Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

Higher blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review, published in 2017. Eight out of 10 major antihypertensive trials in adults, 65 years of age or older, attempted to achieve a target systolic blood pressure (BP) of < 160 mmHg. Collectively, these trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefit for treatment, compared to no treatment, for older adults with BP > 160 mmHg. However, an even lower BP target of < 140 mmHg is commonly applied to all age groups. Yet the risk and benefit of antihypertensive therapy can be expected to vary across populations, and some observational evidence suggests that older adults who are frail might have better health outcomes with less aggressive BP lowering. Current clinical practice guidelines are inconsistent in target BP recommendations for older adults, with systolic BP targets ranging from < 130 mmHg to < 150 mmHg. The 2017 review did not find compelling evidence of a reduction in any of the primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, or total serious cardiovascular adverse events, comparing a lower BP target to a higher BP target in older adults with hypertension. It is important to update this review to explore if new evidence exists to determine whether older adults might do just as well, better, or worse with less aggressive pharmacotherapy for hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a less aggressive blood pressure target (in the range of < 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg), compared to a conventional or more aggressive BP target (of < 140/90 mmHg or lower) in hypertensive adults, 65 years of age or older.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to June 2024: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid, and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also contacted authors of relevant papers requesting information on further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of hypertensive older adults (≥ 65 years) that spanned at least one year, and reported the effect on mortality and morbidity of a higher or lower systolic or diastolic BP treatment target. Higher BP targets ranged from systolic BP < 150 to 160 mmHg or diastolic BP < 95 to 105 mmHg; lower BP targets were 140/90 mmHg or lower, measured in an ambulatory, home, or office setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, and extracted data. We combined data for dichotomous outcomes using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, institutionalisation, and serious cardio-renal vascular 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

With the addition of one new trial, we included four trials in this updated review (16,732 older adults with a mean age of 70.3 years). Of these, one trial used a combined systolic and diastolic BP target and compared a higher target of < 150/90 mmHg to a lower target of < 140/90 mmHg, and two trials utilised a purely systolic BP target, and compared a systolic BP < 150 mmHg (1 trial) and a systolic BP < 160 mmHg (1 trial), to a systolic BP < 140 mmHg. The fourth and newest trial also utilised a systolic BP target, but also introduced a lower limit for systolic BP. It compared systolic BP in the target range of 130 to 150 mmHg to a lower target range of 110 to 130 mmHg. The evidence shows that treatment to the lower BP target over two to four years may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.37; 4 studies, 16,732 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the lower BP target does reduce stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67; 4 studies, 16,732 participants; high-certainty evidence), and likely reduces total serious cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45; 4 studies, 16,732 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were not available from all trials, but the lower BP target likely does not increase withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.33; 3 studies, 16,008 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When comparing a higher BP target, in the range of < 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg, to a lower BP target of 140/90 or lower, over two to four years of follow-up, there is high-certainty evidence that the lower BP target reduces stroke, and moderate-certainty evidence that the lower BP target likely reduces serious cardiovascular events. The effect on all-cause mortality is unclear (low-certainty evidence), and the lower BP target likely does not increase withdrawals due to adverse effects (moderate-certainty evidence). Although additional research is warranted in those who are 80 years of age and older, and those who are frail (in whom risks and benefits may differ), conventional BP targets may be appropriate for the majority of older adults.

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Influence of Hospital Formularies on Outpatient Prescribing Practices: Analysis of the Introduction of a Local Formulary: A Single-Center, 2-Year Follow-Up, Retrospective Cohort Study of a Local Formulary in Japan

PURPOSE

The impact of a hospital formulary was evaluated to provide a guide for the establishment of local formularies to optimize patient care and healthcare costs.

METHODS

A formulary was introduced by formulary pharmacists of the Toda Medical Group for suggesting recommended medicines to physicians based on the medication history. Patients who were hospitalized in the rehabilitation ward of the Niiza Hospital and prescribed medicines according to the formulary introduced between April 2017 and March 2018 were included and followed-up for six months.

RESULTS

Of the 183 patients screened, 154 patients were enrolled as the formulary's introduction patients (76 males/78 females, median age 78 years); 92% of these patients received formulary-proposed prescriptions at the specified timepoints; and 19 patients re-consulted at the Niiza Hospital after discharge and continued the same formulary medicines. The proposed acceptance rate by physicians was 100%. Most changes suggested introduced generic formulations. The doses were equivalent for all pharmacological classes with the exception of medicines that interfere with the renin-angiotensin system, which fell from 10.7 to 7.2 mg (P< .0001). Overall daily medication costs fell at discharge compared to admission (38.5 vs. 94.6 yen per patient, respectively, P< .0001). This was valid for all pharmacological classes except for calcium channel blockers.

CONCLUSION

Hospital formulary-prescribed medications continued after discharge and promoted significant decreases in costs associated with outpatient prescriptions. Introducing a hospital formulary provides a basis for the introduction of local formularies and contributes to the reduction of local healthcare costs.

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Treatment of calcium channel blocker-induced gingival overgrowth without modifying medication

Gingival overgrowth is a common side effect of calcium channel blockers used in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. While controversial, management includes discontinuing the calcium channel blocker. We report the case of a 66-year-old Japanese man with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus who was diagnosed with severe periodontitis covering almost all the teeth. The patient had been on nifedipine (40 mg/day) and amlodipine (10 mg/day) medication for 5 years. With his physician's consent, nifedipine was discontinued during his treatment for periodontitis, which consisted of oral hygiene instructions and scaling and root planing on all areas. Gingivectomy was performed on the areas of hard fibrous swelling. Nifedipine was resumed during periodontal treatment when the patient's hypertension worsened. His periodontal scores improved when he resumed treatment. We report that significant improvement in gingival overgrowth can occur with basic periodontal treatment, surgery and sustained intensive follow-up without adjusting calcium channel blockers.

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: a crossroad from arterial hypertension to heart failure

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a pivotal role in the regulation of blood pressure and volume homeostasis, promoting critical structural changes in every component of the cardiovascular system, including the heart and blood vessels. Consequently, the RAAS is a crucial therapeutic target for several chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system, spanning from arterial hypertension (AH) to heart failure (HF). AH represents a leading risk factor for the development of symptomatic HF, particularly with left ventricle (LV) preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). LV diastolic dysfunction and cardiac remodelling are the first discernible manifestations of heart disease in patients with AH. Typically, AH develops many years before the diagnosis of overt HF, providing a therapeutic target for preventive strategies. Treatment of AH is based on different classes of antihypertensive drugs, which show differences in their capacity to prevent the evolution towards HF. The blockers of the RAAS are effective drugs to treat AH and prevent HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the evidence of the potential benefits in patients with HFpEF remains limited. In this review, the authors summarise data from several clinical trials of HFpEF and HFrEF, focusing on the mechanisms leading the transition from AH to HF and late complications.

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

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review originally published in 2017. 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

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We used no language restrictions. We also searched clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs on the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, 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 drugs 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 review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and performed data entry. The 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 summarised data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

This update included one new study in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. As none of the four included studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment, we asked investigators for data for this subgroup. One study (PREVER-treatment 2016) used a combination of thiazide-type diuretic/potassium-sparing diuretic; as the former is not indicated in monotherapy, we analysed this study separately. The three original trials in the main comparison (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants) included outpatients, mostly European and white people. Two trials only included people with type 2 diabetes; the remaining 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. It is very uncertain whether combination therapy versus monotherapy reduces total mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 21.72), cardiovascular mortality (zero events reported), cardiovascular events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.41), serious adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92), or withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.35); all outcomes had 568 participants, and the evidence was rated as of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and for using a subgroup that was not defined in advance. The confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit. The PREVER-treatment 2016 trial, which used a combination therapy with potassium-sparing diuretic (monotherapy: 84 participants; combination therapy: 116 participants), included outpatients. This trial was conducted in Brazil and had a follow-up of 18 months. The number of events was very low and confidence intervals very wide, with zero events reported for cardiovascular mortality and withdrawals due to adverse events. It is very uncertain if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy in this trial.

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 review question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

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.

Computational Strategy Revealing the Structural Determinant of Ligand Selectivity towards Highly Similar Protein Targets

BACKGROUND

Poor selectivity of drug candidates may lead to toxicity and side effects accounting for as high as 60% failure rate, thus, the selectivity is consistently significant and challenging for drug discovery.

OBJECTIVE

To find highly specific small molecules towards very similar protein targets, multiple strategies are always employed, including (1) To make use of the diverse shape of binding pocket to avoid steric bump; (2) To increase binding affinities for favorite residues; (3) To achieve selectivity through allosteric regulation of target; (4) To stabalize the inactive conformation of protein target and (5) To occupy dual binding pockets of single target.

CONCLUSION

In this review, we summarize computational strategies along with examples of their successful applications in designing selective ligands, with the aim to provide insights into everdiversifying drug development practice and inspire medicinal chemists to utilize computational strategies to avoid potential side effects due to low selectivity of ligands.

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.

First-line drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical question: What class of drug to use first-line? This review attempted to answer that question.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the mortality and morbidity effects from different first-line antihypertensive drug classes: thiazides (low-dose and high-dose), beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and alpha-blockers, compared to placebo or no treatment.Secondary objectives: when different antihypertensive drug classes are used as the first-line drug, to quantify the blood pressure lowering effect and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse drug effects, compared to placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension 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 contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials (RCT) of at least one year duration, comparing one of six major drug classes with a placebo or no treatment, in adult patients with blood pressure over 140/90 mmHg at baseline. The majority (over 70%) of the patients in the treatment group were taking the drug class of interest after one year. We included trials with both hypertensive and normotensive patients in this review if the majority (over 70%) of patients had elevated blood pressure, or the trial separately reported outcome data on patients with elevated blood pressure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), total cardiovascular events (CVS), decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and withdrawals due to adverse drug effects. We used a fixed-effect model to to combine dichotomous outcomes across trials and calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We presented blood pressure data as mean difference (MD) with 99% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2017 updated search failed to identify any new trials. The original review identified 24 trials with 28 active treatment arms, including 58,040 patients. We found no RCTs for ARBs or alpha-blockers. These results are mostly applicable to adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. The mean age of participants was 56 years, and mean duration of follow-up was three to five years.High-quality evidence showed that first-line low-dose thiazides reduced mortality (11.0% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97); total CVS (12.9% with control versus 9.0% with treatment; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.76), stroke (6.2% with control versus 4.2% with treatment; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77), and coronary heart disease (3.9% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line high-dose thiazides reduced stroke (1.9% with control versus 0.9% with treatment; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61) and total CVS (5.1% with control versus 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), but did not reduce mortality (3.1% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05), or coronary heart disease (2.7% with control versus 2.7% with treatment; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line beta-blockers did not reduce mortality (6.2% with control versus 6.0% with treatment; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07) or coronary heart disease (4.4% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.03), but reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and total CVS (7.6% with control versus 6.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line ACE inhibitors reduced mortality (13.6% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95), stroke (6.0% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82), coronary heart disease (13.5% with control versus 11.0% with treatment; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94), and total CVS (20.1% with control versus 15.3% with treatment; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85).Low-quality evidence showed that first-line calcium channel blockers reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 1.9% with treatment; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.84) and total CVS (8.0% with control versus 5.7% with treatment; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87), but not coronary heart disease (3.1% with control versus 2.4% with treatment; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09), or mortality (6.0% with control versus 5.1% with treatment; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09).There was low-quality evidence that withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with first-line low-dose thiazides (5.0% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 2.38, 95% CI 2.06 to 2.75), high-dose thiazides (2.2% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 4.48, 95% CI 3.83 to 5.24), and beta-blockers (3.1% with control versus 14.4% with treatment; RR 4.59, 95% CI 4.11 to 5.13). No data for these outcomes were available for first-line ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers. The blood pressure data were not used to assess the effect of the different classes of drugs as the data were heterogeneous, and the number of drugs used in the trials differed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

First-line low-dose thiazides reduced all morbidity and mortality outcomes in adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective, but the evidence was of lower quality. First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers were inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides.

A Genome-Wide Association Study of Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy in African Americans

Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC) is the most common form of non-ischemic chronic heart failure. Despite the higher prevalence of IDC in African Americans, the genetics of IDC have been relatively understudied in this ethnic group. We performed a genome-wide association study to identify susceptibility genes for IDC in African Americans recruited from five sites in the U.S. (662 unrelated cases and 1167 controls). The heritability of IDC was calculated to be 33% (95% confidence interval: 19-47%; p = 6.4 × 10-7). We detected association of a variant in a novel intronic locus in the CACNB4 gene meeting genome-wide levels of significance (p = 4.1 × 10-8). The CACNB4 gene encodes a calcium channel subunit expressed in the heart that is important for cardiac muscle contraction. This variant has not previously been associated with IDC in any racial group. Pathway analysis, based on the 1000 genes most strongly associated with IDC, showed an enrichment for genes related to calcium signaling, growth factor signaling, neuronal/neuromuscular signaling, and various types of cellular level signaling, including gap junction and cAMP signaling. Our results suggest a novel locus for IDC in African Americans and provide additional insights into the genetic architecture and etiology.

Tocotrienol is a cardioprotective agent against ageing-associated cardiovascular disease and its associated morbidities

Ageing is a nonmodifiable risk factor that is linked to increased likelihood of cardiovascular morbidities. Whilst many pharmacological interventions currently exist to treat many of these disorders such as statins for hypercholesterolemia or beta-blockers for hypertension, the elderly appear to present a greater likelihood of suffering non-related side effects such as increased risk of developing new onset type 2 diabetes (NODM). In some cases, lower efficacy in the elderly have also been reported. Alternative forms of treatment have been sought to address these issues, and there has been a growing interest in looking at herbal remedies or plant-based natural compounds. Oxidative stress and inflammation are implicated in the manifestation of ageing-related cardiovascular disease. Thus, it is natural that a compound that possesses both antioxidative and anti-inflammatory bioactivities would be considered. This review article examines the potential of tocotrienols, a class of Vitamin E compounds with proven superior antioxidative and anti-inflammatory activity compared to tocopherols (the other class of Vitamin E compounds), in ameliorating ageing-related cardiovascular diseases and its associated morbidities. In particular, the potential of tocotrienols in improving inflammaging, dyslipidemia and mitochondrial dysfunction in ageing-related cardiovascular diseases are discussed.

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.

Negative inotropism of terpenes on guinea pig left atrium: structure-activity relationships

The aim of this work was to evaluate the pharmacological effect of seven structurally related terpenes on the contractility of cardiac muscle. The effect of terpenes was studied on isolated electrically driven guinea pig left atrium. From concentration-response curves for inotropic effect were determined the EC₅₀ and relative potency of such terpenes. Our results revealed that all terpenes, except phytol, showed ability to reduce the contractile response of guinea pig left atrium. Further, relative potency was directly related to the number of isoprene units and to the lipophilicity of the compounds. For example, sesquiterpenes farnesol and nerolidol showed higher relative potency when compared with the monoterpenes citronellol, geraniol and nerol. We can conclude that most of the evaluated terpenes showed a promising negative inotropism on the atrial muscle. Future studies are necessary to investigate their action mechanism.

Surgical Critical Care for the Trauma Patient with Cardiac Disease

The elderly population is rapidly increasing in number. Therefore, geriatric trauma is becoming more prevalent. All practitioners caring for geriatric trauma patients should be familiar with the structural and functional changes naturally occurring in the aging heart, as well as common preexisting cardiac diseases in the geriatric population. Identification of the shock state related to cardiac dysfunction and targeted assessment of perfusion and resuscitation are important when managing elderly patients. Finally, management of cardiac dysfunction in the trauma patient includes an appreciation of the inherent effects of trauma on cardiac function.

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.

Management of hypertension and multiple risk factors to enhance cardiovascular health - a feasibility study in Singapore polyclinics

Background

High blood pressure (BP) is a leading contributor to cardiovascular mortality globally. There is scarcity of information on effective health systems interventions to lower BP and reduce cardiovascular risk in Southeast Asian countries. We conducted a pilot exploratory trial on 100 adults aged 40 years or older with uncontrolled hypertension to optimize the design for a structured multi-component intervention in primary care clinics for management of hypertension.

Methods

Two clinics were involved, each enrolling 50 participants, with one as the intervention clinic and the other as the control (usual care). The intervention comprised the following four components: 1) an algorithm-driven intervention using a fixed-dose combination (FDC) antihypertensive treatment and lipid lowering medication for high risk individuals, 2) subsidized FDC antihypertensive medication; 3) motivational conversation (MC) for high risk individuals; and 4) telephone follow-ups of all individuals. The process outcomes were intervention fidelity measures. The outcomes of change in parameters of interest were healthy lifestyle index (composite score of body mass index, physical activity, dietary habit, dietary quality and smoking), adherence to antihypertensive medications, and systolic and diastolic BP from baseline to follow-up at 3 months.

Results

Greater than 90 % fidelity was achieved for 3 of the 4 intervention components. Although not designed for conclusive results, the healthy lifestyle score increased by 0.16 (±0.68) with the intervention and decreased by 0.18 (±0.75) with usual care (p = 0.02). Adherence to anti-hypertensive medications at follow-up was 95.3 % in the intervention group compared to 83.8 % for usual care (p = 0.01). Systolic and diastolic BP decreased in both intervention and control groups, although statistical significance between groups was not achieved. Hypertensive individuals rated all intervention components ‘highly favorable’ on a Likert scale.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that the proposed, structured multi-component approach for management of hypertension is feasible for implementation in primary care clinics in Singapore, with some changes to the protocol. The observed improvement in the healthy lifestyle index and adherence to anti-hypertensive medications is promising. A large scale, adequately powered trial would be informative to assess intervention effectiveness on BP and cardiovascular risk reduction.

Trial registration

This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02330224. Registered on 28 December 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1491-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Management of hypertension: Current state of the art and challenges

Hypertension is a major modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. Hypertension is also recognized as the most important risk factor for global disease burden. It is well established that a sustained reduction in blood pressure by drugs reduces the incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In recent years, studies and new guidelines published for the management of hypertension. Awareness, treatment and control of hypertension are very poor, despite the new guidelines. We highlighted the management of hypertension in the light of current literature.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Drug Interactions in Parkinson's Disease: Safety of Pharmacotherapy for Arterial Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the central nervous system, observed in patients aged older than 50 years. In this study, we review interactions between therapies used in PD and selected antihypertensive agents. Moreover, in view of the lack of evidence-based recommendations regarding the pharmacotherapy of arterial hypertension in PD patients, we propose effective and safe therapeutic algorithms for these two coexisting conditions.

METHOD

We used the "Drug interactions" database affiliated with the Ministry of Health, which allows for the identification of interactions between compared active compounds. The database is updated on a monthly basis and all data are consistent with current legislation. For information about interactions, we additionally added data from the British National Formulary, a joint publication of the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. In this analysis, we also used data from Micromedex^®, Cerner Multum™, Wolters Kluwer™, Lexicomp^® and Stockley's^®. We analysed the potential interactions between antihypertensive and anti-parkinsonian agents included in respective guidelines on the pharmacotherapy of these conditions.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed the lack of clinically relevant interactions between preparations of levodopa and benserazide (used for the treatment of PD) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, antagonists of AT₁ receptor for angiotensin II or antagonists of β-adrenoreceptors (β-adrenolytics).

CONCLUSION

To avoid major drug-to-drug interactions, patients receiving preparations of levodopa and benserazide should be prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, antagonists of AT₁ receptor for angiotensin II, or antagonists of β-adrenoreceptors (β-adrenolytics) as the first-line agents of antihypertensive treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Beta-blockers for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2007, which assessed the role of beta-blockade as first-line therapy for hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2011 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and reference lists of previous reviews; for eligible studies published since the previous search we conducted in May 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year 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. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and combined them using the fixed-effects or random-effects method, as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs which compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 trials, N=23,613), diuretics (5 trials, N=18,241), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 trials, N=44,825), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 trials, N=10,828). Three-quarters of the 40,245 participants on beta-blockers used atenolol. Most studies had a high risk of bias; resulting from various limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis.Total mortality was not significantly different between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.11; I(2)=0%), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.14; I(2)=2%). Total cardiovascular disease (CVD) was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.97; I(2)=21%). This is primarily a reflection of the significant decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.96; I(2)=0%), since there was no significant difference in coronary heart disease (CHD) between beta-blockers and placebo. There was no significant difference in withdrawals from assigned treatment due to adverse events between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 1.12, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.54; I(2)=66%).The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was significantly worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.29; I(2)=0%), but was not different from that of diuretics or RAS inhibitors. In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.11-1.40; I(2)=0%) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.53; I(2)=29%). However, CHD was not significantly different between beta-blockers and diuretics, CCBs or RAS inhibitors. Participants on beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than those on RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; I(2)=12%), but there was no significant difference with diuretics or CCBs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest reductions in cardiovascular disease and no significant effects on mortality. These effects of beta-blockers are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. The GRADE quality of this evidence is low, implying that the true effect of beta-blockers may be substantially different from the estimate of effects found in this review. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different sub-types of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and elderly patients.

Stroke prevention: managing modifiable risk factors

Prevention plays a crucial role in counteracting morbidity and mortality related to ischemic stroke. It has been estimated that 50% of stroke are preventable through control of modifiable risk factors and lifestyle changes. Antihypertensive treatment is recommended for both prevention of recurrent stroke and other vascular events. The use of antiplatelets and statins has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke and other vascular events. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are indicated in stroke prevention because they also promote vascular health. Effective secondary-prevention strategies for selected patients include carotid revascularization for high-grade carotid stenosis and vitamin K antagonist treatment for atrial fibrillation. The results of recent clinical trials investigating new anticoagulants (factor Xa inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors) clearly indicate alternative strategies in stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation. This paper describes the current landscape and developments in stroke prevention with special reference to medical treatment in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke.

Beta-blockers for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2007, which assessed the role of beta-blockade as first-line therapy for hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

In December 2011 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and reference lists of previous reviews; for eligible studies published since the previous search we conducted in May 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year 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. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and combined them using the fixed-effects or random-effects method, as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs which compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 trials, N=23,613), diuretics (5 trials, N=18,241), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 trials, N=44,825), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 trials, N=10,828). Three-quarters of the 40,245 participants on beta-blockers used atenolol. Most studies had a high risk of bias; resulting from various limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis.Total mortality was not significantly different between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.11; I(2)=0%), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.14; I(2)=2%). Total cardiovascular disease (CVD) was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.97; I(2)=21%). This is primarily a reflection of the significant decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.96; I(2)=0%), since there was no significant difference in coronary heart disease (CHD) between beta-blockers and placebo. There was no significant difference in withdrawals from assigned treatment due to adverse events between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 1.12, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.54; I(2)=66%).The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was significantly worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.29; I(2)=0%), but was not different from that of diuretics or RAS inhibitors. In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.11-1.40; I(2)=0%) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.53; I(2)=29%). However, CHD was not significantly different between beta-blockers and diuretics, CCBs or RAS inhibitors. Participants on beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than those on RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; I(2)=12%), but there was no significant difference with diuretics or CCBs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest reductions in cardiovascular disease and no significant effects on mortality. These effects of beta-blockers are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. The GRADE quality of this evidence is low, implying that the true effect of beta-blockers may be substantially different from the estimate of effects found in this review. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different sub-types of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and elderly patients.

[Primary stroke prevention in the elderly: current evidence in the treatment of arterial hypertension]

After age, arterial hypertension (AHT) is the most significant risk factor associated with stroke, and accounts for more than 25% of all strokes. The prevalence of AHT in the elderly in Spain is approximately 70%, which means that there are more than 5 million people over 65 years-old with hypertension in our country. There are currently numerous trials and meta-analyses that demonstrate that antihypertensive treatment clearly reduces the risk of stroke in elderly, and very elderly (≥80 years) subjects. However there are many areas of uncertainty such as, for example, when to start antihypertensive treatment, to what level should the blood pressure be lowered, or what is the best antihypertensive in the prevention of stroke in this population. In this article we present a review of the current evidence in the prevention of stroke in the elderly patient by means of treatment of the AHT.

Choice of generic antihypertensive drugs for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease--a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is one of the leading causes of cardiovascular disease (CVD). A range of antihypertensive drugs exists, and their prices vary widely mainly due to patent rights. The objective of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of different generic antihypertensive drugs as first, second and third choice for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

We used the Norwegian Cardiovascular Disease model (NorCaD) to simulate the cardiovascular life of patients from hypertension without symptoms until they were all dead or 100 years old. The risk of CVD events and costs were based on recent Norwegian sources.

RESULTS

In single-drug treatment, all antihypertensives are cost-effective compared to no drug treatment. In the base-case analysis, the first, second and third choice of antihypertensive were calcium channel blocker, thiazide and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. However the sensitivity and scenario analyses indicated considerable uncertainty in that angiotensin receptor blockers as well as, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta blockers and thiazides could be the most cost-effective antihypertensive drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Generic antihypertensives are cost-effective in a wide range of risk groups. There is considerable uncertainty, however, regarding which drug is the most cost-effective.