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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, we used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs that involved 9595 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Six of seven RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensive drugs to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. We also considered other issues, such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined, to downgrade the certainty of the evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 7 studies, 9595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure (CHF)) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 3 studies, 801 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.77 mmHg, 95% CI -12.82 to -4.73; 7 studies, 8657 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets at one year were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.23; 7 studies, 8699 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.

Variation in hypertension clinical practice guidelines: a global comparison

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is the largest single contributor to the global burden of disease, affecting an estimated 1.39 billion people worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can aid in the effective management of this common condition, however, inconsistencies exist between CPGs, and the extent of this is unknown. Understanding the differences in CPG recommendations across income settings may provide an important means of understanding some of the global variations in clinical outcomes related to hypertension.

AIMS

This study aims to analyse the variation between hypertension CPGs globally. It aims to assess the variation in three areas: diagnostic threshold and staging, treatment and target blood pressure (BP) recommendations in hypertension.

METHODS

A search was conducted on the MEDLINE repository to identify national and international hypertension CPGs from 2010 to May 2020. An additional country-specific grey-literature search was conducted for all countries and territories of the world as identified by the World Bank. Data describing the diagnosis, staging, treatment and target blood pressure were extracted from CPGs, and variations between CPGs for these domains were analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-eight CPGs from across all World Bank income settings were selected for analysis. Ninety-six per cent of guidelines defined hypertension as a clinic-based BP of ≥140/90 mmHg, and 87% of guidelines recommended a target BP of < 140/90 mmHg. In the pharmacological treatment of hypertension, eight different first-step, 17 different second-step and six different third-step drug recommendations were observed. Low-income countries preferentially recommended diuretics (63%) in the first-step treatment, whilst high-income countries offered more choice between antihypertensive classes. Forty-four per cent of guidelines, of which 71% were from higher-income contexts recommended initiating treatment with dual-drug therapy at BP 160/100 mmHg or higher.

CONCLUSION

This study found that CPGs remained largely consistent in the definition, staging and target BP recommendations for hypertension. Extensive variation was observed in treatment recommendations, particularly for second-line therapy. Variation existed between income settings; low-income countries prescribed cheaper drugs, offered less clinician choice in medications and initiated dual therapy at later stages than higher-income countries. Future research exploring the underlying drivers of this variation may improve outcomes for hypertensive patients across clinical contexts.

The SLIM study-Shared medical appointments to change lifestyles of overweight people with haemophilia: A randomized multiple baseline (n-of-1) design

INTRODUCTION

People with haemophilia suffer from haemophilic joint disease that may result in physical inactivity and overweight. Shared medical appointments (SMAs) might help limit the consequences of haemophilic arthropathy. SMAs are group meetings supervised by one or more healthcare professionals that can be utilized to improve lifestyle.

AIM

To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of SMAs in people with haemophilia to improve physical activity and eating habits.

METHODS

A multiple baseline single-case design was used. Overweight people with haemophilia were eligible to participate. Seven weekly SMAs were conducted using multiple behavioural change techniques to improve physical activity and eating habits. Feasibility of SMAs was evaluated using (a) dropout rate, (b) occurrence of adverse events (AEs), (c) adherence rate and (d) patient satisfaction. During 13 weeks, physical activity was measured daily and eating habits were measured three times per week. The efficacy of SMAs was determined using randomization tests and visual data inspection.

RESULTS

Out of the six men participating in the study, one participant dropped out. No study-related AEs occurred. The adherence rate of SMAs was 80%, and participants reported to be 'very satisfied' with the SMAs. Randomization tests and visual analyses demonstrated (statistical) improvements in physical activity (p = .03). No effect was found in self-reported eating habits (p = .55).

CONCLUSION

Shared medical appointments are feasible in people with haemophilia and appear to improve physical activity. The effect on improving eating habits could not be established. Scientific replication of our approach is warranted to confirm or refute the merit of SMAs in people with haemophilia.

Individual awareness and treatment effectiveness of hypertension among older adults in Ghana: evidence from the World Health Organization study of global ageing and adult health wave 2

INTRODUCTION

the aim of this study was to report the prevalence of hypertension, its awareness and treatment effectiveness among older adults (aged 50 years and above) in Ghana.

METHODS

the Ghana World Health Organization´s (WHO) Study on Global Aging and Adult Health (SAGE) wave 2 dataset was used in this study. The study adopted a cross-sectional study design. Information on self-reported hypertension as well as measured hypertension was analyzed. The level of awareness regarding hypertension and the effectiveness of treatment was determined using descriptive statistics. Factors associated with an individual´s awareness of their hypertensive status were determined using Rao-Scott Chi square test statistic and the predictors of unawareness of hypertension were determined using adjusted logistic regression analysis. A p-value of ≤0.05 was deemed significant.

RESULTS

information on 3,575 adults in Ghana aged 50 years or older was included in this analysis. The mean age of study participants was 65.1 ± 10.7 years with 59% being female. The prevalence of measured hypertension was 50.7% [95%CI=48.3-53.2]. The overall prevalence of hypertension among older adults in Ghana who were hypertensive but were not aware of it was 35.0% [95%CI=31.6-38.5]. Of the 332 individuals who self-reported being hypertensive, only 74 (22.2%) were on any form of treatment, with only 17 (5.1%) having their blood pressures well controlled.

CONCLUSION

approximately half of all older adults in Ghana have elevated blood pressures. Most of these are not aware of their elevated blood pressure and for those who are aware, very few are on treatment and even fewer have their blood pressure well controlled. Structured national population level screening and health promotion for elevated blood pressure by Ministry of Health/ Ghana Health Service is worthy of consideration.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2019: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs that involved 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensives to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. Other issues such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined were also considered to downgrade the quality evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 2 studies, 690 participants; very low-quality evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.90 mmHg, 95% CI -13.24 to -4.56; 6 studies, 8546 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24; 6 studies, 8588 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.

The association between walking speed and risk of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and elderly people in Taiwan, a community-based, cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between walking speed and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among community-dwelling middle-aged and elderly populations in Taiwan.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional and community-based study with 400 participants aged 50 years and over recruited from a community health promotion project in 2014 in Guishan district, Taoyuan city. We excluded 91 people, and a total of 309 participants were eligible for analysis. The statistical methods used in this study were one-way ANOVA and the Chi-square test, Pearson's correlation test and logistic regression model.

RESULTS

In total, 309 participants (98 males and 211 females) aged 50 to 74 (62.05 ± 6.21) years without a CVD history were enrolled in this study. The walking speed gradually decreased from the low CVD risk group to the high CVD risk group (p < 0.05). A significant inverse association between walking speed and CVD risk was confirmed with a Pearson's correlation coefficient of-0.143 (p < 0.05) in middle-aged people, but this significant inverse association was not shown in elderly people. The multivariate logistic regression model for predicting CVD risk and walking speed with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0.127 (95% CI = 0.021-0.771) in middle-aged people with adjustment for sex, age, waist circumference (WC), hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), and hyperlipidemia (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study clearly shows that slow walking speed is associated with an increased risk of CVD in middle-aged people rather than in elderly people.

2018 Korean society of hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension: part III-hypertension in special situations

Treatment of hypertension improves cardiovascular, renal, and cerebrovascular outcomes. However, the benefit of treatment may be different according to the patients’ characteristics. Additionally, the target blood pressure or initial drug choice should be customized according to the special conditions of the hypertensive patients. In this part III, we reviewed previous data and presented recommendations for some special populations such as diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, elderly people, and cardio-cerebrovascular disease.

Self-management and psychological resilience moderate the relationships between symptoms and health-related quality of life among patients with hypertension in China

PURPOSE

To examine whether and how self-management and psychological resilience could moderate the relationships between symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among hypertensive patients in China.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of 220 participants recruited from January to May, 2018. Demographic and clinical information were obtained from medical records and by patient interview. The Chinese version of 17-item Hypertension-specific Symptom Scale, 21-item Self-Management Scale, and 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) as well as Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12) were used to collect information in this research. The moderation effects of self-management and psychological resilience were explored using the PROCESS macro for SPSS.

RESULTS

Among all patients, 128 (58.2%) were female, 106 (48.2%) had a bachelor degree or higher, and 133 (60.5%) had moderate to severe Charlson Comorbidity Index. Both self-management and psychological resilience were negatively correlated to symptoms (r = - 0.259, p < 0.001; r = - 0.282, p < 0.001) but positively correlated to physical (r = 0.316, p < 0.001; r = 0.344, p < 0.001) and mental (r = 0.273, p < 0.001; r = 0.309, p < 0.001) HRQoL. After controlling for potential covariates, self-management could moderate the associations between symptoms and physical HRQoL (p = 0.041, ΔR² = 0.010), while psychological resilience could moderate the relationships between symptoms and mental HRQoL (p = 0.02, ΔR² = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

For hypertension patients, HRQoL is dependent on the severity of symptoms, engagement of self-management behaviors, and psychological resilience, which should be carefully considered when to improve patients' HRQoL by health care providers.

Arterial Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Essential arterial hypertension is one of the main treatable cardiovascular risk factors. In Germany, approximately 13% of women and 18% of men have uncontrolled high blood pressure (≥ 140/90 mmHg).

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search in PubMed.

RESULTS

Arterial hypertension is diagnosed when repeated measurements in a doctor's office yield values of 140/90 mmHg or higher. The diagnosis should be confirmed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or by home measurement. Further risk factors and end-organ damage should be considered as well. According to the current European guidelines, the target blood pressure for all patients, including those with diabetes mellitus or renal failure, is <140/90 mmHg. If the treatment is well tolerated, further lowering of blood pressure, with a defined lower limit, is recommended for most patients. The main non-pharmacological measures against high blood pressure are reduction of salt in the diet, avoidance of excessive alcohol consumption, smoking cessation, a balanced diet, physical exercise, and weight loss. The first-line drugs for arterial hypertension include long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and thiazide-like diuretics. Mineralocorticoid-receptor blockers are effective in patients whose blood pressure cannot be brought into acceptable range with first-line drugs.

CONCLUSION

In most patients with essential hypertension, the blood pressure can be well controlled and the cardiovascular risk reduced through a combination of lifestyle interventions and first-line antihypertensive drugs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

[Blood pressure targets : The lower the better does not suit all]

BACKGROUND

The systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT) published in 2015 has opened up new discussions on whether a lower blood pressure target as recommended by the current guidelines would be better for some patient groups.

OBJECTIVES

To review patient groups in which lower blood pressure targets would not be better.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The results of SPRINT, its post-hoc and subgroup analyses, other studies and newer studies, as well as metaanalyses on the topic of blood pressure targets are reviewed and discussed. Studies with patients excluded from the SPRINT study were also analysed. The current international guidelines and recommendations of the Deutsche Hochdruckliga e. V. DHL® are included.

RESULTS

Blood pressure monitoring methods differed considerably in the previously published studies. The low blood pressure value in SPRINT was mainly achieved due to the unusual method of blood pressure monitoring used and, as such, cannot be compared with blood pressure values in other studies. Based on current evidence, "the lower the better" should not be recommended in the following patient groups: older patients, in particular infirm older patients, patients with diabetes, patients without coronary heart disease or with low cardiovascular risk.

CONCLUSIONS

When determining a blood pressure target, the method of blood pressure monitoring should be defined. A lower blood pressure target has been shown to be better in some well defined patient groups. However, adverse events due to antihypertensive medications should always be taken into account. Given the multiple exclusion criteria in trials and the results of many studies, "new" lower blood pressure targets could not be recommended in a large population of patients.