1
|
Mano H, Tanaka Y, Orihara S, Moriya J. Application of sample size re-estimation in clinical trials: A systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2023; 36:101210. [PMID: 37842317 PMCID: PMC10568275 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101210] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2023] [Revised: 08/03/2023] [Accepted: 09/15/2023] [Indexed: 10/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Sample size re-estimation (SSR) is a method used to recalculate sample size during clinical trial conduct to address a lack of adequate information and can have a significant impact on study size, duration, resources, and cost. Few studies to date have summarized the conditions and circumstances under which SSR is applied. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature related to SSR to better understand its application in clinical trial settings. Methods PubMed was used as the primary search source, supplemented with information from ClinicalTrials.gov where necessary details were lacking from PubMed. A systematic review was performed according to a pre-specified search strategy to identify clinical trials using SSR. Features of SSR, such as study phase and study start year, were summarized. Results In total, 253 publications met the pre-specified search criteria and 27 clinical trials were subsequently determined as relevant in SSR usage. Among trials where the study phase was provided, 2 (7.4%) trials were Phase I, 5 (18.5%) trials were Phase II, 11 (40.7%) trials were Phase III, and 2 (7.4%) trials were Phase IV. Conclusion Our results showed that SSR is also used in Phase I and II, which involve earlier decision making. We expect that SSR will continue to be used in early-phase trials where sufficient prior information may not be available. Furthermore, no major trends were observed in relation to therapy area or type of SSR, meaning that SSR may become a feasible and widely applied method in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hirotaka Mano
- Biostatistics Group, Biometrics Department, Development Unit, R&D Division, Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Otemachi Financial City Grand Cube, 1-9-2 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yuji Tanaka
- Biostatistics Group, Biometrics Department, Development Unit, R&D Division, Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Otemachi Financial City Grand Cube, 1-9-2 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shunichiro Orihara
- Biostatistics Group, Biometrics Department, Development Unit, R&D Division, Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Otemachi Financial City Grand Cube, 1-9-2 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Junji Moriya
- Biostatistics Group, Biometrics Department, Development Unit, R&D Division, Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Otemachi Financial City Grand Cube, 1-9-2 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Saiz LC, Gorricho J, Garjón J, Celaya MC, Erviti J, Leache L. Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 11:CD010315. [PMID: 36398903 PMCID: PMC9673465 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010315.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Carlos Saiz
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
| | - Javier Gorricho
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
- Healthcare Business Intelligence Service, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Javier Garjón
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
- Medicines Advice and Information Service, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Mª Concepción Celaya
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
- Drug Prescribing Service, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Juan Erviti
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
| | - Leire Leache
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Saiz LC, Gorricho J, Garjón J, Celaya MC, Erviti J, Leache L. Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 9:CD010315. [PMID: 32905623 PMCID: PMC8094921 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010315.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Carlos Saiz
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Javier Gorricho
- Planning, Evaluation and Management Service, General Directorate of Health, Government of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Javier Garjón
- Medicines Advice and Information Service, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | | | - Juan Erviti
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Leire Leache
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hade EM, Young GS, Love RR. Follow up after sample size re-estimation in a breast cancer randomized trial for disease-free survival. Trials 2019; 20:527. [PMID: 31443726 PMCID: PMC6708130 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3632-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2018] [Accepted: 08/08/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND While the clinical trials and statistical methodology literature on sample size re-estimation (SSRE) is robust, evaluation of SSRE procedures following the completion of a clinical trial has been sparsely reported. In blinded sample size re-estimation, only nuisance parameters are re-estimated, and the blinding of the current trial treatment effect is preserved. Blinded re-estimation procedures are well-accepted by regulatory agencies and funders. We review our experience of sample size re-estimation in a large international, National Institutes of Health funded clinical trial for adjuvant breast cancer treatment, and evaluate our blinded sample size re-estimation procedure for this time-to-event trial. We evaluated the SSRE procedure by examining assumptions made during the re-estimation process, estimates resulting from re-estimation, and the impact on final trial results with and without the addition of participants, following sample size re-estimation. METHODS We compared the control group failure probabilities estimated at the time of SSRE to estimates used in the original planning, to the final un-blinded control group failure probability estimates for those included in the SSRE procedure (SSRE cohort), and to the final total control group failure probability estimates. The impact of re-estimation on the final comparison between randomized treatment groups is evaluated for those in the originally planned cohort (n = 340) and for the combination of those recruited in the originally planned cohort and those added after re-estimation (n = 509). RESULTS Very little difference is observed between the originally planned cohort and all randomized patients in the control group failure probabilities over time or in the overall hazard ratio estimating treatment effect (originally planned cohort HR 1.25 (0.86, 1.79); all randomized cohort HR 1.24 95% CI (0.91, 1.68)). At the time of blinded SSRE, the estimated control group failure probabilities at 3 years (0.24) and 5 years (0.40) were similar to those for the SSRE cohort once un-blinded (3 years, 0.22 (0.16, 0.30); 5 years, 0.33 (0.26, 0.41)). CONCLUSIONS We found that our re-estimation procedure performed reasonably well in estimating the control group failure probabilities at the time of re-estimation. Particularly for time-to-event outcomes, pre-planned blinded SSRE procedures may be the best option to aid in maintaining power. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00201851 . Registered on 9 September 2005. Retrospectively registered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erinn M. Hade
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Biostatistics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1800 Cannon Drive, 320 Lincoln Tower, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
| | - Gregory S. Young
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Biostatistics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1800 Cannon Drive, 320 Lincoln Tower, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
| | - Richard R. Love
- Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Saiz LC, Gorricho J, Garjón J, Celaya MC, Erviti J, Leache L. Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 7:CD010315. [PMID: 30027631 PMCID: PMC6513382 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010315.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Carlos Saiz
- Navarre Health ServiceUnit of Innovation and OrganizationPamplonaNavarreSpain
| | - Javier Gorricho
- General Directorate of Health, Government of NavarrePlanning, Evaluation and Management ServicePamplonaNavarraSpain
| | - Javier Garjón
- Navarre Health ServiceDrug Prescribing ServicePlaza de la Paz s/n 4ªPamplonaNavarraSpain31002
| | - Mª Concepción Celaya
- Navarre Health ServiceDrug Prescribing ServicePlaza de la Paz s/n 4ªPamplonaNavarraSpain31002
| | - Juan Erviti
- Navarre Health ServiceUnit of Innovation and OrganizationPamplonaNavarreSpain
| | - Leire Leache
- Navarre Health ServiceUnit of Innovation and OrganizationPamplonaNavarreSpain
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Su PF, Cheung SH. Response-adaptive treatment allocation for survival trials with clustered right-censored data. Stat Med 2018; 37:2427-2439. [PMID: 29672881 DOI: 10.1002/sim.7652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2017] [Revised: 01/09/2018] [Accepted: 02/10/2018] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
A comparison of 2 treatments with survival outcomes in a clinical study may require treatment randomization on clusters of multiple units with correlated responses. For example, for patients with otitis media in both ears, a specific treatment is normally given to a single patient, and hence, the 2 ears constitute a cluster. Statistical procedures are available for comparison of treatment efficacies. The conventional approach for treatment allocation is the adoption of a balanced design, in which half of the patients are assigned to each treatment arm. However, considering the increasing acceptability of responsive-adaptive designs in recent years because of their desirable features, we have developed a response-adaptive treatment allocation scheme for survival trials with clustered data. The proposed treatment allocation scheme is superior to the balanced design in that it allows more patients to receive the better treatment. At the same time, the test power for comparing treatment efficacies using our treatment allocation scheme remains highly competitive. The advantage of the proposed randomization procedure is supported by a simulation study and the redesign of a clinical study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pei-Fang Su
- Department of Statistics, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, 70101, Taiwan
| | - Siu Hung Cheung
- Department of Statistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Saiz LC, Gorricho J, Garjón J, Celaya MC, Muruzábal L, Malón MDM, Montoya R, López A. Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 10:CD010315. [PMID: 29020435 PMCID: PMC6485331 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010315.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Carlos Saiz
- Navarre Health ServiceDrug Prescribing ServicePlaza de la Paz, s/n, 7th floorPamplonaSpain31002
| | - Javier Gorricho
- Navarre Health ServiceDrug Prescribing ServicePlaza de la Paz, s/n, 7th floorPamplonaSpain31002
| | - Javier Garjón
- Navarre Health ServiceDrug Prescribing ServicePlaza de la Paz, s/n, 7th floorPamplonaSpain31002
| | - Mª Concepción Celaya
- Navarre Health ServiceDrug Prescribing ServicePlaza de la Paz, s/n, 7th floorPamplonaSpain31002
| | - Lourdes Muruzábal
- Navarre Health ServiceDrug Prescribing ServicePlaza de la Paz, s/n, 7th floorPamplonaSpain31002
| | - Mª del Mar Malón
- Navarre Health ServiceCentro de Salud de OliteAlcalde de Maillata, 9OliteSpain31390
| | - Rodolfo Montoya
- Navarre Health ServicePrimary CareC/ Mayor, S/NAncínSpain31281
| | - Antonio López
- Navarre Health ServiceDrug Prescribing ServicePlaza de la Paz, s/n, 7th floorPamplonaSpain31002
| |
Collapse
|