First-line drugs for hypertension

Effect of antihypertensive medications on the risk of open-angle glaucoma

The purpose of this study was to identify the effect of antihypertensive medication on risks of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) among patients diagnosed with hypertension (HTN). A total of 5,195 patients, who were diagnosed with HTN between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015, and subsequently diagnosed with OAG, were selected for analysis. For each OAG patient, 5 non-glaucomatous, hypertensive controls were matched (n = 25,975) in hypertension diagnosis date, residential area, insurance type and economic status. Antihypertensive medications were stratified into 5 types: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), β-blockers and diuretics. Relative risks were calculated. After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, lifestyle, comorbidities, blood pressure (BP), follow-up duration, and use of other types of antihypertensive drugs, ARB and CCB were found to slightly increase OAG risks (RR 1.1087 (95% CI 1.0293-1.1942); 1.0694 (1.0077-1.1349), respectively). Combinations of ARB with diuretics (1.0893 (1.0349-1.1466)) and CCB (1.0548 (1.0122-1.0991)) also increased OAG risks. The risks for OAG were found to increase by antihypertensive medication use, but the effects appeared to be small. Further studies are necessary to identify the associations of increased BP, medication and therapeutic effect with OAG.

Current and Emerging Classes of Pharmacological Agents for the Management of Hypertension

Cardiovascular disease accounts for more than 17 million deaths globally every year, of which complications of hypertension account for 9.4 million deaths worldwide. Early detection and management of hypertension can prevent costly interventions, including dialysis and cardiac surgery. Non-pharmacological approaches for managing hypertension commonly involve lifestyle modification, including exercise and dietary regulations such as reducing salt and fluid intake; however, a majority of patients will eventually require antihypertensive medications. In 2020, the International Society of Hypertension published worldwide guidelines in its efforts to reduce the global prevalence of raised blood pressure (BP) in adults aged 18 years or over. Currently, several classes of medications are used to control hypertension, either as mono- or combination therapy depending on the disease severity. These drug classes include those that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and adrenergic receptors, calcium channel blockers, diuretics and vasodilators. While some of these classes of medications have shown significant benefits in controlling BP and reducing cardiovascular mortality, the prevalence of hypertension remains high. Significant efforts have been made in developing new classes of drugs that lower BP; these medications exert their therapeutic benefits through different pathways and mechanism of actions. With several of these emerging classes in phase III clinical trials, it is hoped that the discovery of these novel therapeutic avenues will aid in reducing the global burden of hypertension.

Antihypertensive Prescribing for Uncomplicated, Incident Hypertension: Opportunities for Cost Savings

Background

A range of first-line similarly effective medications ranging in price are recommended for treating uncomplicated hypertension. Considering drug costs alone, thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics are the most cost-efficient option. We determined incident prescribing of thiazides for newly diagnosed hypertension as first-line treatment in Alberta, factors that predicted receiving thiazides vs more costly medications, and how much could be saved if more patients were prescribed thiazides.

Methods

Using a retrospective cohort design, factors predicting receiving thiazides vs other agents were determined using mixed effects logistic regression. Cost savings were simulated by shifting patients from other antihypertensive medications to thiazides and calculating the difference.

Results

Within our cohort of 89,548 adults, only 12% received thiazides as first-line treatment whereas 44% received angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, 17% received angiotensin receptor blockers, 16% received calcium channel blockers, and 10% received β-blockers. Antihypertensive medications were typically prescribed by office-based, general practitioners (88%). Being male and receiving a prescription from a physician with ≥ 20 years of practice and a high clinical workload were associated with increased odds of receiving nonthiazides. In the extreme case that all patients received thiazides as their first prescription, spending would have been reduced by a maximum of 95% (CAD$1.8 million).

Conclusions

Only 12% of Albertan adults with incident, uncomplicated hypertension were prescribed thiazides as first-line treatment. With the opportunity for drug cost savings, future research should evaluate the risk of adverse events and side effects across the drug classes and whether the costs associated with managing those risks could offset the savings achieved through increased thiazide use.

Primary Sulfonamide Synthesis Using the Sulfinylamine Reagent N-Sulfinyl-O-(tert-butyl)hydroxylamine, t-BuONSO

Sulfonamides have played a defining role in the history of drug development and continue to be prevalent today. In particular, primary sulfonamides are common in marketed drugs. Here we describe the direct synthesis of these valuable compounds from organometallic reagents and a novel sulfinylamine reagent, t-BuONSO. A variety of (hetero)aryl and alkyl Grignard and organolithium reagents perform well in the reaction, providing primary sulfonamides in good to excellent yields in a convenient one-step process.

Time course for blood pressure lowering of beta-blockers with partial agonist activity

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers are commonly used in the treatment of hypertension. We do not know whether the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-blockers varies across the day. This review focuses on the subclass of beta-blockers with partial agonist activity (BBPAA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the degree of variation in hourly BP lowering efficacy of BBPAA over a 24-hour period in adults with essential hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for relevant studies up to June 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register; CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 5; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; 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. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include all randomised and non-randomised trials that assessed the hourly effect of BBPAA by ambulatory monitoring, with a minimum follow-up of three weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the included trials and extracted the data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes included in the review were end-point hourly systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) and heart rate (HR), measured using a 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) device.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen non-randomised baseline controlled trials of BBPAA met our inclusion criteria, but only seven studies, involving 121 participants, reported hourly ambulatory BP data that could be included in the meta-analysis. Beta-blockers studied included acebutalol, pindolol and bopindolol. We judged most studies at high or unclear risk of bias for selection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence to be very low for all outcomes. We analysed and presented data by each hour post-dose. Very low-certainty evidence showed that hourly mean reduction in BP and HR visually showed an attenuation over time. Over the 24-hour period, the magnitude of SBP lowering at each hour ranged from -3.68 mmHg to -17.74 mmHg (7 studies, 121 participants), DBP lowering at each hour ranged from -2.27 mmHg to -9.34 mmHg (7 studies, 121 participants), and HR lowering at each hour ranged from -0.29 beats/min to -10.29 beats/min (4 studies, 71 participants). When comparing between three 8-hourly time intervals that correspond to day, evening, and night time hours, BBPAA was less effective at lowering BP and HR at night, than during the day and evening. However, because we judged that these outcomes were supported by very low-certainty evidence, further research is likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and may change the conclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to draw general conclusions about the degree of variation in hourly BP-lowering efficacy of BBPAA over a 24-hour period, in adults with essential hypertension. Very low-certainty evidence showed that BBPAA acebutalol, pindolol, and bopindolol lowered BP more during the day and evening than at night. However, the number of studies and participants included in this review was very small, further limiting the certainty of the evidence. We need further and larger trials, with accurate recording of time of drug intake, and with reporting of standard deviation of BP and HR at each hour.

Effect of a Comprehensive Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Intervention in Persons With Serious Mental Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Persons with serious mental illness have a cardiovascular disease mortality rate more than twice that of the overall population. Meaningful cardiovascular risk reduction requires targeted efforts in this population, who often have psychiatric symptoms and cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of an 18-month multifaceted intervention incorporating behavioral counseling, care coordination, and care management for overall cardiovascular risk reduction in adults with serious mental illness.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 2013 to November 2018 at 4 community mental health outpatient programs in Maryland. The study recruited adults with at least 1 cardiovascular disease risk factor (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, current tobacco smoking, and/or overweight or obesity) attending the mental health programs. Of 398 participants screened, 269 were randomized to intervention (132 participants) or control (137 participants). Data collection staff were blinded to group assignment. Data were analyzed on the principle of intention to treat, and data analysis was performed from November 2018 to March 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

A health coach and nurse provided individually tailored cardiovascular disease risk reduction behavioral counseling, collaborated with physicians to implement appropriate risk factor management, and coordinated with mental health staff to encourage attainment of health goals. Programs offered physical activity classes and received consultation on serving healthier meals; intervention and control participants were exposed to these environmental changes.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the change in the risk of cardiovascular disease from the global Framingham Risk Score (FRS), which estimates the 10-year probability of a cardiovascular disease event, from baseline to 18 months, expressed as percentage change for intervention compared with control.

RESULTS

Of 269 participants randomized (mean [SD] age, 48.8 [11.9] years; 128 men [47.6%]), 159 (59.1%) had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, 67 (24.9%) had bipolar disorder, and 38 (14.1%) had major depressive disorder. At 18 months, the primary outcome, FRS, was obtained for 256 participants (95.2%). The mean (SD) baseline FRS was 11.5% (11.5%) (median, 8.6%; interquartile range, 3.9%-16.0%) in the intervention group and 12.7% (12.7%) (median, 9.1%; interquartile range, 4.0%-16.7%) in the control group. At 18 months, the mean (SD) FRS was 9.9% (10.2%) (median, 7.7%; interquartile range, 3.1%-12.0%) in the intervention group and 12.3% (12.0%) (median, 9.7%; interquartile range, 4.0%-15.9%) in the control group. Compared with the control group, the intervention group experienced a 12.7% (95% CI, 2.5%-22.9%; P = .02) relative reduction in FRS at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

An 18-month behavioral counseling, care coordination, and care management intervention statistically significantly reduced overall cardiovascular disease risk in adults with serious mental illness. This intervention provides the means to substantially reduce health disparities in this high-risk population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02127671.

Hypertension Drug Therapy

Hypertension is still the number one global killer. No matter what causes are, lowering blood pressure can significantly reduce cardiovascular complications, cardiovascular death, and total death. Unfortunately, some hypertensive individuals simply do not know having hypertension. Some knew it but either not being treated or treated but blood pressure does not achieve goal. The reasons for inadequate control of blood pressure are many. One important reason is that we are not very familiar with antihypertensive agents and less attention has been paid to comorbidities, complications as well as the hypertension-modified target organ damage in patients with hypertension. The right antihypertensive drug was not given to the right hypertensive patients at right time. This reviewer studied comprehensively the literature, hopefully that the review will help improve antihypertensive drug selection and antihypertensive therapy.

[Primary Prevention of Acute Stroke]

Primary Prevention of Acute Stroke Abstract. Strokes are frequent. Vascular risk factors are increasing the stroke risk. Most vascular risk factors are treatable. Their therapy is important in the primary prevention of stroke. According to the INTERSTROKE study, arterial hypertension, inactivity, overweight, dyslipidemia, smoking, unhealthy diet, cardiac pathologies such as major arrhythmia, diabetes mellitus, stress/depression and overconsumption of alcohol are the most important treatable vascular risk factors. In this article, we will also report on at present less well known treatable vascular risk factors such as sleep apnea, atheromatosis of the aortic arch and of arteries supplying the brain, migraine with aura and chronic inflammatory disorders and infections.

Thiazide Use and Fracture Risk: An updated Bayesian Meta-Analysis

The association between thiazide use and fracture risk is still controversial. We conducted an updated meta-analysis on the association between thiazide use and fracture risk. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for all types of human studies, including observational and experimental studies that were published up until July 2019. We also manually searched the reference lists of relevant studies. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated using a Bayesian hierarchical random effect model. A total of 19 case-control (N = 496,568 subjects) and 21 cohort studies (N = 4,418,602 subjects) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled RR for fractures associated with thiazide use was 0.87 (95% CrI: 0.70–0.99) in case-control and 0.95 (95% CrI: 0.85–1.08) in cohort studies. The probabilities that thiazide use reduces any fracture risk by more than 0% were 93% in case-control studies and 72% in cohort studies. Significant heterogeneity was found for both case-control (p < 0.001, I² = 75%) and cohort studies (p < 0.001, I² = 97.2%). Thiazide use was associated with reduced fracture risk in case-control studies, but not in cohort studies. The associations demonstrated in case-control studies might be driven by inherent biases, such as selection bias and recall bias. Thus, thiazide use may not be a protective factor for fractures.

Blood pressure checks and diagnosing hypertension (BP-CHECK): Design and methods of a randomized controlled diagnostic study comparing clinic, home, kiosk, and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring

BACKGROUND

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BPs) before making a new diagnosis of hypertension, using 24-h ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM), however this is not common in routine clinical practice. Blood Pressure Checks and Diagnosing Hypertension (BP-CHECK) is a randomized controlled diagnostic study assessing the comparability and acceptability of clinic, home, and kiosk-based BP monitoring to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. Stakeholders including patients, providers, policy makers, and researchers informed the study design and protocols.

METHODS

Adults aged 18-85 without diagnosed hypertension and on no hypertension medication with elevated BPs in clinic and at the baseline research visit are randomized to one of 3 regimens for diagnosing hypertension: (1) clinic BPs, (2) home BPs, or (3) kiosk BPs; all participants subsequently complete ABPM. The primary outcomes are the comparability (with daytime ABPM mean systolic and diastolic BP as the reference standard) and acceptability (e.g., adherence to, patient-reported outcomes) of each method compared to ABPM. Longer-term outcomes are assessed at 6-months including: patient-reported outcomes, primary care providers' diagnosis of hypertension; and BP control. We report challenges experienced and our response to these.

RESULTS

Enrollment began in May of 2017 with a target of randomizing 510 participants. BP thresholds for diagnosing hypertension in the US changed after the trial started. We discuss the stakeholder process used to assess and respond to these changes.

CONCLUSION AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT

BP-CHECK will inform which hypertension diagnostic methods are most accurate, acceptable, and feasible to implement in primary care.

Is the plasma aldosterone-to-renin ratio associated with blood pressure response to treatment in general practice?

BACKGROUND

Individualized antihypertensive treatment based on specific biomarkers such as renin may lead to more effective blood pressure control in patients with newly diagnosed essential hypertension. Recent studies suggested that the plasma aldosterone-to-renin ratio (ARR) may also be a candidate predictor for this purpose.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the ARR is associated with the blood pressure response to antihypertensive treatment in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study in primary care, we determined the ARR in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension prior to starting treatment. Treatment was categorized in five groups: no medication, use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, use of calcium channel blocker, use of diuretic, or use of beta blocker. We examined the relation between the ARR and blood pressure response within 1 year of treatment, taking into account the type of antihypertensive treatment and adjusting for gender, age, baseline blood pressure, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Out of 304 patients, we used 947 measurements (727 no medication, 220 medication) for analysis. There was no association between the ARR and the response in blood pressure, and this applied to each treatment group. Target blood pressure, defined as systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg, was reached in 31% of patients. There was no association between the ARR and reaching target blood pressure (OR 1.002, 95% CI 0.983-1.022).

CONCLUSION

The ARR is not associated with the response in blood pressure within 1 year of antihypertensive treatment in primary care.

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

BACKGROUND

General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I² = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I² = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I² = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I² = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I² = 53%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

General health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Need for Deprescribing in Hospital Elderly Patients Discharged with a Limited Life Expectancy: The REPOSI Study

OBJECTIVE

Older people approaching the end of life are at a high risk for adverse drug reactions. Approaching the end of life should change the therapeutic aims, triggering a reduction in the number of drugs.The main aim of this study is to describe the preventive and symptomatic drug treatments prescribed to patients discharged with a limited life expectancy from internal medicine and geriatric wards. The secondary aim was to describe the potentially severe drug-drug interactions (DDI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed Registry of Polytherapies Societa Italiana di Medicina Interna (REPOSI), a network of internal medicine and geriatric wards, to describe the drug therapy of patients discharged with a limited life expectancy.

RESULTS

The study sample comprised 55 patients discharged with a limited life expectancy. Patients with at least 1 preventive medication that could be considered for deprescription at the end of life were significantly fewer from admission to discharge (n = 30; 54.5% vs. n = 21; 38.2%; p = 0.02). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, lipid-lowering drugs, and clonidine were the most frequent potentially avoidable medications prescribed at discharge, followed by xanthine oxidase inhibitors and drugs to prevent fractures. Thirty-seven (67.3%) patients were also exposed to at least 1 potentially severe DDI at discharge.

CONCLUSION

Hospital discharge is associated with a small reduction in the use of commonly prescribed preventive medications in patients discharged with a limited life expectancy. Cardiovascular drugs are the most frequent potentially avoidable preventive medications. A consensus framework or shared criteria for potentially inappropriate medication in elderly patients with limited life expectancy could be useful to further improve drug prescription.

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

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), 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. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

Comparison of Best Medical Management with Carotid Intervention Procedures in the Prevention of Stroke Recurrence in Patients with Symptomatic Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis

Background:

As per the current recommendations, carotid interventional procedures (carotid endarterectomy/carotid artery stenting) are considered superior to medical management in reducing the stroke recurrence in patients with symptomatic extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis.

Objective:

The objective of this study is to compare the best medical management with carotid interventional procedures in the prevention of stroke recurrence in the patients with symptomatic extracranial ICA stenosis.

Materials and Methods:

This was a parallel, prospective, two-arm, open-label, observational study. Participants were selected consecutively and prospectively among patients from Outpatient and Inpatient Departments of Neurology at Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. The study period was from January 2012 to December 2017.

Results:

Of 150 patients with symptomatic extracranial ICA stenosis of ≥50%, 100 preferred best medical management (m = 75, f = 25) and 50 (m = 37, f = 13) opted for carotid intervention. The mean age of the patient cohort was 59.8 ± 12.7. Follow-up was done at regular intervals from 3 months to 1 year. In the medical group, the recurrence occurred in 10 patients; 4 (40%) within 6 months, 5 (50%) within 6–12 months, and 1 (10%) after 1 year. In the intervention group, the recurrence occurred in 6 patients; 5 (83%) within the first 6 months and 1 (17%) within 6–12 months.

Conclusions:

Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of recurrence between the best medical management and the carotid interventional procedures.

2-Methoxyestradiol causes matrix metalloproteinase 9-mediated transactivation of epidermal growth factor receptor and angiotensin type 1 receptor downregulation in rat aortic smooth muscle cells

Studies have demonstrated the therapeutic potential of estrogen metabolite 2-methoxyestradiol (2ME2) in several cardiovascular disorders, including hypertension. However, the exact mechanism(s) remains unknown. In this study, primary rat aortic smooth muscle cells (RASMCs) were exposed to 2ME2, and angiotensin type 1 receptor (AT1R) expression, function, and associated signaling pathways were evaluated. In RASMCs, 2ME2 downregulated AT1R expression in a concentration- and time-dependent manner, which was correlated with reduced mRNA expression. The 2ME2 effect was through G protein-coupled receptor 30 (GPR30) that inhibits second messenger cAMP. Moreover, 2ME2 exposure phosphorylated ERK1/2 that was sensitive to MEK inhibitor PD98059. Selective epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor AG1478 blocked 2ME2-induced EGFR transactivation and attenuated subsequent phosphorylation of ERK1/2 preventing AT1R downregulation. The transactivation was dependent on 2ME2-induced release of matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9) and epidermal growth factor demonstrated by ELISA. Furthermore, transfection with small interfering (si) RNA targeting MMP9 impeded ERK1/2 activation and AT1R downregulation in response to 2ME2 and G1 stimulation. Interestingly, under similar conditions, stimulation of GPR30 with the selective agonist G1 elicited similar signaling pathways and downregulated the AT1R expression that was reversed by GPR30 antagonist G15. Furthermore, 2ME2 and G1 inhibited angiotensin II (ANG II) induced Ca2+ release, a response consistent with AT1R downregulation. Collectively, our study demonstrates for the first time that 2ME2 binding to GPR30 induces MMP9 specific transactivation of EGFR that mediates ERK1/2-dependent downregulation of AT1R in RASMCs. The study provides critical insights into the newly discovered role and signaling pathways of 2ME2 in the regulation of AT1R in vascular cells and its potential to be developed as a therapeutic agent that ameliorates hypertension.

Smartphone apps for improving medication adherence in hypertension: patients' perspectives

PURPOSE

Digital interventions, such as smartphone applications (apps), are becoming an increasingly common way to support medication adherence and self-management in chronic conditions. It is important to investigate how patients feel about and engage with these technologies. The aim of this study was to explore patients' perspectives on smartphone apps to improve medication adherence in hypertension.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study based in the West of Ireland. Twenty-four patients with hypertension were purposively sampled and engaged in focus groups. Thematic analysis on the data was carried out.

RESULTS

Participants ranged in age from 50 to 83 years (M=65 years) with an equal split between men and women. Three major themes were identified in relation to patients' perspectives on smartphone apps to improve medication adherence in hypertension: "development of digital competence," "rules of engagement," and "sustainability" of these technologies.

CONCLUSION

These data showed that patients can identify the benefits of a medication reminder and recognize that self-monitoring their blood pressure could be empowering in terms of their understanding of the condition and interactions with their general practitioners. However, the data also revealed that there are concerns about increasing health-related anxiety and doubts about the sustainability of this technology over time. This suggests that the current patient perspective of smartphone apps might be best characterized by "ambivalence."

Mortality in persons with undetected and diagnosed hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and hypothyroidism, compared with persons without corresponding disease - a prospective cohort study; The HUNT Study, Norway

Background

Suggested strategies in reducing the impact of non-communicable diseases (NCD) are early diagnosing and screening. We have limited proof of benefit of population screening for NCD. Increased mortality in persons with diagnosed NCD has been shown for decades. However, mortality in undetected NCD has barely been studied. This paper explores whether all-cause mortality differed between persons with diagnosed hypothyroidism, type 2 diabetes (T2DM), and hypertension, compared with persons with undetected-, and with persons without the corresponding disease.

Methods

A prospective cohort study of the general population in Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. Persons ≥20 years at baseline 1995–97 were followed until death or June 15, 2016. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compute age and multiple adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between disease status and all-cause mortality. The number of participants in the hypothyroidism study was 31,960, in the T2DM study 37,957, and in the hypertension study 63,371.

Results

Mortality was increased in persons with diagnosed type 2 diabetes and hypertension, compared to persons without corresponding disease; HR 1.69 (95% CI 1.55–1.84) and HR 1.23 (95% CI 1.09–1.39), respectively. Among persons with undetected T2DM, the HR was 1.21 (95% CI 1.08–1.37), whilst among undetected hypothyroidism and hypertension, mortality was not increased compared with persons without the diseases. Further, the association with mortality was stronger in persons with long duration of T2DM (HR 1.96 (95% CI 1.57–2.44)) and hypertension (HR 1.32 (95% CI 1.17–1.49)), compared with persons with short duration (HR 1.29 (1.09–1.53) and HR 1.16 (1.03-1-30) respectively).

Conclusions

Mortality was increased in persons with diagnosed T2DM and hypertension, and in undetected T2DM, compared with persons without the diseases. The strength of the association with mortality in undetected T2DM was however lower compared with persons with diagnosed T2DM, and mortality was not increased in persons with undetected hypothyroidism and hypertension, compared with persons without the diseases. Thus, future research needs to test more thoroughly if early diagnosing of these diseases, such as general population screening, is beneficial for health.

Thiazides in the management of hypertension in older adults - a systematic review

Background

Thiazides are commonly prescribed to older people for the management of hypertension. The objective of this study was to identify the evidence on the risks and benefits of their use among adults aged ≥65 years and to develop recommendations to reduce potentially inappropriate use.

Methods

Systematic review (SR) of the literature covering six databases. We applied a staged search approach, where each search was undertaken only if the previous one did not yield high quality results. Searches 1 and 2 identified relevant SRs and meta-analyses published up to December 2015 from all databases. Search 3 identified additional individual interventional studies (IS) and observational studies (OS) not identified by the preceding searches. We included all studies evaluating the effect of thiazides on patient-relevant outcomes in the management of hypertension with a sufficient number of participants aged ≥65 years or a subgroup analysis based on age. Two independent reviewers extracted data and carried out quality appraisal. Recommendations were developed using the GRADE methodology.

Results

Searches 1 to 3 were performed. We included 34 articles reporting on 12 IS and 4 OS. Mean ages ranged from 59 to 83.8 years. Four studies had performed a subgroup analysis by age. Information on comorbidity, polypharmacy and frailty of the participants was scarce or not available. The IS compared thiazides to placebo or other antihypertensive drugs and evaluated cardiovascular endpoints or all-cause-mortality as primary outcomes. The OS investigated the association between thiazide use and the risk of gout, fractures and adverse effects. Our results suggest that thiazides are efficacious in preventing cardiovascular events for this population group. Low-dose regimens of thiazides may be safer than high-dose (low quality of evidence), and a history of gout may increase the risk of adverse events (low quality of evidence). Three recommendations were developed.

Conclusions

The use of low dose treatment with thiazides for the management of hypertension in adults aged 65 and older seems justified, unless a history of gout is present. The quality of the evidence is low and studies rarely describe characteristics of the participants such as polypharmacy and frailty. Further good quality studies are needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0576-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults aged 18 to 59 years

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is an important risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events including stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and renal failure. The main goal of treatment is to reduce these events. Systematic reviews have shown proven benefit of antihypertensive drug therapy in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality but most of the evidence is in people 60 years of age and older. We wanted to know what the effects of therapy are in people 18 to 59 years of age.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify antihypertensive drug effects on all-cause mortality in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension. To quantify effects on cardiovascular mortality plus morbidity (including cerebrovascular and coronary heart disease mortality plus morbidity), withdrawal due adverse events and estimate magnitude of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) lowering at one year.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to January 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of at least one year' duration comparing antihypertensive pharmacotherapy with a placebo or no treatment in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension defined as SBP 140 mmHg or greater or DBP 90 mmHg or greater at baseline, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, total cardiovascular (CVS) mortality plus morbidity, withdrawals due to adverse events, and decrease in SBP and DBP. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and a fixed-effect model to combine outcomes across trials. For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD) with 95% CI and a random-effects model as there was significant heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

The population in the seven included studies (17,327 participants) were predominantly healthy adults with mild to moderate primary hypertension. The Medical Research Council Trial of Mild Hypertension contributed 14,541 (84%) of total randomized participants, with mean age of 50 years and mean baseline blood pressure of 160/98 mmHg and a mean duration of follow-up of five years. Treatments used in this study were bendrofluazide 10 mg daily or propranolol 80 mg to 240 mg daily with addition of methyldopa if required. The risk of bias in the studies was high or unclear for a number of domains and led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for all outcomes.Based on five studies, antihypertensive drug therapy as compared to placebo or untreated control may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (2.4% with control vs 2.3% with treatment; low quality evidence; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.13). Based on 4 studies, the effects on coronary heart disease were uncertain due to low quality evidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.19). Low quality evidence from six studies showed that drug therapy may reduce total cardiovascular mortality and morbidity from 4.1% to 3.2% over five years (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (1.3% with control vs 0.6% with treatment; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Very low quality evidence from three studies showed that withdrawals due to adverse events were higher with drug therapy from 0.7% to 3.0% (RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.67 to 13.92). The effects on blood pressure varied between the studies and we are uncertain as to how much of a difference treatment makes on average.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive drugs used to treat predominantly healthy adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension have a small absolute effect to reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity primarily due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity. All-cause mortality and coronary heart disease were not reduced. There is lack of good evidence on withdrawal due to adverse events. Future trials in this age group should be at least 10 years in duration and should compare different first-line drug classes and strategies.

Blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults

BACKGROUND

Eight out of 10 major antihypertensive trials in older adults attempted to achieve a target systolic blood pressure (BP) less than 160 mmHg. Collectively these trials demonstrated benefit for treatment, as compared to no treatment, for an older adult with BP greater than 160 mmHg. However an even lower BP target of less than 140 mmHg is commonly applied to all age groups. At the present time it is not known whether a lower or higher BP target is associated with better cardiovascular outcomes in older adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a higher (less than 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg) BP target compared to the lower BP target of less than 140/90 mmHg in hypertensive adults 65 years of age or older.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, of at least one year's duration, conducted on hypertensive adults aged 65 years or older, which report the effect on mortality and morbidity of a higher systolic or diastolic BP treatment target (whether ambulatory, home, or office measurements) in the range of systolic BP less than 150 to 160 mmHg or diastolic BP less than 95 to 105 mmHg as compared to a lower BP treatment target of less than 140/90 mmHg or lower.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data for dichotomous outcomes using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and for continuous outcomes we used mean difference (MD). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, institutionalisation, and cardiovascular serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, unplanned hospitalisation, each component of cardiovascular serious adverse events separately (including cerebrovascular disease, cardiac disease, vascular disease, and renal failure), total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse effects, systolic BP achieved, and diastolic BP achieved.

MAIN RESULTS

We found and included three unblinded randomised trials in 8221 older adults (mean age 74.8 years), in which higher BP targets of less than 150/90 mmHg (two trials) and less than 160/90 mmHg (one trial) were compared to a lower target of less than 140/90 mmHg. Treatment to the two different BP targets over two to four years failed to produce a difference in any of our primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality (RR 1.24 95% CI 0.99 to 1.54), stroke (RR 1.25 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67) and total cardiovascular serious adverse events (RR 1.19 95% CI 0.98 to 1.45). However, the 95% confidence intervals of these outcomes suggest the lower BP target is probably not worse, and might offer a clinically important benefit. We judged all comparisons to be based on low-quality evidence. Data on adverse effects were not available from all trials and not different, including total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the present time there is insufficient evidence to know whether a higher BP target (less than150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg) or a lower BP target (less than 140/90 mmHg) is better for older adults with high BP. Additional good-quality trials assessing BP targets in this population are needed.

Exercise dose and all-cause mortality within extended cardiac rehabilitation: a cohort study

Aims

To investigate the relationship between exercise participation, exercise ‘dose’ expressed as metabolic equivalent (MET) hours (h) per week, and prognosis in individuals attending an extended, community-based exercise rehabilitation programme.

Methods

Cohort study of 435 participants undertaking exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK between 1994 and 2006, followed up to 1 November 2013. MET intensity of supervised exercise was estimated utilising serial submaximal exercise test results and corresponding exercise prescriptions. Programme participation was routinely monitored. Cox regression analysis including time-varying and propensity score adjustment was applied to identify predictors of long-term, all-cause mortality across exercise dose and programme duration groups.

Results

There were 133 events (31%) during a median follow-up of 14 years (range, 1.2 to 18.9 years). The significant univariate association between exercise dose and all-cause mortality was attenuated following multivariable adjustment for other predictors, including duration in the programme. Longer-term adherence to supervised exercise training (>36 months) was associated with a 33% lower mortality risk (multivariate-adjusted HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.97; p=0.033) compared with all lesser durations of CR (3, 12, 36 months), even after adjustment for baseline fitness, comorbidities and survivor bias.

Conclusion

Exercise dose (MET-h per week) appears less important than long-term adherence to supervised exercise for the reduction of long-term mortality risk. Extended, supervised CR programmes within the community may play a key role in promoting long-term exercise maintenance and other secondary prevention therapies for survival benefit.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of renin inhibitors for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a chronic condition associated with an increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Renin is the enzyme responsible for converting angiotensinogen to angiotensin I, which is then converted to angiotensin II. Renin inhibitors are a new class of drugs that decrease blood pressure (BP) by preventing the formation of both angiotensin I and angiotensin II.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related BP lowering efficacy of renin inhibitors compared to placebo in the treatment of primary hypertension.To determine the change in BP variability, pulse pressure, and heart rate and to evaluate adverse events (mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events, total adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse effects and specific adverse events such as dry cough, diarrhoea and angioedema).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. There was no restriction by language or publication status. We also searched the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for clinical study reports, the Novartis Clinical Study Results Database, bibliographic citations from retrieved references, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies evaluating BP lowering efficacy of fixed-dose monotherapy with renin inhibitor compared with placebo for a minimum duration of three to 12 weeks in adult patients with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review is a comprehensive update which includes four additional studies and extensive detail from nine clinical study reports (CSRs) of previously included studies obtained from EMA. The remaining three CSRs are not available.Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. In all cases where there was a difference between the CSR and the published report, data from the CSR was used. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

12 studies (mean duration of eight weeks) in 7439 mostly Caucasian patients (mean age 54 years) with mild-to-moderate uncomplicated hypertension were eligible for inclusion in the review. Aliskiren was the only renin inhibitor evaluated. All included studies were assessed to have high likelihood of attrition, reporting and funding bias.Aliskiren has a dose-related systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) lowering effect as compared with placebo MD with 95% CI: aliskiren 75 mg (MD -2.97, 95% CI -4.76 to -1.18)/(MD -2.05, 95% CI -3.13 to -0.96) mm Hg (moderate-quality evidence), aliskiren 150 mg (MD -5.95, 95% CI -6.85 to -5.06)/ (MD -3.16, 95% CI -3.74 to -2.58) mm Hg (moderate-quality evidence), aliskiren 300 mg (MD -7.88, 95% CI -8.94 to -6.82)/ (MD -4.49, 95% CI -5.17 to -3.82) mm Hg (moderate-quality evidence), aliskiren 600 mg (MD -11.35, 95% CI -14.43 to -8.27)/ (MD -5.86, 95% CI -7.73 to -3.99) mm Hg (low-quality evidence). There was a dose-dependent decrease in blood pressure for aliskiren 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg. The blood pressure lowering effect of aliskiren 600 mg was not different from 300 mg (MD -0.61, 95% CI -2.78 to 1.56)/(MD -0.68, 95% CI -2.03 to 0.67). Aliskiren had no effect on blood pressure variability. Due to very limited information available regarding change in heart rate and pulse pressure, it was not possible to meta-analyze these outcomes.Mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events were not increased. This review found that in studies of eight week duration aliskiren may not increase withdrawal due to adverse events (low-quality evidence). Diarrhoea was increased in a dose-dependent manner (RR 7.00, 95% CI 2.48 to 19.72) with aliskiren 600 mg (low-quality evidence). The most frequent adverse events reported were headache, nasopharyngitis, diarrhoea, dizziness and fatigue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, aliskiren lowered BP and this effect is dose-dependent. This magnitude of BP lowering effect is similar to that for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). There is no difference in mortality, nonfatal serious adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse effects with short term aliskiren monotherapy. Diarrhoea was considerably increased with aliskiren 600 mg.

Potential contribution of lifestyle and socioeconomic factors to healthy user bias in antihypertensives and lipid-lowering drugs

Objectives

Healthy user bias arises when users of preventive medications such as lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs), hormone replacement therapy and antihypertensive (AH) medications are healthier than non-users due to factors other than medication effects, making the medications appear more beneficial in observational studies of effectiveness and safety. The purpose of the study is to examine factors contributing to healthy user effect in patients taking AHs or LLDs.

Methods

Among patients with hypertension or hyperlipidaemia in a population-based sample from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1999–2010), we assessed the association between socioeconomic and lifestyle factors and the use of AHs/LLDs by logistic regression with adjustment for demographics and comorbidities in a cross-sectional study.

Results

When 9715 AH/LLD users were compared with 3725 non-users, AH/LLD users were more likely to be: highly educated (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.3), non-impoverished (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.4), current non-smokers (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4), physically active (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.2) and consume more calcium (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.3) but less likely to have normal body mass index (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.7) or to meet dietary sodium recommendations (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7 to 0.9).

Conclusions

We identified several salutary lifestyle factors associated with AH/LLD use in a representative US population. Healthy user effect may be partly explained by better socioeconomic profiles and lifestyles in AH/LLD users compared with non-users.

Eplerenone for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Eplerenone is an aldosterone receptor blocker that is chemically derived from spironolactone. In Canada, it is indicated for use as adjunctive therapy to reduce mortality for heart failure patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II systolic chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. It is also used as adjunctive therapy for patients with heart failure following myocardial infarction. Additionally, it is indicated for the treatment of mild and moderate essential hypertension for patients who cannot be treated adequately with other agents. It is important to determine the clinical impact of all antihypertensive medications, including aldosterone antagonists, to support their continued use in essential hypertension. No previous systematic reviews have evaluated the effect of eplerenone on cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and magnitude of blood pressure lowering in patients with hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of eplerenone monotherapy versus placebo for primary hypertension in adults. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events (fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction), cerebrovascular events (fatal or non fatal strokes), adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 3 March 2016. We handsearched references from retrieved studies to identify any studies missed in the initial search. We also searched for unpublished data by contacting the corresponding authors of the included studies and pharmaceutical companies involved in conducting studies on eplerenone monotherapy in primary hypertension. The search had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized placebo-controlled trials studying adult patients with primary hypertension. We excluded studies in people with secondary or gestational hypertension and studies where participants were receiving multiple antihypertensives.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently reviewed the search results for studies meeting our criteria. Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using a standardized data extraction form. A fourth independent review author resolved discrepancies or disagreements. We performed data extraction and synthesis using a standardized format on Covidence. We conducted data analysis using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1437 adult patients participated in the five randomized parallel group studies, with treatment durations ranging from 8 to 16 weeks. The daily doses of eplerenone ranged from 25 mg to 400 mg daily. Meta-analysis of these studies showed a reduction in systolic blood pressure of 9.21 mmHg (95% CI -11.08 to -7.34; I² = 58%) and a reduction of diastolic pressure of 4.18 mmHg (95% CI -5.03 to -3.33; I² = 0%) (moderate quality evidence).There may be a dose response effect for eplerenone in the reduction in systolic blood pressure at doses of 400 mg/day. However, this finding is uncertain, as it is based on a single included study with low quality evidence. Overall there does not appear to be a clinically important dose response in lowering systolic or diastolic blood pressure at eplerenone doses of 50 mg to 400 mg daily. There did not appear to be any differences in the number of patients who withdrew due to adverse events or the number of patients with at least one adverse event in the eplerenone group compared to placebo. However, only three of the five included studies reported adverse events. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality, as we judged multiple domains as being at unclear risk in the 'Risk of bias' assessment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Eplerenone 50 to 200 mg/day lowers blood pressure in people with primary hypertension by 9.21 mmHg systolic and 4.18 mmHg diastolic compared to placebo, with no difference of effect between doses of 50 mg/day to 200 mg/day. A dose of 25 mg/day did not produce a statistically significant reduction in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and there is insufficient evidence for doses above 200 mg/day. There is currently no available evidence to determine the effect of eplerenone on clinically meaningful outcomes such as mortality or morbidity in hypertensive patients. The evidence available on side effects is insufficient and of low quality, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about potential harm associated with eplerenone treatment in hypertensive patients.

Beta-blockers for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).There was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.Total CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.

First-line combination therapy versus first-line monotherapy for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm-to-benefit balance of each strategy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to February 2016. We searched in clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs in Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, double-blind trials with at least 12 months' follow-up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first-line antihypertensive drug with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events or serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data. Primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug-related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial) and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. We summarized data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We found three studies in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment so we asked investigators for data for this subgroup (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants). They included outpatients, and mostly European and white people. Two trials included only people with type 2 diabetes, whereas the other trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia or cardiovascular drugs. The follow-up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. Certainty of evidence was very low due to the serious imprecision, and for using a subgroup not defined in advance. Confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The numbers of included participants and, hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

Cost effectiveness of case-finding strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a modelling study

BACKGROUND

Policies of active case finding for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in healthy adults are common, but economic evaluation has not investigated targeting such strategies at those who are most likely to benefit.

AIM

To assess the cost effectiveness of targeted case finding for CVD prevention.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cost-effectiveness modelling in an English primary care population.

METHOD

A cohort of 10 000 individuals aged 30-74 years and without existing CVD or diabetes was sampled from The Health Improvement Network database, a large primary care database. A discrete-event simulation was used to model the process of inviting people for assessment, assessing cardiovascular risk, and initiation and persistence with drug treatment. Risk factors and drug cessation rates were obtained from primary care data. Published sources provided estimates of uptake of assessment, treatment initiation, and treatment effects. The researchers determined the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with opportunistic case finding, and strategies prioritising and targeting patients by age or prior estimate of cardiovascular risk. This study reports on the optimum strategy if a QALY is valued at £20 000.

RESULTS

Compared with no case finding, inviting all adults aged 30-74 years in a population of 10 000 yields 30.32 QALYs at a total cost of £705 732. The optimum strategy is to rank patients by prior risk estimate and invite 8% of those who are assessed as being at highest risk (those at ≥12.76% predicted 10-year CVD risk), yielding 17.53 QALYs at a cost of £162 280. There is an 89.4% probability that the optimum strategy is to invite <35% of patients for assessment.

CONCLUSION

Across all age ranges, targeted case finding using a prior estimate of CVD risk is more efficient than universal case finding in healthy adults.

Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of reserpine for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Many antihypertensive agents exist today for the treatment of primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or both). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been carried out to investigate the evidence for these agents. There is, for example, strong RCT evidence that thiazides reduce mortality and morbidity. Some of those trials used reserpine as a second-line therapy. However, the dose-related blood pressure reduction with this agent is not known.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to quantify the dose-related efficacy of reserpine versus placebo or no treatment in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP), or both.We also aimed to evaluate the dose-related effects of reserpine on mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), as well as the dose-related effects on withdrawals due to adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register (January 1946 to October 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1946 to October 2016), Embase (January 1974 to October 2016), and ClinicalTrials.gov (all dates to October 2016). We also traced citations in the reference sections of the retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing reserpine monotherapy to placebo or no treatment in participants with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed methods of randomisation and concealment. We extracted and analysed data on blood pressure reduction, heart rate, and withdrawal due to adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four RCTs (with a total of 237 participants) that met the inclusion criteria, none of which we found through the 2016 update search. The overall pooled effect demonstrates a statistically significant systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction in participants taking reserpine compared with placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -7.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.05 to -1.78). Because of significant heterogeneity across the trials, a significant effect in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) could not be found. A dose of reserpine 0.5 mg/day or greater achieved the SBP effects. However, we could not determine the dose-response pattern because of the small number of trials. We did not combine data from the trial that investigated Rauwiloid against placebo with reserpine data from the remaining three trials. This is because Rauwiloid is a different alkaloid extract of the plant Rauwolfia serpentina, and the dose used is not comparable to reserpine. None of the included trials reported withdrawals due to adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Reserpine is effective in reducing SBP roughly to the same degree as other first-line antihypertensive drugs. However, we could not make definite conclusions regarding the dose-response pattern because of the small number of included trials. More RCTs are needed to assess the effects of reserpine on blood pressure and to determine the dose-related safety profile before the role of this drug in the treatment of primary hypertension can be established.

Association of Family History With Cardiovascular Disease in Hypertensive Individuals in a Multiethnic Population

BACKGROUND

Hypertension alone is a poor predictor of the individual risk of cardiovascular disease. Hereditary factors of which hypertension is merely a marker may explain why some hypertensive individuals appear more susceptible to cardiovascular disease, and why some ethnicities have more often seemingly hypertension-related cardiovascular disease than others. We hypothesize that, in hypertensive individuals, a positive family history of cardiovascular disease identifies a high-risk subpopulation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Healthy Life in Urban Settings (HELIUS) is a cohort study among participants of Dutch, South-Asian Surinamese, African Surinamese, Ghanaian, Turkish, and Moroccan origin aged 70 years and younger. In participants with hypertension (n=6467), we used logistic regression to assess the association of family history of cardiovascular disease with prevalent stroke and nonstroke cardiovascular disease, adjusting for sex, age, education, and smoking. To detect ethnic differences, we tested for interaction between family history and ethnicity and stratified the analysis by ethnicity. A positive family history was associated with a higher prevalence of nonstroke cardiovascular disease (odds ratio [OR], 2.05; 95% CI, 1.65-2.54) and stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.19-2.20). The strongest association of family history with nonstroke cardiovascular disease was found among the Dutch (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.37-4.44) and with stroke among the African Surinamese (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.32-3.57). The interaction between family history and African Surinamese origin for stroke was statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In multiethnic populations of hypertensive patients, a positive family history of cardiovascular disease may be used clinically to identify individuals at high risk for nonstroke cardiovascular disease regardless of ethnic origin and African Surinamese individuals at high risk for stroke.

Diuretic Use and Risk of Vertebral Fracture in Women

BACKGROUND

Vertebral fracture is the most common type of osteoporotic fracture. While thiazide diuretics, which are commonly prescribed for the treatment of hypertension, decrease calciuria, they may also induce hyponatremia, which has been associated with increased vertebral fracture risk. Loop diuretics increase calciuria, which would reduce bone mineral density and increase vertebral fracture risk, but they rarely cause hyponatremia. Recent studies on diuretics and fractures did not include or specifically examine vertebral fracture. The few studies of diuretics and vertebral fracture have been limited by cases defined by self-report or administrative data, relatively small number of cases, study design that was not prospective, and lack of long-term follow-up with updated information on diuretic use.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of thiazide diuretic use, loop diuretic use, and risk of incident clinical vertebral fracture in 55,780 women, 55-82 years of age, participating in the Nurses' Health Study, without a prior history of any fracture. Diuretic use was assessed by questionnaire every 4 years. Self-reported vertebral fracture was confirmed by medical record review. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to simultaneously adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 420 incident vertebral fracture cases documented between 2002 and 2012. The multivariate-adjusted relative risk of clinical vertebral fracture for women taking thiazides compared with women not taking thiazides was 1.47 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.85). The multivariate adjusted relative risk of vertebral fracture for women taking loop diuretics compared with women not taking loop diuretics was 1.59 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.25).

CONCLUSION

Thiazide diuretics and loop diuretics are each independently associated with increased risk of vertebral fracture in women.

Inhibition of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme, Angiotensin II Receptor Blocking, and Blood Pressure Lowering Bioactivity across Plant Families

Hypertension is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, kidney disease, and stroke. Interest in medicinal or nutraceutical plant bioactives to reduce hypertension has increased dramatically. The main biological regulation of mammalian blood pressure is via the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. The key enzyme is angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) that converts angiotensin I into the powerful vasoconstrictor, angiotensin II. Angiotensin II binds to its receptors (AT1) on smooth muscle cells of the arteriole vasculature causing vasoconstriction and elevation of blood pressure. This review focuses on the in vitro and in vivo reports of plant-derived extracts that inhibit ACE activity, block angiotensin II receptor binding and demonstrate hypotensive activity in animal or human studies. We describe 74 families of plants that exhibited significant ACE inhibitory activity and 16 plant families with potential AT1 receptor blocking activity, according to in vitro studies. From 43 plant families including some of those with in vitro bioactivity, the extracts from 73 plant species lowered blood pressure in various normotensive or hypertensive in vivo models by the oral route. Of these, 19 species from 15 families lowered human BP when administered orally. Some of the active plant extracts, isolated bioactives and BP-lowering mechanisms are discussed.

Prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease in Ethiopia: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The coverage of prevention and treatment strategies for ischemic heart disease and stroke is very low in Ethiopia. In view of Ethiopia's meager healthcare budget, it is important to identify the most cost-effective interventions for further scale-up. This paper's objective is to assess cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment of ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke in an Ethiopian setting.

METHODS

Fifteen single interventions and sixteen intervention packages were assessed from a healthcare provider perspective. The World Health Organization's Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective model for cardiovascular disease was updated with available country-specific inputs, including demography, mortality and price of traded and non-traded goods. Costs and health benefits were discounted at 3 % per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are reported in US$ per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess robustness of our results.

RESULTS

Combination drug treatment for individuals having >35 % absolute risk of a CVD event in the next 10 years is the most cost-effective intervention. This intervention costs US$67 per DALY averted and about US$7 million annually. Treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (costing US$1000-US$7530 per DALY averted) and secondary prevention of IHD and stroke (costing US$1060-US$10,340 per DALY averted) become more efficient when delivered in integrated packages. At an annual willingness-to-pay (WTP) level of about US$3 million, a package consisting of aspirin, streptokinase, ACE-inhibitor and beta-blocker for AMI has the highest probability of being most cost-effective, whereas as WTP increases to > US$7 million, combination drug treatment to individuals having >35 % absolute risk stands out as the most cost-effective strategy. Cost-effectiveness ratios were relatively more sensitive to halving the effectiveness estimates as compared with doubling the price of drugs and laboratory tests.

CONCLUSIONS

In Ethiopia, the escalating burden of CVD and its risk factors warrants timely action. We have demonstrated that selected CVD intervention packages could be scaled up at a modest budget increase. The level of willingness-to-pay has important implications for interventions' probability of being cost-effective. The study provides valuable evidence for setting priorities in an essential healthcare package for CVD in Ethiopia.

Submaximal fitness and mortality risk reduction in coronary heart disease: a retrospective cohort study of community-based exercise rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness (sCRF) and all-cause mortality in a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) cohort.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of participants entering CR between 26 May 1993 and 16 October 2006, followed up to 1 November 2013 (median 14 years, range 1.2-19.4 years).

SETTING

A community-based CR exercise programme in Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

A cohort of 534 men (76%) and 136 women with a clinical diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD), aged 22-82 years, attending CR were evaluated for the association between baseline sCRF and all-cause mortality. 416 participants with an exercise test following CR (median 14 weeks) were examined for changes in sCRF and all-cause mortality.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality and change in sCRF expressed in estimated metabolic equivalents (METs).

RESULTS

Baseline sCRF was a strong predictor of all-cause mortality; compared to the lowest sCRF group (<5 METs for women and <6 METs for men), mortality risk was 41% lower in those with moderate sCRF (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83) and 60% lower (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64) in those with higher sCRF levels (≥7 METs women and ≥8 METs for men). Although improvement in sCRF at 14 weeks was not associated with a significant mortality risk reduction (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06) for the whole cohort, in those with the lowest sCRF (and highest all-cause mortality) at baseline, each 1-MET improvement was associated with a 27% age-adjusted reduction in mortality risk (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher baseline sCRF is associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality over 14 years in adults with CHD. Improving fitness through exercise-based CR is associated with significant risk reduction for the least fit.

Effectiveness and content analysis of interventions to enhance medication adherence in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Hypertension control through pharmacological treatment has led to substantial benefits in the prevention of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular diseases. However, evidence from a number of studies suggests that as many as 50 to 80 % of patients treated for hypertension have low adherence to their treatment regimen. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of medication adherence interventions for hypertension. In addition, we aim to explore what barriers and facilitators in the interventions may have been targeted and how these might be related to the effect size on blood pressure (BP).

METHODS

This review is a hypertension-specific update to the previous Cochrane Review by Nieuwlaat et al. (2014) on interventions to enhance medication adherence. A systematic literature search will be carried out, and two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts for their eligibility for inclusion and independently extract data from the selected studies and assess the methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis will be conducted, and additionally, theoretical factors in interventions will be identified using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

DISCUSSION

This review will generate new information by quantitatively evaluating the effectiveness of adherence interventions for hypertension and potentially identify which theoretical domains are associated with more effective interventions and which domains have not been the subject of intervention development.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016033358.

Cost-effectiveness of medical primary prevention strategies to reduce absolute risk of cardiovascular disease in Tanzania: a Markov modelling study

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a growing cause of mortality and morbidity in Tanzania, but contextualized evidence on cost-effective medical strategies to prevent it is scarce. We aim to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of medical interventions for primary prevention of CVD using the World Health Organization’s (WHO) absolute risk approach for four risk levels.

Methods

The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective using two Markov decision models: CVD risk without diabetes and CVD risk with diabetes. Primary provider and patient costs were estimated using the ingredients approach and step-down methodologies. Epidemiological data and efficacy inputs were derived from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We used disability- adjusted life years (DALYs) averted as the outcome measure. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model results.

Results

For CVD low-risk patients without diabetes, medical management is not cost-effective unless willingness to pay (WTP) is higher than US$1327 per DALY averted. For moderate-risk patients, WTP must exceed US$164 per DALY before a combination of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and diuretic (Diu) becomes cost-effective, while for high-risk and very high-risk patients the thresholds are US$349 (ACEI, calcium channel blocker (CCB) and Diu) and US$498 per DALY (ACEI, CCB, Diu and Aspirin (ASA)) respectively. For patients with CVD risk with diabetes, a combination of sulfonylureas (Sulf), ACEI and CCB for low and moderate risk (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) US$608 and US$115 per DALY respectively), is the most cost-effective, while adding biguanide (Big) to this combination yielded the most favourable ICERs of US$309 and US$350 per DALY for high and very high risk respectively. For the latter, ASA is also part of the combination.

Conclusions

Medical preventive cardiology is very cost-effective for all risk levels except low CVD risk. Budget impact analyses and distributional concerns should be considered further to assess governments’ ability and to whom these benefits will accrue.

Home blood pressure monitoring: Australian Expert Consensus Statement

Measurement of blood pressure (BP) by a doctor in the clinic has limitations that may result in an unrepresentative measure of underlying BP which can impact on the appropriate assessment and management of high BP. Home BP monitoring is the self-measurement of BP in the home setting (usually in the morning and evening) over a defined period (e.g. 7 days) under the direction of a healthcare provider. When it may not be feasible to measure 24-h ambulatory BP, home BP may be offered as a method to diagnose and manage patients with high BP. Home BP has good reproducibility, is well tolerated, is relatively inexpensive and is superior to clinic BP for prognosis of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Home BP can be used in combination with clinic BP to identify 'white coat' and 'masked' hypertension. An average home BP of at least 135/85 mmHg is an appropriate threshold for the diagnosis of hypertension. Home BP may also offer the advantage of empowering patients with their BP management, with benefits including increased adherence to therapy and lower achieved BP levels. It is recommended that, when feasible, home BP should be considered for routine use in the clinical management of hypertension.

Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death in hypertensive individuals

BACKGROUND

High blood pressure is an important public health problem because of associated risks of stroke and cardiovascular events. Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent cardiac events, including myocardial infarction and sudden death (death of unknown cause within one hour of the onset of acute symptoms or within 24 hours of observation of the patient as alive and symptom free).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in preventing sudden death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal myocardial infarction among hypertensive individuals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (all years to January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2016, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2016), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to January 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for hypertension, defined, when possible, as baseline resting systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mmHg and/or resting diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mmHg. Comparisons included one or more antihypertensive drugs versus placebo, or versus no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data. Outcomes assessed were sudden death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and change in blood pressure.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials (39,908 participants) that evaluated antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for a mean duration of follow-up of 4.2 years. This review provides moderate-quality evidence to show that antihypertensive drugs do not reduce sudden death (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.15) but do reduce both non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74, 0.98; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.3% over 4.2 years) and fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90; ARR 0.3% over 4.2 years). Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased in the drug treatment group to 12.8%, as compared with 6.2% in the no treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although antihypertensive drugs reduce the incidence of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, they do not appear to reduce the incidence of sudden death. This suggests that sudden cardiac death may not be caused primarily by acute myocardial infarction. Continued research is needed to determine the causes of sudden cardiac death.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective beta blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Beta blockers are commonly used to treat hypertension. The blood pressure reading is the primary tool for physicians and patients to assess the efficacy of the treatment. The blood pressure lowering effect of beta-1 selective blockers is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related effects of various doses and types of beta-1 selective adrenergic receptor blockers on systolic and diastolic blood pressure versus placebo in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) for related reviews.We searched the following databases for primary studies: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (All years to 15 October 2015), CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2015, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 15 October 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 15 October 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to 15 October 2015).The Hypertension Group Specialised Register includes controlled trials from searches of CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, LILACS, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).Electronic databases were searched using a strategy combining the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity-maximizing version (2008 revision) with selected MeSH terms and free text terms. No language restrictions were used. The MEDLINE search strategy was translated into CENTRAL, EMBASE, the Hypertension Group Specialised Register and ClinicalTrials.gov using the appropriate controlled vocabulary as applicable. Full strategies are in Appendix 1.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies had to contain a beta blocker monotherapy arm with fixed dose. People enrolled into the studies had to have primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of studies had to be between 3 weeks to 12 weeks. Drugs in this class of beta blockers are atenolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, esmolol, metoprolol, nebivolol, pafenolol, practolol.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.5 was used to synthesise data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 56 RCTs (randomised controlled trials) that examined the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective blockers (beta-1 blocker) in 7812 primary hypertensive patients. Among the included trials, 26 RCTs were parallel studies and 30 RCTs were cross-over studies, examining eight beta-1 blockers. Overall, the majority of beta-1 blockers studied significantly lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). In people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute. The maximum BP reduction of beta-1 blockers occurred at twice the starting dose. Individual beta-1 blockers did not exhibit a graded dose-response effect on SBP and DBP over the recommended dose range.Most beta-1 blockers tested significantly lowered heart rate. A graded dose-response of beta-1 blockers on heart rate was evident. Higher dose beta-1 blockers lowered heart rate more than lower doses. Individually and overall beta-1 blockers did not affect pulse pressure, which distinguishes them from other classes of drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides low quality evidence that in people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute as compared to placebo. The effect of beta-1 blockers at peak hours, -12/-9 mmHg, was greater than the reduction at trough hours, -8/-7 mmHg. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by a greater magnitude than dual receptor beta-blockers and partial agonist beta-blockers, lowered BP similarly to nonselective beta-blockers. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered SBP by a similar degree and lowered DBP by a greater degree than diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Because DBP is lowered by a similar extent to SBP, beta-1 selective blockers do not reduce pulse pressure.

The associations between US state and local social spending, income inequality, and individual all-cause and cause-specific mortality: The National Longitudinal Mortality Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate government state and local spending on public goods and income inequality as predictors of the risks of dying.

METHODS

Data on 431,637 adults aged 30-74 and 375,354 adults aged 20-44 in the 48 contiguous US states were used from the National Longitudinal Mortality Study to estimate the impacts of state and local spending and income inequality on individual risks of all-cause and cause-specific mortality for leading causes of death in younger and middle-aged adults and older adults. To reduce bias, models incorporated state fixed effects and instrumental variables.

RESULTS

Each additional $250 per capita per year spent on welfare predicted a 3-percentage point (-0.031, 95% CI: -0.059, -0.0027) lower probability of dying from any cause. Each additional $250 per capita spent on welfare and education predicted 1.6-percentage point (-0.016, 95% CI: -0.031, -0.0011) and 0.8-percentage point (-0.008, 95% CI: -0.0156, -0.00024) lower probabilities of dying from coronary heart disease (CHD), respectively. No associations were found for colon cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; for diabetes, external injury, and suicide, estimates were inverse but modest in magnitude. A 0.1 higher Gini coefficient (higher income inequality) predicted 1-percentage point (0.010, 95% CI: 0.0026, 0.0180) and 0.2-percentage point (0.002, 95% CI: 0.001, 0.002) higher probabilities of dying from CHD and suicide, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical linkages were identified between state-level spending on welfare and education and lower individual risks of dying, particularly from CHD and all causes combined. State-level income inequality predicted higher risks of dying from CHD and suicide.

Thiazide-Associated Hypercalcemia: Incidence and Association With Primary Hyperparathyroidism Over Two Decades

CONTEXT

Thiazide diuretics, the antihypertensive agent prescribed most frequently worldwide, are commonly associated with hypercalcemia. However, the epidemiology and clinical features are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To update the incidence of thiazide-associated hypercalcemia and clarify its clinical features.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a population-based descriptive study, Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with thiazide-associated hypercalcemia were identified through the Rochester Epidemiology Project and the Mayo Clinic Laboratory Information System from 2002-2010 and were added to the historical cohort beginning in 1992.

MAIN OUTCOME

Incidence rates were adjusted to the 2010 United States white population.

RESULTS

Overall, 221 Olmsted County residents were identified with thiazide-associated hypercalcemia an average of 5.2 years after initiation of treatment. Subjects were older (mean age, 67 years) and primarily women (86.4%). The incidence of thiazide-associated hypercalcemia increased after 1997 and peaked in 2006 with an annual incidence of 20 per 100,000, compared to an overall rate of 12 per 100,000 in 1992-2010. Severe hypercalcemia was not observed in the cohort despite continuation of thiazide treatment in 62.4%. Of patients discontinuing thiazides, 71% continued to have hypercalcemia. Primary hyperparathyroidism was diagnosed in 53 patients (24%), including five patients who underwent parathyroidectomy without thiazide discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with thiazide-associated hypercalcemia have underlying primary hyperparathyroidism. Additionally, a sharp rise in thiazide-associated hypercalcemia incidence began in 1998, paralleling the increase observed in primary hyperparathyroidism in this community. Case ascertainment bias from targeted osteoporosis screening is the most likely explanation.

Dyslipidemia management in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Current guidelines and strategies

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that $444 billion was spent on cardiovascular diseases alone, about $1 of every $6 spent on health care. As life expectancy continues to increase, this annual cost will also increase, making cost-effective primary prevention of cardiovascular disease highly desirable. Because of its role in development of atherosclerosis and clinical events, dyslipidemia management is a high priority in cardiovascular prevention. Multiple major dyslipidemia guidelines have been published around the world recently, four of them by independent organizations in the United States alone. They share the goal of providing clinical guidance on optimal dyslipidemia management, but guidelines differ in their emphasis on pharmacotherapy, stratification of groups, emphasis on lifestyle modification, and use of a fixed target or percentage reduction in low density lipoprotein cholesterol. This review summarizes eight major guidelines for dyslipidemia management and considers the basis for their recommendations. Our primary aim is to enhance understanding of dyslipidemia management guidelines in patient care for primary prevention of future cardiovascular risk.

Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapy in the elderly population is complicated by several factors that increase the risk of drug-related harms and less favourable effectiveness. The concept of medication review is a key element in improving the quality of prescribing and in preventing adverse drug events. Although there is no generally accepted definition of medication review, it can be broadly defined as a systematic assessment of pharmacotherapy for an individual patient that aims to optimise patient medication by providing a recommendation or by making a direct change. Medication review performed in adult hospitalised patients may lead to better patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

We examined whether delivery of a medication review by a physician, pharmacist or other healthcare professional leads to improvement in health outcomes of hospitalised adult patients compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to November 2014, as well as International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and Web of Science to May 2015. In addition, we searched reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews. We searched trials registries and contacted experts to identify additional published and unpublished trials. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medication review in hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials of outclinic and paediatric patients. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and adverse drug events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently included trials, extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for clarification of data and for additional unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall certainty of evidence for the most important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 6600 references (4647 references in our initial review) and included 10 trials (3575 participants). Follow-up ranged from 30 days to one year. Nine trials provided mortality data (3218 participants, 466 events), with a risk ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.19) (low-certainty evidence). Seven trials provided hospital readmission data (2843 participants, 1043 events) with a risk ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.04) (high-certainty evidence). Four trials provided emergency department contact data (1442 participants, 244 events) with a risk ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.03) (low-certainty evidence). The estimated reduction in emergency department contacts of 27% (with a CI ranging from 48% reduction to 3% increase in contacts) corresponds to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 37 for a low-risk population and 12 for a high-risk population over one year. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter our results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that medication review reduces mortality or hospital readmissions, although we did find evidence that medication review may reduce emergency department contacts. However, because of short follow-up ranging from 30 days to one year, important treatment effects may have been overlooked. High-quality trials with long-term follow-up (i.e. at least up to a year) are needed to provide more definitive evidence for the effect of medication review on clinically important outcomes such as mortality, readmissions and emergency department contacts, and on outcomes such as adverse events. Therefore, if used in clinical practice, medication reviews should be undertaken as part of a clinical trial with long-term follow-up.