MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: principal results. Medical Research Council Working Party

Prevalence of cardiovascular drug-related adverse drug reactions consultations in UK primary care: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a significant barrier to achieve optimal treatment outcomes. Cardiovascular drugs, including antihypertensive drugs, lipid-lowering drugs, and antithrombotic drugs, are among the most prescribed medications in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence of cardiovascular drug-related ADRs consultations in United Kingdom (UK) primary care and identify risk factors of these ADRs.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of cardiovascular drug users between 2000-2019 using UK IQVIA Medical Research Data. ADRs consultations were identified using database screening method employing standardised designated codes. The overall and annual age-standardised prevalence was estimated using direct standardisation method using 2019 mid-year UK population. Risk factors of ADRs consultations were estimated using logistic regression model stratified by therapeutic areas.

RESULTS

The standardised prevalence of consultations related to cardiovascular drugs ADRs was 10.60 (95% CI. 10.46, 10.75) per 1000 patients. Patients aged 70-79 years had the highest occurrence of ADRs consultations. The most frequently drug classes implicated in the ADRs consultations were statins (n = 9,993 events, 27.09%), beta-blockers (n = 8,538 events, 23.15%), ACEIs/ARBs (n = 8,345 events, 22.62%), and aspirin (n = 6,482 events, 17.57%). Risk factors of ADRs consultations were previous history of cardiovascular diseases, e.g., myocardial infarction and stroke; advanced age, comorbidities; diabetes and dyslipidaemia; and polypharmacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of cardiovascular drug-related ADRs consultations in primary care was considerable. Statins, beta-blockers, ACEIs/ARBs, and aspirin were the most frequently implicated drug classes. Closer clinical monitoring should be performed for patients affected by the ADRs to mitigate the risk of suboptimal treatment outcomes.

Blood pressure control in patients aged above and below 75 years

It remains unclear what the blood pressure target is and at which point in life it is appropriate for antihypertensive treatment. This study aimed to determine age-specific systolic blood pressure (SBP) targets. In a nationwide cohort of 296,470 hypertensive patients aged ≥75 years and a representative cohort of 259,028 hypertensives aged 45-74 years, multivariable-adjusted incidence rates of cardio-kidney composite events, overt dementia, and all-cause deaths were estimated across yearly-averaged on-treatment SBP levels according to age and the presence of 4 additional risk factors (diabetes, dyslipidemia, albuminuria, and smoking). For cardio-kidney events, on-treatment SBP showed positive curvilinear associations with higher risks at ≥135 mm Hg in most while an attenuated association in age ≥85 years. For overt dementia, SBP showed flat or slightly inverted associations in elderly while a small positive association in age 45-64 years. For all-cause mortality, SBP showed J-shaped associations having right-shifting tendency with age. For risk categories with ≥2, 1, and no additional risk factors, the respective mortality rate differences between SBP 145-154 mm Hg and 125-134 mm Hg were 4.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0 to 7.3), 1.2 (95% CI, -0.3 to 2.8), and 0.1 (95% CI, -1.4 to 1.8) per 1000 person-years in age ≥75 years and 2.9 (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.3), 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1 to 1.4), and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.6) per 1000 person-years in age 45-74 years. In conclusion, the BP target can be relaxed in very old patients and in elderly patients with few risk factors. However, strict BP control may be needed in patients with multiple risk factors even in those with advanced age.

Efficacy of beta-blockers on blood pressure control and morbidity and mortality endpoints in hypertensives of African ancestry: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Introduction

Compared with first-line antihypertensives, beta-blockers (BB) have been reported to lower the central aortic blood pressure suboptimally and are associated with increased stroke risk. This observation has not been investigated in hypertensives of African ancestry. We hypothesised that an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) on the efficacy of second- or third-generation beta-blockers (STGBBs) in hypertensives of African descent may provide new insights.

Methods

A single-stage IPD-MA analysed the efficacy of STGBB in lowering the mean arterial blood pressure and reducing the composite outcomes: cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction.

Results

A total of 11,860 participants from four randomised control trials were included in the analysis. Second- or third-generation beta-blockers reduced the mean arterial pressure by 1.75 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI):1.16-2.33; P < 0.001] in all participants included in the analysis, and by 1.93 mmHg (95% CI: 0.86-3.00; P < 0.001) in hypertensive Africans. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, where the benefits of BB therapy are well established, STGBBs were associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.33 (95% CI: 1.06-1.65; P = 0.015) of the composite outcome, most likely due to confounding. Similarly, the risk of total myocardial infarction was 1.76 times higher (95% CI: 1.15-2.68; P = 0.008) in hypertensives of African ancestry on STGBBs.

Conclusion

The STGBBs reduced the mean arterial pressure comparably to other antihypertensives, and they were not associated with an increased risk of stroke.

[Does aspirin have a place in primary cardiovascular prevention by the polypill ? Simulation study on a realistic virtual population]

BACKGROUND

The polypill strategy could become widely accepted in cardiovascular prevention due to reduced costs and its simplicity, which promote compliance. Aspirin is often included as a component of the polypill for primary prevention, but three powerful recent trials failed to show any favorable net benefit even in high-risk subgroups. Our objective is to estimate the net benefit associated with aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention.

METHODS

We simulated the impact of different polypill compositions combining pravastatin, ramipril, hydrochlorothiazide, with or without aspirin, on a realistic French virtual population between 35 and 65 years old. We assessed how this impact on myocardial infarction and stroke varied according to gender, diabetes, and arterial hypertension. We identified the subgroup of individuals whose specific benefit from aspirin was greater than twice the risk of serious bleeding it induced.

RESULTS

The absolute benefit associated with aspirin was reduced by co-prescriptions. No subgroup of women benefited from aspirin, and the subgroup of women with a clear net benefit represented 128 women out of 529,421. Men at high risk of cardiovascular death, or with diabetes and hypertension, had a benefit from aspirin exceeding the risk of bleeding induced, but this risk represented more than half of the benefit. No subgroup analyzed did show a benefit greater than twice the risk of bleeding. The proportion of men whose expected benefit from aspirin was greater than twice the risk of bleeding represented 3% of all men. An optimal polypill strategy in primary prevention between the ages of 35 and 65, combining three drugs but not aspirin, can hope to save two out of three strokes and more than one out of two myocardial infarctions. It would prevent a major cardiovascular accident every 16 to 193 individuals treated according to the subgroups considered.

CONCLUSION

Until proven otherwise, aspirin has only a limited place in individuals between 35 and 65 years without a cardiovascular history. We showed how simulating therapeutic strategies on a realistic virtual population could be used for best applying available evidence.

First-line diuretics versus other classes of antihypertensive drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.

Doctors' Drugs and the Dangers of Dental Decay

Many "anti-something" medications, which are prescribed by medical doctors for older patients, often for dubious reasons, result in a serious reduction in the quantity and quality of saliva. That drug-induced xerostomia can produce dangerous dental decay, particularly in already compromised dentitions.This article suggests that doctors should undertake a personalised "benefits, risks, alternatives, nothing" (BRAN) analysis including an assessment of the possible dental decay risks, especially before prescribing combinations of "anti-" drugs for marginal conditions.Doctors should consider carefully if alternative approaches are feasible which could produce acceptable outcomes without incurring those serious dental decay risks. Alternative approaches may include patients altering their diet and lifestyle to include more physical exercise for controlling conditions such as marginal hypertension, for example, or perhaps prescribing counselling/talking therapies for depression or anxiety.If various "anti-" drugs really do have to be prescribed, this article describes cheap, pragmatic, and effective ways of mitigating the risks of already compromised dentitions developing new decay.

Diverse pharmacological properties, trial results, comorbidity prescribing and neural pathophysiology suggest European hypertension guideline downgrading of beta-blockers is not justified

Beta-blockers have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications in the treatment of hypertension; atenolol, metoprolol, oxprenolol and propranolol demonstrate proven cardiovascular prevention in hypertension mega-trials. Hypertension is characterised by activation of the sympathetic nervous system from early to late phases, which makes beta-blockers an appropriate treatment seen from a pathophysiological viewpoint, especially in patients with an elevated heart rate. Beta-blockers represent a heterogenous class of drugs with regard to both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. This position is manifest by reference to another clinical context, beta-blocker treatment of heart failure, where unequivocally there is no class effect (no similar benefit from all beta-blockers); there are good and less good beta-blockers for heart failure. Analogous differences in beta-blocker efficacy is also likely in hypertension. Beta-blockers are widely used for the treatment of diseases comorbid with hypertension, in approximately 50 different concomitant medical conditions that are frequent in patients with hypertension, leading to many de facto beta-blocker first choices in clinical practice. Thus, beta-blockers should be regarded as relevant first choices for hypertension in clinical practice, particularly if characterised by a long half-life, highly selective beta-1 blocking activity and no intrinsic agonist properties.SUMMARYBeta-blockers have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications in the treatment of hypertension; atenolol, metoprolol, oxprenolol and propranolol demonstrate proven cardiovascular prevention in hypertension mega-trialsHypertension is characterised by activation of the sympathetic nervous system from early to late phases, which makes beta-blockers an appropriate treatment seen from a pathophysiological viewpoint, especially in patients with an elevated heart rateBeta-blockers represent a heterogenous class of drugs with regard to both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic propertiesThis position is manifest by reference to another clinical context, beta-blocker treatment of heart failure, where unequivocally there is no class effect (no similar benefit from all beta-blockers); there are good and less good beta-blockers for heart failureAnalogous differences in beta-blocker efficacy is also likely in hypertensionBeta-blockers are widely used for the treatment of diseases comorbid with hypertension, in approximately 50 different concomitant medical conditions that are frequent in patients with hypertension, leading to many de facto beta-blockers first choices in clinical practiceThese observations, in totality, inform our opinion that beta-blockers are relevant first choices for hypertension in clinical practice and this fact needs highlightingFurther, these arguments suggest European hypertension guideline downgrading of beta-blockers is not justified.

Benefits and risks of antihypertensive medication in adults with different systolic blood pressure: A meta-analysis from the perspective of the number needed to treat

Background

The blood pressure (BP) threshold for initial pharmacological treatment remains controversial. The number needed to treat (NNT) is a significant indicator. This study aimed to explore the benefits and risks of antihypertensive medications in participants with different systolic BPs (SBPs), and cardiovascular disease status from the perspective of the NNT.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of 52 randomized placebo-controlled trials. The data were extracted from published articles and pooled to calculate NNTs. The participants were divided into five groups, based on the mean SBP at entry (120–129.9, 130–139.9, 140–159.9, 160–179.9, and ≥180 mmHg). Furthermore, we stratified patients into those with and without cardiovascular disease. The primary outcomes were the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation.

Results

Antihypertensive medications were not associated with MACEs, however, it increased AEs, when the SBP was <140 mmHg. For participants with cardiovascular disease or at a high risk of heart failure and stroke, antihypertensive treatment reduced MACEs when SBP was ≥130 mmHg. Despite this, only 2–4 subjects had reduced MACEs per 100 patients receiving antihypertensive medications for 3.50 years. The number of individuals who needed to treat to avoid MACEs declined with an increased cardiovascular risk.

Conclusion

Pharmacological treatment could be activated when SBP reaches 140 mmHg. For people with cardiovascular disease or at a higher risk of stroke and heart failure, 130 mmHg may be a better therapeutic threshold. It could be more cost-effective to prioritize antihypertensive medications for people with a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

Individualized Beta-Blocker Treatment for High Blood Pressure Dictated by Medical Comorbidities: Indications Beyond the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension Guidelines

Several hypertension guidelines have removed beta-blockers from their previous position as first-choice drugs for the treatment of hypertension. However, this downgrading may not be justified by available evidence because beta-blockers lower blood pressure as effectively as other major antihypertensive drugs and have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications. Suspected inconveniences of beta-blockers such as increased risk of depression or erectile dysfunction may have been overemphasized, while patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or peripheral artery disease, that is, conditions in which their use was previously restricted, will benefit from beta-blocker therapy. Besides, evidence that from early to late phases, hypertension is accompanied by activation of the sympathetic nervous system makes beta-blockers pathophysiologically an appropriate treatment in hypertension. Beta-blockers have favorable effects on a variety of clinical conditions that may coexist with hypertension, making their use either as specific treatment or as co-treatment potentially common in clinical practice. Guidelines typically limit recommendations on specific beta-blocker use to cardiac conditions including angina pectoris, postmyocardial infarction, or heart failure, with little or no mention of the additional cardiovascular or noncardiovascular conditions in which these drugs may be needed or preferred. In the present narrative review, we focus on multiple additional diseases and conditions that may occur and affect patients with hypertension, often more frequently than people without hypertension, and that may favor the choice of beta-blocker. Notwithstanding, beta-blockers represent an in-homogenous group of drugs and choosing beta-blockers with documented effect in prevention and treatment of disease is important for first choice in guidelines.

Do recent meta-analyses truly prove that treatment with blood pressure-lowering drugs is beneficial at any blood pressure value, no matter how low? A critical review

Current European guidelines for the management of hypertension and on cardiovascular disease prevention place the threshold for pharmacological treatment at a SBP level of 140 mmHg or above, with the exception of patients at very high risk (mainly because of coronary heart disease). This is in agreement with the current definition of hypertension, that is, the level of blood pressure at which the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks of treatment, as documented by clinical trials. This rationale and definition was recently challenged by meta-analyses using individual participant-level data from 48 randomized trials by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC). The authors calculated for a fixed 5 mmHg pharmacological reduction of SBP an overall 10% risk reduction for major cardiovascular events. It was concluded that there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline SBP categories; that the effect was independent from the presence of cardiovascular disease; applied also to old and very old individuals up to 84 years or beyond; and that BP-lowering was also beneficial in individuals with normal or high-normal SBP down to a baseline SBP less than 120 mmHg. In this report, we identify and discuss a number of shortcomings of the BPLTTC meta-analyses. In our view, the conclusions by the BPLTTC must be - together with accompanying suggestions to abandon the definition of hypertension - strongly rejected as they are not justified and may be harmful for cardiovascular health in individuals without hypertension.

Antihypertensive and cardioprotective effects of three generations of beta-adrenergic blockers: an historical perspective

There are currently, 3 generations of beta-adrenergic blockers for the treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. The 1^st generation caused vasoconstriction and bronchoconstriction due to β₁ + β₂ receptor blockade and unopposed α₁ receptors. The 2^nd generation of beta-blockers has lesser adverse effects than the 1^st generation with the 3^rd generation beta-blockers having much lesser effects than the other two generations. Current US and International guideline do not recommend beta-blockers as first line therapy of hypertension, but only in the presence of coronary artery disease or heart failure due to their lesser antihypertensive effect. These recommendations are disputed by several older and recent studies which have shown that the beta-blockers are effective and safe for the treatment of hypertension and could be used as first line therapy. To clarify this issue a Medline search of the English language literature was conducted between 2012 and 2021 and 30 pertinent papers were selected. The data from these studies show that the beta-blockers have inferior antihypertensive and stroke protective effect compared with the other classes of antihypertensive drugs and should be used as first line therapy only in patients with hypertension associated with coronary artery disease or heart failure. The information from these papers and collateral literature will be discussed in this perspective.

Time to benefit for stroke reduction after blood pressure treatment in older adults: A meta-analysis

Background

Hypertension treatment in older adults can decrease mortality, cardiovascular events, including heart failure, cognitive impairment, and stroke risk, but may also lead to harms such as syncope and falls. Guidelines recommend targeting preventive interventions with immediate harms and delayed benefits to patients whose life expectancy exceeds the intervention's time to benefit (TTB). Our objective was to estimate a meta‐analyzed TTB for stroke prevention after initiation of more intensive hypertension treatment in adults aged ≥65 years.

Methods

Studies were identified from two Cochrane systematic reviews and a search of MEDLINE and Google Scholar for subsequent publications until August 31, 2021. We abstracted data from randomized controlled trials comparing standard (untreated, placebo, or less intensive treatment) to more intensive treatment groups in older adults (mean age ≥ 65 years). We fit Weibull survival curves and used a random‐effects model to estimate the pooled annual absolute risk reduction (ARR) between control and intervention groups. We applied Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to determine the time to ARR thresholds (0.002, 0.005, and 0.01) for a first stroke.

Results

Nine trials (n = 38,779) were identified. The mean age ranged from 66 to 84 years and study follow‐up times ranged from 2.0 to 5.8 years. We determined that 1.7 (95%CI: 1.0–2.9) years were required to prevent 1 stroke for 200 persons (ARR = 0.005) receiving more intensive hypertensive treatment. Heterogeneity was found across studies, with those focusing on tighter systolic blood pressure control (SBP < 150 mmHg) showing longer TTB. For example, in the SPRINT study (baseline SBP = 140 mmHg, achieved SBP = 121 mmHg), the TTB to avoid 1 stroke for 200 patients treated was 5.9 years (95%CI: 2.2–13.0).

Conclusions

More intensive hypertension treatment in 200 older adults prevents 1 stroke after 1.7 years. Given the heterogeneity across studies, the TTB estimates from individual studies may be more relevant for clinical decision‐making than our summary estimate.

See related Editorial by Mark A. Supiano in this issue.

Interactions between erectile dysfunction, cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular drugs

Sexual health has a fundamental role in overall health and well-being, and a healthy and dynamic sex life can make an important contribution to a good quality of life. Sexual dysfunction, and especially erectile dysfunction (ED) in men, is highly prevalent in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). CVD and ED have shared risk factors and pathophysiological links, such as endothelial dysfunction, inflammation and low plasma testosterone levels. ED has been shown to be an independent and early harbinger of future CVD events, providing an important window to initiate preventive measures. Therefore, screening and diagnosing ED is essential for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD because the assessment of ED offers an easy and low-cost prognostic tool that is an alternative to other investigational cardiovascular biomarkers. Moreover, ED is a major contributing factor to the discontinuation of, or poor adherence to, cardiovascular therapy. Cardiovascular drugs have divergent effects on erectile function, with diuretics and β-blockers having the worst profiles, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and nebivolol having the best profiles. Pharmacological treatment of ED has an equivocal effect on the risk of CVD, suggesting a complex interaction between ED and drugs for CVD. In this Review, we discuss how sexual function could be incorporated into the patient history taken by physicians treating individuals with CVD, not merely as part of the diagnostic work-up but as a means to pursue tangible and essential benefits in quality of life and cardiovascular outcomes.

Pharmacotherapy for Essential Hypertension: A Brief Review

Hypertension is one of the leading causes of disability-adjusted life years and mortality, with approximately 15% prevalence worldwide. Most patients with hypertension from low- to high-income countries do not receive treatment. Among those who receive treatment, the majority remain undertreated and do not achieve their blood pressure goals. Therefore, new hypertension guidelines introduce more conscientious treatment strategies to maximize the probability of achieving the new strict blood pressure goals compared with the previous guidelines. Who should receive treatment for hypertension? Which antihypertensive medications have the strongest supporting data? Are generic and more affordable medications as effective as expensive brand medications? What are the different treatment strategies to maximize success in controlling blood pressure? Here, we briefly review pharmacotherapy for hypertension and provide answers to these questions as well as some other common questions regarding treatment of hypertension.

Beta-blockers in hypertension: overview and meta-analysis of randomized outcome trials

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses from randomized outcome-based trials have challenged the role of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension. However, because they often include trials on diseases other than hypertension, the role of these drugs in the choice of the blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment strategies remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared beta-blockers vs. placebo/no-treatment/less-intense treatment (BP-lowering trials) or beta-blockers vs. other antihypertensive agents in patients with or without hypertension (comparison trials). Among BP-lowering trials and according to baseline comorbidity, we separately considered trials in hypertension, trials without chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction, and trials with either chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were calculated (random-effects model) for BP-lowering or comparison trials.

RESULTS

A total of 84 BP-lowering or comparison trials (165 850 patients) were eligible. In 67 BP-lowering trials (68 478 patients; mean follow-up 2.5 years; baseline SBP/DBP, 136/82 mmHg), beta blockers were associated with a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events [risk ratio 0.85 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.78-0.92] and all-cause death (risk ratio 0.81 and 95% CI 0.75-0.86). Restriction of the analysis to five trials recruiting exclusively hypertensive patients (18 724 patients; mean follow-up 5.1 years; baseline SBP/DBP 163/94 mmHg), a -10.5/-7.0 mmHg BP decrease was accompanied by reduction of major cardiovascular events by 22% (95% CI, 6-34). In 24 comparison trials (103 764 patients, 3.92 years of mean follow-up), beta-blockers compared with other agents were less protective for stroke and all-cause death in all trials and in trials conducted exclusively in hypertensive patients (averaged risk ratio increase 20 and 6%, respectively, for both cases).

CONCLUSION

Compared with other antihypertensive agents, beta-blockers appear to be substantially less protective against stroke and overall mortality. However, they exhibit a substantial risk-reducing ability for all events when prescribed to lower BP in patients with modest or more clear BP elevations, and therefore can be used as additional agents in hypertensive patients.

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

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Association between antihypertensive treatment and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (τ2).

RESULTS

Of 15 023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280 638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, τ2=0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, τ2=0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, τ2=0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, τ2=0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, τ2=0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018116860.

Incidence of Transient Ischemic Attack and Association With Long-term Risk of Stroke

Importance

Accurate estimation of the association between transient ischemic attack (TIA) and risk of subsequent stroke can help to improve preventive efforts and limit the burden of stroke in the population.

Objective

To determine population-based incidence of TIA and the timing and long-term trends of stroke risk after TIA.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study (Framingham Heart Study) of prospectively collected data of 14 059 participants with no history of TIA or stroke at baseline, followed up from 1948-December 31, 2017. A sample of TIA-free participants was matched to participants with first incident TIA on age and sex (ratio, 5:1).

Exposures

Calendar time (TIA incidence calculation, time-trends analyses), TIA (matched longitudinal cohort).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were TIA incidence rates; proportion of stroke occurring after TIA in the short term (7, 30, and 90 days) vs the long term (>1-10 years); stroke after TIA vs stroke among matched control participants without TIA; and time trends of stroke risk at 90 days after TIA assessed in 3 epochs: 1954-1985, 1986-1999, and 2000-2017.

Results

Among 14 059 participants during 66 years of follow-up (366 209 person-years), 435 experienced TIA (229 women; mean age, 73.47 [SD, 11.48] years and 206 men; mean age, 70.10 [SD, 10.64] years) and were matched to 2175 control participants without TIA. The estimated incidence rate of TIA was 1.19/1000 person-years. Over a median of 8.86 years of follow-up after TIA, 130 participants (29.5%) had a stroke; 28 strokes (21.5%) occurred within 7 days, 40 (30.8%) occurred within 30 days, 51 (39.2%) occurred within 90 days, and 63 (48.5%) occurred more than 1 year after the index TIA; median time to stroke was 1.64 (interquartile range, 0.07-6.6) years. The age- and sex-adjusted cumulative 10-year hazard of incident stroke for patients with TIA (130 strokes among 435 cases) was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.39-0.55) and for matched control participants without TIA (165 strokes among 2175) was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.08-0.11); fully adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 4.37 (95% CI, 3.30-5.71; P < .001). Compared with the 90-day stroke risk after TIA in 1948-1985 (16.7%; 26 strokes among 155 patients with TIA), the risk between 1986-1999 was 11.1% (18 strokes among 162 patients) and between 2000-2017 was 5.9% (7 strokes among 118 patients). Compared with the first epoch, the HR for 90-day risk of stroke in the second epoch was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.33-1.12) and in the third epoch was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.14-0.75) (P = .005 for trend).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this population-based cohort study from 1948-2017, the estimated crude TIA incidence was 1.19/1000 person-years, the risk of stroke was significantly greater after TIA compared with matched control participants who did not have TIA, and the risk of stroke after TIA was significantly lower in the most recent epoch from 2000-2017 compared with an earlier period from 1948-1985.

Trends in Ischaemic Heart Disease in Australia, 2001-2015: A Comparison of Urban and Rural Populations

OBJECTIVE

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is a major source of disease burden worldwide. Recent trends show incidence is declining but it is unclear whether the trends are similar in urban and rural populations. This study examines the trends of IHD events (i.e. hospitalisations and deaths) in New South Wales, Australia by rurality.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of linked administrative data for hospitalisation and death records across NSW between 2001 and 2015. Participants were NSW residents aged 15-105 years who died or were hospitalised with a principal diagnosis of IHD. The main outcome measures were annual age-standardised mortality and hospitalisations for IHD by calendar year and rurality.

RESULTS

Between 2001 and 2015, age-standardised annual IHD hospitalisations declined in urban areas from 587 to 260 and in rural areas from 766 to 395 per 100,000 people. The annual decline in hospitalisations was greater in urban than rural areas, with Annual Percentage Change (APC) of -5.6% (95% CI, -6.1%, -5.0%) and -4.5% (95% CI, -5.0%, -4.0%), respectively (p=0.012). Ischaemic heart disease mortality declined at a similar rate in urban and rural regions (APC -7.6% and -6.7% per annum, p=0.28). Absolute inequalities in IHD deaths persisted until 2015 when there were 49 (urban) and 70 (rural) IHD deaths per 100,000 people.

CONCLUSIONS

Ischaemic heart disease hospitalisations and mortality have declined considerably between 2001 and 2015 in both rural and urban areas, yet inequalities persist, suggesting more intensive preventive efforts are required to further reduce the burden of IHD in rural populations.

Synopsis of the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline: The Diagnosis and Management of Hypertension in the Primary Care Setting

DESCRIPTION

In January 2020, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the primary care setting.

METHODS

The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included a multidisciplinary panel of practicing clinician stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions in collaboration with the ECRI Institute, which systematically searched and evaluated the literature from 15 December 2013 to 25 March 2019 and developed and rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This synopsis summarizes key features of the guideline in several key areas: the measurement of blood pressure, the definition of hypertension, target treatment goals, and nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment of essential and resistant hypertension.

Erectile dysfunction and adherence to antihypertensive therapy: Focus on β-blockers

The management of arterial hypertension is very challenging in everyday clinical practice. Blood pressure control rates remain disappointingly low, despite intense efforts. Poor adherence to antihypertensive treatment is among the main causes of inadequate blood pressure control. Among the various parameters leading to poor adherence, medication adverse events seem to be the prevailing cause of treatment discontinuation. Β-blockers are a class of drugs commonly used in the management of hypertension. However, β-blockers use has been associated with various adverse events, among which, erectile dysfunction is a prevalent one. Accumulating evidence supports the detrimental role of β-blockers on erectile function. Older studies have shown contradictory findings, which however may be attributed to methodological errors related with the assessment of erectile function. More recent studies, however, unveiled the negative impact of this drug category on erectile function. Nevertheless, β-blockers represent a class of drugs with substantial within class heterogeneity. Nebivolol presents a unique mode of action through enhanced nitric oxide bioavailability that may be associated with benefits on erectile function. Indeed, studies of nebivolol have shown improvement in erectile function, suggesting that nebivolol represents the only exception in this class of drugs in terms of erectile function.

The Story of the Silent Killer : A History of Hypertension: Its Discovery, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Debates

Hypertension is the leading risk factor for death and disability-adjusted life-years lost globally. Despite this tremendous impact on health, blood pressure measurement and treatment are relatively new to medical practice, with widespread measurement beginning just over 100 years ago. How, in such a short time, did blood pressure become such an integral measurement in medical practice that it is now considered one of the vital signs? Key revelations through Stephen Hales and his horse experiment, Riva-Rocci's modern blood pressure cuff, Korotkoff sounds, and President Roosevelt's death set the stage for discovery. Landmark trials such as the VA Cooperative studies of the 1960s through the recent Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial and Prevention with Mediterranean Diet trials provide the foundation for modern clinical practice. An understanding of the history of hypertension can directly affect current clinical practice and offers unique insights into how the medical community has approached the management of one of the deadliest medical conditions in history.

The clinical significance of isolated diastolic hypertension

The prevalence of isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH) has been increased in hypertensive subjects with the new 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure treatment guidelines to 6.5% from 1.3% by the JNC-7 guidelines. However, its clinical significance as a cause of adverse cardiovascular (CV) events especially in older subjects has been debated by several investigators, who have demonstrated no adverse CV effects of untreated IDH, but not by others. It is also more common in the young subjects who are at low CV risk and quite rare in the older subjects, who are at increased CV risk. Treatment of IDH in the older subjects could increase the CV complications due to a J-curve effect and, in addition, could increase the incidence of stroke from further lowering the normal systolic blood pressure (SBP). Very low SBP and DBP cannot be sustained by the cerebral blood flow autoregulation and could lead to cerebral ischemia. In order to get a better perspective of the current status of the treatment of IDH, a review of the English language literature of the available studies was conducted and 12 papers with pertinent information were retrieved. The analysis of results from these studies suggests that IDH is associated with adverse CV events in younger persons and it should be treated. In contrast, the prevalence of IDH is low in older subjects and is not associated with adverse CV events in the majority of cases. Thus, its further lowering should be avoided to prevent further decrease in normal SBP and prevent the onset of adverse CV events. However, the decision to treat IDH in older subjects should be individualized.

A prospective study of the effect of antihypertensive medications on the sexual functions of hypertensive adult male patients

Background:

The potential for antihypertensive medications to produce deleterious adverse effects on sexual functions among hypertensive adult male patients has been widely reported, such adverse effects may limit drug adherence and compliance.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of antihypertensive medication use on sexual functions among hypertensive adult male patients.

Methodology:

The study was carried out at the outpatient clinic of a Nigerian University Teaching Hospital. A total of one hundred and fifty-nine recruited hypertensive adult male patients that were being managed at the center over a 3-month period between January 2017 and April 2017 participated in the study; provided they satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria for enrolment.

Results:

The respondents were between 30 and 98 years of age, (mean of 59 ± 11.1 years). Blood pressure recorded was during their initial medical diagnosis for hypertension. Systolic blood pressure recorded was between 128 and 194 mmHg (mean of 162 ± 16.4 mmHg), while their diastolic blood pressure was between 78 and 120 mmHg (mean of 95 ± 10.7 mmHg). The highest occurrence of sexual dysfunctions was associated with calcium-channel blockers in 32 (20.1%) patients, followed by diuretics in 27 (17.0%) and, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in 20 (12.6%) patients.

Conclusion:

Calcium channel blockers caused the highest occurrence of sexual dysfunctions.

This prospective study assessed the effect of antihypertensive medications on sexual functions among hypertensive adult male patients attending the medical outpatient clinic of a Nigerian University Teaching Hospital. A total of 159 patients who consented to the study and had been attending the clinic regularly for at least 6-month were enrolled. The respondents aged 30–98 years (mean 59 ± 11.1 years). Antihypertensive medication-associated sexual dysfunctions among the patients were observed in descending order as follows: calcium channel blockers in 32 (20.1%), diuretics in 27 (17.0%), Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in 20 (12.6%), centrally acting antihypertensives in 11 (6.9%), beta receptor blockers in 8 (5.0%), vasodilators in 2 (1.3%), combined alpha- and beta-receptor blockers in 2 (1.3%) and alpha receptor blockers in 1 (0.6%). Antihypertensive medical prescriptions should reflect a balance between efficacy and tendency to cause sexual dysfunctions.

Update on Hypertension and Adaptations for Treatment

Hypertension (HTN) affects 46% of the US adult population and plays a major role in cardiovascular disease (CVD). Approximately, there were 90,098 deaths in 2017 primarily attributed to high blood pressure (BP). Recent guidelines recommend screening all adults for HTN. Management of elevated BP substantially reduces the risk of heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for overweight or obese patients, regular exercise, the dietary approached to stop hypertension (DASH) diet, reduced dietary sodium intake, and reduced alcohol intake. Most HTN patients will need at least 2 drugs to control BP. Current guidelines from the ACC and AHA state that a BP level goal of < 130/80mmHg for adults with confirmed HTN and without additional markers of increased atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk may be acceptable.

Effects of blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular events, in the context of regression to the mean: a systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical relevance of regression to the mean for clinical trials and clinical practice.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched until February 2018 for randomized trials of BP lowering with over 1000 patient-years follow-up per group. We estimated baseline mean BP, follow-up mean (usual) BP amongst patients grouped by 10 mmHg strata of baseline BP, and assessed effects of BP lowering on coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke according to these BP levels.

RESULTS

Eighty-six trials (349 488 participants), with mean follow-up of 3.7 years, were included. Most mean BP change was because of regression to the mean rather than treatment. At high baseline BP levels, even after rigorous hypertension diagnosis, downwards regression to the mean caused much of the fall in BP. At low baseline BP levels, upwards regression to the mean increased BP levels, even in treatment groups. Overall, a BP reduction of 6/3 mmHg lowered CHD by 14% (95% CI 11-17%) and stroke by 18% (15-22%), and these treatment effects occurred at follow-up BP levels much closer to the mean than baseline BP levels. In particular, more evidence was available in the SBP 130-139 mmHg range than any other range. Benefits were apparent in numerous high-risk patient groups with baseline mean SBP less than 140 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

Clinical practice should focus less on pretreatment BP levels, which rarely predict future untreated BP levels or rule out capacity to benefit from BP lowering in high cardiovascular risk patients. Instead, focus should be on prompt, empirical treatment to maintain lower BP for those with high BP and/or high risk.

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.

[Target Levels of Arterial Pressure in Patients with Arterial Hypertension and Stroke]

Number of patients with arterial hypertension and stroke steadily grows. "Target" levels of arterial pressure are not established in patients after stroke. In this review, we present results of clinical trials and data of meta-analyses on this problem. Problems related to target levels of arterial pressure after stroke are also covered in a framework of present Russian (2010), European (2018) and American (2017) recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of arterial hypertension.

Role of Beta-blockers in Cardiovascular Disease in 2019

Beta-blockers are the cornerstone of treatment for various cardiovascular conditions. Although their effects have classically been considered to be driven by their antagonistic and competitive action on beta-adrenergic receptors, nowadays it is known that their effect goes beyond that of mere competition with catecholamines on these receptors. Beta-blockers were discovered as antianginal drugs in the 1960s and are currently widely used in heart failure, arrhythmias, and ischemic heart disease. In this article, we review the evidence for the beneficial effects of beta-blockers in these conditions, as well as the current recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for their use. Surprisingly, despite having been prescribed for more than 4 decades, new, previously unnoticed mechanisms of action on cellular compartments are still being discovered, which continues to open up new horizons for their use. All in all, beta-blockers are one of the most fascinating drug groups in our therapeutic armamentarium.

2018 Korean Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of hypertension: part II-diagnosis and treatment of hypertension

The standardized techniques of blood pressure (BP) measurement in the clinic are emphasized and it is recommended to replace the mercury sphygmomanometer by a non-mercury sphygmomanometer. Out-of-office BP measurement using home BP monitoring (HBPM) or ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and even automated office BP (AOBP) are recommended to correctly measure the patient’s genuine BP. Hypertension (HTN) treatment should be individualized based on cardiovascular (CV) risk and the level of BP. Based on the recent clinical study data proving benefits of intensive BP lowering in the high risk patients, the revised guideline recommends the more intensive BP lowering in high risk patients including the elderly population. Lifestyle modifications, mostly low salt diet and weight reduction, are strongly recommended in the population with elevated BP and prehypertension and all hypertensive patients. In patients with BP higher than 160/100 mmHg or more than 20/10 mmHg above the target BP, two drugs can be prescribed in combination to maximize the antihypertensive effect and to achieve rapid BP control. Especially, single pill combination drugs have multiple benefits, including maximizing reduction of BP, minimizing adverse effects, increasing adherence, and preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and target organ damage.

[Sexual dysfunction and antihypertensive treatment: Involvement of the different therapeutic classes and what to do about the treatment of hypertension]

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is not routinely discussed with patients in cardiology practices whereas it may impact the ability of patients to stay on therapy. Most of the studies about ED and antihypertensive therapies have several methodological limitations. Diuretics and beta-blockers have been shown to have a deleterious effect on ED. ISRA inhibitors, calcium antagonists, vasodilator beta-blockers and alpha-blockers have been shown to have a neutral impact on ED. Angiotensin 2 inhibitors, nebivolol and alpha-blockers use has sometimes beneficial effect on ED. In case of ED due to antihypertensive treatment, drugs can be switched each other but careful attention in patients with a high cardiovascular risk is required.

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.

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.

Clinical Benefit of Treatment of Stage-1, Low-Risk Hypertension

Evidence about the benefits of treating uncomplicated, low-risk, stage-1 hypertension is lacking. The study aimed to investigate the association between mean blood pressure (BP) and clinical outcomes, and to determine optimal BPs in treated, low-risk, stage-1 hypertension. From the National Health Insurance Service Health Examination Database, patients with stage-1 hypertension between 2005 and 2006 were selected. They had a systolic BP of 140 to 159 mm Hg or diastolic BP of 90 to 99 mm Hg. Patients were grouped as controlled (mean BP <140/90 mm Hg; n=99 301) and uncontrolled (mean BP ≥140/90 mm Hg; n=49 460) according to their mean BP recorded during the follow-up health examination. All-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes were examined. Mean BPs in the controlled and uncontrolled groups were 131.1/80.9 and 144.6/86.8 mm Hg, respectively. Controlled BP was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause mortality, all stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, and end-stage renal disease. Subgroup analysis demonstrated benefits of controlled BP in hypertensive patients aged <50 years for all-cause mortality, all stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, and end-stage renal disease, with no significant interaction according to age. The BP associated with the lowest risk of all-cause mortality was 120 to <130 mm Hg (systolic BP) and 70 to <80 mm Hg (diastolic BP). There was an increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients with mean systolic BP <120 mm Hg and diastolic BP <80 mm Hg. BP <140/90 mm Hg was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of mortality, stroke, and end-stage renal disease, with the lowest mortality risk at BP ranges of 120 to <130 and 70 to <80 mm Hg.

The effect of indapamide vs. bendroflumethiazide for primary hypertension: a systematic review

The aims of the current review were to compare the efficacy of monotherapy with bendroflumethiazide vs. indapamide on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, blood pressure, need for intensification of treatment and treatment withdrawal. Two authors independently screened the results of a literature search, assessed the risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Randomized clinical trials of hypertensive patients of at least a 1-year duration were included. When there was disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted. Risk ratio (RR) and mean differences were used as measures of effect. Two trials comparing bendroflumethiazide against placebo, one comparing indapamide with placebo and three of short duration directly comparing indapamide and Bendroflumethiazide, were included. No statistically significant difference was found between indapamide and bendroflumethiazide for all deaths [RR 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57, 1.18], cardiovascular deaths (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.55, 1.20), noncardiovascular deaths (0.81; 95% CI 0.54, 1.22), coronary events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.30, 1.79) or all cardiovascular events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.67, 1.18). Indapamide performed worse for stroke (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.19, 4.11), even though a reduction in RR compared with placebo was observed in both groups. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference between indapamide and bendroflumethiazide in blood pressure reduction (mean absolute difference <1 mmHg). The present review highlights a lack of studies to answer the review question but also a lack of evidence of superiority of one drug over the other. Therefore, there is a clear need for new studies directly comparing the effect of these drugs on the outcomes of interest.

Ideal Target Blood Pressure in Hypertension

In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering was associated with significant reduction in composite cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in hypertension. Subsequently, several meta-analyses have corroborated the findings from SPRINT and these benefits were more prominent in subjects with higher cardiovascular risk at baseline. As such, the recent American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) hypertension guideline and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline recommended the lowering of target BP to less than 130/80 mmHg in most hypertensive subjects. However, one should keep in mind the potential harm of too much BP lowering. Post hoc analysis of clinical trials have demonstrated increased cardiovascular mortality and events with too much BP lowering. Therefore, although intensive BP lowering may be beneficial in further reducing CV outcomes, too much reduction below 120/70 mmHg may actually harmful. In conclusion, although intensive BP lowering to achieve target BP below 130/80 mmHg is beneficial in reducing CV outcomes, one should do so cautiously as to avoid adverse events. As such, the first target of anti-hypertensive treatment should be to achieve BP lowering below 140/90 mmHg. Once that target is achieved, one could target BP below 130/80 mmHg keeping in mind to avoid signs of organ hypoperfusion such as orthostatic hypotension, orthostatic dizziness, weakness and serum creatinine elevation.

Blood Pressure Goals in Patients with CKD: A Review of Evidence and Guidelines

Hypertension affects the vast majority of patients with CKD and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, ESKD, and death. Over the past decade, a number of hypertension guidelines have been published with varying recommendations for BP goals in patients with CKD. Most recently, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2017 hypertension guidelines set a BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg for patients with CKD and others at elevated cardiovascular risk. These guidelines were heavily influenced by the landmark Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), which documented that an intensive BP goal to a systolic BP <120 mm Hg decreased the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality in nondiabetic adults at high cardiovascular risk, many of whom had CKD; the intensive BP goal did not retard CKD progression. It is noteworthy that SPRINT measured BP with automated devices (5-minute wait period, average of three readings) often without observers, a technique that potentially results in BP values that are lower than what is typically measured in the office. Still, results from SPRINT along with long-term follow-up data from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension suggest that a BP goal <130/80 mm Hg will reduce mortality in patients with CKD. Unfortunately, data are more limited in patients with diabetes or stage 4-5 CKD. Increased adverse events, including electrolyte abnormalities and decreased eGFR, necessitate careful laboratory monitoring. In conclusion, a BP goal of <130/80 is a reasonable, evidence-based BP goal in patients with CKD. Implementation of this intensive BP target will require increased attention to measuring BP accurately, assessing patient preferences and concurrent medical conditions, and monitoring for adverse effects of therapy.

Investigation of one-stage meta-analysis methods for joint longitudinal and time-to-event data through simulation and real data application

Background: Joint modeling of longitudinal and time‐to‐event data is often advantageous over separate longitudinal or time‐to‐event analyses as it can account for study dropout, error in longitudinally measured covariates, and correlation between longitudinal and time‐to‐event outcomes. The current literature on joint modeling focuses mainly on the analysis of single studies with a lack of methods available for the meta‐analysis of joint data from multiple studies.

Methods: We investigate a variety of one‐stage methods for the meta‐analysis of joint longitudinal and time‐to‐event outcome data. These methods are applied to the INDANA dataset to investigate longitudinally measured systolic blood pressure, with each of time to death, time to myocardial infarction, and time to stroke. Results are compared to separate longitudinal or time‐to‐event meta‐analyses. A simulation study is conducted to contrast separate versus joint analyses over a range of scenarios.

Results: The performance of the examined one‐stage joint meta‐analytic models varied. Models that accounted for between study heterogeneity performed better than models that ignored it. Of the examined methods to account for between study heterogeneity, under the examined association structure, fixed effect approaches appeared preferable, whereas methods involving a baseline hazard stratified by study were least time intensive.

Conclusions: One‐stage joint meta‐analytic models that accounted for between study heterogeneity using a mix of fixed effects or a stratified baseline hazard were reliable; however, models examined that included study level random effects in the association structure were less reliable.

Diastolic blood pressure and risk profile in renal and cardiovascular diseases. Results from the SPRINT trial

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of targeting a systolic blood pressure of <120 mmHg compared to <140 mmHg in selected hypertensive patients. Some evidence, however, suggests a J-curve for; diastolic blood pressure (DBP) particularly in subjects with cardiovascular (CV) and chronic kidney disease. We evaluated the risk of events in SPRINT with focus on these subgroups according to DBP. Mean DBP (±standard deviation) throughout follow-up time was calculated for each patient. Patients were then categorized into five groups according to mean DBP (<60 mmHg, 60-69 mmHg, 70-79 mmHg [reference], 80-89 mmHg, ≥90 mmHg); hazard ratio for outcomes was assessed overall and in the predefined subgroups. A higher risk for CV events was observed in the lower DBP range overall (hazard ratio 1.46, confidential interval 95% 1.1-1.95, P < .001), but not in the absence of pre-existing CV or renal disease. Indeed, such risk significantly increased above 80 mmHg in patients with CV disease and below 70 mmHg in those with chronic kidney disease for selected outcomes. DBP<70 mmHg particularly affected renal outcomes irrespective of renal status. Different risk profiles according to DBP appear to be related to specific clinical characteristics in SPRINT. These findings require further testing in dedicated trials with appropriate follow-up.

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.