevated blood pressure. However, new trials published in recent years have reintroduced the idea of trying to achieve lower blood pressure targets. Therefore, it is important to know whether the benefits outweigh harms when attempting to achieve targets lower than the standard target.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine if lower blood pressure targets (any target less than or equal to 135/85 mm Hg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (less than or equal to 140/ 90 mm Hg) for the treatment of patients with chronic arterial hypertension. The secondary objectives were: to determine if there is a change in mean achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP associated with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets" in patients with chronic arterial hypertension; and to determine if there is a change in withdrawals due to adverse events with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets", in patients with elevated blood pressure.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients allocated to lower or to standard blood pressure targets (see above).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JAA, VL) independently assessed the included trials and extracted data. Primary outcomes were total mortality; total serious adverse events; myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, end stage renal disease, and other serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were achieved mean SBP and DBP, withdrawals due to adverse effects, and mean number of antihypertensive drugs used. We assessed the risk of bias of each trial using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 11 RCTs involving 38,688 participants with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years. This represents 7 new RCTs compared with the original version. At baseline the mean weighted age was 63.1 years and the mean weighted blood pressure was 155/91 mm Hg. Lower targets do not reduce total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05; 11 trials, 38,688 participants; high-certainty evidence) and do not reduce total serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; 6 trials, 18,165 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that the benefits of lower targets do not outweigh the harms as compared to standard blood pressure targets. Lower targets may reduce myocardial infarction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; 6 trials, 18,938 participants, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.4%, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 250 over 3.7 years) and congestive heart failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92; 5 trials, 15,859 participants, ARR 0.6%, NNTB  167 over 3.7 years) (low-certainty for both outcomes). Reduction in myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure was not reflected in total serious adverse events. This may be due to an increase in other serious adverse events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.59; 6 trials. 18,938 participants, absolute risk increase (ARI) 3%,  number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 33 over four years) (low-certainty evidence). Participants assigned to a "lower" target received one additional antihypertensive medication and achieved a significantly lower mean SBP (122.8 mm Hg versus 135.0 mm Hg, and a lower mean DBP (82.0 mm Hg versus 85.2 mm Hg, than those assigned to "standard target".

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the general population of persons with elevated blood pressure, the benefits of trying to achieve a lower blood pressure target rather than a standard target (≤ 140/90 mm Hg) do not outweigh the harms associated with that intervention. Further research is needed to see if some groups of patients would benefit or be harmed by lower targets. The results of this review are primarily applicable to older people with moderate to high cardiovascular risk. They may not be applicable to other populations.

Withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in older people

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is an important risk factor for subsequent cardiovascular events, including ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cognitive decline and premature death. Overall, the use of antihypertensive medications has led to reduction in cardiovascular disease, morbidity rates and mortality rates. However, the use of antihypertensive medications is also associated with harms, especially in older people, including the development of adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions and can contribute to increasing medication-related burden. As such, discontinuation of antihypertensives may be considered and appropriate in some older people.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether withdrawal of antihypertensive medications is feasible, and evaluate the effects of withdrawal of antihypertensive medications on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, hypertension and quality of life in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also conducted reference checking, citation searches and, when appropriate, contacted study authors to identify any additional studies. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of withdrawal versus continuation of antihypertensive medications used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults (defined as 50 years and over). Participants were eligible if they lived in the community, residential aged care facilities, or were based in hospital settings. We sought to include trials looking at the complete withdrawal of the antihypertensive medication, and those focusing on a dose reduction of the antihypertensive medicine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We compared the intervention of discontinuing or reducing antihypertensive medication to usual treatment using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for continuous variables and we used Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI for binary variables. Our primary outcomes included: mortality, myocardial infarction, development of adverse drug reactions or adverse drug withdrawal reactions. Secondary outcomes included: blood pressure, hospitalisation, stroke, success of withdrawing from antihypertensives, quality of life, and falls. Two authors independently, and in duplicate, conducted all stages of study selection, data extraction and quality assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (1073 participants). Study duration and follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 56 weeks. Meta-analysis of studies showed that, in the discontinuation group compared to continuation, the odds for all-cause mortality were 2.08 (95% CI 0.79 to 5.46; low certainty of evidence), for myocardial infarction 1.86 (95% CI 0.19 to 17.98; very low certainty of evidence) and for stroke 1.44 (95% CI 0.25 to 8.35; low certainty of evidence). Blood pressure was higher in the discontinuation group than the continuation group (systolic blood pressure: MD = 9.75 mmHg, 95% CI 7.33 to 12.18; and diastolic blood pressure: MD = 3.5 mmHg, 95% CI 1.82 to 5.18; low certainty of evidence). For the development of adverse events, meta-analysis was not possible; antihypertensive discontinuation did not appear to increase the risk of adverse events and may lead to resolution of adverse drug reactions, although eligible studies had limited reporting of adverse effects of drug withdrawal (very low certainty of evidence). One study reported hospitalisation with an odds ratio of 0.83 for discontinuation compared to continuation (95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; low certainty of evidence). No studies were identified which reported falls. Between 10.5% and 33.3% of participants in the discontinuation group compared to 9% to 15% in the continuation group experienced raised blood pressure or other clinical criteria (as pre-defined by the studies) that would require restarting of therapy/removal from the study. The sources of bias included selective reporting (reporting bias), lack of blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and lack of blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of an effect of discontinuing compared with continuing antihypertensives used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults on all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. The evidence was low to very low certainty mainly due to small studies and low event rates. These limitations mean that we cannot make any firm conclusions about the effect of deprescribing antihypertensives on these outcomes. Future research should focus on populations with the greatest uncertainty of the benefit:risk ratio for use of antihypertensive medications, such as those with frailty, older age groups and those taking polypharmacy, and measure clinically important outcomes such as falls, quality of life and adverse drug events.

Screening strategies for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a major public health challenge affecting more than one billion people worldwide; it disproportionately affects populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where health systems are generally weak. The increasing prevalence of hypertension is associated with population growth, ageing, genetic factors, and behavioural risk factors, such as excessive salt and fat consumption, physical inactivity, being overweight and obese, harmful alcohol consumption, and poor management of stress. Over the long term, hypertension leads to risk for cardiovascular events, such as heart disease, stroke, kidney failure, disability, and premature mortality. Cardiovascular events can be preventable when high-risk populations are targeted, for example, through population-wide screening strategies. When available resources are limited, taking a total risk approach whereby several risk factors of hypertension are taken into consideration (e.g. age, gender, lifestyle factors, diabetes, blood cholesterol) can enable more accurate targeting of high-risk groups. Targeting of high-risk groups can help reduce costs in that resources are not spent on the entire population. Early detection in the form of screening for hypertension (and associated risk factors) can help identify high-risk groups, which can result in timely treatment and management of risk factors. Ultimately, early detection can help reduce morbidity and mortality linked to it and can help contain health-related costs, for example, those associated with hospitalisation due to severe illness and poorly managed risk factors and comorbidities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of different screening strategies for hypertension (mass, targeted, or opportunistic) to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

An Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS-Web), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) Bireme, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) without language, publication year, or publication status restrictions. The searches were conducted from inception until 9 April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs), that is, controlled before and after (CBA), interrupted time series (ITS), and prospective analytic cohort studies of healthy adolescents, adults, and elderly people participating in mass, targeted, or opportunistic screening of hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of all retrieved studies was done in Covidence. A team of reviewers, in pairs, independently assessed titles and abstracts of identified studies and acquired full texts for studies that were potentially eligible. Studies were deemed to be eligible for full-text screening if two review authors agreed, or if consensus was reached through discussion with a third review author. It was planned that at least two review authors would independently extract data from included studies, assess risk of bias using pre-specified Cochrane criteria, and conduct a meta-analysis of sufficiently similar studies or present a narrative synthesis of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 9335 titles and abstracts. We identified 54 potentially eligible studies for full-text screening. However, no studies met the eligibility criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is an implicit assumption that early detection of hypertension through screening can reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality, but this assumption has not been tested in rigorous research studies. High-quality evidence from RCTs or programmatic evidence from NRCTs on the effectiveness and costs or harms of different screening strategies for hypertension (mass, targeted, or opportunistic) to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality is lacking.

Hypertension and Drug Adherence in the Elderly

Hypertension is highly prevalent after the age of 65 years affecting more than 60% of individuals in developed countries. Today, there is sufficient evidence from clinical trials that treating elderly subjects with hypertension with antihypertensive medications has a positive benefit/risk ratio even in very elderly patients (>80 years). In recent years, partial or total non-adherence has been recognized as major issues in the long-term management of hypertension in all age categories. However, whether non-adherence is more frequent in hypertensive patients older than 65 years or not is still a matter of debate and the common belief is that adherence is lower in older than in younger patients. Are clinical data supporting this belief? In this brief review, we discuss the topic of drug adherence in elderly in the context of the medical treatment of hypertension. Studies show that drug adherence is actually better in patients aged 65 to 80 years when compared to younger hypertensive patients (<50 years). However, in very old patients (>80 years) the prevalence of non-adherence does increase. In this patients' group, there are specific risk factors for non-adherence such as cognitive ability, depression, and health believes, in addition to classical risk factors for non-adherence. One important aspect in the elderly is the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications that will interfere with the adherence to necessary treatments. In this context, an interesting new concept was developed few years ago, i.e., the process of deprescribing. Thus, today, in addition to conventional guidelines recommendations (use of single pill combinations, individualization of treatments), the evaluation of cognitive abilities, the regular assessment of potentially inappropriate medications, and the process of deprescribing appear to be three new additional steps to improve drug adherence in the elderly and thereby ameliorate the global management of hypertension.

Targeted Radionuclide Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma: From Low-Specific-Activity to High-Specific-Activity Iodine-131 Metaiodobenzylguanidine

Low-specific-activity iodine-131–radiolabeled metaiodobenzylguanidine (I-131-MIBG) was introduced last century as a potential systemic therapy for patients with malignant pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Collective information derived from mainly retrospective studies has suggested that 30–40% of patients with these tumors benefit from this treatment. A low index of radioactivity, lack of therapeutic standardization, and toxicity associated with intermediate to high activities (absorbed radiation doses) has prevented the implementation of I-131-MIBG’s in clinical practice. High-specific-activity, carrier-free I-131-MIBG has been developed over the past two decades as a novel therapy for patients with metastatic pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas that express the norepinephrine transporter. This drug allows for a high level of radioactivity, and as yet is not associated with cardiovascular toxicity. In a pivotal phase two clinical trial, more than 90% of patients achieved partial responses and disease stabilization with the improvement of hypertension. Furthermore, many patients exhibited long-term persistent antineoplastic effects. Currently, the high-specific-activity I-131-MIBG is the only approved therapy in the US for patients with metastatic pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. This review will discuss the historical development of high-specific-activity I-131-MIBG, its benefits and adverse events, and future directions for clinical practice applicability and trial development.