Does antihypertensive treatment of the elderly prevent cardiovascular events or prolong life? A meta-analysis of hypertension treatment trials

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults 60 years or older

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertensionSecondary objectives• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular-specific morbidity and mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension• To quantify the rate of withdrawal due to adverse effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 24 November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

First-line drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical question: What class of drug to use first-line? This review attempted to answer that question.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the mortality and morbidity effects from different first-line antihypertensive drug classes: thiazides (low-dose and high-dose), beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and alpha-blockers, compared to placebo or no treatment.Secondary objectives: when different antihypertensive drug classes are used as the first-line drug, to quantify the blood pressure lowering effect and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse drug effects, compared to placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials (RCT) of at least one year duration, comparing one of six major drug classes with a placebo or no treatment, in adult patients with blood pressure over 140/90 mmHg at baseline. The majority (over 70%) of the patients in the treatment group were taking the drug class of interest after one year. We included trials with both hypertensive and normotensive patients in this review if the majority (over 70%) of patients had elevated blood pressure, or the trial separately reported outcome data on patients with elevated blood pressure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), total cardiovascular events (CVS), decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and withdrawals due to adverse drug effects. We used a fixed-effect model to to combine dichotomous outcomes across trials and calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We presented blood pressure data as mean difference (MD) with 99% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2017 updated search failed to identify any new trials. The original review identified 24 trials with 28 active treatment arms, including 58,040 patients. We found no RCTs for ARBs or alpha-blockers. These results are mostly applicable to adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. The mean age of participants was 56 years, and mean duration of follow-up was three to five years.High-quality evidence showed that first-line low-dose thiazides reduced mortality (11.0% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97); total CVS (12.9% with control versus 9.0% with treatment; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.76), stroke (6.2% with control versus 4.2% with treatment; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77), and coronary heart disease (3.9% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line high-dose thiazides reduced stroke (1.9% with control versus 0.9% with treatment; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61) and total CVS (5.1% with control versus 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), but did not reduce mortality (3.1% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05), or coronary heart disease (2.7% with control versus 2.7% with treatment; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line beta-blockers did not reduce mortality (6.2% with control versus 6.0% with treatment; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07) or coronary heart disease (4.4% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.03), but reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and total CVS (7.6% with control versus 6.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line ACE inhibitors reduced mortality (13.6% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95), stroke (6.0% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82), coronary heart disease (13.5% with control versus 11.0% with treatment; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94), and total CVS (20.1% with control versus 15.3% with treatment; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85).Low-quality evidence showed that first-line calcium channel blockers reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 1.9% with treatment; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.84) and total CVS (8.0% with control versus 5.7% with treatment; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87), but not coronary heart disease (3.1% with control versus 2.4% with treatment; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09), or mortality (6.0% with control versus 5.1% with treatment; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09).There was low-quality evidence that withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with first-line low-dose thiazides (5.0% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 2.38, 95% CI 2.06 to 2.75), high-dose thiazides (2.2% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 4.48, 95% CI 3.83 to 5.24), and beta-blockers (3.1% with control versus 14.4% with treatment; RR 4.59, 95% CI 4.11 to 5.13). No data for these outcomes were available for first-line ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers. The blood pressure data were not used to assess the effect of the different classes of drugs as the data were heterogeneous, and the number of drugs used in the trials differed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

First-line low-dose thiazides reduced all morbidity and mortality outcomes in adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective, but the evidence was of lower quality. First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers were inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults aged 18 to 59 years

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is an important risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events including stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and renal failure. The main goal of treatment is to reduce these events. Systematic reviews have shown proven benefit of antihypertensive drug therapy in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality but most of the evidence is in people 60 years of age and older. We wanted to know what the effects of therapy are in people 18 to 59 years of age.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify antihypertensive drug effects on all-cause mortality in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension. To quantify effects on cardiovascular mortality plus morbidity (including cerebrovascular and coronary heart disease mortality plus morbidity), withdrawal due adverse events and estimate magnitude of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) lowering at one year.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to January 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of at least one year' duration comparing antihypertensive pharmacotherapy with a placebo or no treatment in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension defined as SBP 140 mmHg or greater or DBP 90 mmHg or greater at baseline, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, total cardiovascular (CVS) mortality plus morbidity, withdrawals due to adverse events, and decrease in SBP and DBP. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and a fixed-effect model to combine outcomes across trials. For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD) with 95% CI and a random-effects model as there was significant heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

The population in the seven included studies (17,327 participants) were predominantly healthy adults with mild to moderate primary hypertension. The Medical Research Council Trial of Mild Hypertension contributed 14,541 (84%) of total randomized participants, with mean age of 50 years and mean baseline blood pressure of 160/98 mmHg and a mean duration of follow-up of five years. Treatments used in this study were bendrofluazide 10 mg daily or propranolol 80 mg to 240 mg daily with addition of methyldopa if required. The risk of bias in the studies was high or unclear for a number of domains and led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for all outcomes.Based on five studies, antihypertensive drug therapy as compared to placebo or untreated control may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (2.4% with control vs 2.3% with treatment; low quality evidence; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.13). Based on 4 studies, the effects on coronary heart disease were uncertain due to low quality evidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.19). Low quality evidence from six studies showed that drug therapy may reduce total cardiovascular mortality and morbidity from 4.1% to 3.2% over five years (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (1.3% with control vs 0.6% with treatment; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Very low quality evidence from three studies showed that withdrawals due to adverse events were higher with drug therapy from 0.7% to 3.0% (RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.67 to 13.92). The effects on blood pressure varied between the studies and we are uncertain as to how much of a difference treatment makes on average.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive drugs used to treat predominantly healthy adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension have a small absolute effect to reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity primarily due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity. All-cause mortality and coronary heart disease were not reduced. There is lack of good evidence on withdrawal due to adverse events. Future trials in this age group should be at least 10 years in duration and should compare different first-line drug classes and strategies.

Comparative effectiveness of monotherapies and combination therapies for patients with hypertension: protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Hypertension has been cited as the most common attributable risk factor for death worldwide, and in Canada more than one of every five adults had this diagnosis in 2007. In addition to different lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise, there exist many pharmaco-therapies from different drug classes which can be used to lower blood pressure, thereby reducing the risk of serious clinical outcomes. In moderate and severe cases, more than one agent may be used. The optimal mono- and combination therapies for mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension are unclear, and clinical guidelines provide different recommendations for first line therapy. The objective of this review is to explore the relative benefits and safety of different pharmacotherapies for management of non-diabetic patients with hypertension, whether of a mild or moderate to severe nature.

METHODS/DESIGN

Searches involving MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be used to identify related systematic reviews and relevant randomized trials. The outcomes of interest include myocardial infarction, stroke, incident diabetes, heart failure, overall and cardiovascular related death, and important side effects (cancers, depression, syncopal episodes/falls and sexual dysfunction). Randomized controlled trials will be sought. Two reviewers will independently screen relevant reviews, titles and abstracts resulting from the literature search, and also potentially relevant full-text articles in duplicate. Data will be abstracted and quality will be appraised by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through team discussion. Random effect pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be conducted where deemed appropriate. Analyses will be geared toward studying treatment of mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension separately.

DISCUSSION

Our systematic review results will assess the extent of currently available evidence for single agent and multi-agent pharmacotherapies in patients with mild, moderate and severe hypertension, and will provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of a range of important clinical outcomes for clinicians, decision makers and patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42013004459.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Elevated blood pressure (known as hypertension) increases with age, and most rapidly over age 60. Systolic hypertension is more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease than diastolic hypertension, and occurs more commonly in older people. It is important to know the benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment of hypertension in this age group.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify antihypertensive drug effect on overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and withdrawal due to adverse effects in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Updated search of electronic database of EMBASE, CENTRAL, MEDLINE until Dec 2008; previous search of two Japanese databases (1973-1995) and WHO-ISH Collaboration register (August 1997); references from reviews, trials and previously published meta-analyses; and experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of at least one year duration in hypertensive elders (at least 60 years old) comparing antihypertensive drug therapy with placebo or no treatment and providing morbidity and mortality data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Outcomes assessed were total mortality (including cardiovascular, coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular mortality); total cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (representing combined coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality); and withdrawal due to adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (24,055 subjects >/= 60 years) with moderate to severe hypertension were identified. These trials mostly evaluated first-line thiazide diuretic therapy for a mean duration of treatment of 4.5 years. Treatment reduced total mortality, RR 0.90 (0.84, 0.97); event rates per 1000 participants reduced from 116 to 104. Treatment also reduced total cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, RR 0.72 (0.68, 0.77); event rates per 1000 participants reduced from 149 to 106. In the three trials restricted to persons with isolated systolic hypertension the benefit was similar. In very elderly patients >/= 80 years the reduction in total cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was similar RR 0.75 [0.65, 0.87] however, there was no reduction in total mortality, RR 1.01 [0.90, 1.13]. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with treatment, RR 1.71 [1.45, 2.00].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treating healthy persons (60 years or older) with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension reduces all cause mortality and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The decrease in all cause mortality was limited to persons 60 to 80 years of age.

Cost-utility analysis of eprosartan compared to enalapril in primary prevention and nitrendipine in secondary prevention in Europe--the HEALTH model

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-utility of eprosartan versus enalapril (primary prevention) and versus nitrendipine (secondary prevention) on the basis of head-to-head evidence from randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The HEALTH model (Health Economic Assessment of Life with Teveten for Hypertension) is an object-oriented probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model. It combines a Framingham-based risk calculation with a systolic blood pressure approach to estimate the relative risk reduction of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events based on recent meta-analyses. In secondary prevention, an additional risk reduction is modeled for eprosartan according to the results of the MOSES study ("Morbidity and Mortality after Stroke--Eprosartan Compared to Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention"). Costs and utilities were derived from published estimates considering European country-specific health-care payer perspectives.

RESULTS

Comparing eprosartan to enalapril in a primary prevention setting the mean costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were highest in Germany (Euro 24,036) followed by Belgium (Euro 17,863), the UK (Euro 16,364), Norway (Euro 13,834), Sweden (Euro 11,691) and Spain (Euro 7918). In a secondary prevention setting (eprosartan vs. nitrendipine) the highest costs per QALY gained have been observed in Germany (Euro 9136) followed by the UK (Euro 6008), Norway (Euro 1695), Sweden (Euro 907), Spain (Euro -2054) and Belgium (Euro -5767).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering a Euro 30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained, eprosartan is cost-effective as compared to enalapril in primary prevention (patients >or=50 years old and a systolic blood pressure >or=160 mm Hg) and cost-effective as compared to nitrendipine in secondary prevention (all investigated patients).

Management of hypertension and cerebrovascular disease in the elderly

Cardiovascular disease and stroke disproportionately affect the elderly. The risk for stroke and transient ischemic attack increases exponentially with age. Blood pressure is a potent modifiable target for reducing the risk for stroke in the elderly. In elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension and those with intracranial atherosclerotic disease, blood pressure lowering has consistently been shown to be well tolerated and effective in reducing the risk for stroke and its complications. Evidence suggests that ambulatory blood pressure monitoring may provide a more sensitive means of detecting patients at risk and monitoring therapeutic effect. Agents that modify the renin-angiotensin system, particularly angiotensin receptor blockers, may confer additional benefit in stroke protection beyond blood pressure lowering. Several clinical trials currently in progress promise to provide guidance regarding the optimal choice of agent and degree of blood pressure lowering for prevention of stroke and cognitive decline in elderly patients.

Methods underpinning national clinical guidelines for hypertension: describing the evidence shortfall

BACKGROUND

To be useful, clinical practice guidelines need to be evidence based; otherwise they will not achieve the validity, reliability and credibility required for implementation.

METHODS

This paper compares the methods used in gathering, analysing and linking of evidence to guideline recommendations in ten current hypertension guidelines.

RESULTS

It found several guidelines had failed to implement methods of searching for the relevant literature, critical analysis and linking to recommendations that minimise the risk of bias in the interpretation of research evidence. The more rigorous guidelines showed discrepancies in recommendations and grading that reflected different approaches to the use of evidence in guideline development.

CONCLUSION

Clinical practice guidelines as a methodology are clearly still an evolving health care technology.

Evidence-based interventions to improve patient compliance with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications

The MEDLINE database was searched from 1972 to June 2002 to identify studies of interventions designed to improve compliance with antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications. Studies were required to employ a controlled design, follow patients for >or=6 months and measure compliance by a method other than patient self-report. The literature review yielded 62 studies describing 79 interventions. Overall, 56% of interventions were reported to improve patient compliance. When only those studies meeting minimum criteria for methodological quality were considered, 22 interventions remained and 12 were recommended, because they demonstrated a significant improvement in compliance. Recommended interventions included fixed-dose combination drugs, once-daily or once-weekly dosing schedules, unit-dose packaging, educational counselling by telephone, case management by pharmacists, treatment in pharmacist- or nurse-operated disease management clinics, mailed refill reminders, self-monitoring, dose-tailoring, rewards and various combination strategies. Personalised, patient-focused programs that involved frequent contact with health professionals or a combination of interventions were the most effective at improving compliance. Less-intensive strategies, such as prescribing products that simplify the medication regimen or sending refill reminders, achieved smaller improvements in compliance but may be cost-effective due to their low cost.

Risk factors for uncontrolled hypertension in Italy

To identify factors related to poor control of blood pressure in primary care, we designed a retrospective case-control analysis of clinical and demographic data recorded in the General Practitioners (GP) database. Study data were provided on a voluntary basis by 21 GPs from a practice-based network in primary care. The study included 2519 hypertensive patients enrolled between January 1 and December 31, 2000. The interventions were antihypertensive medication, and the main outcome measures were control of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP). The independent variables considered were: age of patient and GP; patient gender, body mass index, history of smoking, diabetes mellitus, or cholesterol tests; family history of hypertension; previous visits for cardiologic, nephrologic, or vascular surgery evaluation; prior hospitalizations for myocardial infarction or heart failure, and number of admissions for surgery; length of patient follow-up, type of antihypertensive medication, mean daily dosage, adherence to the drug regimen, and number of other medications currently being taken by the patient. Blood pressure was uncontrolled (>140/90 mmHg) in 1525 (60%) of the 2519 hypertensive patients enrolled. The presence of diabetes mellitus, increasing patient age, and increasing GP age significantly increased the risk of uncontrolled BP. Factors significantly associated with a reduced risk of uncontrolled BP were the number of other medications currently being taken by the patient and a prior history of MI. We conclude that the failure of antihypertensive medication to adequately control BP is determined by both the patient's characteristics and factors related to the patient-doctor relationship. Successful treatment of hypertension requires patient adherence to the regimen that has been agreed on by the patient and the physician.

Losartan: a review of its use, with special focus on elderly patients

Losartan is an orally active, nonpeptide, selective angiotensin subtype 1 (AT1) receptor antagonist. It provides a more specific and complete blockade of the actions of angiotensin II than renin or ACE inhibitors. Short term (up to 12 weeks' duration) clinical trials have shown losartan to be as effective at lowering blood pressure (BP) [causes a decrease in BP < or = 26/20 mm Hg] in elderly patients with hypertension as recommended dosages of captopril, atenolol, enalapril, felodipine and nifedipine. In patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) the efficacy of losartan was similar to that of atenolol. The addition of hydrochlorothiazide to losartan therapy provides greater antihypertensive efficacy, equivalent to that seen with captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide. Preliminary evidence also indicates that losartan therapy contributes to the regression of left ventricular hypertrophy associated with chronic hypertension. Exercise capacity is increased by losartan in patients with either asymptomatic or symptomatic heart failure. Results from the Losartan Heart Failure Survival or ELITE II (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly II) study indicate that there was no statistically significant difference between losartan and captopril in reducing overall deaths or in reducing sudden cardiac death and/or resuscitated cardiac arrest in patients with heart failure. Other than ELITE II, little conclusive long term mortality and morbidity data exist for losartan. Additional long term trials to evaluate the survival benefits of losartan in elderly patients with hypertension, renal disease or after an acute myocardial infarction are currently in progress. In elderly patients with hypertension, the incidence of treatment-related adverse events associated with once daily losartan (alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide) [19 to 27%] was similar to felodipine (23%) and nifedipine (21%), however, losartan tended to be better tolerated than captopril (11 vs 16%). Losartan was also better tolerated than atenolol in patients with ISH (10.4 vs 23%). In patients with heart failure the renal tolerability of losartan was similar to that of captopril, but losartan was associated with a lower withdrawal rate because of adverse events. No dosage adjustment is required in elderly or in patients with mild to moderate renal dysfunction, and the risk of first-dose hypotension is low.

CONCLUSIONS

comparative data have shown losartan to be as effective as other antihypertensive agents in the treatment of elderly patients with hypertension. Treatment with losartan is therefore an option for first-line therapy in all patients with hypertension, particularly those who are not well managed with or who are intolerant of their current therapy. Morbidity and mortality data from the Losartan Heart Failure Survival (ELITE II) study show that losartan has potential in the treatment of heart failure.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the long-term effects of antihypertensive drug therapy on morbidity and mortality in the elderly. To characterize co morbid risk profiles of trial participants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic search of WHO-ISH Collaboration register (August 1997), The Cochrane Library (1997; Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to April 1997) and two Japanese databases (1973-1995); references from reviews, trials and 10 previously published meta-analyses; and experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of at least one year duration in hypertensive elders (at least 60 years old) assessing antihypertensive drug therapy and providing morbidity and mortality data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two independent reviewers abstracted data on morbidity and mortality results and trial characteristics. The following outcomes were assessed: total mortality; coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality; combined CHD morbidity and mortality; cerebrovascular mortality; combined cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality; cardiovascular mortality; combined cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; and drop outs due to side effects of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials including 21,908 elderly subjects were identified. The average prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and competing co morbid diseases was lower among trial participants than the general population of hypertensive elderly persons. Most subjects were 60 to 80 years old. Most trials were conducted in Western, industrialized countries and evaluated diuretic and beta-blocker therapies. Event rates per 1000 participants over approximately 5 years indicated that antihypertensive drug therapy was beneficial. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality was reduced from 177 to 126 events (95% CI of the difference 31 to 73). Cardiovascular mortality was reduced from 69 to 50 deaths (95% CI of the difference 9 to 31). Total mortality was reduced from 129 to 111 deaths (95% CI of difference 4 to 28). The data from the three trials restricted to persons with isolated systolic hypertension indicated a significant benefit: cardiovascular morbidity and mortality over approximately 5 years was reduced from 157 to 104 events per 1000 participants (95% CI of the difference 12 to 89). Numbers of participants who dropped out of trials secondary to adverse drug effects were often not reported. The four trials that did report this data showed a wide variation in drop out rates ranging from no significant differences between treatment and control groups to as many as one out of four patients dropping out due to side effects of treatment.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Randomized controlled trials establish that treating healthy older persons with hypertension is highly efficacious. Benefits of treatment with low dose diuretics or beta-blockers are clear for persons in their 60s to 70s with either diastolic or systolic hypertension. Differential treatment effects based on patient risk factors, pre-existing cardiovascular disease and competing co-morbidities could not be established from the published trial data.

Optimal blood pressure on antihypertensive medication

The optimal blood pressure (BP) level for a patient on antihypertensive medication should maximize the patient's well-being and simultaneously lower the risk for pressure-related cardiovascular-renal complications. The clinical expression of pressure-related complications such as stroke, heart failure, renal insufficiency, peripheral arterial disease, and cognitive decline takes many years to decades to manifest. Accordingly, the attainment of the ultimate target BP is rarely necessary, or even desirable, over short time periods (eg, weeks) because the absolute clinical risk within these time periods is quite low. However, overmedication or aggressive BP lowering over the short term increases the likelihood of treatment-related side effects. Thus, attainment of goal BP should be accomplished gradually over many weeks to months in order to maximize BP lowering at a given dose of medication(s). Recent target BP goals promulgated by the Sixth Report from the Joint National Committee (JNC VI) are based on the premise that the intensity of treatment directly corresponds to the magnitude of pretreatment risk. Thus, hypertensive persons with diabetes, renal disease, or heart failure have goal BP levels lower than 130/85 mm Hg. All other hypertensive individuals should attain BP levels minimally to lower than 140/90 mm Hg. Finally, there is now appropriate recognition of the pivotal role of BP reduction in forestalling pressure-related cardiovascular complications, even among high-risk persons with diabetes mellitus and renal insufficiency.

Heart rate adjustment of exercise-induced ST-segment depression identifies men who benefit from a risk factor reduction program

BACKGROUND

Whether subjects identified as being at increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) death by heart rate adjustment of exercise-induced ST-segment depression will benefit from therapy aimed at reducing risk factors has not been examined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Exercise ECGs were performed in 11,880 men from the Usual Care (UC) and Special Intervention (SI) groups of the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. UC men were referred to customary sources of care in the community; SI men received counseling on smoking cessation and dietary reduction of cholesterol, and stepped-care therapy for hypertension. An abnormal ST-segment response to exercise was defined according to standard criteria as > or = 100 microV of additional horizontal or downsloping ST-segment depression and by an ST-segment/heart rate (ST/HR) index >1.60 microV/bpm. After 7 years of follow-up, CHD mortality was significantly lower in SI than UC men with an abnormal ST/HR index (2.4%, 19/786 versus 5.3%, 39/729, P=.005) but was comparable in SI and UC men with a normal ST/HR index (1.6%, 84/5154 versus 1.3%, 70/5211, P=NS). Risk reduction in SI men with an abnormal ST/HR index was independent of age and other cardiac risk factors. In contrast, there was no significant difference in CHD death rate between the smaller groups of SI and UC men with an abnormal test by standard criteria (3.6%, 7/192 versus 2.7%, 5/186, P=NS).

CONCLUSIONS

An abnormal ST/HR index identifies men in whom therapy aimed at reducing CHD risk factors reduces the risk of CHD death by 61%. These findings support the application of heart rate adjustment of ST depression for screening of asymptomatic subjects at increased risk of CHD to identify those who will benefit most from risk factor-reduction programs.

Drug selection for optimal treatment of hypertension in the elderly

Progressive aging of the world's population means that choosing the most effective drugs for the elderly is becoming increasingly important. The treatment of hypertension in the elderly is complicated because of the need to consider altered pharmacokinetics, comorbidity and multiple drug therapy in these patients. Antihypertensive treatment in the elderly has important and documented beneficial effects. However, no single drug class is suitable as the first-choice therapy for all elderly patients. The most appropriate choice of an antihypertensive drug often depends on comparative adverse effect profiles and the presence of comorbid disease.