Different systolic blood pressure targets for people with history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack: PAST-BP (Prevention After Stroke--Blood Pressure) randomised controlled trial

Association of hypertension burden with stroke risk in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Introduction

Whether the hypertension burden is associated with stroke incidence is inconclusive. In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between hypertension burden and stroke risk in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods

HFpEF patients from the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial were divided into three groups (low, medium, and high risk) according to their hypertension burden values. Higher hypertension burden risk represented the longer duration of hypertension. We evaluated the association of hypertension burden with stroke risk using Fine and Gray's competing risk models.

Results

A total of 3431 HFpEF patients (mean age: 68.5 ± 9.58 years, 51.6% females) were enrolled. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, per 10-point increase in hypertension burden was associated with any stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.21), new-onset stroke (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21), and ischemic stroke (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.17). When hypertension burden was analyzed as a categorical variable, any stroke risk was increased in the medium- (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.40) and high-risk (HR 3.19, 95% CI 2.05-4.97) groups when compared with the low-risk group. For the outcomes of new-onset (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.80-4.74) and ischemic stroke (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.41-4.29), similar results were observed in patients with high-versus low-risk hypertension burden.

Conclusions

Increasing hypertension burden was associated with an increased risk of stroke, suggesting that shortening hypertension duration might appropriately minimize the stroke incidence in HFpEF patients.

Beyond antithrombotics: recent advances in pharmacological risk factor management for secondary stroke prevention

Patients with ischaemic stroke represent a diverse group with several cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, which classify them as patients at very high risk of stroke recurrence, cardiovascular adverse events or death. In addition to antithrombotic therapy, which is important for secondary stroke prevention in most patients with stroke, cardiovascular risk factor assessment and treatment also contribute significantly to the reduction of mortality and morbidity. Dyslipidaemia, diabetes mellitus and hypertension represent common and important modifiable cardiovascular risk factors among patients with stroke, while early recognition and treatment may have a significant impact on patients' future risk of major cardiovascular events. In recent years, there have been numerous advancements in pharmacological agents aimed at secondary cardiovascular prevention. These innovations, combined with enhanced awareness and interventions targeting adherence and persistence to treatment, as well as lifestyle modifications, have the potential to substantially alleviate the burden of cardiovascular disease, particularly in patients who have experienced ischaemic strokes. This review summarises the evidence on the contemporary advances on pharmacological treatment and future perspectives of secondary stroke prevention beyond antithrombotic treatment.

Real-world analysis of two ischaemic stroke and TIA systolic blood pressure goals on 12-month mortality and recurrent vascular events

INTRODUCTION

Whether obtaining the more intensive goal systolic blood pressure (SBP) of <130 mm Hg, rather than a less intensive SBP goal of <140 mm Hg poststroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) is associated with incremental mortality and recurrent vascular event benefit is largely unexplored using real-world data. Lowering SBP excessively may result in poorer outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of 26 368 Veterans presenting to a Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) with a stroke/TIA between October 2015 and July 2018. Patients were excluded from the study if they had missing or extreme BP values, receiving dialysis or palliative care, left against medical advice had a cancer diagnosis, were cared for in a VAMC enrolled in a stroke/TIA quality improvement initiative, died or had a cerebrovascular or cardiovascular event within 90 days after their index stroke/TIA. The analytical sample included 12 337 patients. Average SBP during 90 days after discharge was assessed in categories (≤105 mm Hg, 106-115 mm Hg, 116-130 mm Hg, 131-140 mm Hg and >140 mm Hg). Separate multivariable Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to examine the relationship between average SBP groups and time to: (1) mortality and (2) any recurrent vascular event, from 90 days to up to 365 days after discharge from the index emergency department visit or inpatient admission.

RESULTS

Compared with those with SBP>140 mm Hg, patients with SBP between 116 and 130 mm Hg had a significantly lower risk of recurrent stroke/TIA (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) but not cardiovascular events. Patients with SBP lower than 105 mm Hg, compared with those with >140 mm Hg demonstrated a statistically significant higher risk of death (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.00), but no statistical differences were found in other SBP groups.

DISCUSSION

Data support a more intensive SBP goal to prevent recurrent cerebrovascular events among stroke/TIA patients by 90 days poststroke/TIA compared with less intensive goal. Very low SBPs were associated with increased mortality risk.

[Secondary prophylaxis of ischemic stroke]

The secondary prophylaxis of ischemic stroke provides an enormous therapeutic potential due to the high frequency of recurrent thrombembolic events and the exceptional importance of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors for the individual risk of stroke. In this respect, anti-thrombotic, interventional and surgical treatment options must be selected based on the respective etiology. Furthermore, meticulous optimization of risk factors is essential for effective long-term care. Close interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration is crucial, especially in the long-term treatment.

Associations Between Vascular Risk Factor Levels and Cognitive Decline Among Stroke Survivors

Importance

Incident stroke is associated with accelerated cognitive decline. Whether poststroke vascular risk factor levels are associated with faster cognitive decline is uncertain.

Objective

To evaluate associations of poststroke systolic blood pressure (SBP), glucose, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels with cognitive decline.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Individual participant data meta-analysis of 4 US cohort studies (conducted 1971-2019). Linear mixed-effects models estimated changes in cognition after incident stroke. Median (IQR) follow-up was 4.7 (2.6-7.9) years. Analysis began August 2021 and was completed March 2023.

Exposures

Time-dependent cumulative mean poststroke SBP, glucose, and LDL cholesterol levels.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was change in global cognition. Secondary outcomes were change in executive function and memory. Outcomes were standardized as t scores (mean [SD], 50 [10]); a 1-point difference represents a 0.1-SD difference in cognition.

Results

A total of 1120 eligible dementia-free individuals with incident stroke were identified; 982 (87.7%) had available covariate data and 138 (12.3%) were excluded for missing covariate data. Of the 982, 480 (48.9%) were female individuals, and 289 (29.4%) were Black individuals. The median age at incident stroke was 74.6 (IQR, 69.1-79.8; range, 44.1-96.4) years. Cumulative mean poststroke SBP and LDL cholesterol levels were not associated with any cognitive outcome. However, after accounting for cumulative mean poststroke SBP and LDL cholesterol levels, higher cumulative mean poststroke glucose level was associated with faster decline in global cognition (-0.04 points/y faster per each 10-mg/dL increase [95% CI, -0.08 to -0.001 points/y]; P = .046) but not executive function or memory. After restricting to 798 participants with apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) data and controlling for APOE4 and APOE4 × time, higher cumulative mean poststroke glucose level was associated with a faster decline in global cognition in models without and with adjustment for cumulative mean poststroke SBP and LDL cholesterol levels (-0.05 points/y faster per 10-mg/dL increase [95% CI, -0.09 to -0.01 points/y]; P = .01; -0.07 points/y faster per 10-mg/dL increase [95% CI, -0.11 to -0.03 points/y]; P = .002) but not executive function or memory declines.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, higher poststroke glucose levels were associated with faster global cognitive decline. We found no evidence that poststroke LDL cholesterol and SBP levels were associated with cognitive decline.

Secondary Ischemic Stroke Prevention

The health burden of ischemic stroke is high and will continue to increase with an aging population. Recurrent ischemic stroke is increasingly recognized as a major public health concern with potentially debilitating sequelae. Thus, it is imperative to develop and implement effective strategies for stroke prevention. When considering secondary ischemic stroke prevention, it is important to consider the mechanism of the first stroke and the related vascular risk factors. Secondary ischemic stroke prevention typically includes multiple medical and, potentially, surgical treatments, but with the shared goal of reducing the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Providers, health care systems, and insurers also need to consider the availability of treatments, their cost and patient burden, methods for improving adherence, and interventions that target lifestyle risk factors such as diet or activity. In this article, we discuss aspects from the 2021 AHA Guideline on Secondary Stroke Prevention as well as highlight additional information relevant to best practices for reducing recurrent stroke risk.

Association Between Magnitude of Differential Blood Pressure Reduction and Secondary Stroke Prevention: A Meta-analysis and Meta-Regression

Importance

The degree to which more intensive blood pressure reduction is better than less intensive for secondary stroke prevention has not been delineated.

Objective

To perform a standard meta-analysis and a meta-regression of randomized clinical trials to evaluate the association of magnitude of differential blood pressure reduction and recurrent stroke in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1, 1980, to June 30, 2022.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials that compared more intensive vs less intensive blood pressure lowering and recorded the outcome of recurrent stroke in patients with stroke or TIA.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was used as a measure of the association of more intensive vs less intensive blood pressure lowering with primary and secondary outcomes. The univariate meta-regression analyses were conducted to evaluate a possible moderating effect of magnitude of differential systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction on the recurrent stroke and major cardiovascular events.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was recurrent stroke and the lead secondary outcome was major cardiovascular events.

Results

Ten randomized clinical trials comprising 40 710 patients (13 752 women [34%]; mean age, 65 years) with stroke or TIA were included for analysis. The mean duration of follow-up was 2.8 years (range, 1-4 years). Pooled results showed that more intensive treatment compared with less intensive was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke in patients with stroke or TIA (absolute risk, 8.4% vs 10.1%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.88). Meta-regression showed that the magnitude of differential SBP and DBP reduction was associated with a lower risk of recurrent stroke in patients with stroke or TIA in a log-linear fashion (SBP: regression slope, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.03; DBP: regression slope, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.08). Similar results were found in the association between differential blood pressure lowering and major cardiovascular events.

Conclusions and Relevance

More intensive blood pressure-lowering therapy might be associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke and major cardiovascular events. These results might support the use of more intensive blood pressure reduction for secondary prevention in patients with stroke or TIA.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Controversies in Hypertension II: The Optimal Target Blood Pressure

The optimal target blood pressure in the treatment of hypertension is undefined. Whether more intense therapy is better than standard, typically <140/90 mm Hg, is controversial. The most recent American guidelines recommend ≤130/80 mm Hg for essentially all adults. There have been at least 28 trials targeting more versus less intensive therapy, including 13 aimed at reducing cardiovascular events and mortality, 11 restricted to patients with chronic kidney disease, and 4 with surrogate endpoints. We review these trials in a narrative fashion due to significant heterogeneity in targets chosen, populations studied, and primary endpoints. Most were negative, although some showed significant benefit to more intense therapy. When determining the optimal pressure for an individual patient, additional factors should be considered, including age, frailty, polypharmacy, baseline blood pressure, and the diastolic blood pressure J-curve. We discuss these modifying factors in detail. Whereas the tenet "lower is better" is generally true, one size does not fit all, and blood pressure control must be individualized.

European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on pharmacological interventions for long-term secondary prevention after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack

Recurrent stroke affects 9% to 15% of people within 1 year. This European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on pharmacological management of blood pressure (BP), diabetes mellitus, lipid levels and antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent stroke and other important outcomes in people with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). It does not cover interventions for specific causes of stroke, including anticoagulation for cardioembolic stroke, which are addressed in other guidelines. This guideline was developed through ESO standard operating procedures and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The working group identified clinical questions, selected outcomes, performed systematic reviews, with meta-analyses where appropriate, and made evidence-based recommendations, with expert consensus statements where evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation. To reduce the long-term risk of recurrent stroke or other important outcomes after ischaemic stroke or TIA, we recommend: BP lowering treatment to a target of <130/80 mmHg, except in subgroups at increased risk of harm; HMGCoA-reductase inhibitors (statins) and targeting a low density lipoprotein level of <1.8 mmol/l (70 mg/dl); avoidance of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel after the first 90 days; to not give direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) for embolic stroke of undetermined source and to consider pioglitazone in people with diabetes or insulin resistance, after careful consideration of potential risks. In addition to the evidence-based recommendations, all or the majority of working group members supported: out-of-office BP monitoring; use of combination treatment for BP control; consideration of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors when lipid targets are not achieved; consideration of use of low-dose DOACs in addition to an antiplatelet in selected groups of people with coronary or peripheral artery disease and aiming for an HbA1c level of <53 mmol/mol (7%) in people with diabetes mellitus. These guidelines aim to standardise long-term pharmacological treatment to reduce the burden of recurrent stroke in Europe.

Blood Pressure and Vascular Cognitive Impairment

High blood pressure (BP) is detrimental to brain health. High BP contributes to cognitive impairment and dementia through pathways independent of clinical stroke. Emerging evidence shows that the deleterious effect of high BP on cognition occurs across the life span, increasing the risk for early-onset and late-life dementia. The term vascular cognitive impairment includes cognitive disorders associated with cerebrovascular disease, regardless of the pathogenesis. This focused report is a narrative review that aims to summarize the epidemiology of BP and vascular cognitive impairment, including differences by sex, race, and ethnicity, as well as the management and reversibility of BP and vascular cognitive impairment. It also discusses knowledge gaps and future directions.

Long-Term Secondary Prevention: Management of Blood Pressure After a Transient Ischemic Attack or Stroke

Reducing blood pressure (BP) is a highly effective strategy for long-term stroke prevention. Despite overwhelmingly clear evidence from randomized trials that antihypertensive therapy substantially reduces the risk of stroke in primary prevention, uncertainty still surrounds the issue of BP lowering after cerebrovascular events, and the risk of recurrent stroke, coronary events, and vascular death remains significant. Important questions in a secondary prevention setting include should everyone be treated regardless of their poststroke BP, how soon after a stroke should BP-lowering treatment be commenced, how intensively should BP be lowered, what drugs are best, and how should long-term BP control be optimized and monitored. We review the evidence on BP control after a transient ischemic attack or stroke to address these unanswered questions and draw attention to some recent developments that hold promise to improve management of BP in current practice.

Intensive or standard blood pressure control in patients with a history of ischemic stroke: RESPECT post hoc analysis

The Recurrent Stroke Prevention Clinical Outcome (RESPECT) Study and its pooled analysis showed that intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering reduced recurrent stroke risk by 22% in patients with a history of stroke. Here, we report the effect of intensive BP lowering on the risk of recurrent stroke subtypes in patients with a history of ischemic stroke. RESPECT was a randomized clinical trial among 1280 people with a history of cerebral infarction or intracerebral hemorrhage. Participants were assigned to the intensive blood pressure control group (blood pressure < 120/80 mmHg) or standard blood pressure control group (blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg). In this post hoc analysis, we analyzed 1074 patients with a history of cerebral infarction. The mean BP at baseline was 140.7/81.4 mmHg. Throughout the follow-up period, the mean BP was 133.4/77.5 (95% CI, 132.7-134.1/76.9-78.2) mmHg in the standard group and 126.7/74.1 (95% CI, 126.0-127.4/73.5-74.8) mmHg in the intensive group. During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, 78 first recurrent strokes occurred. Intensive treatment tended to reduce overall annual stroke recurrence (1.74% in intensive vs. 2.17% in standard; P = 0.351 by log-rank test) and did not change the risk of ischemic stroke (1.74% vs. 1.75%, P = 0.999) but markedly reduced the risk of hemorrhagic stroke (0.00% vs. 0.39%, P = 0.005). Beneficial effects of intensive BP control were observed for the risk of hemorrhagic stroke in patients with a history of ischemic stroke. The findings of this study indicate the benefit of intensive BP control for patients with a history of ischemic stroke at high risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

"Lessons Learned" Preventing Recurrent Ischemic Strokes through Secondary Prevention Programs: A Systematic Review

Recurrent ischemic strokes are a cause of significant healthcare burdens globally. Patients with uncontrolled vascular risk factors are more likely to develop recurrent ischemic strokes. This study aims to compile information gained from current secondary prevention programs. A pre-defined literature search strategy was applied to PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases, and studies from 1997 to 2020 were evaluated for quality, study aims, and outcomes. The search produced 1175 articles (1092 after duplicates were removed) and titles were screened; 55 titles were retained for the full-text analysis. Of the remaining studies, 31 were retained for assessment, five demonstrated long-term effectiveness, eight demonstrated short-term effectiveness, and 18 demonstrated no effectiveness. The successful studies utilized a variety of different techniques in the categories of physical fitness, education, and adherence to care plans to reduce the risk of recurrent strokes. The lessons we learned from the current prevention programs included (1) offer tailored care for underserved groups, (2) control blood pressure, (3) provide opportunities for medication dosage titration, (4) establish the care plan prior to discharge, (5) invest in supervised exercise programs, (6) remove barriers to accessing care in low resource settings, and (7) improve the transition of care.

Systolic Blood Pressure and Outcomes in Stable Outpatients with Recent Symptomatic Artery Disease: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study

Objectives: The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic artery disease remain controversial. We compared the rate of subsequent ischemic events or death according to mean SBP levels during follow-up. Design: Prospective cohort study. FRENA is an ongoing registry of stable outpatients with symptomatic coronary (CAD), cerebrovascular (CVD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Setting: 24 Spanish hospitals. Participants: 4789 stable outpatients with vascular disease. Results: As of June 2017, 4789 patients had been enrolled in different Spanish centres. Of these, 1722 (36%) had CAD, 1383 (29%) CVD and 1684 (35%) PAD. Over a mean follow-up of 18 months, 136 patients suffered subsequent myocardial infarction, 125 had ischemic stroke, 74 underwent limb amputation, and 260 died. On multivariable analysis, CVD patients with mean SBP levels 130–140 mm Hg had a lower risk of mortality than those with levels <130 mm Hg (hazard ratio (HR): 0.39; 95% CI: 0.20–0.77), as did those with levels >140 mm Hg (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.26–0.84). PAD patients with mean SBP levels >140 mm Hg had a lower risk for subsequent ischemic events (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.39–0.83) and those with levels 130–140 mm Hg (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.29–0.78) or >140 mm Hg (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.21–0.50) had a lower risk of mortality. We found no differences in patients with CAD. Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of symptomatic arterial disease patients, most of whom are not eligible for clinical trials, the risk of subsequent events and death varies according to the levels of SBP and the location of previous events. Especially among patients with large artery atherosclerosis, PAD or CVD, SBP <130 mm Hg may result in increased mortality. Due to potential factors in this issue, Prospective, well designed studies are warranted to confirm these observational data.

Implementing a digital intervention for managing uncontrolled hypertension in Primary Care: a mixed methods process evaluation

Background

A high proportion of hypertensive patients remain above the target threshold for blood pressure, increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes. A digital intervention to facilitate healthcare practitioners (hereafter practitioners) to initiate planned medication escalations when patients’ home readings were raised was found to be effective in lowering blood pressure over 12 months. This mixed-methods process evaluation aimed to develop a detailed understanding of how the intervention was implemented in Primary Care, possible mechanisms of action and contextual factors influencing implementation.

Methods

One hundred twenty-five practitioners took part in a randomised controlled trial, including GPs, practice nurses, nurse-prescribers, and healthcare assistants. Usage data were collected automatically by the digital intervention and antihypertensive medication changes were recorded from the patients’ medical notes. A sub-sample of 27 practitioners took part in semi-structured qualitative process interviews. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and correlations to explore factors related to adherence. The two sets of findings were integrated using a triangulation protocol.

Results

Mean practitioner adherence to escalating medication was moderate (53%), and the qualitative analysis suggested that low trust in home readings and the decision to wait for more evidence influenced implementation for some practitioners. The logic model was partially supported in that self-efficacy was related to adherence to medication escalation, but qualitative findings provided further insight into additional potential mechanisms, including perceived necessity and concerns. Contextual factors influencing implementation included proximity of average readings to the target threshold. Meanwhile, adherence to delivering remote support was mixed, and practitioners described some uncertainty when they received no response from patients.

Conclusions

This mixed-methods process evaluation provided novel insights into practitioners’ decision-making around escalating medication using a digital algorithm. Implementation strategies were proposed which could benefit digital interventions in addressing clinical inertia, including facilitating tracking of patients’ readings over time to provide stronger evidence for medication escalation, and allowing more flexibility in decision-making whilst discouraging clinical inertia due to borderline readings. Implementation of one-way notification systems could be facilitated by enabling patients to send a brief acknowledgement response.

Trial registration

(ISRCTN13790648). Registered 14 May 2015.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01123-1.

Blood Pressure Level and Variability During Long-Term Prasugrel or Clopidogrel Medication After Stroke: PRASTRO-I

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

High blood pressure increases bleeding risk during treatment with antithrombotic medication. The association between blood pressure levels and the risk of recurrent stroke during long-term secondary stroke prevention with thienopyridines (particularly prasugrel) has not been well studied.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of the randomized, double-blind, multicenter PRASTRO-I trial (Comparison of Prasugrel and Clopidogrel in Japanese Patients With Ischemic Stroke-I). Patients with noncardioembolic stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive prasugrel 3.75 mg/day or clopidogrel 75 mg/day for 96 to 104 weeks. Risks of any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, combined ischemic events, and combined bleeding events were determined based on the mean level and visit-to-visit variability, including successive variation, of systolic blood pressure (SBP) throughout the observational period. These risks were also compared between quartiles of mean SBP level and successive variation of SBP.

RESULTS

A total of 3747 patients (age 62.1±8.5 years, 797 women), with a median average SBP level during the observational period of 132.5 mm Hg, were studied. All the risks of any stroke (146 events; hazard ratio, 1.318 [95% CI, 1.094-1.583] per 10-mm Hg increase), ischemic stroke (133 events, 1.219 [1.010-1.466]), hemorrhagic stroke (13 events, 3.247 [1.660-6.296]), ischemic events (142 events, 1.219 [1.020-1.466]), and bleeding events (47 events, 1.629 [1.172-2.261]) correlated with increasing mean SBP overall. Similarly, an increased risk of these events correlated with increasing successive variation of SBP (hazard ratio, 3.078 [95% CI, 2.220-4.225] per 10-mm Hg increase; 3.051 [2.179-4.262]; 3.276 [1.172-9.092]; 2.865 [2.042-4.011]; 2.764 [1.524-5.016], respectively). Event rates did not differ between the clopidogrel and prasugrel groups within each quartile of SBP or successive variation of SBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Both high mean SBP level and high visit-to-visit variability in SBP were significantly associated with the risk of recurrent stroke during long-term medication with either prasugrel or clopidogrel after stroke. Control of hypertension would be important regardless of the type of antiplatelet drugs. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.jp; Unique identifier: JapicCTI-111582.

Statistical analysis plan for management of hypertension and multiple risk factors to enhance cardiovascular health in Singapore: the SingHypertension pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease (O'Lone E, Viecelli AK, Craig JC, Tong A, Sautenet B, Herrington WG, et al., Am J Kidney Dis 76(1):109-20, 2020) remains the leading cause of death in Singapore. Uncontrolled hypertension confers the highest attributable risk of CVD and remains a significant public health issue with sub-optimal blood pressure (BP) control rates. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention (MCI) versus usual care on lowering BP among adults with uncontrolled hypertension visiting primary care clinics in Singapore. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for the primary and secondary objectives related to intervention effectiveness.

METHODS

The study is a cluster randomized trial enrolling 1000 participants with uncontrolled hypertension aged ≥ 40 years from eight primary care clinics in Singapore. The unit of randomization is the clinic, with eight clusters (clinics) randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either MCI or usual care. All participants will be assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months with measurements of systolic and diastolic BP, antihypertensive and statin medication use, medication adherence, physical activity level, anthropometric parameters, smoking status, and dietary habits. The primary objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of MCI versus usual care on mean SBP at the 2-year follow-up. The primary outcome is SBP at 24 months. SBP at baseline, 12, and 24 months will be modeled at the subject level using a likelihood-based, linear mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment group and follow-up as fixed effects, random cluster (clinic) effects, Gaussian error distribution, and adjustment to degrees of freedom using the Satterthwaite approximation. Secondary outcomes will be analyzed using a similar modeling approach incorporating generalized techniques appropriate for the type of outcome.

DISCUSSION

The trial will allow us to determine whether the MCI has an impact on BP and cardiovascular risk factors over a 2-year follow-up period and inform recommendations for health planners in scaling up these strategies for the benefit of society at large. A pre-specified and pre-published statistical analysis plan mitigates reporting bias and data driven approaches.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02972619 . Registered on 23 November 2016.

Blood pressure targets in adults with hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of this review first published in 2009. When treating elevated blood pressure, doctors usually try to achieve a blood pressure target. That target is the blood pressure value below which the optimal clinical benefit is supposedly obtained. "The lower the better" approach that guided the treatment of elevated blood pressure for many years was challenged during the last decade due to lack of evidence from randomised trials supporting that strategy. For that reason, the standard blood pressure target in clinical practice during the last years has been less than 140/90 mm Hg for the general population of patients with elevated blood pressure. However, new trials published in recent years have reintroduced the idea of trying to achieve lower blood pressure targets. Therefore, it is important to know whether the benefits outweigh harms when attempting to achieve targets lower than the standard target.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine if lower blood pressure targets (any target less than or equal to 135/85 mm Hg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (less than or equal to 140/ 90 mm Hg) for the treatment of patients with chronic arterial hypertension. The secondary objectives were: to determine if there is a change in mean achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP associated with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets" in patients with chronic arterial hypertension; and to determine if there is a change in withdrawals due to adverse events with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets", in patients with elevated blood pressure.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients allocated to lower or to standard blood pressure targets (see above).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JAA, VL) independently assessed the included trials and extracted data. Primary outcomes were total mortality; total serious adverse events; myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, end stage renal disease, and other serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were achieved mean SBP and DBP, withdrawals due to adverse effects, and mean number of antihypertensive drugs used. We assessed the risk of bias of each trial using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 11 RCTs involving 38,688 participants with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years. This represents 7 new RCTs compared with the original version. At baseline the mean weighted age was 63.1 years and the mean weighted blood pressure was 155/91 mm Hg. Lower targets do not reduce total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05; 11 trials, 38,688 participants; high-certainty evidence) and do not reduce total serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; 6 trials, 18,165 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that the benefits of lower targets do not outweigh the harms as compared to standard blood pressure targets. Lower targets may reduce myocardial infarction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; 6 trials, 18,938 participants, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.4%, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 250 over 3.7 years) and congestive heart failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92; 5 trials, 15,859 participants, ARR 0.6%, NNTB  167 over 3.7 years) (low-certainty for both outcomes). Reduction in myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure was not reflected in total serious adverse events. This may be due to an increase in other serious adverse events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.59; 6 trials. 18,938 participants, absolute risk increase (ARI) 3%,  number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 33 over four years) (low-certainty evidence). Participants assigned to a "lower" target received one additional antihypertensive medication and achieved a significantly lower mean SBP (122.8 mm Hg versus 135.0 mm Hg, and a lower mean DBP (82.0 mm Hg versus 85.2 mm Hg, than those assigned to "standard target".

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the general population of persons with elevated blood pressure, the benefits of trying to achieve a lower blood pressure target rather than a standard target (≤ 140/90 mm Hg) do not outweigh the harms associated with that intervention. Further research is needed to see if some groups of patients would benefit or be harmed by lower targets. The results of this review are primarily applicable to older people with moderate to high cardiovascular risk. They may not be applicable to other populations.

Blood Pressure Management in Stroke

Hypertension is a well-established and modifiable risk factor for stroke and other cardiovascular diseases. Notably, stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide and the second most common cause of disability-adjusted life-years. As such, we provide a viewpoint on blood pressure management in stroke and emphasize blood pressure control or management for first and recurrent stroke prevention, acute stroke treatment, and for prevention of cognitive impairment or dementia.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Hypertension Management in Nursing Homes: Review of Evidence and Considerations for Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We sought to summarize recent evidence regarding optimal blood pressure (BP) treatment targets and antihypertensive regimen intensity for nursing home (NH) residents and similar older, complex patients with hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent trials have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits from more intensive BP targets among ambulatory, less complex older adults, but generalizability to NH residents is questionable. Other trials have demonstrated that de-intensifying antihypertensives in frail, older patients is feasible, with no or modest increases in BP, but most have not assessed effects on patient-centered outcomes. Observational studies with patients more representative of NH residents suggest harms associated with more intensive BP treatment and reduction in fall risk associated with deintensification, but findings and potential for bias vary across studies. Randomized trials and rigorous observational studies examining effects of deintensified BP management on patient-centered outcomes in complex, older populations are needed to inform improved guidelines and treatment for NH residents.

Effect of Standard vs Intensive Blood Pressure Control on the Risk of Recurrent Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial and Meta-analysis

Importance

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated that a systolic blood pressure (BP) target less than 120 mm Hg was superior to less than 140 mm Hg for preventing vascular events. This trial excluded patients with prior stroke; therefore, the ideal BP target for secondary stroke prevention remains unknown.

Objective

To assess whether intensive BP control would achieve fewer recurrent strokes vs standard BP control.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized clinical trial (RCT) of standard vs intensive BP control in an intent-to-treat population of patients who had a history of stroke. Patients were enrolled between October 20, 2010, and December 7, 2016. For an updated meta-analysis, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Library database were searched through September 30, 2018, using the Medical Subject Headings and relevant search terms for cerebrovascular disease and for intensive BP lowering. This was a multicenter trial that included 140 hospitals in Japan; 1514 patients who had a history of stroke within the previous 3 years were approached, but 234 refused to give informed consent.

Interventions

In total, 1280 patients were randomized 1:1 to BP control to less than 140/90 mm Hg (standard treatment) (n = 640) or to less than 120/80 mm Hg (intensive treatment) (n = 640). However, 17 patients never received intervention; therefore, 1263 patients assigned to standard treatment (n = 630) or intensive treatment (n = 633) were analyzed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was stroke recurrence.

Results

The trial was stopped early. Among 1263 analyzed patients (mean [SD] age, 67.2 [8.8] years; 69.4% male), 1257 of 1263 (99.5%) completed a mean (SD) of 3.9 (1.5) years of follow-up. The mean BP at baseline was 145.4/83.6 mm Hg. Throughout the overall follow-up period, the mean BP was 133.2/77.7 (95% CI, 132.5-133.8/77.1-78.4) mm Hg in the standard group and 126.7/77.4 (95% CI, 125.9-127.2/73.8-75.0) mm Hg in the intensive group. Ninety-one first recurrent strokes occurred. Nonsignificant rate reductions were seen for recurrent stroke in the intensive group compared with the standard group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.49-1.11; P = .15). When this finding was pooled in 3 previous relevant RCTs in a meta-analysis, the risk ratio favored intensive BP control (relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96; P = .02; absolute risk difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.6% to -0.4%; number needed to treat, 67; 95% CI, 39-250).

Conclusions and Relevance

Intensive BP lowering tended to reduce stroke recurrence. The updated meta-analysis supports a target BP less than 130/80 mm Hg in secondary stroke prevention.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01198496.

Balance of benefits and harms of different blood pressure targets in people with multiple chronic conditions: a quantitative benefit-harm assessment

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies suggest that a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of 120 mm Hg is appropriate for people with hypertension, but this is debated particularly in people with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). We aimed to quantitatively determine whether benefits of a lower SBP target justify increased risks of harm in people with MCC, considering patient-valued outcomes and their relative importance.

DESIGN

Highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessment based on various input data identified as the most valid and applicable from a systematic review of evidence and based on weights from a patient preference survey.

SETTING

Outpatient care.

PARTICIPANTS

Hypertensive patients, grouped by age, gender, prior history of stroke, chronic heart failure, chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTERVENTIONS

SBP target of 120 versus 140 mm Hg for patients without history of stroke.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Probability that the benefits of a SBP target of 120 mm Hg outweigh the harms compared with 140 mm Hg over 5 years (primary) with thresholds >0.6 (120 mm Hg better), <0.4 (140 mm Hg better) and 0.4 to 0.6 (unclear), number of prevented clinical events (secondary), calculated with the Gail/National Cancer Institute approach.

RESULTS

Considering individual patient preferences had a substantial impact on the benefit-harm balance. With average preferences, 120 mm Hg was the better target compared with 140 mm Hg for many subgroups of patients without prior stroke, especially in patients over 75. For women below 65 with chronic kidney disease and without diabetes and prior stroke, 140 mm Hg was better. The analyses did not include mild adverse effects, and apply only to patients who tolerate antihypertensive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

For most patients, a lower SBP target was beneficial, but this depended also on individual preferences, implying individual decision-making is important. Our modelling allows for individualised treatment targets based on patient preferences, age, gender and co-morbidities.

Targeting blood pressure for stroke prevention: current evidence and unanswered questions

High blood pressure (BP) is the leading modifiable risk factor of stroke worldwide. Although randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the beneficial effect of BP reduction on stroke risk, there are still insufficiently explored issues concerning the optimal personalized management of BP in stroke patients in terms of thresholds to be achieved and drug classes to be prescribed. Few data are available about BP control in specific clinical contexts such as in older patients, in various stroke subtypes, or in association with co-morbidities such as diabetes. In addition, although drug trials based their conclusions on achieved mean BP values, recent findings indicate that aspects such as circadian variations of BP and BP variability should be taken into account as well. This article aims to highlight current knowledge about BP control in stroke prevention and to provide new perspectives to be addressed in future studies so as to guide clinicians in their day-to-day practice.

The safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for patients undergoing endovascular therapy for acute stroke: A prospective randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain if dexmedetomidine has more favorable pharmacokinetic profile than the traditional sedative drug propofol in patients who undergo endovascular therapy for acute stroke. We conducted a prospective randomized control trial to compare the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine with propofol for patients undergoing endovascular therapy for acute stroke.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients who met study inclusion criteria were received either propofol (n = 45) or dexmedetomidine (n = 35) between January 2016 and August 2018. We recorded the favorable neurologic outcome (modified Rankin score <3) both at discharge and 3 months after stroke, National Institute of Health Stroke scale (NIHSS) at 48 hours post intervention, modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction score on digital subtraction angiography, intraprocedural hemodynamics, recovery time, relevant time intervals, satisfaction score of the surgeon, mortality, and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the 2 groups (P > .05) with respect to heart rate, respiratory rate, and SPO2 during the procedure. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) was significantly low in the propofol group until 15 minutes after anesthesia was induced. No difference was recorded between the groups at the incidence of fall in MAP >20%, MAP >40% and time spent with MAP fall >20% from baseline MAP. In the propofol group, the time spent with MAP fall >40% from baseline MAP was significantly long (P < .05). Midazolam and fentanyl were similar between the 2 groups (P > .05) that used vasoactive drugs. The time interval from stroke onset to CT room, from stroke onset to groin puncture, and from stroke onset to recanalization/end of the procedure, was not significantly different between the 2 groups (P > .05). The recovery time was longer in the dexmedetomidine group (P < .05). There was no difference between the groups with respect to complications, favorable neurological outcome, and mortality both at hospital discharge and 3 months later, successful recanalization and NIHSS score after 48 hours (P > .05). However, the satisfaction score of the surgeon was higher in the dexmedetomidine group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine was undesirable than propofol as a sedative agent during endovascular therapy in patients with acute stroke for a long-term functional outcome, though the satisfaction score of the surgeon was higher in the dexmedetomidine group.

Determining the Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure for Hypertensive Patients: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is clinical trial evidence that lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) to < 120 mm Hg is beneficial, and this has influenced the latest American guideline on hypertension. We therefore used network meta-analysis to study the association between SBP and cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials targeting different blood pressure levels that reported cardiovascular events. The mean achieved SBP in each trial was classified into 5 groups (110-119, 120-129, 130-139, 140-149, and 150-159 mm Hg). The primary variables of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction were assessed using frequentist and Bayesian approaches.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with altogether 44,015 patients were included. Stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events were reduced when lowering SBP to 120-129 mm Hg compared with 130-139 mm Hg (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.99 and OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96), 140-149 mm Hg (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97 and OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.90), and 150-159 mm Hg (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.71 and OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.30-0.57), respectively. More intensive control to < 120 mm Hg further reduced stroke (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.87; OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.81; and OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16-0.56). In contrast, SBP ≥ 150 mm Hg increased myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality compared with 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.06-2.82 and OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.32-3.59) and 130-139 mm Hg (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.32 and OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11-2.61). No significant relationship between SBP and all-cause mortality was found.

CONCLUSIONS

SBP < 130 mm Hg is associated with a lower risk of stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events. Further lowering to < 120 mm Hg can be considered to reduce stroke risk if the therapy is tolerated. Long-term SBP should not exceed 150 mm Hg because of the increased risk of myocardial infarction and cardiac deaths.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Blood pressure-lowering treatment for preventing recurrent stroke, major vascular events, and dementia in patients with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack

BACKGROUND

Stroke is an important cause of death and disability worldwide. Since high blood pressure is an important risk factor for stroke and stroke recurrence, drugs that lower blood pressure might play an important role in secondary stroke prevention.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether blood pressure-lowering drugs (BPLDs) started at least 48 hours after the index event are effective for the prevention of recurrent stroke, major vascular events, and dementia in people with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Secondary objectives were to identify subgroups of people in which BPLDs are effective, and to investigate the optimum systolic blood pressure target after stroke or TIA for preventing recurrent stroke, major vascular events, and dementia.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2017, we searched the Trials Registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and the Cochrane Hypertension Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2017), Embase Ovid (1974 to August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN Registry, Stroke Trials Registry, Trials Central, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BPLDs started at least 48 hours after stroke or TIA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, selected eligible trials, extracted the data, assessed risk of bias, and used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. If necessary, we contacted the principal investigators or corresponding authors for additional data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies involving a total of 38,742 participants: eight studies compared BPLDs versus placebo or no treatment (35,110 participants), and three studies compared different systolic blood pressure targets (3632 participants). The risk of bias varied greatly between included studies. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) of BPLDs were 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.93; 8 RCTs; 35,110 participants; moderate-quality evidence), 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.04; 4 RCTs; 28,630 participants; high-quality evidence) for major vascular event, and 0.88 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 2 RCTs; 6671 participants; high-quality evidence) for dementia. We mainly observed a reduced risk of recurrent stroke in the subgroup of participants using an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or a diuretic (I² statistic for subgroup differences 72.1%; P = 0.006). The pooled RRs of intensive blood pressure-lowering were 0.80 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.00) for recurrent stroke and 0.58 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.46) for major vascular event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the use of BPLDs in people with stroke or TIA for reducing the risk of recurrent stroke. Current evidence is primarily derived from trials studying an ACE inhibitor or a diuretic. No definite conclusions can be drawn from current evidence regarding an optimal systolic blood pressure target after stroke or TIA.

Interventions for improving modifiable risk factor control in the secondary prevention of stroke

BACKGROUND

People with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk of future stroke and other cardiovascular events. Stroke services need to be configured to maximise the adoption of evidence-based strategies for secondary stroke prevention. Smoking-related interventions were examined in a separate review so were not considered in this review. This is an update of our 2014 review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of stroke service interventions for implementing secondary stroke prevention strategies on modifiable risk factor control, including patient adherence to prescribed medications, and the occurrence of secondary cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2017), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register (April 2017), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017), Embase (1981 to April 2017) and 10 additional databases including clinical trials registers. We located further studies by searching reference lists of articles and contacting authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of organisational or educational and behavioural interventions (compared with usual care) on modifiable risk factor control for secondary stroke prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors selected studies for inclusion and independently extracted data. The quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach (GRADEpro GDT).Three review authors assessed the risk of bias for the included studies. We sought missing data from trialists.The results are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated review included 16 new studies involving 25,819 participants, resulting in a total of 42 studies including 33,840 participants. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed three studies at high risk of bias; the remainder were considered to have a low risk of bias. We included 26 studies that predominantly evaluated organisational interventions and 16 that evaluated educational and behavioural interventions for participants. We pooled results where appropriate, although some clinical and methodological heterogeneity was present.Educational and behavioural interventions showed no clear differences on any of the review outcomes, which include mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean body mass index, achievement of HbA1c target, lipid profile, mean HbA1c level, medication adherence, or recurrent cardiovascular events. There was moderate-quality evidence that organisational interventions resulted in improved blood pressure control, in particular an improvement in achieving target blood pressure (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to1.90; 13 studies; 23,631 participants). However, there were no significant changes in mean systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD), -1.58 mmHg 95% CI -4.66 to 1.51; 16 studies; 17,490 participants) and mean diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.91 mmHg 95% CI -2.75 to 0.93; 14 studies; 17,178 participants). There were no significant changes in the remaining review outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that organisational interventions may be associated with an improvement in achieving blood pressure target but we did not find any clear evidence that these interventions improve other modifiable risk factors (lipid profile, HbA1c, medication adherence) or reduce the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular events. Interventions, including patient education alone, did not lead to improvements in modifiable risk factor control or the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events.

Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study

OBJECTIVES

While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers.

RESULTS

Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors.

CONCLUSIONS

Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ's policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process.

Predictors of hypertension urgency in primary aldosteronism patients during the first 24 hours after surgery

Study about blood pressure variation in the first 24 hours post-operation is limited in patients with adrenal aldosterone-producing adenoma. We aim to evaluate the potential predictors for postoperative hypertension urgency during the first 24 hours after laparoscopic adrenalectomy in patients with aldosterone-producing adenoma. Clinical data of 177 patients with aldosterone-producing adenoma were retrospectively collected from January 2009 to December 2015 and the potential factors that may influence postoperative blood pressure during the first 24 hours after surgery were analyzed. The factors included gender, age, body mass index, preoperative maximum systolic blood pressure, number of antihypertensive medicines, preoperative spironolactone treatment, duration of hypertension, surgical method and approach, adenoma diameter, preoperative proteinuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum potassium and serum aldosterone. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between the above variables and postoperative hypertension urgency. We found that the proportion of patients with a higher systolic blood pressure ≥ 160 mmHg and ≥ 180 mmHg were significantly increased post-operation (both p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the maximum systolic blood pressure was an independent predictor of postoperative hypertension urgency, and the cut-off point was 157 mmHg with the sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 82%. Multivariable analysis also showed that preoperative maximum systolic blood pressure and number of antihypertensive medicines were independent risk factors for higher postoperative systolic blood pressure. This study was derived from a high volume adrenal tumor center, and these data may provide a potential tool to guide preoperative counseling.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (from 1982) and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9795 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Five RCTs provided individual patient data for 6775 participants.We found no change in total mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences were found in serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; low-quality evidence). There was a reduction in fatal and non fatal cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization or death from congestive heart failure) with the lower target (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98; ARR 1.6% over 3.7 years; low-quality evidence). There were more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower' target group by 9.5/4.9 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No evidence of a difference in total mortality and serious adverse events was found between treating to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target in people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. This suggests no net health benefit from a lower systolic blood pressure target despite the small absolute reduction in total cardiovascular serious adverse events. There was very limited evidence on adverse events, which lead to high uncertainty. At present there is insufficient evidence to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to answer this question.

Association Between More Intensive vs Less Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering and Risk of Mortality in Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3 to 5: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Trials in patients with hypertension have demonstrated that intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality but may increase the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) incidence and progression. Whether intensive BP lowering is associated with a mortality benefit in patients with prevalent CKD remains unknown.

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to investigate if more intensive compared with less intensive BP control is associated with reduced mortality risk in persons with CKD stages 3 to 5.

Data Sources

Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Science Citation Index, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov electronic databases.

Study Selection

All RCTs were included that compared 2 defined BP targets (either active BP treatment vs placebo or no treatment, or intensive vs less intensive BP control) and enrolled adults (≥18 years) with CKD stages 3 to 5 (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) exclusively or that included a CKD subgroup between January 1, 1950, and June 1, 2016.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two of us independently evaluated study quality and extracted characteristics and mortality events among persons with CKD within the intervention phase for each trial. When outcomes within the CKD group had not previously been published, trial investigators were contacted to request data within the CKD subset of their original trials.

Main Outcome and Measure

All-cause mortality during the active treatment phase of each trial.

Results

This study identified 30 RCTs that potentially met the inclusion criteria. The CKD subset mortality data were extracted in 18 trials, among which there were 1293 deaths in 15 924 participants with CKD. The mean (SD) baseline systolic BP (SBP) was 148 (16) mm Hg in both the more intensive and less intensive arms. The mean SBP dropped by 16 mm Hg to 132 mm Hg in the more intensive arm and by 8 mm Hg to 140 mm Hg in the less intensive arm. More intensive vs less intensive BP control resulted in 14.0% lower risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97; P = .01), a finding that was without significant heterogeneity and appeared consistent across multiple subgroups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Randomization to more intensive BP control is associated with lower mortality risk among trial participants with hypertension and CKD. Further studies are required to define absolute BP targets for maximal benefit and minimal harm.

Blood Pressure Reduction and Secondary Stroke Prevention

Current recommendations do not specifically address the optimal blood pressure (BP) reduction for secondary stroke prevention in patients with previous cerebrovascular events. We conducted a systematic review and metaregression analysis on the association of BP reduction with recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events using data from randomized controlled clinical trials of secondary stroke prevention. For all reported events during each eligible study period, we calculated the corresponding risk ratios to express the comparison of event occurrence risk between patients randomized to antihypertensive treatment and those randomized to placebo. On the basis of the reported BP values, we performed univariate metaregression analyses according to the achieved BP values under the random-effects model (Method of Moments) for those adverse events reported in ≥10 total subgroups of included randomized controlled clinical trials. In pairwise meta-analyses, antihypertensive treatment lowered the risk for recurrent stroke (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–0.87; P <0.001), disabling or fatal stroke (risk ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–0.85; P <0.001), and cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.96; P =0.01). In metaregression analyses, systolic BP reduction was linearly related to the lower risk of recurrent stroke ( P =0.049), myocardial infarction ( P =0.024), death from any cause ( P =0.001), and cardiovascular death ( P <0.001). Similarly, diastolic BP reduction was linearly related to a lower risk of recurrent stroke ( P =0.026) and all-cause mortality ( P =0.009). Funnel plot inspection and Egger statistical test revealed no evidence of publication bias. The extent of BP reduction is linearly associated with the magnitude of risk reduction in recurrent cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events. Strict and aggressive BP control seems to be essential for effective secondary stroke prevention.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different systolic blood pressure targets for people with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack: Economic analysis of the PAST-BP study

BACKGROUND

The PAST-BP trial found that using a lower systolic blood pressure target (<130 mmHg or lower versus <140 mmHg) in a primary care population with prevalent cerebrovascular disease was associated with a small additional reduction in blood pressure (2.9 mmHg).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost effectiveness of an intensive systolic blood pressure target (<130 mmHg or lower) compared with a standard target (<140 mmHg) in people with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack on general practice stroke/transient ischaemic attack registers in England.

METHODS

A Markov model with a one-year time cycle and a 30-year time horizon was used to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life year of an intensive target versus a standard target. Individual patient level data were used from the PAST-BP trial with regard to change in blood pressure and numbers of primary care consultations over a 12-month period. Published sources were used to estimate life expectancy and risks of cardiovascular events and their associated costs and utilities.

RESULTS

In the base-case results, aiming for an intensive blood pressure target was dominant, with the incremental lifetime costs being £169 lower per patient than for the standard blood pressure target with a 0.08 quality-adjusted life year gain. This was robust to sensitivity analyses, unless intensive blood pressure lowering reduced quality of life by 2% or more.

CONCLUSION

Aiming for a systolic blood pressure target of <130 mmHg or lower is cost effective in people who have had a stroke/transient ischaemic attack in the community, but it is difficult to separate out the impact of the lower target from the impact of more active management of blood pressure.

The Stroke Prevention Programme: a programme of research to inform optimal stroke prevention in primary care

Background

The management of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors in community populations is suboptimal. The aim of this programme was to explore the role of three approaches [use of a ‘polypill’; self-management of hypertension; and more intensive targets for blood pressure (BP) lowering after stroke] to improve prevention of CV disease (CVD) in the community.

Research questions

(1) Is it more cost-effective to titrate treatments to target levels of cholesterol and BP or to use fixed doses of statins and BP-lowering agents (polypill strategy)? (2) Will telemonitoring and self-management improve BP control in people on treatment for hypertension or with a history of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in primary care and are they cost-effective? (3) In people with a history of stroke/TIA, can intensive BP-lowering targets be achieved in a primary care setting and what impact will this have on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness?

Design

Mixed methods, comprising three randomised controlled trials (RCTs); five cost-effectiveness analyses; qualitative studies; analysis of electronic general practice data; a screening study; a systematic review; and a questionnaire study.

Setting

UK general practices, predominantly from the West Midlands and the east of England.

Participants

Adults registered with participating general practices. Inclusion criteria varied from study to study.

Interventions

A polypill – a fixed-dose combination pill containing three antihypertensive medicines and simvastatin – compared with current practice and with optimal implementation of national guidelines; self-monitoring of BP with self-titration of medication, compared with usual care; and an intensive target for systolic BP of < 130 mmHg or a 10 mmHg reduction if baseline BP is < 140 mmHg, compared with a target of < 140 mmHg.

Results

For patients known to be at high risk of CVD, treatment as per guidelines was the most cost-effective strategy. For people with unknown CV risk aged ≥ 50 years, offering a polypill is cost-effective [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8115 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] compared with a strategy of screening and treating according to national guidelines. Both results were sensitive to the cost of the polypill. Self-management in people with uncontrolled hypertension led to a 5.4 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 8.5 mmHg] reduction in systolic BP at 1 year, compared with usual care. It was cost-effective for men (ICER of £1624 per QALY) and women (ICER of £4923 per QALY). In people with stroke and other high-risk groups, self-management led to a 9.2 mmHg (95% CI 5.7 to 12.7 mmHg) reduction in systolic BP at 1 year compared with usual care and dominated (lower cost and better outcome) usual care. Aiming for the more intensive BP target after stroke led to a 2.9 mmHg (95% CI 0.2 to 5.7 mmHg) greater reduction in BP and dominated the 140 mmHg target.

Conclusions

Potential for a polypill needs to be further explored in RCTs. Self-management should be offered to people with poorly controlled BP. Management of BP in the post-stroke population should focus on achieving a < 140 mmHg target.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17585681, ISRCTN87171227 and ISRCTN29062286.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme. Additional funding was provided by the NIHR National School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Career Development Fellowship and the Department of Health Policy Research Programme.