Efficacy of antihypertensive drug treatment according to age, sex, blood pressure, and previous cardiovascular disease in patients over the age of 60

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension-induced left ventricular hypertrophy

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is the leading preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death worldwide. One of the clinical effects of hypertension is left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a process of cardiac remodelling. It is estimated that over 30% of people with hypertension also suffer from LVH, although the prevalence rates vary according to the LVH diagnostic criteria. Severity of LVH is associated with a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of death. The role of antihypertensives in the regression of left ventricular mass has been extensively studied. However, uncertainty exists regarding the role of antihypertensive therapy compared to placebo in the morbidity and mortality of individuals with hypertension-induced LVH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy compared to placebo or no treatment on morbidity and mortality of adults with hypertension-induced LVH.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the following databases for studies: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 26 September 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2020, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 22 September 2020), and Ovid Embase (1974 to 22 September 2020). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also searched Epistemonikos (to 19 February 2021), LILACS BIREME (to 19 February 2021), and Clarivate Web of Science (to 26 February 2021), and contacted authors and funders of the identified trials to obtain additional information and individual participant data. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 12 months' follow-up comparing antihypertensive pharmacological therapy (monotherapy or in combination) with placebo or no treatment in adults (18 years of age or older) with hypertension-induced LVH were eligible for inclusion. The trials must have analysed at least one primary outcome (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or total serious adverse events) to be considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the search results, with any disagreements resolved by consensus amongst all review authors. Two review authors carried out the data extraction and analyses. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies following Cochrane methodology. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three multicentre RCTs. We selected 930 participants from the included studies for the analyses, with a mean follow-up of 3.8 years (range 3.5 to 4.3 years). All of the included trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis. We obtained evidence for the review by identifying the population of interest from the trials' total samples. None of the trials provided information on the cause of LVH. The intervention varied amongst the included trials: hydrochlorothiazide plus triamterene with the possibility of adding alpha methyldopa, spironolactone, or olmesartan. Placebo was administered to participants in the control arm in two trials, whereas participants in the control arm of the remaining trial did not receive any add-on treatment. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of additional antihypertensive pharmacological therapy compared to placebo or no treatment on mortality (14.3% intervention versus 13.6% control; risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.40; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); cardiovascular events (12.6% intervention versus 11.5% control; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.55; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and hospitalisation for heart failure (10.7% intervention versus 12.5% control; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 studies; 915 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although both arms yielded similar results for total serious adverse events (48.9% intervention versus 48.1% control; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.16; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total adverse events (68.3% intervention versus 67.2% control; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.34; 2 studies; 915 participants), the incidence of withdrawal due to adverse events may be significantly higher with antihypertensive drug therapy (15.2% intervention versus 4.9% control; RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.66; 1 study; 522 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analyses limited to blinded trials, trials with low risk of bias in core domains, and trials with no funding from the pharmaceutical industry did not change the results of the main analyses. Limited evidence on the change in left ventricular mass index prevented us from drawing any firm conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effects of adding additional antihypertensive drug therapy on the morbidity and mortality of participants with LVH and hypertension compared to placebo. Although the incidence of serious adverse events was similar between study arms, additional antihypertensive therapy may be associated with more withdrawals due to adverse events. Limited and low-certainty evidence requires that caution be used when interpreting the findings. High-quality clinical trials addressing the effect of antihypertensives on clinically relevant variables and carried out specifically in individuals with hypertension-induced LVH are warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antihypertensive Therapy in Patients Older Than 80 Years: Cohort Study and Markov Model

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure and antihypertensive treatment (AHT) generally increase with age, but there is uncertainty concerning the value of treatment at very advanced ages.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of AHT in people aged 80 years and older.

METHODS

A Markov model compared AHT with no blood pressure treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Outcomes were new stroke, coronary heart disease, and diabetes, with falls included as a potential complication of AHT. Costs were evaluated from a health system perspective. Incidence, mortality, and costs of healthcare utilization were estimated from linked primary and secondary care electronic health records for 98 220 individuals aged 80 years and older. Clinical effectiveness estimates were from the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the base case, AHT was associated with an additional 725 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and £4.3 million per 1000, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5977 per QALY. The ICER was most sensitive to the cost of falls and relative risk reduction in stroke incidence. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis gave 95% uncertainty intervals: £5057 to £8398 per QALY in men and £4955 to £8218 per QALY in women. AHT for secondary prevention in participants with coronary heart disease gave an ICER of £9903 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

AHT is estimated to be cost-effective in individuals aged 80 years and older, even if health benefits are smaller or side effects costlier than in the base case. Benefits and harms for vulnerable subgroups require further evaluation.

Going Beyond the Guidelines in Individualising the Use of Antihypertensive Drugs in Older Patients

Hypertension is commonly diagnosed in older patients, with increasing cardiovascular (CV) risk as systolic blood pressure (BP) increases. Maximising CV risk reduction must be reconciled with minimising the risk of treatment-related harms and burden, especially among frail, multi-morbid and older old patients who have been excluded from most randomised trials. Contemporary clinical guidelines, based on such trials, differ in their recommendations as to threshold levels warranting treatment with antihypertensive drugs (AHDs) and target levels that should be achieved. In optimising AHD prescribing in older patients, we propose the following decision framework: decide therapeutic goals in accordance with patient characteristics and preferences; estimate absolute CV risk; measure and profile BP accurately in ways that account for lability in BP levels and minimise error in BP measurement; determine threshold and target BP levels likely to confer net benefit, taking into account age, co-morbidities, frailty and cognitive function; and consider situations that warrant AHD deprescribing on the basis of potential current or future harm. In applying this framework to older persons, and based on a review of relevant randomised trials and observational studies, individuals most likely to benefit from treating systolic BP to no less than 130 mmHg are those of any age who are fit and have high baseline systolic BP (≥ 160 mmHg); high CV risk, i.e. established CV disease or risk of CV events exceeding 20% at 10 years; previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack; heart failure; and stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease with proteinuria. Individuals most likely to be harmed from treating BP to target systolic < 140 mmHg are those who have no CV disease and aged over 80 years; moderate to severe frailty, cognitive impairment or functional limitations; labile BP and/or history of orthostatic hypotension, syncope and falls; or life expectancy < 12 months. Treatment should never be so intense as to reduce diastolic BP to < 60 mmHg in any older person. At a time when guidelines are calling for less conservative management of hypertension in all age groups, we contend that a more temperate approach, such as that offered here and based on the totality of available evidence, may assist in maximising net benefit in older patients.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults 60 years or older

BACKGROUND

This is the second substantive update of this review. It was originally published in 1998 and was previously updated in 2009. Elevated blood pressure (known as 'hypertension') increases with age - most rapidly over age 60. Systolic hypertension is more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease than is diastolic hypertension, and it occurs more commonly in older people. It is important to know the benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment for hypertension in this age group, as well as separately for people 60 to 79 years old and people 80 years or older.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertensionSecondary objectives• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular-specific morbidity and mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension• To quantify the rate of withdrawal due to adverse effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 24 November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid (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

Randomised controlled trials of at least one year's duration comparing antihypertensive drug therapy versus placebo or no treatment and providing morbidity and mortality data for adult patients (≥ 60 years old) with hypertension defined as blood pressure greater than 140/90 mmHg.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality; cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality; coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality; and withdrawal due to adverse effects. We modified the definition of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity to exclude transient ischaemic attacks when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes one additional trial (MRC-TMH 1985). Sixteen trials (N = 26,795) in healthy ambulatory adults 60 years or older (mean age 73.4 years) from western industrialised countries with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension (average 182/95 mmHg) met the inclusion criteria. Most of these trials evaluated first-line thiazide diuretic therapy for a mean treatment duration of 3.8 years.Antihypertensive drug treatment reduced all-cause mortality (high-certainty evidence; 11% with control vs 10.0% with treatment; risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.97; cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (moderate-certainty evidence; 13.6% with control vs 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.77; cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (moderate-certainty evidence; 5.2% with control vs 3.4% with treatment; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74; and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity (moderate-certainty evidence; 4.8% with control vs 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.88. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with treatment (low-certainty evidence; 5.4% with control vs 15.7% with treatment; RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.56 to 3.30. In the three trials restricted to persons with isolated systolic hypertension, reported benefits were similar.This comprehensive systematic review provides additional evidence that the reduction in mortality observed was due mostly to reduction in the 60- to 79-year-old patient subgroup (high-certainty evidence; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95). Although cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was significantly reduced in both subgroups 60 to 79 years old (moderate-certainty evidence; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.77) and 80 years or older (moderate-certainty evidence; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87), the magnitude of absolute risk reduction was probably higher among 60- to 79-year-old patients (3.8% vs 2.9%). The reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was primarily due to a reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treating healthy adults 60 years or older with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension with antihypertensive drug therapy reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity, and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity. Most evidence of benefit pertains to a primary prevention population using a thiazide as first-line treatment.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

Effects of Age and Functional Status on the Relationship of Systolic Blood Pressure With Mortality in Mid and Late Life: The ARIC Study

BACKGROUND

Impaired functional status attenuates the relationship of systolic blood pressure (SBP) with mortality in older adults but has not been studied in middle-aged populations.

METHOD

Among 10,264 stroke-free Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities participants (mean age 62.8 [5.7] years; 6,349 [62%] younger [<65 years]; 5,148 [50%] men; 2,664 [26%] Black), function was defined as good function (GF) for those self-reporting no difficulty performing functional tasks and basic or instrumental tasks of daily living; all others were defined as impaired function (IF). SBP categories were normal (<120 mmHg), prehypertension (120-139 mmHg), and hypertension (≥140 mmHg). Mortality risk associated with SBP was estimated using adjusted Cox proportional hazard models with a triple interaction between age, functional status, and SBP.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 12.9 years with 2,863 (28%) deaths. Among younger participants, 3,017 (48%) had IF; 2,279 of 3,915 (58%) older participants had IF. Prehypertension (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.48 [1.03, 2.15] p = .04) and hypertension (HR = 1.97 [1.29, 3.03] p = .002) were associated with mortality in younger GF and older (≥65 years) GF participants (prehypertension HR = 1.21 [1.06, 1.37] p = .005; hypertension HR = 1.47 [1.36, 1.59] p < .001). Among IF participants, prehypertension was not associated with mortality in younger participants (HR = 0.99 [0.85, 1.15] p = .93) and was protective in older participants (HR = 0.87 [0.85, 0.90] p < .001). Hypertension was associated with mortality in younger IF participants (HR = 1.54 [1.30, 1.82] p < .001) but not in older IF participants (HR = 0.99 [0.87, 1.14] p = .93).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with younger and well-functioning persons, the additional contribution of blood pressure to mortality is much lower with older age and impaired function, particularly if both are present. Functional status and age could potentially inform optimal blood pressure targets.

Hypertension in the elderly: what is the goal blood pressure target and how can this be attained?

For the aging populations of Europe, many emerging health problems in addition to myocardial infarction and stroke are associated with hypertension. Recently, the role of hypertension in the risk of vascular cognitive impairment and dementia has been highlighted, and there are studies to show that control of hypertension may slow this process. Furthermore, as many elderly individuals will also develop type 2 diabetes or impaired renal function, the risk of hypertension in these patients is more pronounced. New guidelines have tried to provide evidence-based treatment algorithms in which control of hypertension is just one aspect of general risk factor control, with the aim of decreasing the total risk.

Optimal treatment of hypertension in the elderly: a Korean perspective

With the progression of the aging population, common diseases of the elderly have become the center of attention in most developed countries. Hypertension is one of the most common morbid conditions in the elderly and has a great impact on their health status because it is the main risk factor of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. However, a considerable amount of uncertainty remains regarding hypertension in the elderly, such as the benefits of hypertension control in oldest-old populations, the optimal level of blood pressure control, and the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs for the prevention of cognitive dysfunction. While there are many controversial issues concerning the optimal management of hypertension in the elderly, the number of elderly hypertensive patients that require treatment is expected to increase due to the aging population. As a result, knowledge regarding the mechanisms of hypertension in the elderly and specific consideration in managing hypertensive elderly patients are needed to improve the clinical outcome. Furthermore, new therapeutic interventions that are aimed at attenuating age-related vascular changes should be investigated, because hypertension in the elderly, especially isolated systolic hypertension has specific characteristics of increased arterial stiffness in most cases.

Reduction of cardiovascular risk and mortality: a population-based approach

The purpose of this study was to evaluate risk pattern and mortality in a general population epidemiologic study performed by a staff of hypertension specialists working as the "good father of a family," with lifestyle and therapeutic advice and instrumental measurements. Mortality among the study population (n=856) during the 4-y study was compared with that recorded in the general population during the 4-y period before the study; those who refused to participate in the study were also recorded (n=280). Among study subjects, blood pressure decreased by 3.6/3.5 mm Hg (P<.01/P<.0001), serum total cholesterol by 3.8% (P<.0001), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 10.9% (P<.01); awareness of hypertension increased by 87% (P<.0001); 20% of hypercholesterolemic patients (P<.01) and 28% of diabetic patients (P<.001) were identified; and 40% of hypertensive patients (P<.0001) were treated. Overall 4-y mortality was 12.5% in study subjects, 36.6% in renitent subjects (P<.0001 vs enrolled), and 19.9% during the period preceding the study (P<.0001 vs enrolled); cardiovascular mortality rates were 5.8%, 18.6% (P<.0001), and 11.4% (P<.0001), respectively. In particular, the frequency of fatal stroke was 0.06%, 3.8% (P<.0001), and 2.5% (P<.0001), respectively, and that of fatal coronary events was 3.4%, 7.5% (P<.0001), and 4.6% (P<.0001), respectively. In conclusion, when an epidemiologic professional staff member approaches patients in a manner similar to that of the "good father of a family," a better risk pattern and lower mortality rates (particularly cerebrovascular and coronary) are seen in those who are receptive to the care provided; those who decide not to participate in health care opportunities do not benefit.

Association Between Blood Pressure and Survival over 9 Years in a General Population Aged 85 and Older

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between blood pressure and mortality in people aged 85 and older.

DESIGN

Population-based prospective study with 9-year follow-up.

SETTING

Department of Neuroscience and Neurology and Department of Public Health and General Practice, University of Kuopio, and Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Helsinki University Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Of all 601 people living in the city of Vantaa born before April 1, 1906, whether living at home or in institutions and alive on April 1, 1991, 521 were clinically examined and underwent blood pressure measurement.

MEASUREMENTS

Blood pressure was measured using a standardized method in the right arm of the subject after resting for at least 5 minutes. Information on medical history for each participant was verified from a computerized database containing all primary care health records. Death certificates were obtained from the National Register; the collection of death certificates was complete.

RESULTS

After adjusting for age, sex, functional status, and coexisting diseases (earlier-diagnosed myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, dementia, cancer, stroke, or hypertension), low systolic blood pressure (BP) was associated with risk of death.

CONCLUSION

Low systolic BP may be partially related to poor general health and poor vitality, but the very old may represent a select group of individuals, and the use of BP-lowering medications needs to be evaluated in this group.

Treatment of systolic hypertension: spotlight on recent studies with angiotensin II antagonists

Systolic blood pressure has a continuous, graded, strong, independent, and aetiologically significant relationship to mortality from coronary heart disease, stroke, and all cardiovascular diseases, as well as to all-cause mortality and life expectancy. Angiotensin II (AII) may be intimately involved in the pathogenesis of systolic hypertension through multiple mechanisms, including decreasing the elastin content and increasing the collagen content of the arterial wall, thickening and fibrotic remodelling of the vascular intima, and proliferating smooth muscle cells in the arterial wall, resulting in increased thickness, stiffening, and partial loss of contractility. AII antagonists may therefore offer hitherto unrecognized benefits (independent of blood pressure) on age-related vascular damage and provide particular benefits in patients with systolic hypertension. Recent evidence has demonstrated that losartan offers cardiovascular outcomes benefits in isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) associated with an excellent tolerability profile. This, in patients with ISH, AII antagonists more facilitate systolic BP control, providing cardiovascular protection and offering an excellent risk-benefit profile.

Ethnic Differences in Antihypertensive Medication Use in the Elderly

BACKGROUND

Determining the optimal treatment for hypertension in very old patients requires better understanding of interethnic differences in patterns and predictors of antihypertensive drug use in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate interethnic variations in antihypertensive drug use in a triethnic sample of community-dwelling adults aged ≥77 years.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of non-Hispanic white, black, and Hispanic adults ≥77 years old residing in Galveston County, TX. In-home interviews in 1997 and 1998 assessed blood pressures and antihypertensive medication use in 281 subjects who reported having hypertension or who had a systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg.

RESULTS

Of the population evaluated, 62.9% of non-Hispanic whites, 60.2% of blacks, and 45.2% of Hispanics with hypertension were on antihypertensive medications (p < 0.027 across the ethnic groups). After adjusting for age, gender, years of education, household income, Medicaid insurance, number of physician visits, and cognitive function, Hispanic ethnicity, unlike black ethnicity, continued to be significantly associated with lower use of antihypertensive drugs compared with non-Hispanic whites (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.90). Characteristics associated with the lower use of antihypertensive drugs included older age and low income in whites, poor cognition and infrequent physician visits in blacks, and lack of Medicaid insurance in Hispanics.

CONCLUSIONS

In the elderly, Hispanic ethnicity, unlike black ethnicity, is significantly associated with lower use of antihypertensive drug therapy compared with non-Hispanic white ethnicity, adjusting for relevant sociodemographic and health factors.

The clinical pharmacology of ageing

The ageing of populations and individuals continues to be as vital, yet to some extent as neglected, a topic in pharmacology and therapeutics as was first realised about 30 years ago. In parallel with the realisation of the predicted demographic shifts in both the developed and developing world, there have since been major developments in the basic biological concepts of ageing, in the physiology of ageing, in the study of pathogenetic mechanisms underlying a variety of age-associated disorders and syndromes, and in the evidence base for therapeutic intervention in elderly patient populations. These all present new challenges both in the practical delivery of effective medical care and in clinical and biological research. The scale of prescribing for an ageing population has continued to rise as anticipated. Whether there has now been any improvement in the quality or rationality of prescribing, or in the previously demonstrated unacceptable level of susceptibility to adverse drug reactions in the (now expanded) older patient population is largely unknown. We urgently need to find out using up-to-date research methods. National and international guidelines for drug development and regulation have more recently been followed by broader policy initiatives on prescribing for older people, but the impact of these on standards of medication use and on clinical outcome remains to be seen. A new series in this journal on the clinical pharmacology of ageing is timely. The required focus and framework for research have often tended in the past to emerge as afterthoughts behind the merely disease specific, and it is to be hoped that a sequential review of some of the key topics may help to re-ignite a more sound and less short-sighted agenda than previously.

Embracing complexity: A consideration of hypertension in the very old

The consequences of hypertension and its treatment differ in very old men and women compared to younger populations. In populations aged 85 years and older, higher levels of systolic and diastolic blood pressures are associated with increased survival, and this relationship is not eliminated by controlling for comorbidity, blood pressure treatment, and other relevant factors. In addition, in 3 of the 4 published randomized controlled trials of treatment of hypertension that included subjects aged 80 years or older, the investigators reported loss of efficacy of treatment in preventing the primary end points in subjects aged 80 and older. In a meta-analysis of those trials, total mortality was actually 14% higher (p =.05) in the treatment group for subjects aged 80 years and older. These data suggest 2 conclusions. First, we should reexamine that dictum that nontreatment of hypertension in those aged 80 years and older is de facto evidence of "ageism." Second, we are unlikely to come to any set of coherent "rules" regarding treatment of hypertension (and several other conditions) in the very old until we routinely stratify all older subjects enrolled in interventional or observational trials by indicators of physiologic vigor.

Guidelines on how to assess the validity of results presented in subgroup analysis of clinical trials

In observational studies, identification of associations within particular subgroups is the usual method of investigation. As an exploratory method, it is the bread and butter of epidemiological research. Nearly everything that has been learned in epidemiology has been derived from the analysis of subgroups. In a randomized clinical trial, the entire purpose is the comparison of the test subjects and the controls, and when there is particular interest in the results of treatment in a certain section of trial participants, a subgroup analysis is performed. These subgroups are examined to see if they are liable to a greater benefit or risk from treatment. Thus, analyzing patient subsets is a natural part of the process of improving therapeutic knowledge through clinical trials. Nevertheless, the reliability of subgroup analysis can often be poor because of problems of multiplicity and limitations in the numbers of patients studied. The naive interpretation of the results of such examinations is a cause of great confusion in the therapeutic literature. We emphasize the need for readers to be aware that inferences based on comparisons between subgroups in randomized clinical trials should be approached more cautiously than those based on the main comparison. That is, subgroup analysis results derived from a sound clinical trial are not necessarily valid; one must not jump to conclusions and accept the validity of subgroup analysis results without an appropriate judgment.

Epidemiology of hypertension in the elderly

In Western populations, mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures rise with advancing age up to the sixth decade of life, whereupon systolic blood pressure continues to increase and diastolic pressure starts to decline. The ensuing widening of pulse pressure is mainly ascribed to stiffening of the arterial vasculature. When hypertension is defined as systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic pressure of at least 90 mm Hg, its prevalence amounts to 60%-70% of the population above 60 years of age. About 60% of these hypertensives have isolated systolic hypertension--that is, elevated systolic pressure and normal diastolic pressure. It should be realized, however, that approximately 25% of those labeled hypertensive on the basis of conventional blood pressure measurements have normal blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, or so-called white-coat, isolated clinic, or nonsustained hypertension. There is little doubt that elevated blood pressure leads to a number of cardiovascular complications. Whereas diastolic blood pressure has been emphasized for many years, the paradigm has shifted toward systolic blood pressure. In addition, pulse pressure has been shown to be an important predictor of cardiovascular events and death, above and beyond the predictive power of mean blood pressure.

The Relationship Between Blood Pressure and Mortality in the Oldest Old

OBJECTIVES

To explore the relationship between systolic and diastolic blood pressure and risk of 6-year, all-cause mortality in men and women age 65 to 84 versus those 85 and older.

DESIGN

A population-based longitudinal study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at four different sites: East Boston, Massachusetts; New Haven, Connecticut; two rural counties in Iowa; and Piedmont, North Carolina.

PARTICIPANTS

12,802 community-dwelling persons age 65 and older.

MEASUREMENTS

Baseline measurements collected include demographics, self-reported chronic medical conditions, blood pressure measurements, medications, health habits, and hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Unadjusted actuarial survival analyses show that men age 65 to 84 years with systolic blood pressure < 130 mmHg have significantly lower mortality compared with those with systolic blood pressure > or = 180 mmHg (P < .0001). In contrast, men 85 and older with systolic blood pressure > or = 180 mmHg have significantly lower mortality compared with those with systolic blood pressure < 130 mmHg (P < .0001). In Cox proportional hazards analyses controlling for other predictors of survival, the hazard of death associated with each 10-mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure is positively associated among men age 65 to 84 years and negatively associated among men age 85 and older (Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04 (1.01, 1.07) for younger men vs 0.92 (0.86, 0.99) for older men). Among women age 65 to 84, the hazard of death significantly increased with increase in systolic blood pressure (P < .0001), while there was no relationship between level of systolic blood pressure and survival in women 85 and older. Both men 65 to 84 years old and those 85 and older showed a negative relationship between diastolic blood pressure and all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio 0.93, 95% CI (0.88-0.97) for men age 65-84 years, and Hazard ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.02 for men 85 and older).

CONCLUSION

In men age 85 and older, higher systolic blood pressure is associated with better survival.

The potential advantages of a modern antihypertensive therapy in the elderly

More than 50% of hypertensive patients are aged above 65 years. Physiopathology of essential hypertension is different in the elderly as compared with the young adult. Furthermore, not only are concomitant diseases statistically more frequent in the elderly, but the aging process in itself produces several specific changes in target organs. Several trials have shown that treatment of hypertension in the elderly, including the 'old elderly', is highly beneficial in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality. The therapy used in all these major intervention trials consisted of diuretics and/or beta-blockers. Recently, the Systolic Hypertension in Europe study and the HOT study extended the list of antihypertensive agents with proven beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes to dihydropyridine calcium antagonists. Dihydropyridine calcium antagonists, such as lacidipine, have been advocated as first-choice agents for the treatment of hypertension in the elderly on grounds that: a) they may be more active in lowering blood pressure because of the predominantly low renin status in the elderly hypertensives; b) they may be better tolerated because the side effects related to the activation of the sympathetic system may be less frequent as a consequence of the attenuation of baroreflexes during aging; and c) they may have beneficial effects on a variety of concomitant cardiovascular diseases which are frequently present in the elderly. These assumptions are, however, not always proven in the clinical practice. Only well-designed prospective comparative trials may solve this issue. STOP-2, NICS-EH, HYVET, SCOPE and SHELL are acronyms of ongoing clinical trials specifically designed in the elderly hypertensive. The SHELL study assesses the benefits of lacidipine compared with chlortalidone on the prevention of cardiovascular events. The effects of lacidipine (vs atenolol) on the development and progression of carotid atherosclerosis are also being currently investigated in the ELSA study.

Hypertension in older adults

The high prevalence of hypertension in older persons (nearly one of two subjects aged 60 years and older) suggests that the recognition and treatment should be a priority for physicians. Although diastolic blood pressure is regarded as an important risk factor, it is now clear that isolated systolic hypertension and elevated pulse pressure also play an important role in the development of cerebrovascular disease, congestive heart failure, and coronary heart disease, which are the major causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the population aged older than 65 years. Controlled, randomized trials have shown that treatment of systolic as well as systolodiastolic hypertension decreases the incidence of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications in older adults. The question of whether treatment of hypertension should be maintained in very old persons, those older than 80 years, is still undecided.

Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in monotherapy in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension

To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine, used as monotherapy once a day, in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), 83 patients were enrolled in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. All patients were older than 60 years, and their mean age was 66.7 +/- 5.4 years. ISH was defined as SBP > or = 160 mmHg, and DBP < 95 mmHg. After wash-out and placebo run-in periods, patients were randomly assigned to placebo or lercanidipine (10 mg once a day) treatment for 4 weeks. Non-responding patients of the lercanidipine-treated group were later treated with 20 mg of lercanidipine once a day for 4 additional weeks. At the end of the study, the reduction in systolic blood pressure was significantly larger in the lercanidipine-treated patients (-32.4 mmHg) compared to the fall observed in the placebo group (-9.6 mmHg). Diastolic blood pressure decreased slightly but significantly in the lercanidipine-treated patients only. At the end of lercanidipine treatment, 23 of 37 patients (62%) were normalized. Changes in heart rate, occurrence of orthostatic hypotension, and clinically relevant changes in electrocardiographic and laboratory findings were not observed in either group. Lercanidipine treatment was suspended in one patient because of epigastric pain. These data indicate that lercanidipine, used as monotherapy once a day, is effective in lowering elevated systolic blood pressure in elderly patients, and is well tolerated.

Elevated systolic blood pressure as a cardiovascular risk factor

This paper reviews the evolution of attitudes toward the treatment and diagnosis of hypertension. In particular, there is a growing realization that elevated systolic pressure may be a more valuable measurement in evaluating and controlling hypertension than is generally acknowledged. A large number of epidemiologic studies in a wide variety of populations have revealed that systolic blood pressure exerts a stronger influence than diastolic blood pressure. The largest of these, the Framingham Heart Study, showed that in subjects with systolic hypertension, diastolic blood pressure was only weakly related to the risk of cardiovascular events, but in those with diastolic hypertension, the risk of these events was strongly influenced by the level of systolic pressure. Furthermore, cardiovascular event rates were found to increase steeply with systolic pressure and were higher in cases of isolated systolic hypertension than diastolic hypertension. Clinical trials produced similar results, again suggesting that a greater reliance should be placed on systolic pressure in evaluating the risk of cardiovascular problems. This review concludes that the health community needs to be reeducated to consider the importance of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in assessing appropriate management strategies for hypertensive patients.

Prevention of coronary heart disease. Part II. Secondary prevention, detection of subclinical disease, and emerging risk factors

The prevention of CHD should be a major priority among primary care physicians and subspecialists who have any dealing with the cardiovascular system. There is ample evidence from epidemiologic studies for the impact of specific risk factors on CHD events. There is also ample evidence from observational studies and clinical trials that interventions of lifestyle and pharmacologic therapy can decrease morbidity and mortality from CHD before or after the first event. It behooves the physician who wishes to practice good medicine to understand the pathophysiologic roles of the risk factors and the evidence from epidemiologic studies and clinical trials for their association with cardiovascular disease. It is important to determine the efficacy of interventions, both lifestyle and pharmacologic, in modifying CHD risk. To be effective in doing so, the practicing physician has to have the motivation to determine target goals for risk factor modification in each patient, to understand the patient's own motivations in modifying risk factors, and to define clearly with the patient the expectations of such interventions. Although there are guidelines for risk factor modification in modification of cholesterol and in hypertension, the periodic renewal of these guidelines reflects the changing concepts of risk and its modification. A cardiovascular risk factor intervention categorization is presented in Table 12. The physician must be convinced that such intervention is beneficial to the patient, cost-effective, and thus fulfills the expectations of medical practice. The practice of medicine in the evaluation and treatment of coronary heart disease has always been challenging and stimulating. The prevention of CAD disease should ultimately provide the greatest accomplishment.

Hypertension in very old subjects

The role of hypertension as a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular morbidity and the benefits of antihypertensive treatment are well established in older patients up to 80 years. For people aged 85 and over, who are the most rapidly growing segment of population in developed countries, data are scarce and conflicting. A positive association between blood pressure and survival has been found in several cohort studies, and this relation held true after adjustment for many factors. In randomized trials, the benefits of antihypertensive treatment declined with age and were not observable after 80 years, with the exception of the SHEP study. People who reach a very old age share some characteristics which make them different from the bulk of "60 (or 65) and over" and justify special studies which are currently in progress. In the meantime, any treatment decision can only rely on extrapolations moderated by common sense.

Blood pressure and mortality in elderly people aged 85 and older: community based study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the inverse relation between blood pressure and all cause mortality in elderly people over 85 years of age can be explained by adjusting for health status, and to determine whether high blood pressure is a risk factor for mortality when the effects of poor health are accounted for.

DESIGN

5 to 7 year follow up of community residents aged 85 years and older.

SETTING

Leiden, the Netherlands.

SUBJECTS

835 subjects whose blood pressure was recorded between 1987 and 1989.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

All cause mortality.

RESULTS

An inverse relation between blood pressure and all cause mortality was observed. For diastolic blood pressure crude 5 year all cause mortality decreased from 88% (52/59) (95% confidence interval 79% to 95%) in those with diastolic blood pressures <65 mm Hg to 59% (27/46) (44% to 72%) in those with diastolic pressures >100 mm Hg. For systolic blood pressure crude 5 year all cause mortality decreased from 85% (95/112) (78% to 91%) in those with systolic pressures <125 mm Hg to 59% (13/22) (38% to 78%) in those with systolic pressures >200 mm Hg. This decrease was no longer significant after adjustment for indicators of poor health. No relation existed between blood pressure and mortality from cardiovascular causes or stroke after adjustment for age and sex, but after adjustment for age, sex, and indicators of poor health there was a positive relation between diastolic blood pressure and mortality from both cardiovascular causes and stroke.

CONCLUSION

The inverse relation between blood pressure and all cause mortality in elderly people over 85 is associated with health status.

Undertreatment of hypertension in older Mexican Americans

OBJECTIVE

To identify the prevalence of hypertension and factors associated with nontreatment and poor control of hypertension in Mexican Americans aged 65 years and older.

DESIGN

A population-based survey of older Mexican Americans conducted in 1993-1994.

SETTING

Subjects residing in five Southwestern states: Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and California.

PARTICIPANTS

An area probability sample of 3050 noninstitutionalized Mexican American men and women aged 65 and older took part in a 90-minute in-home interview, which included review of all medications taken and two sitting blood pressure measurements.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Measured were previous diagnoses of hypertension, current medication for hypertension, and current blood pressure

RESULTS

Sixty-one percent of older Mexican-Americans were hypertensive, and 51% of those with hypertension were taking antihypertensive medications. Only 25% of hypertensive subjects (18% of males and 30% of females) were in good blood pressure control (i.e., systolic blood pressure < 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg). In multivariate analyses, factors associated with increased likelihood of treatment included female gender (OR = 1.9), history of heart disease (OR = 2.4), possessing a regular source of health care (OR = 2.7), and having seen a physician two or more times in the previous year (OR = 3.8). These were also independent predictors of good blood pressure control.

CONCLUSION

Nontreatment of hypertension is still a major public health concern in older Mexican Americans. We estimate that adequate blood pressure control in this population would prevent approximately 30,000 adverse cardiovascular events over 10 years, affecting approximately 6% of the entire Mexican American older population.

Preventive medicine and screening in older adults

PURPOSE

To review important current issues, studies, recommendations and controversies relating to preventive medicine and screening in older people. STUDY SELECTION/DATA ABSTRACTION: MEDLINE searches for literature on prevention and screening with regard to older adults as well as each individual condition reviewed; bibliographical reviews of textbooks, journal articles, government and advocacy organization task force reports, and recommendations. Important information synthesized and discussed qualitatively.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data and recommendations are presented for most common preventive services, including primary prevention and screening for cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, common malignancies, endocrine and infectious diseases, osteoporosis, sensory deficits, and dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of preventive medicine in older people should be not only reduction of premature morbidity and mortality but preservation of function and quality of life. Attempts to prevent diseases of old age should start in youth; the older the patient, the less likely the possibility or value of primary and secondary prevention, and the greater the stress must be on tertiary prevention. Age 85 is proposed as a general cutoff range beyond which conventional screening tests are unlikely to be of continued benefit; however, care must always be individualized. Emphasis should be on offering the best proven and most effective interventions to the individuals at highest risk of important problems such as cardiovascular diseases, malignancies, infectious and endocrine diseases, and other important threats to function in older people. Breast cancer screening, smoking cessation, hypertension treatment, and vaccination for infectious diseases are thus far among the most firmly proven and well accepted specific preventive measures, with physical exercise also being particularly promising. Although more research is needed, a current working approach is necessary and possible. A summary table of recommendations and information tools such as reminders or flowsheets may be valuable in helping the physician carry out prevention and screening programs.

Primary aldosteronism. Results of surgical treatment

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Management of primary hyperaldosteronism has undergone dramatic changes in the past 40 years. This retrospective study was carried out to review our recent surgical experience and to identify potential factors associated with postoperative persistent hypertension.

METHODS

Forty-six patients who had adrenal surgery for primary hyperaldosteronism from 1983 to 1994 were included in the study.

RESULTS

Periodic paralysis occurred in 12 (26%) patients. Hypertension and hypokalemia (mean serum potassium, 2.2 + 0.5 [+ standard deviation (SD) mmol/L) were present in all patients. Postural study was diagnostic in 85% (23 of 27). Computed tomography scan correctly localized the tumor in all except 1 patient, and venous sampling was performed in 11 patients. There was no operative mortality, and complications developed in six patients (13%), including one patient requiring re-exploration for hemostasis. All patients had a histologically documented adenoma. During a mean follow-up of 51 months, 34 (77%) of the 44 patients required no further antihypertensive treatment. Two patients were lost to follow-up. Age, response to spironolactone treatment, and blood pressure on discharge were risk factors identified for persistent hypertension.

CONCLUSION

Primary hyperaldosteronism due to aldosterone-producing adenoma can be diagnosed and localized expeditiously, whereas surgical treatment can be performed safely. Hypokalemia may be cured by surgical treatment, although persistent hypertension, usually of a mild degree, still occurs in selected patients.

Coronary heart disease risk factors in older persons

In most Western nations, coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death and one of the most important causes of physical disability in persons over 65 years of age. The importance of traditional CHD risk factors has been well documented in middle-aged populations, whereas their role in older populations is still under debate. This paper reviews the epidemiologic evidence from observational studies and randomized clinical trials that established risk factors for CHD predict level of risk of CHD, and identify high risk individuals among older men and women. Hypertension and cigarette smoking have been clearly associated with an increased risk of CHD events, and their modification has been proven to be highly effective in the primary and secondary prevention of CHD in older persons. For other highly prevalent risk factors, such as lipid abnormalities, obesity and physical inactivity, evidence of an independent association with CHD risk has been demonstrated by the majority of observational studies. However, definitive proof from controlled clinical trials of the beneficial effects of their modification is still lacking in the older population. The role of estrogen replacement therapy in the primary and secondary prevention of CHD in old women is still an open question. In evaluating the impact of these risk factors in older persons, elements such as comorbidity, frailty, and age-related changes in risk profile should also be taken into consideration. Given the complexity of the relationship between risk factors and multiple disease statuses, other important outcomes, such as osteoporosis, cancer, falls and physical disability, should be considered when evaluating the risks and benefits of risk factor modifications in older persons.

Antihypertensive treatment in the elderly

Drug treatment with beta-blockers and diuretics in hypertensive men and women aged 70 and above confers highly significant and clinically relevant reductions in cardiovascular (especially stroke) morbidity and mortality. This satisfactory effect is not impaired by a low tolerability of the drugs used. Furthermore, treatment of elderly hypertensives with beta-receptor blockers and/or diuretics is cost-effective. In STOP-Hypertension the cost-effectiveness ratios were low and of the same magnitude for both men and women. The clinical implication of this is that blood pressure lowering therapy should be considered in elderly hypertensives, at least up until they are 80 years old. It should also be remembered that elderly patients often have other diseases than hypertension and that the drug treatment should be adjusted accordingly, e.g. by using a calcium antagonist or an ACE inhibitor, when indicated.

The epidemiology of hypertension control in populations

Despite an aging population, prevalence rates for hypertension in the U.S. remain stable due to a decrease in rates in women but a corresponding increase in rates for men. Epidemiological factors which may contribute to these rates are discussed. The lack of a threshold for the association between blood pressure and disease events means that the majority of events occur in the larger number of people with mild disease. Because the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of medical therapy to lower mildly elevated blood pressure remains controversial, population-based strategies to effect behavior change are the most prudent course for this, the largest group at risk. Targeted, resource-intensive medical intervention for those at high risk combined with hygienic measures for the population with mildly elevated blood pressure from the basis for an effective public health strategy.

Four week administration of an ACE inhibitor and a cardioselective beta-blocker in healthy volunteers: no influence on insulin sensitivity

In most, but not all, studies antihypertensive treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) improves insulin sensitivity, whereas beta-blockers decrease insulin sensitivity. However, there was a significant increase in body weight with beta-blockers and changes in the body potassium homeostasis with ACE inhibitors. In order to compare the drug specific metabolic effects of an ACE inhibitor and a cardioselective beta-blocker controlling these factors, we measured insulin sensitivity in a randomized, double-blind cross-over study in 22 healthy volunteers (age 27 +/- 3 years; BMI 22.0 +/- 1.5 kg m-2 (mean +/- SD)) during euglycaemic glucose clamps before and after 4 weeks' administration of 5 mg Lisinopril or 5 mg Bisoprolol. Both drug phases were separated by 4 weeks of no drug administration. During the insulin sensitivity measurements potassium concentrations were clamped at basal levels by means of a variable i.v. potassium infusion. Body weight was monitored at weekly intervals and kept constant within +/- 1 kg of the subjects' baseline weight throughout the entire study period. Insulin sensitivity did not change significantly during either drug administration period. The insulin sensitivity index of the 22 volunteers after administration of the ACE inhibitor was 7.9 +/- 2.4 mL min-1 m2 microU-1 mL-1 (basal index 8.3 +/- 1.9 mL min-1 m2 microU-1 mL-1, and 7.5 +/- 2.1 mL min-1 m2 microU-1 mL-1 after administration of the beta-blocker (basal index 8.2 +/- 1.9 mL min-1 m2 microU-1 mL-1; NS).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Hypertension and overweight associated with hyperinsulinaemia and glucose tolerance: a longitudinal study of the Finnish and Dutch cohorts of the Seven Countries Study

To elucidate the role of hypertension as part of the insulin resistance syndrome, the longitudinal relationships of hypertension and overweight with hyperinsulinaemia and glucose tolerance were examined in the Dutch and Finnish cohorts of the Seven Countries Study (Zutphen, and east and west Finland). Three cohorts of men, born between 1900 and 1919, were first examined in 1959/1960. At the 30-year follow-up survey a 2-h glucose tolerance test was carried out on 619 of the surviving men, and fasting insulin was also measured. Blood pressure and body mass index (BMI) were measured several times during the entire 30-year follow-up period. In cross-sectional analyses, men with diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance at the 30-year follow-up examination had a significantly higher systolic blood pressure and a higher prevalence of hypertension than men with normal glucose tolerance, independent of age, cohort and BMI (p < 0.01). These differences had already been seen 5, 20 and 30 years earlier. Subjects with hyperinsulinaemia (fasting insulin > or = 9.2 mU/l) had a higher BMI and a higher prevalence of hypertension. This cross-sectional association with hypertension was independent of age, cohort and BMI. BMI levels of men with hyperinsulinaemia had been shown to be higher 5, 20 and 30 years earlier, but blood pressure levels had not. These results indicate that hypertension is independently associated with glucose tolerance and insulin resistance in three Caucasian cohorts. Changes in blood pressure precede abnormal glucose tolerance but not hyperinsulinaemia; therefore, glucose tolerance appears to be a stronger correlate of hypertension than hyperinsulinaemia.

Measuring hypertensive cardiovascular risk: the vascular overload concept

Hypertensive cardiovascular risk may be related primarily to vascular overload, the sum of three vascular abnormalities: increased arteriolar resistance, increased large-artery stiffness, and the effect of increased early pulse-wave reflection. A method for quantifying vascular overload as an index can be derived from measurements of mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure. Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that abnormal artery stiffness and early pulse-wave reflection become larger components of vascular overload as the duration and severity of hypertension increase. Moreover, these studies suggest that vascular overload is a true indicator of hypertensive cardiovascular risk. Increased systolic blood pressure is a surrogate for vascular overload in young and middle-aged hypertensive subjects. Increased pulse pressure and decreased diastolic pressure are superior to increased systolic pressure as surrogates for vascular overload in geriatric isolated systolic hypertension. By itself, diastolic blood pressure is difficult to interpret and may be an epiphenomenon. Therefore new therapeutic goals, are control of systolic pressure in the young and of pulse pressure in the elderly.

Felodipine, metoprolol and their combination compared with placebo in isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly

This study compared with placebo the efficacy and tolerability of optimised doses of felodipine 5-20 mg daily, metoprolol 50-200 mg daily and their combination in subjects 60 years or over with isolated systolic hypertension. The study employed a randomised double-blind crossover design with allocation of treatment order within subjects by Latin squares. For each subject, after a single-blind run-in placebo phase, there were four randomised treatment phases each of six weeks duration, with a dose titration step at three weeks if necessary. Twenty-eight subjects entered the randomised phases of the study and twenty-one completed all four phases--13 male, 8 female (ages: median 71, range 59-85 years). At the end of both the felodipine and metoprolol phases systolic and diastolic pressure were reduced at 2 hours postdose compared with the placebo phase (p < 0.001), the blood pressure reduction with felodipine (-40/-20 mmHg) being greater than that with metoprolol (-15/-9 mmHg) (p < 0.01). Immediately predose (12 hours postdose) there was a persisting reduction of supine systolic blood pressure (-17 mmHg) with felodipine (p < 0.001), but there was no significant effect of metoprolol. At both measurement times the two drugs when in combination had an additive effect on blood pressure. There was a 20% increase in reported symptoms during each of the active treatment phases. Four subjects withdrew during the randomised phases because of probable drug-related adverse events and six subjects required dosage reductions during the felodipine or combination phases.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Psychomotor performance and antihypertensive treatment

1. The aim of treatment of hypertension is prevention of cardiovascular complications without adverse drug reactions. Psychomotor performance can be measured objectively yet there remains uncertainty concerning the psychomotor effects of antihypertensive drugs during chronic treatment. This uncertainty is partly due to the confounding adverse effects of cerebrovascular disease and hypertension itself. There are as yet insufficient good quality data on psychomotor effects with which to differentiate between the commonly used agents. However, in general, the beneficial effect of lowering blood pressure tends to more than offset any adverse effects of the agent used.