Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group

Controversies in hypertension therapy: bedtime dosing or daytime dosing?

Hypertension management strategies have evolved from solely controlling office blood pressure (BP) to comprehensive 24-h BP regulation. This review synthesizes current evidence on the timing of antihypertensive medication, with a focus on circadian BP rhythms and patients with specific BP patterns or comorbidities. Bedtime dosing may benefit individuals with nocturnal hypertension and nondipper BP patterns, but large trials, such as the TIME study, have shown no significant cardiovascular outcome differences between morning and bedtime dosing. However, the optimal timing of antihypertensive medication for patients with distinct BP rhythms or comorbidities remains uncertain. Future research should investigate the potential benefits of personalized medication timing tailored to BP patterns and clinical conditions. Additionally, treatment strategies should consider BP rhythms, comorbidities, and adherence to optimize outcomes, paving the way for more effective management of hypertensive patients with complex clinical profiles.

Effect of a calcium-channel blocker and β-blocker combination on reading-to-reading blood pressure variability: a randomized crossover trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of the nitrendipine/atenolol combination in comparison with standard-dose nitrendipine or atenolol monotherapy in reducing blood pressure (BP) and blood pressure variability (BPV) as assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring.

METHODS

In a randomized, crossover trial, 32 patients (30-65 years) with grade 1 hypertension and elevated daytime reading-to-reading BPV were randomly assigned to receive either the nitrendipine/atenolol combination (10/20 mg) or standard-dose nitrendipine (10 mg) or atenolol (25 mg) monotherapy for 6 weeks, followed by a crossover to another treatment for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 31 patients (mean [±SD] age, 49.2 ± 9.6 years) and 12 men. The nitrendipine/atenolol combination significantly reduced from baseline clinic and ambulatory BP and pulse rate ( P  ≤ 0.002), and 24 h and daytime systolic and diastolic BPV as assessed by SD and average real variability ( P  ≤ 0.042), but not the coefficient of variation nor nighttime BPV indices ( P  ≥ 0.06). Significant differences between the nitrendipine/atenolol combination and nitrendipine or atenolol monotherapy at the end of treatment were observed in clinic BP and pulse rate ( P  ≤ 0.042), but not in 24 h, daytime and nighttime blood pressure and pulse rate, except for daytime DBP and 24 h and daytime pulse rate ( P  ≤ 0.049). There were no significant differences in BPV between the combination and monotherpy groups at the end of treatment ( P  ≥ 0.25).

CONCLUSION

The nitrendipine/atenolol combination reduced daytime reading-to-reading BPV, but did not show superiority to nitrendipine or atenolol monotherapy.

Comparative efficacy of different antihypertensive drug classes for stroke prevention: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of various antihypertensive drugs in preventing strokes in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in stroke prevention from inception until April 2023. A network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework was performed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

This study included 88 RCTs involving 487,076 patients to investigate the effects of antihypertensive drugs in preventing stroke. Among these trials, 58 RCTs specifically focused on comparing the impact of such drugs on hypertensive subjects. In overall population, Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEIs), Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), Calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and Diuretics (DIs) demonstrated superiority over placebo in in reducing stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. CCBs and DIs outperformed β adrenergic receptor blockers (BBs), ACEIs, and ARBs in stroke reduction. However, when focusing on hypertensive patients, ACEIs, CCBs, and DIs proved superior to placebo in reducing stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. ARBs reduced stroke and all-cause mortality but lacked efficacy in reducing cardiovascular mortality. Of the various CCB subclasses, only the Dihydropyridines displayed efficacy in preventing stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Among diuretic subclasses, thiazide-type DIs exhibited no efficacy in preventing all-cause mortality. ACEIs+CCBs were more effective than ACEIs or ARBs monotherapy in reducing stroke, more effective than ACEIs, ARBs, CCBs, or DIs monotherapy in reducing all-cause mortality, and more effective than ARBs in reducing cardiovascular mortality.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that ACEIs, dihydropyridine CCBs, and thiazide-like diuretics may provide superior prevention against stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality in hypertensive patients. Combinations of ACEIs and CCBs may provide enhanced protection of stroke than ACEIs or ARBs monotherapy.

Blood pressure targets, medication consideration and special concerns in elderly hypertension part I: General principles and special considerations

To achieve a consensus on optimal blood pressure (BP) targets for older adults remains challenging, necessitating a trade-off between cardiovascular benefits and the risk of impaired organ perfusion. Evidence suggests that age and frailty have a minimal influence on the cardiovascular benefits of intensive BP control in community-dwelling elderly. Nonetheless, an increased incidence of acute kidney injury with intensive BP control has been observed in octogenarians. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain systolic BP below 130 mmHg for hypertensive patients aged 65-80 years. If well-tolerated, a systolic BP target below 120 mmHg can be recommended for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, no conclusive evidence supports a stringent BP target for patients aged 80 years and older. The selection of antihypertensive medications for elderly patients requires consideration of their cardiovascular condition and potential contraindications. Combination therapy may be necessary to achieve the desired BP target. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers are the primary choices for patients with CKD. Newer generation mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists may further reduce the risk of cardiovascular or renal events in this population. In conclusion, managing hypertension in elderly patients requires a personalized approach that balances cardiovascular benefits with potential risks, considering individual health profiles and tolerability.

Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. Complete 24-hour blood pressure control is the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment and reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes is the ultimate aim. This is an update of the review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of administration-time-related effects of once-daily evening versus conventional morning dosing antihypertensive drug therapy regimens on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, total adverse events, withdrawals from treatment due to adverse effects, and reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register via Cochrane Register of Studies (17 June 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 6, 2022); MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print (1 June 2022); Embase (1 June 2022); ClinicalTrials.gov (2 June 2022); Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBLD) (1978 to 2009); Chinese VIP (2009 to 7 August 2022); Chinese WANFANG DATA (2009 to 4 August 2022); China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (CAJD) (2009 to 6 August 2022); Epistemonikos (3 September 2022) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration-time-related effects of evening with morning dosing monotherapy regimens in people with primary hypertension. We excluded people with known secondary hypertension, shift workers or people with white coat hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two to four review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or with another review author. We performed data synthesis and analyses using Review Manager Web for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, serious adverse events, overall adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, change in 24-hour blood pressure and change in morning blood pressure. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis, fixed-effect meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 RCTs in this updated review, of which two RCTs were excluded from the meta-analyses for lack of data and number of groups not reported. The quantitative analysis included 25 RCTs with 3016 participants with primary hypertension. RCTs used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (six trials), calcium channel blockers (nine trials), angiotensin II receptor blockers (seven trials), diuretics (two trials), α-blockers (one trial), and β-blockers (one trial). Fifteen trials were parallel designed, and 10 trials were cross-over designed. Most participants were white, and only two RCTs were conducted in Asia (China) and one in Africa (South Africa). All trials excluded people with risk factors of myocardial infarction and strokes. Most trials had high risk or unclear risk of bias in at least two of several key criteria, which was most prominent in allocation concealment (selection bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across trials. No RCTs reported on cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. There may be little to no differences in all-cause mortality (after 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.42; RD 0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (after 8 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.57; RD 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence), overall adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; I² = 37%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; I² = 38%; very low-certainty evidence) and withdrawals due to adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks active treatment: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23; I² = 0%; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very limited data and the defects of the trials' designs, this systematic review did not find adequate evidence to determine which time dosing drug therapy regimen has more beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes or adverse events. We have very little confidence in the evidence showing that evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs is no more or less effective than morning administration to lower 24-hour blood pressure. The conclusions should not be assumed to apply to people receiving multiple antihypertensive drug regimens.

Pressure Building Against the Clock: The Impact of Circadian Misalignment on Blood Pressure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Misalignment between the endogenous biological timing system and behavioral activities (i.e., sleep/wake, eating, activity) contributes to adverse cardiovascular health. In this review, we discuss the effects of recurring circadian misalignment on blood pressure regulation and the implications for hypertension development. Additionally, we highlight emerging therapeutic approaches designed to mitigate the negative cardiovascular consequences elicited by circadian disruption.

RECENT FINDINGS

Circadian misalignment elicited by work schedules that require individuals to be awake during the biological night (i.e., shift work) alters 24-h blood pressure rhythms. Mechanistically, circadian misalignment appears to alter blood pressure via changes in autonomic nervous system balance, variations to sodium retention, dysregulation of endothelial vasodilatory responsiveness, and activation of proinflammatory mechanisms. Recurring circadian misalignment produced by a mismatch in sleep timing on free days vs. work days (i.e., social jetlag) appears to have no direct effects on prevailing blood pressure levels in healthy adults; though, circadian disruptions resulting from social jetlag may increase the risk of hypertension through enhanced sympathetic activation and/or obesity. Furthermore, social jetlag assessment may be a useful metric in shift work populations where the magnitude of circadian misalignment may be greater than in the general population. Circadian misalignment promotes unfavorable changes to 24-h blood pressure rhythms, most notably in shift working populations. While light therapy, melatonin supplementation, and the timing of drug administration may improve cardiovascular outcomes, interventions designed to target the effects of circadian misalignment on blood pressure regulation are warranted.

Circadian Disruption and the Molecular Clock in Atherosclerosis and Hypertension

Circadian rhythms are crucial for maintaining vascular function and disruption of these rhythms are associated with negative health outcomes including cardiovascular disease and hypertension. Circadian rhythms are regulated by the central clock within the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus and peripheral clocks located in nearly every cell type in the body, including cells within the heart and vasculature. In this review, we summarize the most recent preclinical and clinical research linking circadian disruption, with a focus on molecular circadian clock mechanisms, in atherosclerosis and hypertension. Furthermore, we provide insight into potential future chronotherapeutics for hypertension and vascular disease. A better understanding of the influence of daily rhythms in behaviour, such as sleep/wake cycles, feeding, and physical activity, as well as the endogenous circadian system on cardiovascular risk will help pave the way for targeted approaches in atherosclerosis and hypertension treatment/prevention.

Hypertension in China: epidemiology and treatment initiatives

The past two to three decades have seen a steady increase in the prevalence of hypertension in China, largely owing to increased life expectancy and lifestyle changes (particularly among individuals aged 35-44 years). Data from the China hypertension survey conducted in 2012-2015 revealed a high prevalence of grade 3 hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥180 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure ≥110 mmHg) in the general population, which increased with age to up to 5% among individuals aged ≥65 years. The risk profile of patients with hypertension in China has also been a subject of intense study in the past 30 years. Dietary sodium and potassium intake have remained largely the same in China in the past three decades, and salt substitution strategies seem to be effective in reducing blood pressure levels and the risk of cardiovascular events and death. However, the number of individuals with risk factors for hypertension and cardiovascular disease in general, such as physical inactivity and obesity, has increased dramatically in the same period. Moreover, even in patients diagnosed with hypertension, their disease is often poorly managed owing to a lack of patient education and poor treatment compliance. In this Review, we summarize the latest epidemiological data on hypertension in China, discuss the risk factors for hypertension that are specific to this population, and describe several ongoing nationwide hypertension control initiatives that target these risk factors, especially in the low-resource rural setting.

Toward Precision Medicine: Circadian Rhythm of Blood Pressure and Chronotherapy for Hypertension - 2021 NHLBI Workshop Report

Healthy individuals exhibit blood pressure variation over a 24-hour period with higher blood pressure during wakefulness and lower blood pressure during sleep. Loss or disruption of the blood pressure circadian rhythm has been linked to adverse health outcomes, for example, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and chronic kidney disease. However, the current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches lack sufficient attention to the circadian rhythmicity of blood pressure. Sleep patterns, hormone release, eating habits, digestion, body temperature, renal and cardiovascular function, and other important host functions as well as gut microbiota exhibit circadian rhythms, and influence circadian rhythms of blood pressure. Potential benefits of nonpharmacologic interventions such as meal timing, and pharmacologic chronotherapeutic interventions, such as the bedtime administration of antihypertensive medications, have recently been suggested in some studies. However, the mechanisms underlying circadian rhythm-mediated blood pressure regulation and the efficacy of chronotherapy in hypertension remain unclear. This review summarizes the results of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop convened on October 27 to 29, 2021 to assess knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the study of circadian rhythm of blood pressure and chronotherapy for hypertension.

Isolated systolic hypertension in the young: a heterogeneous condition

Isolated systolic hypertension in the youth, is still a challenging problem. The prevalence of this hypertensive subtype may vary according to the different population study and is peculiar of male subjects among the youngest age classes. Several are the mechanisms reported as possible underlying causes of isolated systolic blood pressure elevation and again these differ according to the different study cohort and may vary from overweight and obesity status, linked to sympathetic overactivity, to increased and earlier arterial stiffness, hyperkinetic state, or exaggerated pulse pressure amplification form central to peripheral sites, due to enhanced arterial elasticity. Evidence is lacking regarding whether this condition is benign or associated to unfavorable cardiovascular events. The few long-term studies that followed isolated systolic hypertensives in the long-term, again reported conflicting results. Waiting for future studies, some clinical and hemodynamic characteristics of young isolated systolic hypertensives may help clinicians to better characterized patient's risk profile and decide whether to perform a strict follow-up with non-pharmacological measurements or to start drug treatment.

Effects of elevated systolic blood pressure on ischemic heart disease: a Burden of Proof study

High systolic blood pressure (SBP) is a major risk factor for ischemic heart disease (IHD), the leading cause of death worldwide. Using data from published observational studies and controlled trials, we estimated the mean SBP-IHD dose-response function and burden of proof risk function (BPRF), and we calculated a risk outcome score (ROS) and corresponding star rating (one to five). We found a very strong, significant harmful effect of SBP on IHD, with a mean risk-relative to that at 100 mm Hg SBP-of 1.39 (95% uncertainty interval including between-study heterogeneity 1.34-1.44) at 120 mm Hg, 1.81 (1.70-1.93) at 130 mm Hg and 4.48 (3.81-5.26) at 165 mm Hg. The conservative BPRF measure indicated that SBP exposure between 107.5 and 165.0 mm Hg raised risk by 101.36% on average, yielding a ROS of 0.70 and star rating of five. Our analysis shows that IHD risk was already increasing at 120 mm Hg SBP, rising steadily up to 165 mm Hg and increasing less steeply above that point. Our study endorses the need to prioritize and strengthen strategies for screening, to raise awareness of the need for timely diagnosis and treatment of hypertension and to increase the resources allocated for understanding primordial prevention of elevated blood pressure.

Bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medications: systematic review and consensus statement: International Society of Hypertension position paper endorsed by World Hypertension League and European Society of Hypertension

Antihypertensive drug therapy is one of the most efficient medical interventions for preventing disability and death globally. Most of the evidence supporting its benefits has been derived from outcome trials with morning dosing of medications. Accumulating evidence suggests an adverse prognosis associated with night-time hypertension, nondipping blood pressure (BP) profile and morning BP surge, with increased incidence of cardiovascular events during the first few morning hours. These observations provide justification for complete 24-h BP control as being the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment. Bedtime administration of antihypertensive drugs has also been proposed as a potentially more effective treatment strategy than morning administration. This Position Paper by the International Society of Hypertension reviewed the published evidence on the clinical relevance of the diurnal variation in BP and the timing of antihypertensive drug treatment, aiming to provide consensus recommendations for clinical practice. Eight published outcome hypertension studies involved bedtime dosing of antihypertensive drugs, and all had major methodological and/or other flaws and a high risk of bias in testing the impact of bedtime compared to morning treatment. Three ongoing, well designed, prospective, randomized controlled outcome trials are expected to provide high-quality data on the efficacy and safety of evening or bedtime versus morning drug dosing. Until that information is available, preferred use of bedtime drug dosing of antihypertensive drugs should not be routinely recommended in clinical practice. Complete 24-h control of BP should be targeted using readily available, long-acting antihypertensive medications as monotherapy or combinations administered in a single morning dose.

Blood Pressure and Stroke: A Review of Sex- and Ethnic/Racial-Specific Attributes to the Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Management of Raised Blood Pressure

Raised blood pressure (BP) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, and its particular strong association with stroke is well established. Although systolic BP increases with age in both sexes, raised BP is more prevalent in males in early adulthood, overtaken by females at middle age, consistently across all ethnicities/races. However, there are clear regional differences on when females overtake males. Higher BP among males is observed until the seventh decade of life in high-income countries, compared with almost 3 decades earlier in low- and middle-income countries. Females and males tend to have different cardiovascular disease risk profiles, and many lifestyles also influence BP and cardiovascular disease in a sex-specific manner. Although no hypertension guidelines distinguish between sexes in BP thresholds to define or treat hypertension, observational evidence suggests that in terms of stroke risk, females would benefit from lower BP thresholds to the magnitude of 10 to 20 mm Hg. More randomized evidence is needed to determine if females have greater cardiovascular benefits from lowering BP and whether optimal BP is lower in females. Since 1990, the number of people with hypertension worldwide has doubled, with most of the increase occurring in low- and-middle-income countries where the greatest population growth was also seen. Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and South Asia have the lowest detection, treatment, and control rates. High BP has a more significant effect on the burden of stroke among Black and Asian individuals than Whites, possibly attributable to differences in lifestyle, socioeconomic status, and health system resources. Although pharmacological therapy is recommended differently in local guidelines, recommendations on lifestyle modification are often very similar (salt restriction, increased potassium intake, reducing weight and alcohol, smoking cessation). This overall enhanced understanding of the sex- and ethnic/racial-specific attributes to BP motivates further scientific discovery to develop more effective prevention and treatment strategies to prevent stroke in high-risk populations.

Improving outcomes for older hypertensive patients: is more intensive treatment better?

INTRODUCTION

With population aging, late-life hypertension is becoming an increasingly important issue. Mounting evidence has documented additional cardiovascular benefits induced by a more intensive target, lower than what are recommended in most current guidelines for systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction in older patients with hypertension. However, the optimal target remains less clear.

AREAS COVERED

In the present review, we summarized the evolution of the perspective into late-life hypertension and the development of the 'optimal' target for SBP reduction in older patients with hypertension. More importantly, new evidence from latest antihypertensive drug-placebo studies, blood pressure target studies, and high-quality meta-analysis regarding the effect of intensive SBP treatment in older patients were covered and discussed in detail.

EXPERT OPINION

In summary, robust evidence supports that a SBP target of <130 mmHg is safe and will induce additional cardiovascular benefits in general older patients with hypertension. This benefit seems to be consistent, but less degreed in older patients with comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease or diabetes mellitus. However, such an intensive SBP target should be judiciously applied in older patients under extreme conditions. Collectively, edging down the relaxed SBP targets to <130 mmHg in most of the current guidelines is in imperative need.

Analysis of Spatial Distribution of CVD and Multiple Environmental Factors in Urban Residents

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) poses a serious threat to urban health with the development of urbanization. There are multifaceted and comprehensive influencing factors for CVD, so clarifying the spatial distribution characteristics of CVD and multiple environmental influencing factors is conducive to improving the active health intervention of urban environment and promoting the sustainable development of cities The spatial distribution characteristics of CVD deaths in a certain district, Bengbu City, Huaihe River Basin, China, in 2019 were explored, and the correlation between multiple environmental factors and CVD mortality was investigated in this study, to reveal the action mechanism of multiple environmental factors affecting the risk of mortality. Relevant studies have shown that (1) CVD deaths are characterized as follows: male deaths are more than females; the mortality is higher in those of higher age; most of them are unemployed; cardiocerebral infarction is the main cause of death; and the deaths are mainly distributed in the central city and near the old urban area. (2) The increased CVD mortality can be attributed to the increased density of restaurants and cigarette and wine shops around the residential area, the increased traffic volume, the dense residential and spatial forms, the low green space coverage, and the distance from rivers. Therefore, appropriate urban planning and policies can improve the active health interventions in cities and reduce CVD mortality.

STEP to blood pressure management of elderly hypertension: evidence from Asia

With a rapidly aging population, adequate blood pressure (BP) control is critical for hypertension management and prevention of cardiovascular events. Impressive cardiovascular benefits have been observed with intensive BP control (SBP target, <120 mmHg) in the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) study, even in patients 75 years of age or older. A most recent meta-analysis including 51 randomized trials with over 350,000 participants from the BPLTTC (The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration) showed that BP lowering is effective in older people for reducing major cardiovascular events. The STEP (Strategy of Blood Pressure Intervention in the Elderly Hypertensive Patients) study—a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted in China, provided important evidence that intensive BP treatment (SBP target, 110 mmHg to <130 mmHg) benefits older hypertensive patients (aged 60–80 years) and reduced the incidence of cardiovascular events than standard treatment (target 130 mmHg to <150 mmHg). Because Asian people have a higher burden of hypertension and stroke than Caucasian people, intensive BP treatment has more advantages in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events including stroke in Asian hypertensive patients than in Caucasian people. Home BP monitoring is helpful to facilitate hypertension management for older patients. It should also be noted that clinical decision-making should be on a patient basis, such as fragility, diabetes, stroke, and other comorbidities, with tailored BP targets. Here we review the important clinical trials of BP control in elderly hypertension, interpretate the main findings of STEP, and also discuss the perspectives of managing hypertension in Asia.

Effectiveness of indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination in patients with isolated systolic hypertension: post-hoc analysis of the ARBALET study

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the effectiveness of treatment with an indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination (SPC) in outpatients with uncontrolled isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) aged over 55 years in real-life clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis of the subgroup of patients with ISH from ARBALET, a 3-month, multicenter, observational, open-label study conducted in Russia among patients with grade I or II hypertension who were either uncontrolled on previous antihypertensive treatment or treatment-naïve. The effectiveness of indapamide/amlodipine SPC was assessed by the change in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) and the rate of target SBP (< 140 mmHg) achievement at 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months, in four age groups: 55-59 years, 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and 80 years or older.

RESULTS

The ARBALET study recruited 2217 patients, of whom 626 had ISH and were included in this post-hoc analysis (mean age 66.1 ± 7.8 years; 165 men [26.4%] and 461 women [73.6%]). Target SBP < 140 mmHg was achieved in 43%, 75% and 93% of patients at 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months, respectively. SBP decreased from baseline by 18.8 ± 10.5 mmHg, 27.2 ± 10.6 mmHg and 31.8 ± 9.9 mmHg at 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months, respectively. In the groups of patients aged 55-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 years, SBP reductions at 3 months compared with baseline were - 30.3 ± 9.4, - 32.4 ± 9.7, - 32.5 ± 10.7, and - 28.9 ± 9.6 mmHg, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This post-hoc analysis of the observational ARBALET study showed that indapamide/amlodipine SPC was associated with significant reductions in BP and high rates of target BP achievement in a broad age range of patients with ISH treated in routine clinical practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN40812831.

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Elevated asleep blood pressure and non-dipper 24h patterning best predict risk for heart failure that can be averted by bedtime hypertension chronotherapy: A review of the published literature

Several prospective studies consistently report elevated asleep blood pressure (BP) and blunted sleep-time relative systolic BP (SBP) decline (non-dipping) are jointly the most significant prognostic markers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, including heart failure (HF); therefore, they, rather than office BP measurements (OBPM) and ambulatory awake and 24 h BP means, seemingly are the most worthy therapeutic targets for prevention. Published studies of the 24 h BP pattern in HF are sparse in number and of limited sample size. They report high prevalence of the abnormal non-dipper/riser 24 h SBP patterning. Despite the established clinical relevance of the asleep BP, past as do present hypertension guidelines recommend the diagnosis of hypertension rely on OBPM and, when around-the-clock ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) is conducted to confirm the elevated OBPM, either on the derived 24 h or "daytime" BP means. Additionally, hypertension guidelines do not advise the time-of-day when BP-lowering medications should be ingested, in spite of known ingestion-time differences in their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Between 1976 and 2020, 155 unique trials of ingestion-time differences in the effects of 37 different single and 14 dual-combination hypertension medications, collectively involving 23,972 patients, were published. The vast majority (83.9%) of them found the at-bedtime/evening in comparison to upon-waking/morning treatment schedule resulted in more greatly enhanced: (i) reduction of asleep BP mean without induced sleep-time hypotension; (ii) reduction of the prevalence of the higher CVD risk non-dipper/riser 24 h BP phenotypes; (iii) improvement of kidney function, reduction of cardiac pathology, and with lower incidence of adverse effects. Most notably, no single published randomized trial found significantly better BP-lowering, particularly during sleep, or medical benefits of the most popular upon-waking/morning hypertension treatment-time scheme. Additionally, prospective outcome trials have substantiated that the bedtime relative to the upon-waking, ingestion of BP-lowering medications not only significantly reduces risk of HF but also improves overall CVD event-free survival time.

Pharmacological treatment of hypertension in people without prior cerebrovascular disease for the prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006 (McGuinness 2006), and previously updated in 2009 (McGuinness 2009). Hypertension is a risk factor for dementia. Observational studies suggest antihypertensive treatment is associated with lower incidences of cognitive impairment and dementia. There is already clear evidence to support the treatment of hypertension after stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether pharmacological treatment of hypertension can prevent cognitive impairment or dementia in people who have no history of cerebrovascular disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, as well as many trials registries and grey literature sources, most recently on 7 July 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which pharmacological interventions to treat hypertension were given for at least 12 months. We excluded trials of pharmacological interventions to lower blood pressure in non-hypertensive participants. We also excluded trials conducted solely in people with stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information regarding incidence of dementia, cognitive decline, change in blood pressure, adverse effects and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies, totaling 30,412 participants, in this review. Eight studies compared active treatment with placebo. Of the four non-placebo-controlled studies, two compared intensive versus standard blood pressure reduction. The two final included studies compared different classes of antihypertensive drug. Study durations varied from one to five years. The combined result of four placebo-controlled trials that reported incident dementia indicated no evidence of a difference in the risk of dementia between the antihypertensive treatment group and the placebo group (236/7767 versus 259/7660, odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.09; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to study limitations and indirectness). The combined results from five placebo-controlled trials that reported change in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) may indicate a modest benefit from antihypertensive treatment (mean difference (MD) 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.29; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to study limitations, indirectness and imprecision). The certainty of evidence for both cognitive outcomes was downgraded on the basis of study limitations and indirectness. Study durations were too short, overall, to expect a significant difference in dementia rates between groups. Dementia and cognitive decline were secondary outcomes for most studies. Additional sources of bias include: the use of antihypertensive medication by the placebo group in the placebo-controlled trials; failure to reach recruitment targets; and early termination of studies on safety grounds. Meta-analysis of the placebo-controlled trials reporting results found a mean change in systolic blood pressure of -9.25 mmHg (95% CI -9.73, -8.78) between treatment (n = 8973) and placebo (n = 8820) groups, and a mean change in diastolic blood pressure of -2.47 mmHg (95% CI -2.70, -2.24) between treatment (n = 7700) and placebo (n = 7509) groups (both low certainty evidence downgraded on the basis of study limitations and inconsistency). Three trials - SHEP 1991, LOMIR MCT IL 1996 and MRC 1996 - reported more withdrawals due to adverse events in active treatment groups than placebo groups. Participants on active treatment in Syst Eur 1998 were less likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects, and participants on active treatment in HYVET 2008 reported fewer 'serious adverse events' than in the placebo group. There was no evidence of a difference in withdrawals rates between groups in SCOPE 2003, and results were unclear for Perez Stable 2000 and Zhang 2018. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Five of the placebo-controlled trials provided quality of life (QOL) data. Heterogeneity again precluded meta-analysis. SHEP 1991, Syst Eur 1998 and HYVET 2008 reported no evidence of a difference in QOL measures between active treatment and placebo groups over time. The SCOPE 2003 sub-study (Degl'Innocenti 2004) showed a smaller drop in QOL measures in the active treatment compared to the placebo group. LOMIR MCT IL 1996 reported an improvement in a QOL measure at twelve months in one active treatment group and deterioration in another.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High certainty randomised controlled trial evidence regarding the effect of hypertension treatment on dementia and cognitive decline does not yet exist. The studies included in this review provide low certainty evidence (downgraded primarily due to study limitations and indirectness) that pharmacological treatment of hypertension, in people without prior cerebrovascular disease, leads to less cognitive decline compared to controls. This difference is below the level considered clinically significant. The studies included in this review also provide very low certainty evidence that pharmacological treatment of hypertension, in people without prior cerebrovascular disease, prevents dementia.

Circadian variations in blood pressure and their implications for the administration of antihypertensive drugs: is dosing in the evening better than in the morning?

: Blood pressure (BP) follows a circadian rhythm with a physiological decrease during the night. Studies have demonstrated that nocturnal BP as well as its dipping pattern during night-time have a significant prognostic importance for mortality and the occurrence of cardiovascular events. Therefore, hypertension management guidelines recommend to ascertain that patients treated for hypertension have well controlled BP values around the clock. To improve hypertension control during the night and eventually further reduce cardiovascular events, it has been proposed by some to prescribe at least one antihypertensive medication at bedtime. In this review, we have examined the data which could support the benefits of prescribing BP-lowering drugs at bedtime. Our conclusion is that there is no convincing evidence that the administration of BP-lowering drugs in the evening provides any significant advantage in terms of quality of BP control, prevention of target organ damage or reduction of cardiovascular events. Before changing practice for unproven benefits, it would be wise to wait for the results of the ongoing trials that are addressing this issue.

The effect of taking blood pressure lowering medication at night on cardiovascular disease risk. A systematic review

To investigate the effect of night-time BP-lowering drug treatment on the risk of major CVD and mortality, we systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing night-time versus morning dosing. Two studies were found relevant to the clinical question (the MAPEC and Hygia trials). They were similar in study design and population and were conducted by the same study group. As the Hygia trial had more power with a significantly larger sample size, we did not perform a meta-analysis. Both studies reported a reduction of ~50% in major CVD events and all-cause mortality with night-time dosing and a reduction of 60% in CVD mortality. The results from these studies support the implementation of night-time BP-lowering drug treatment in the prevention of CVD and mortality. However there is an on-going discussion on the validity and methodology of MAPEC and Hygia trials, the interpretation of the results should be cautious. Stronger evidence is needed prior to changing clinical practice. Questions that remain to be answered relate to the generalisability of the results across different populations at different levels of BP related risk and the importance of morning versus evening timing of medication on CVD prevention as determined though a well-designed randomised controlled trial.

Association between systolic blood pressure and first ischemic stroke in the Chinese older hypertensive population

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the association between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and first ischemic stroke in older people with hypertension in the community.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 3315 residents who were hypertensive and older than 60 years in Guangdong, China.

Results

A total of 1475 men and 1840 women aged 71.41±7.20 years were included. All subjects had a median follow-up duration for 5.5 years and 206 subjects reached the endpoint. The prevalence of first ischemic stroke increased with a higher SBP. SBP expressed as a continuous variable (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.02) and categorical variable (HRs, 1.00, 1.06, 1.17, 1.39, and 1.60 for increasing blood pressure from  < 120–≥150 mmHg), was significantly associated with a higher risk of first ischemic stroke. Moreover, a fully adjusted model indicated an obvious increased risk in the SBP ≥150 mmHg group (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.15–2.71) and the SBP 140–149 mmHg group (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01–2.39).

Conclusions

High SBP was independently associated with the risk of first ischemic stroke in hypertensive residents in the community aged older than 60 years. SBP ≥140 mmHg increases the risk of first ischemic stroke.

Starting Antihypertensive Drug Treatment With Combination Therapy: Controversies in Hypertension - Con Side of the Argument

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Ingestion-time differences in the pharmacodynamics of hypertension medications: Systematic review of human chronopharmacology trials

Pharmacokinetics of hypertension medications is significantly affected by circadian rhythms that influence absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination. Furthermore, their pharmacodynamics is affected by ingestion-time differences in kinetics and circadian rhythms comprising the biological mechanism of the 24 h blood pressure (BP) pattern. However, hypertension guidelines do not recommend the time to treat patients with medications. We conducted a systematic review of published evidence regarding ingestion-time differences of hypertension medications and their combinations on ambulatory BP-lowering, safety, and markers of target organ pathology. Some 153 trials published between 1976 and 2020, totaling 23,869 hypertensive individuals, evaluated 37 different single and 14 dual-fixed combination therapies. The vast (83.7%) majority of the trials report clinically and statistically significant benefits - including enhanced reduction of asleep BP without inducing sleep-time hypotension, reduced prevalence of the higher cardiovascular disease risk BP non-dipping 24 h profile, decreased incidence of adverse effects, improved renal function, and reduced cardiac pathology - when hypertension medications are ingested at-bedtime/evening rather than upon-waking/morning. Non-substantiated treatment-time difference in effects by the small proportion (16.3%) of published trials is likely explained by deficiencies of study design and conduct. Systematic and comprehensive review of the literature published the past 45 years reveals no single study reported significantly better benefit of the still conventional, yet unjustified by medical evidence, upon-waking/morning hypertension treatment schedule.

Identifying Isolated Systolic Hypertension From Upper-Arm Cuff Blood Pressure Compared With Invasive Measurements

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the most common form of hypertension and is highly prevalent in older people. We recently showed differences between upper-arm cuff and invasive blood pressure (BP) become greater with increasing age, which could influence correct identification of ISH. This study sought to determine the difference between identification of ISH by cuff BP compared with invasive BP. Cuff BP and invasive aortic BP were measured in 1695 subjects (median 64 years, interquartile range [55-72], 68% male) from the INSPECT (Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium) database. Data were recorded during coronary angiography among 29 studies, using 21 different cuff BP devices. ISH was defined as ≥130/<80 mm Hg using cuff BP compared with invasive aortic BP as the reference. The prevalence of ISH was 24% (n=407) according to cuff BP but 38% (n=642) according to invasive aortic BP. There was fair agreement (Cohen κ, 0.36) and 72% concordance between cuff and invasive aortic BP for identifying ISH. Among the 28% of subjects (n=471) with misclassification of ISH status by cuff BP, 20% (n=96) of the difference was due to lower cuff systolic BP compared with invasive aortic systolic BP (mean, -16.4 mm Hg [95% CI, -18.7 to -14.1]), whereas 49% (n=231) was from higher cuff diastolic BP compared with invasive aortic diastolic BP (+14.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 11.5-16.9]). In conclusion, compared with invasive BP, cuff BP fails to identify ISH in a sizeable portion of older people and demonstrates the need to improve cuff BP measurements.

Isolated systolic hypertension and central blood pressure: Implications from the national nutrition and health survey in Taiwan

We aimed to investigate the association between isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) and central blood pressure (BP) in a nationally representative population, with a focus on the young and middle‐aged adults (<50 years old). A total of 2029 adults without taking antihypertensive medications, aged ≥ 19 years old, participated in the 2013–2016 National Nutrition and Health Survey in Taiwan. Central and brachial BP were simultaneously measured using a cuff‐based stand‐alone central blood pressure monitor purporting to measure invasive central BP (type II device). Central hypertension was defined by central systolic (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) ≥130 or 90 mm Hg, and ISH was defined by brachial SBP ≥ 140 and DBP < 90 mm Hg. Overall, the prevalence rates of ISH, isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH, brachial SBP < 140 and DBP ≥ 90 mmHg), and systolic/diastolic hypertension (SDH, brachial SBP ≥ 140 and DBP ≥ 90 mmHg) were 6.51%, 1.92%, and 4.34%, respectively. ISH subjects had significantly higher central pulse pressure (PP) (62.8 ± 9.7 mm Hg for age < 50 years and 72.4 ± 13.5 mmHg for age ≥ 50 years) than those subjects with either IDH (44.7 ± 10.7 and 44.9 ± 10.6 mmHg) or SDH (55.2 ± 14.0 and 62.6 ± 17.1 mmHg). All ISH adults had central hypertension, and a higher prevalence of central obesity than the normotensives (80.95% vs. 26.15%, for age < 50 years; and 63.96% vs. 43.37% for age ≥ 50 years). All untreated subjects with ISH, whether younger or older, had central hypertension and had significantly higher central PP than those with IDH or SDH. Central obesity was one of the major characteristics of ISH, especially in the young‐ and middle‐aged adults.

Isolated systolic hypertension in Asia

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the most common type of essential hypertension in the elderly and young adults. With rapid industrialization and population aging, the prevalence of ISH in Asia will rise substantially. Asian populations have distinct epidemiological features, risk factors and are especially vulnerable to ISH. There is a pressing need for Asian countries to formulate their unique strategies for control of ISH. In this review, we focus on the (1) epidemiology and pathophysiology, (2) risk factors and impact on outcomes, and (3) treatment goal and strategy for ISH in Asia.

Hypertension management in older adults

Vascular aging leads to arterial hypertension, which is the leading cause of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in older adults. Blood pressure reduction is effective in reducing the cardiovascular risk and is safe in ambulatory older adults. It is important to note that blood pressure control in this group of patients is challenging because of comorbidities, polypharmacy, and frailty. Choice of pharmacotherapy is not simple and should be individualized.

The Galaxy Plot: A New Visualization Tool for Bivariate Meta-Analysis Studies

Funnel plots have been widely used to detect small-study effects in the results of univariate meta-analyses. However, there is no existing visualization tool that is the counterpart of the funnel plot in the multivariate setting. We propose a new visualization method, the galaxy plot, which can simultaneously present the effect sizes of bivariate outcomes and their standard errors in a 2-dimensional space. We illustrate the use of the galaxy plot with 2 case studies, including a meta-analysis of hypertension trials with studies from 1979-1991 (Hypertension. 2005;45(5):907-913) and a meta-analysis of structured telephone support or noninvasive telemonitoring with studies from 1966-2015 (Heart. 2017;103(4):255-257). The galaxy plot is an intuitive visualization tool that can aid in interpreting results of multivariate meta-analysis. It preserves all of the information presented by separate funnel plots for each outcome while elucidating more complex features that may only be revealed by examining the joint distribution of the bivariate outcomes.

Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: Using pseudo IPD created from aggregate data to adjust for baseline imbalance and assess treatment-by-baseline modification

Meta‐analysis of individual participant data (IPD) is considered the “gold‐standard” for synthesizing clinical study evidence. However, gaining access to IPD can be a laborious task (if possible at all) and in practice only summary (aggregate) data are commonly available. In this work we focus on meta‐analytic approaches of comparative studies where aggregate data are available for continuous outcomes measured at baseline (pre‐treatment) and follow‐up (post‐treatment). We propose a method for constructing pseudo individual baselines and outcomes based on the aggregate data. These pseudo IPD can be subsequently analysed using standard analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) methods. Pseudo IPD for continuous outcomes reported at two timepoints can be generated using the sufficient statistics of an ANCOVA model, i.e., the mean and standard deviation at baseline and follow‐up per group, together with the correlation of the baseline and follow‐up measurements. Applying the ANCOVA approach, which crucially adjusts for baseline imbalances and accounts for the correlation between baseline and change scores, to the pseudo IPD, results in identical estimates to the ones obtained by an ANCOVA on the true IPD. In addition, an interaction term between baseline and treatment effect can be added. There are several modeling options available under this approach, which makes it very flexible. Methods are exemplified using reported data of a previously published IPD meta‐analysis of 10 trials investigating the effect of antihypertensive treatments on systolic blood pressure, leading to identical results compared with the true IPD analysis and of a meta‐analysis of fewer trials, where baseline imbalance occurred.

Blood pressure control in older adults with hypertension: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

Background

Managing blood pressure reduces CVD risk, but optimal treatment thresholds remain unclear as it is a balancing act to avoid hypotension-related adverse events.

Objectives

This systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression evaluated the benefits of intensive BP treatment in hypertensive older adults.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials until January 31, 2020. Studies comparing different BP treatments/targets and/or active BP against placebo treatment, with a minimum 12 months follow-up, were included. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs were calculated using a random effects model. The primary outcome was RR of major cardiovascular events (MCEs); secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure (HF), cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Results

We included 16 studies totaling 65,890 hypertensive participants (average age 69.4 years) with a follow-up period from 1.8 to 4.9 years. Intensive BP treatment significantly reduced the relative risk of MCEs by 26% (RR:0.74, 95%CI 0.64–0.86, p = 0.000; I² = 79.71%). RR of MI significantly reduced by 13% (RR:0.87, 95%CI 0.76–1.00, p = 0.052; I² = 0.00%), stroke by 28% (RR:0.72, 95%CI 0.64–0.82, p = 0.000; I² = 32.45%), HF by 47% (RR:0.53, 95% CI 0.43–0.66, p = 0.000; I² = 1.23%), and CV mortality by 24% (RR:0.76, 95%CI 0.66–0.89, p = 0.000; I² = 39.74%). All-cause mortality reduced by 17% (RR:0.83, 95%CI 0.73–0.93, p = 0.001; I² = 53.09%). Of the participants - 61% reached BP targets and 5% withdrew; with 1 hypotension-related event per 780 people treated.

Conclusions

Lower BP treatment targets are optimal for CV protection, effective, well-tolerated and safe, and support the latest hypertension guidelines.

•

Question: What is the optimal blood pressure target in older adults with hypertension?

•

Findings: Intensive blood pressure treatment reduces RR of MCEs and all-cause mortality; it is well tolerated and safe.

•

Meaning: Systolic BP targets of <130 mmHg are optimal for cardiovascular protection & support the ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines.

Chronotherapy for reduction of cardiovascular risk

Numerous prospective studies establish that elevated asleep blood pressure (BP) constitutes a significant cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor, irrespective of daytime office BP measurements or awake and 24h BP measurements. Moreover, except for a small number of studies with flawed methodology, multiple clinical trials of high consistency document significantly better BP-lowering efficacy of hypertension medication and their combinations when ingested at bedtime compared to upon awakening as is customary. Additionally, recent trials conclude bedtime hypertension chronotherapy markedly reduces CVD risk not only in the general population, but also in more vulnerable patients of advanced age, with kidney disease, diabetes, or resistant hypertension. Collectively, these results call for a new definition of true arterial hypertension and its proper diagnosis and management.

New perspectives on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of true arterial hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Office blood pressure measurements (OBPM), still used today for diagnosis and management of hypertension, fail to reveal clinically important features of the mostly predictable blood pressure (BP) 24 h pattern, and lead to >45% of individuals being misclassified. Current hypertension guidelines do not provide recommendation on when-to-treat, despite multiple prospective clinical trials documenting improved normalization of 24 h BP pattern and significant reduction in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events when hypertension medications are ingested at bedtime rather than upon waking.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss current evidence on the: (i) most relevant attributes of the 24 h BP pattern deterministic of CVD risk; (ii) asleep systolic BP (SBP) mean as the most significant therapeutic target for CVD risk reduction; (iii) ingestion-time differences in pharmacodynamics of BP-lowering medications as reported with high consistency in multiple clinical trials; and (iv) enhanced prevention of CVD events achieved by bedtime hypertension chronotherapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Several prospective trials consistently document asleep SBP mean and sleep-time relative SBP decline (dipping) constitute highly significant CVD risk factors, independent of OBPM. Bedtime, compared to customary upon-waking, hypertension chronotherapy reduces risk of major CVD events. Collectively, these findings call for new definition of true hypertension and, accordingly, its proper diagnosis and management.

Managing Hypertension in the elderly: What's new?

Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular events and mortality in the world. Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular events and mortality in the elderly. The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines recommend treatment of noninstitutionalized ambulatory community-dwelling persons aged 65 years and older with an average systolic blood pressure of 130 ​mm Hg or higher or a diastolic blood pressure of 80 ​mm Hg or higher with lifestyle measures plus antihypertensive drug to lower the blood pressure to less than 130/80 ​mm Hg For elderly adults with hypertension and a high burden of comorbidities and limited life expectancy, clinical judgment, patient preference, and a team-based approach to assess risk/benefit is reasonable for decisions about the intensity of SBP lowering and the choice of antihypertensive drugs to use for treatment. Randomized clinical trials need to be performed in frail elderly patients with hypertension living in nursing homes. Elderly frail persons with prevalent and frequent falls, marked cognitive impairment, and multiple comorbidities requiring multiple antihypertensive drugs also need to be included in randomized clinical trials. Data on patients older than 85 years treated for hypertension are also sparse. These patients need clinical trial data. Finally, the effect of different antihypertensive drugs on clinical outcomes including serious adverse events needs to be investigated in elderly frail patients with hypertension and different comorbidities.

Managing the elderly patient with hypertension: current strategies, challenges, and considerations

Introduction: Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular events and mortality in the world.Areas covered: An extensive literature review of articles and clinical trials on PUBMED on the topic of hypertension in the elderly from 1976 through January 2020 was conducted. This review article discusses clinical trials on treatment of hypertension in the elderly, the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) hypertension guidelines, the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines, and the treatment of hypertension and of resistant hypertension in the elderly.Expert opinion: The 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines recommend treatment of noninstitutionalized ambulatory community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older with an average systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher with lifestyle measures plus antihypertensive drug to lower the blood pressure to less than 130/80 mm Hg. For elderly adults with hypertension and a high burden of comorbidities and limited life expectancy, clinical judgment, patient preference, and a team-based approach to assess risk/benefit is reasonable for decisions about the intensity of SBP lowering and the choice of antihypertensive drugs to use for treatment.

Bedtime hypertension treatment improves cardiovascular risk reduction: the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial

Aims

The Hygia Chronotherapy Trial, conducted within the clinical primary care setting, was designed to test whether bedtime in comparison to usual upon awakening hypertension therapy exerts better cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction.

Methods and results

In this multicentre, controlled, prospective endpoint trial, 19 084 hypertensive patients (10 614 men/8470 women, 60.5 ± 13.7 years of age) were assigned (1:1) to ingest the entire daily dose of ≥1 hypertension medications at bedtime (n = 9552) or all of them upon awakening (n = 9532). At inclusion and at every scheduled clinic visit (at least annually) throughout follow-up, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring was performed for 48 h. During the 6.3-year median patient follow-up, 1752 participants experienced the primary CVD outcome (CVD death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, or stroke). Patients of the bedtime, compared with the upon-waking, treatment-time regimen showed significantly lower hazard ratio—adjusted for significant influential characteristics of age, sex, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, smoking, HDL cholesterol, asleep systolic blood pressure (BP) mean, sleep-time relative systolic BP decline, and previous CVD event—of the primary CVD outcome [0.55 (95% CI 0.50–0.61), P &lt; 0.001] and each of its single components (P &lt; 0.001 in all cases), i.e. CVD death [0.44 (0.34–0.56)], myocardial infarction [0.66 (0.52–0.84)], coronary revascularization [0.60 (0.47–0.75)], heart failure [0.58 (0.49–0.70)], and stroke [0.51 (0.41–0.63)].

Conclusion

Routine ingestion by hypertensive patients of ≥1 prescribed BP-lowering medications at bedtime, as opposed to upon waking, results in improved ABP control (significantly enhanced decrease in asleep BP and increased sleep-time relative BP decline, i.e. BP dipping) and, most importantly, markedly diminished occurrence of major CVD events.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00741585.

 

Implications of the New 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Hypertension

Automated validated devices should be used for measuring blood pressure (BP). The 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) hypertension guidelines recommend that a systolic BP between 120-129 mmHg with a diastolic BP less than 80 mmHg should be treated with lifestyle measures. These guidelines recommend treatment with lifestyle measures plus BP lowering drugs for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in persons with clinical cardiovascular disease and an average systolic BP of ≥130 mmHg or an average diastolic BP≥80 mmHg. These guidelines recommend treatment with lifestyle measures plus BP lowering drugs for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in persons with an estimated 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ≥ 10% and an average systolic BP ≥130 mmHg or an average diastolic BP ≥80 mmHg. These guidelines recommend treatment with lifestyle measures plus BP lowering drugs for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in persons with an estimated 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease of < 10% and an average systolic BP ≥140 mmHg or an average diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg. These guidelines recommend initiating antihypertensive drug therapy with 2 first-line drugs from different classes either as separate agents or in a fixed-dose combination in persons with a BP ≥140/90 mmHg or with a BP > 20/10 mmHg above their BP target. White coat hypertension must be excluded before starting treatment with antihypertensive drugs in persons with hypertension at low risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive drug treatment for different disorders is discussed.

Efficacy and toxicity of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy relative to effective dose 50

Antihypertensive drugs have usually been approved at doses near the top of their respective dose-response curves. Efficacy plateaus but adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as falls, cerebral or renal ischaemia, increase as dose is increased, especially in older patients with comorbidities. ADRs reduce adherence and may be difficult to ascertain reliably. Higher doses have generally not been shown to reduce total mortality, which provides a summary of efficacy and safety. Weight loss and other lifestyle measures are essential and may be sufficient treatment in many young and low risk patients. Most antihypertensive drug lower systolic blood pressure by around 10 mmHg, which reduces stroke and heart failure by about a quarter. Clinical trials have not been designed to demonstrate specific blood pressure treatment thresholds and targets, which are mostly extrapolated from epidemiology. Mean population oral effective dose 50 may be the most appropriate dose at which to commence antihypertensive drugs. The dose can then be titrated up if greater efficacy is demonstrated, or lowered if ADRs develop. Lower dose combination therapy may best balance benefit and harms with fewer ADRs and additive, potentially synergistic, efficacy.

Treatment of hypertension in the elderly in 2017/2018 - what's new?

Introduction: Hypertension is highly prevalent in the elderly and represents a major risk factor for cardiovascular complications such as coronary heart disease, stroke, and cognitive dysfunction. Areas covered: The recently published AHA/ACC and ESC/ESH guidelines for the management of hypertension in adult populations modified their approach towards hypertension in the elderly, particularly in those older than 85 years. The new concepts presented in these guidelines are discussed. They recommend a less conservative threshold and lower blood pressures targets; an emphasis on considering the biological rather than chronological age for patients >85 years, and the use of single-pill combinations to simplify treatment algorithms and increase long-term drug adherence. Expert opinion: Considering the high prevalence of hypertension in the elderly and the negative impact of untreated hypertension, early detection of hypertension in patients over 60 years old is crucial. The screening of hypertension should be reinforced in patient populations using out-of-office BP measurements. The author supports the latest ESC/ESH guidelines, which define a threshold at >140 mmHg for patients aged 65 to 79 years and >160 mmHg for those >85 years and propose a target BP of 130-140 mmHg, while considering patient frailty and the tolerability of the treatment.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality: 14 - effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in older and younger patients: overview and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The five major classes of blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs have all been shown to significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events when compared with placebo, and when directly (head-to-head) compared, no significant differences in their overall effectiveness have been detected, except for minor differences in cause-specific events. It is unknown, however, whether age-related differences exist and if some classes of drugs are differently effective in older or younger individuals. This clinically relevant question has been the object of a systematic search and meta-analysis of all available data.

METHODS

Two databases we had previously identified [72 placebo-controlled BP-lowering randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in 260 210 individuals and 50 RCTs head-to-head comparing treatments with BP-lowering drugs of different classes in 247 006 individuals) were searched for separately reported data on patients older or younger than 65 years, and the data were further stratified according to the class of drug [diuretics, beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers] compared with placebo or with other drug classes. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were considered for benefits. Adverse events were investigated as permanent treatment discontinuations for adverse events. Risk ratios and absolute risk changes were calculated by a random effects model. Effects at older and younger ages were compared by heterogeneity test.

RESULTS

We identified 20 placebo-controlled RCTs on 55 645 older individuals and 21 on 99 621 younger individuals, and 21 head-to-head drug comparison RCTs on 94 228 older individuals and 27 on 100 232 younger individuals (for a total of 349 726 individuals). When compared with placebo, all five classes of BP-lowering drugs significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events or stroke, with no significant difference between older and younger patients. However, in head-to-head comparisons, no significant difference was found between older and younger patients in the effects of diuretics, calcium antagonists, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on all cardiovascular outcomes, whereas beta-blockers revealed an age-dependent effectiveness, being equally effective as the other agents at an age below 65 years, but less effective at an older age.

CONCLUSION

Most BP-lowering classes are equally effective in preventing risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events both in older and younger patients, whereas beta-blockers, though being equally effective as the other agents in patients younger than 65, loose some of their effectiveness at an older age.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality: 13 - benefits and adverse events in older and younger patients with hypertension: overview, meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

There is overwhelming evidence that blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment can reduce cardiovascular outcomes also in the elderly, but some important aspects influencing medical practice are controversial as sufficient evidence has not been provided by single randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas evidence may result from a systematic search and meta-analysis of all available data.

OBJECTIVES

The following clinically relevant issues concerning the effects of BP lowering in older and younger individuals have been investigated: differences in benefits; the oldest and the youngest age range for which evidence of BP-lowering effects is available; the SBP level at which BP-lowering treatment should be initiated; the SBP and DBP levels treatment should be aimed at; differences in treatment burdens and harms.

METHODS

A database we previously identified of 72 BP-lowering RCTs in 260 210 patients was searched for separately reported data on older and younger individuals [cutoffs of 65 (primary analyses), 70, 75, 80, 60 and 55 years). The data were further stratified according to the levels of baseline (untreated) BP, and of on-treatment achieved SBP or DBP. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were considered for benefits. Burdens and harms were investigated as permanent treatment discontinuations for adverse events, and hypotension/syncope. Risk ratios and absolute risk changes were calculated by a random effects model. Effects at older and younger ages were compared by heterogeneity test.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs provided data on 96 549 patients older than 65 years, and 31 RCTs on 114 009 patients younger than 65 years. All cardiovascular outcomes were significantly reduced by treatment both in older and younger individuals, without significant age-dependent differences in relative risk reduction but with significantly higher absolute risk reductions in older individuals. The extreme age ranges for which evidence of significant benefits of treatment were available was greater than 80 and less than 55 years. Only one RCT provided data on benefits of BP-lowering at age greater than 65 when treatment was initiated at SBP values in the grade 1 range, but more consistent evidence was provided when age was greater than 60 years. Both in patients older and younger than 65 years, significant reductions of cardiovascular outcomes were found at on-treatment SBP less than 140 mmHg and DBP less than 80 mmHg. There was no evidence that treatment discontinuations for adverse events or hypotension/syncope were more frequent at age greater than 65.

CONCLUSION

Antihypertensive treatment should be recommended to all individuals with elevated BP, independent of age. The prudent recommendation to initiate treatment at SBP values 140-159 mmHg is supported at older age defined as greater than 60 years. SBP and DBP values lower than 140 mmHg and, respectively, 80 mmHg can be aimed at with incremental benefits without disproportionate burdens until age 80 years, above which available evidence is for benefits at on-treatment SBP 140-149 mmHg.

Evolution of Blood Pressure Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Personal Perspective

Before the second half of the 20th century, most clinical decision making was based on expert opinion. By the 1960s, experience in actuarial and research cohort studies had provided strong evidence that blood pressure was an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The landmark 1967 and 1970 Veterans Administration Cooperative Study trials confirmed the value of antihypertensive drug therapy in preventing stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure in adults with high levels of diastolic blood pressure. They also provided an impetus to develop the first blood-pressure-related clinical practice guideline in 1977. In subsequent years, more structured and comprehensive blood-pressure guidelines have evolved to become a major resource in clinical and public health practice. Despite some limitations, these guidelines provide useful evidence-based guidance for diagnosis and management of high blood pressure. The core advice in most of the current comprehensive blood pressure guidelines is more similar than different. Modelling studies suggest that better adherence to guideline recommendations would result in a lower average blood pressure and substantial improvement in public health.

[Arterial hypertension, cognitive disorders and dementia: a view of a cardiologist]

This article presents a review of Russian and foreign literature about the impact of arterial hypertension (AH) on the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. Large studies have demonstrated the effect of blood pressure (BP) on the risk of vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in elderly and oldest old people as well as a role of antihypertensive therapy. There is evidence of a negative effect of hypertension in middle age on cognitive functions in late-life. Observational studies as a whole have shown the positive effect of antihypertensive therapy on the prevention of cognitive function and dementia. However, there are a number of limitations that dictate the need for further research on this issue. The importance of the interdisciplinary approach to treatment of cognitive impairment by cardiologists and/or therapists, together with neurologists, as well as complex treatment regimens, including correction of risk factors and neuroprotective therapy, is highlighted.