Treatment blood pressure targets for hypertension

Hypertension self-care practice and its associated factors in Bale Zone, Southeast Ethiopia: A multi-center cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a serious threat to public health globally owing to its high prevalence and related complications. It is the main risk factor for cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, eye problems, and death. Self-care practices have been emphasized as a major element in reducing and preventing complications from hypertension. Thus, this study aimed to assess hypertension self-care practices and associated factors in Bale Zone, Southeast Ethiopia.

METHODS

A health facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted at three public hospitals from April 1 to May 31, 2021. Data were entered into Epi-Data version 4.6 and exported to Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 for analysis. The study participants were characterized using descriptive statistics. The associations between self-care practice and independent variables were modeled using binary logistic regression analysis. Adjusted odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval were used to estimate the association between self-care practice and independent variables. The statistical significance of the association was declared at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

This study involved 405 hypertensive patients, with a response rate of 96.7%. The overall level of good self-care practice was 33.1% (95% CI: 28.6, 37.5). The multivariable logistic regression model showed that age under 65 years (AOR = 3.77, 95% CI: 1.60-8.89), good knowledge of hypertension self-care practice (AOR = 6.36, 95% CI: 2.07-19.56), absence of a depression (AOR = 6.08, 95% CI: 1.24-29.73) and good self-efficacy (AOR = 3.33, 95% CI: 1.12-9.87) were independent predictors of good self-care practice.

CONCLUSION

The level of good hypertension self-care practice in the study area was low. Hence, it is crucial to expand non-communicable disease control programs and implement public health interventions on self-care for hypertension. Moreover, to enhance hypertension self-care practices, patient-centered interventions are essential.

Different characteristics of retinal damage between chronic hypertension and hypertensive retinopathy

The purpose of this study was to identify how chronic hypertension (HTN) and hypertensive retinopathy (HTNR) have different effects on retinal damage including inner retinal thinning and microvasculature impairment. The subjects were divided into three groups: controls, HTN patients without HTNR (HTN group), and patients with relieved HTNR (HTNR group). The ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GC-IPL) thickness, vessel density (VD), and GC-IPL/VD ratio were compared among the groups. A total of 241 eyes were enrolled; 101 in the control group, 92 in the HTN group, and 48 in the HTNR group. The mean GC-IPL thicknesses were 83.5 ± 5.7, 82.1 ± 6.2, and 75.9 ± 10.7 μm in each group, respectively (P < 0.001). The VD was 20.5 ± 1.3, 19.6 ± 1.4, and 19.5 ± 1.6 mm^-1 in each group, respectively (P = 0.001). The GC-IPL/VD ratio was 4.10 ± 0.33, 4.20 ± 0.40, and 3.88 ± 0.56 in each group, respectively (P < 0.001). In the HTNR group, HTN duration (B = 0.054, P = 0.013) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (B = -0.012, P = 0.004) were significantly associated with the GC-IPL/VD ratio. In conclusion, inner retinal reduction and retinal microvasculature impairment were observed in patients with HTN and HTNR, and the GC-IPL/VD ratio of HTNR patients was significantly lower than that of HTN patients, indicating more prominent damage to the inner retina than microvasculature in HTNR patients. Additionally, the GC-IPL/VD ratio was significantly associated with SBP in HTNR patients, so more strict BP control is required in HTNR patients.

Tight Blood Pressure Control in Chronic Kidney Disease

Hypertension affects over a billion people worldwide and is the leading cause of cardiovascular disease and premature death worldwide, as well as one of the key determinants of chronic kidney disease worldwide. People with chronic kidney disease and hypertension are at very high risk of renal outcomes, including progression to end-stage renal disease, and, even more importantly, cardiovascular outcomes. Hence, blood pressure control is crucial in reducing the human and socio-economic burden of renal and cardiovascular outcomes in those patients. However, current guidelines from hypertension and renal societies have issued different and sometimes conflicting recommendations, which risk confusing clinicians and potentially contributing to a less effective prevention of renal and cardiovascular outcomes. In this review, we critically appraise existing evidence and key international guidelines, and we finally formulate our own opinion that clinicians should aim for a blood pressure target lower than 130/80 in all patients with chronic kidney disease and hypertension, unless they are frail or with multiple comorbidities. We also advocate for an even more ambitious systolic blood pressure target lower than 120 mmHg in younger patients with a lower burden of comorbidities, to minimise their risk of renal and cardiovascular events during their lifetime.

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.

Relationship between blood pressure and kidney diseases in large randomized controlled trials: secondary analyses using SPRINT and ACCORD-BP trials

Hypertension is a risk factor for acute kidney injury. In this study, we aimed to identify the optimal blood pressure (BP) targets for CKD and non-CKD patients. We analyzed the data of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure trial (ACCORD BP) to determine the nonlinear relationship between BP and renal disease development using the Generalized Additive Model (GAM). Optimal systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) with lowest renal risk were estimated using GAM. Logistic regression was employed to find odds ratios (ORs) of adverse renal outcomes by three BP groups (high/medium/low). Both study trials have demonstrated a "U"-shaped relationship between BP and renal outcomes. For non-CKD patients in SPRINT trial, risk of 30% reduction in eGFR among intensive group patients with DBP ≤ 70 mmHg was significantly higher than the group with DBP between 71 and 85 mmHg (OR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.51-3.53). For non-CKD patients in ACCORD trial, risk of doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) or >20 mL/min decrease in eGFR among intensive group patients with DBP ≤ 70 mmHg was significantly higher than the group with DBP between 71 and 85 mmHg (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.12-1.99). For CKD patients in SPRINT trial, there are no significant differences in renal outcomes by different SBP/DBP levels. Our analysis of both SPRINT and ACCORD datasets demonstrated that lower-than-optimal DBP may lead to poor renal outcomes in non-CKD patients. Healthcare providers should be cautious of too low DBP level in intensive BP management due to poor renal outcomes for non-CKD patients.

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.

Longitudinal Changes in the Peripapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in Hypertension: 4-Year Prospective Observational Study

Purpose

To determine longitudinal changes in the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness in patients with hypertension (HTN).

Methods

Participants without any ophthalmic disease were divided into two groups: an HTN group (50 eyes) that included patients with HTN for ≥5 years and a control group. After the initial visit, pRNFL thicknesses were measured four more times at 1-year intervals using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. The pRNFL thickness was fitted using linear mixed models. Univariate and multivariate generalized linear mixed models were used to determine factors associated with pRNFL reductions over time.

Results

The mean ages of the HTN and control groups were 62.9 ± 6.2 and 60.7 ± 6.1 years, respectively, and they were not significantly different (P = 0.089). The baseline mean pRNFL thicknesses were 90.50 ± 8.31 and 93.90 ± 8.77 μm; they were significantly different (P = 0.049). The mean pRNFL reduction rate was -0.99 and -0.40 μm/y in the HTN and control groups, respectively; the interaction between group and duration was significant (P < 0.001). In the linear mixed model determination of factors associated with pRNFL reduction, there was no significant factor in the control group. In the HTN group, age, and axial length showed significant results in both univariate and multivariate analyses (estimate: -0.362 and -2.618; P = 0.042 and 0.026, respectively).

Conclusions

Patients with HTN had a significantly greater decrease in pRNFL than normal individuals. Additionally, age and axial length significantly affected the reduction in pRNFL in HTN patients.

Telehealth and indigenous populations around the world: a systematic review on current modalities for physical and mental health

Approximately 370-500 million Indigenous people live worldwide. While Indigenous peoples make up only 5% of the world's population, they account for 15% of the extreme poor and have life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than that of non-Indigenous people. Access to healthcare has been identified as an important social determinant of health and key driver of health outcomes. Indigenous populations often face barriers to accessing healthcare including living in remote areas, lacking financial resources, and having cultural differences. Telehealth, the utililzation of any synchronous modality, including phone, video, or teleconferencing technology used to support the provision of long-distance health care and health education, is a feasible and cost-effective treatment delivery mechanism that has successfully addressed access barriers faced by vulnerable populations globally, however, few studies have included indigenous populations and the application of this technology to improve physical and mental health outcomes. This systematic review aims to identify trials that were conducted among Indigenous adults, and to summarize the components of interventions that have been found to effectively improve the health of Indigenous peoples. The PRISMA guidelines for reporting of systematic reviews were followed in preparing this manuscript. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Scopus, and PsychInfo databases for clinical trial articles on Indigenous peoples and mental and physical health, published between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2018. Eligibility criteria for determining studies to include in the analysis were as follows: (I) ≥18 years of age; (II) indigenous peoples; (III) any technology-based intervention; (IV) studies included at least one of the following mental health (depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide) and physical health (mortality, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1C, cholesterol, quality of life) outcomes; (V) clinical trials. A total of 2,662 articles were identified and six were included in the final review based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. Three were conducted in the United States, one study was conducted in Canada, and two were conducted in New Zealand. Study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 762, intervention delivery times ranged from three to 20 months and utilized telephone, internet and SMS messaging as the type of technology. There is a paucity of evidence on the use of telehealth programs to increase access to chronic disease programs in Indigenous populations. This review highlights the importance of culturally tailoring programs despite the modality in which they are delivered, and recommends telephone-based delivery facilitated by a trained health professional. Telehealth has great promise for meeting the health needs of highly marginalized Indigenous populations around the world, however, at this point more research is needed to understand how best to structure and deliver these programs for maximum effect.

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

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

Hypertension self-care practice and associated factors among patients in public health facilities of Dessie town, Ethiopia

Background

Hypertension self-care practice is essential for blood pressure control and reduction of hypertension complications. Nevertheless, we know little concerning hypertension self-care practice in Ethiopia. The purpose of this study was to assess hypertension self-care practice and associated factors among patients in public health facilities in Dessie town, Ethiopia.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 309 hypertensive patients (mean age 58.8 years, 53.4% women) completed the interviewer-administered questionnaire in Amharic language. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted using SPSS version 22.

Result

The mean score for hypertension self-care was 37.7 ± 8.2 and 51% scored below the mean. Divorced participants (AOR = 0.115, 95% CI = 0.026, 0.508, p-value < 0.01) and those who lack source of information (AOR = 0.084, 95% CI = 0.022, 0.322, p-value < 0.01) were less likely to have good self-care practice. But, participants who had convenient place for exercise (AOR = 2.968, 95% CI = 1.826, 4.825, p-value < 0.01), who had good social support (AOR = 2.204, 95% CI = 1.272, 3.821, p-value < 0.01), who had traditional clergy-based teaching (AOR = 2.209, 95% CI = 1.064, 4.584, p-value < 0.05), and who had good self-care agency (AOR = 1.222, 2.956, p-value < 0.05) were more likely to have good self-care practice.

Conclusion

Most of the study participants reported poor self-care practices. Factors associated with hypertension self-care practice are marital status, education, source of self-care information, place for exercise, social support, and self-care agency. Targeted interventions are needed to improve hypertension self-care practice.

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.

Poly-de-prescribing to treat polypharmacy: efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of poly-de-prescribing (PDP) based on the Garfinkel method in older people with polypharmacy.

METHODS

A longitudinal, prospective, nonrandomized study in Israel was carried out between 2009 and 2016. Comprehensive geriatric assessments were performed at home in people age ⩾66 years consuming ⩾6 prescription drugs. Exclusion criteria were life expectancy <6 months and a seeming unwillingness to cooperate (poor compliance). PDP of ⩾3 prescription drugs was recommended. Follow up was at ⩾3 years. Between April 2015 and April 2016 Likert scale questionnaires were filled by all participants/families to evaluate overall satisfaction and clinical outcomes. The outcome measures were change in functional, mental and cognitive status, sleep quality, appetite, continence; major complication, hospitalizations, mortality, and family doctor's cooperation.

RESULTS

Poly-de-prescribing of ⩾3 drugs was eventually achieved by 122 participants (PDP group); ⩽2 drugs stopped by 55 'nonresponders' (NR group). The average age was 83.4 ± 5.3 in the PDP group, and 80.8 ± 6.3 in the NR group (p = 0.0045). Follow up was 43.6 ± 14 months (PDP) and 39.5 ± 16.6 months (NR) (p = 0.09). The prevalence of most diseases/symptoms was comparable except for a higher prevalence for dementia, incontinence and functional decline in the PDP group. The main barrier to de-prescribing was the family doctor's unwillingness to adopt PDP recommendations (p < 0.0001). The baseline median number of medications taken by both groups was 10 (IQR 8 to 12) (p = 0.55). On the last follow up, the drug count was 11 (IQR 8 to 12) in the NR group and 4 (IQR 2 to 5) in the PDP group (p =0.0001). The PDP group showed significantly less deterioration (sometimes improvement) in general satisfaction, functional, mental and cognitive status, sleep quality, appetite, sphincter control, and the number of major complications was significantly reduced (p < 0.002 in all). The rate of hospitalizations and mortality was comparable. Health improvement occurred within 3 months after de-prescribing in 83%, and persisted for ⩾2 years in 68%.

CONCLUSIONS

This self-selected sample longitudinal research strongly suggests that the negative, usually invisible effects of polypharmacy are reversible. PDP is well tolerated and associated with improved clinical outcomes, in comparison with outcomes of older people who adhere to all clinical guidelines and take all medications conventionally. Future double-blind studies will probably prove beneficial economic outcomes as well.

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.

Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Diabetes Mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most common cause of death in T2D. Yet, <50% of U.S. adults with T2D meet recommended guidelines for CVD prevention. The burden of T2D is increasing: by 2050, approximately 1 in 3 U.S. individuals may have T2D, and patients with T2D will comprise an increasingly large proportion of the CVD population. The authors believe it is imperative that we expand the use of therapies proven to reduce CVD risk in patients with T2D. The authors summarize evidence and guidelines for lifestyle (exercise, nutrition, and weight management) and CVD risk factor (blood pressure, cholesterol and blood lipids, glycemic control, and the use of aspirin) management for the prevention of CVD among patients with T2D. The authors believe appropriate lifestyle and CVD risk factor management has the potential to significantly reduce the burden of CVD among patients with T2D.

Isometric Handgrip as an Adjunct for Blood Pressure Control: a Primer for Clinicians

Considered a global health crisis by the World Health Organization, hypertension (HTN) is the leading risk factor for death and disability. The majority of treated patients do not attain evidence-based clinical targets, which increases the risk of potentially fatal complications. HTN is the most common chronic condition seen in primary care; thus, implementing therapies that lower and maintain BP to within-target ranges is of tremendous public health importance. Isometric handgrip (IHG) training is a simple intervention endorsed by the American Heart Association as a potential adjuvant BP-lowering treatment. With larger reductions noted in HTN patients, IHG training may be especially beneficial for those who (a) have difficulties continuing or increasing drug-based treatment; (b) are unable to attain BP control despite optimal treatment; (c) have pre-HTN or low-risk stage I mild HTN; and (d) wish to avoid medications or have less pill burden. IHG training is not routinely prescribed in clinical practice. To shift this paradigm, we focus on (1) the challenges of current HTN management strategies; (2) the effect of IHG training; (3) IHG prescription; (4) characterizing the population for whom it works best; (5) clinical relevance; and (6) important next steps to foster broader implementation by clinical practitioners.

Predicting Risk of Type 2 Diabetes by Using Data on Easy-to-Measure Risk Factors

INTRODUCTION

Statistical models for assessing risk of type 2 diabetes are usually additive with linear terms that use non-nationally representative data. The objective of this study was to use nationally representative data on diabetes risk factors and spline regression models to determine the ability of models with nonlinear and interaction terms to assess the risk of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We used 4 waves of data (2005-2006 to 2011-2012) on adults aged 20 or older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (n = 5,471) and multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) to build risk models in 2015. MARS allowed for interactions among 17 noninvasively measured risk factors for type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

A key risk factor for type 2 diabetes was increasing age, especially for those older than 69, followed by a family history of diabetes, with diminished risk among individuals younger than 45. Above age 69, other risk factors superseded age, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The additive MARS model with nonlinear terms had an area under curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristic of 0.847, whereas the 2-way interaction MARS model had an AUC of 0.851, a slight improvement. Both models had an 87% accuracy in classifying diabetes status.

CONCLUSION

Statistical models of type 2 diabetes risk should allow for nonlinear associations; incorporation of interaction terms into the MARS model improved its performance slightly. Robust statistical manipulation of risk factors commonly measured noninvasively in clinical settings might provide useful estimates of type 2 diabetes risk.

Eplerenone for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Eplerenone is an aldosterone receptor blocker that is chemically derived from spironolactone. In Canada, it is indicated for use as adjunctive therapy to reduce mortality for heart failure patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II systolic chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. It is also used as adjunctive therapy for patients with heart failure following myocardial infarction. Additionally, it is indicated for the treatment of mild and moderate essential hypertension for patients who cannot be treated adequately with other agents. It is important to determine the clinical impact of all antihypertensive medications, including aldosterone antagonists, to support their continued use in essential hypertension. No previous systematic reviews have evaluated the effect of eplerenone on cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and magnitude of blood pressure lowering in patients with hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of eplerenone monotherapy versus placebo for primary hypertension in adults. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events (fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction), cerebrovascular events (fatal or non fatal strokes), adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 3 March 2016. We handsearched references from retrieved studies to identify any studies missed in the initial search. We also searched for unpublished data by contacting the corresponding authors of the included studies and pharmaceutical companies involved in conducting studies on eplerenone monotherapy in primary hypertension. The search had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized placebo-controlled trials studying adult patients with primary hypertension. We excluded studies in people with secondary or gestational hypertension and studies where participants were receiving multiple antihypertensives.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently reviewed the search results for studies meeting our criteria. Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using a standardized data extraction form. A fourth independent review author resolved discrepancies or disagreements. We performed data extraction and synthesis using a standardized format on Covidence. We conducted data analysis using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1437 adult patients participated in the five randomized parallel group studies, with treatment durations ranging from 8 to 16 weeks. The daily doses of eplerenone ranged from 25 mg to 400 mg daily. Meta-analysis of these studies showed a reduction in systolic blood pressure of 9.21 mmHg (95% CI -11.08 to -7.34; I² = 58%) and a reduction of diastolic pressure of 4.18 mmHg (95% CI -5.03 to -3.33; I² = 0%) (moderate quality evidence).There may be a dose response effect for eplerenone in the reduction in systolic blood pressure at doses of 400 mg/day. However, this finding is uncertain, as it is based on a single included study with low quality evidence. Overall there does not appear to be a clinically important dose response in lowering systolic or diastolic blood pressure at eplerenone doses of 50 mg to 400 mg daily. There did not appear to be any differences in the number of patients who withdrew due to adverse events or the number of patients with at least one adverse event in the eplerenone group compared to placebo. However, only three of the five included studies reported adverse events. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality, as we judged multiple domains as being at unclear risk in the 'Risk of bias' assessment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Eplerenone 50 to 200 mg/day lowers blood pressure in people with primary hypertension by 9.21 mmHg systolic and 4.18 mmHg diastolic compared to placebo, with no difference of effect between doses of 50 mg/day to 200 mg/day. A dose of 25 mg/day did not produce a statistically significant reduction in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and there is insufficient evidence for doses above 200 mg/day. There is currently no available evidence to determine the effect of eplerenone on clinically meaningful outcomes such as mortality or morbidity in hypertensive patients. The evidence available on side effects is insufficient and of low quality, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about potential harm associated with eplerenone treatment in hypertensive patients.

Reduction of diastolic blood pressure: Should hypertension guidelines include a lower threshold target?

Reduction of diastolic blood pressure to less than 60-80 mmHg does not improve mortality and may lead to adverse cardiovascular events in high risk patient populations. Despite a growing body of evidence supporting the J-curve phenomenon, no major society guidelines on hypertension include a lower threshold target for diastolic blood pressure. Many major society guidelines for hypertension have been updated in the last 5 years. Some guidelines include goals specific to age and co-morbid conditions. The Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the Canadian Hypertension Education Program are the only guidelines to date that have recommended a lower threshold target, with the Canadian guidelines recommending a caution against diastolic blood pressure less than or equal to 60 mmHg in patients with coronary artery disease. While systolic blood pressure has been proven to be the overriding risk factor in hypertensive patients over the age of 50 years, diastolic blood pressure is an important predictor of mortality in younger adults. Post hoc data analysis of previous clinical trials regarding safe lower diastolic blood pressure threshold remains inconsistent. Randomized clinical trials designed to determine the appropriate diastolic blood pressure targets among different age groups and populations with different comorbidities are warranted. Hypertension guideline goals should be based on an individual’s age, level of risk, and certain co-morbid conditions, especially coronary artery disease, stroke, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes.

Update in Hypertension Therapy

Hypertension is the leading cause of early mortality in the world, and reduction of blood pressure can help to reduce that burden. There is an enormous and ever-expanding body of literature on hypertension, with a 2016 Medline search for hypertension retrieving more than 113,000 publications. Recent guidelines from major societies have been published, and often present conflicting recommendations based on the same data. Using a question-and-answer format, this article reviews some of the recent developments and opinions on management of blood pressure and provides practical suggestions for management in the clinical arena.

Cost to government and society of chronic kidney disease stage 1-5: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Costs associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are not well documented. Understanding such costs is important to inform economic evaluations of prevention strategies and treatment options.

AIM

To estimate the costs associated with CKD in Australia.

METHODS

We used data from the 2004/2005 AusDiab study, a national longitudinal population-based study of non-institutionalised Australian adults aged ≥25 years. We included 6138 participants with CKD, diabetes and healthcare cost data. The annual age and sex-adjusted costs per person were estimated using a generalised linear model. Costs were inflated from 2005 to 2012 Australian dollars using best practice methods.

RESULTS

Among 6138 study participants, there was a significant difference in the per-person annual direct healthcare costs by CKD status, increasing from $1829 (95% confidence interval (CI): $1740-1943) for those without CKD to $14 545 (95% CI: $5680-44 842) for those with stage 4 or 5 CKD (P < 0.01). Similarly, there was a significant difference in the per-person annual direct non-healthcare costs by CKD status from $524 (95% CI: $413-641) for those without CKD to $2349 (95% CI: $386-5156) for those with stage 4 or 5 CKD (P < 0.01). Diabetes is a common cause of CKD and is associated with increased health costs. Costs per person were higher for those with diabetes than those without diabetes in all CKD groups; however, this was significant only for those without CKD and those with early stage (stage 1 or 2) CKD.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with CKD incur 85% higher healthcare costs and 50% higher government subsidies than individuals without CKD, and costs increase by CKD stage. Primary and secondary prevention strategies may reduce costs and warrant further consideration.

Olmesartan vs ramipril in the treatment of hypertension and associated clinical conditions in the elderly: a reanalysis of two large double-blind, randomized studies at the light of the most recent blood pressure targets recommended by guidelines

In this paper, we present the results of a reanalysis of the data of two large randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies with a similar design, comparing the efficacy of an angiotensin-receptor blocker (olmesartan medoxomil) with that of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril), by applying two different blood pressure targets recently recommended by hypertension guidelines for all patients, irrespective of the presence of diabetes (<140/90 mmHg), and for elderly hypertensive patients (<150/90 mmHg). The efficacy of olmesartan was not negatively affected by age, sex, hypertension type, diabetes status or other concomitant clinical conditions, or cardiovascular risk factors. In most cases, olmesartan provided better blood pressure control than ramipril. Olmesartan was significantly more effective than ramipril in male patients, in younger patients (aged 65-69 years), in those with metabolic syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, preserved renal function, diastolic ± systolic hypertension, and, in general, in patients with a high or very high cardiovascular risk. Interestingly, patients previously untreated or treated with two or more antihypertensive drugs showed a significantly larger response with olmesartan than with ramipril. Thus, our results confirm the good efficacy of olmesartan in elderly hypertensives even when new blood pressure targets for antihypertensive treatment are considered. Such results may be relevant for the clinical practice, providing some hint on the possible different response of elderly hypertensive patients to two different drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system, when patients are targeted according to the blood pressure levels recommended by recent hypertension guidelines.

Updated national and international hypertension guidelines: a review of current recommendations

Despite the availability of effective pharmacological treatments to aid the control of blood pressure, the global rate of uncontrolled blood pressure remains high. As such, further measures are required to improve blood pressure control. Recently, several national and international guidelines for the management of hypertension have been published. These aim to provide easily accessible information for healthcare professionals and patients to aid the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. In this review, we have compared new and current guidelines from the American and International Societies of Hypertension; the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention; the panel appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee; the European Societies of Hypertension and Cardiology; the French Society of Hypertension; the Canadian Hypertension Education Program; the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK); the Taiwan Society of Cardiology and the Chinese Hypertension League. We have identified consensus opinion regarding best practises for the management of hypertension and have highlighted any discrepancies between the recommendations. In general there is good agreement between the guidelines, however, in some areas, such as target blood pressure ranges for the elderly, further trials are required to provide sufficient high-quality evidence to form the basis of recommendations.

2014 Hypertension Guideline: Recommendation for a Change in Goal Systolic Blood Pressure

The 2014 Kaiser Permanente Care Management Institute National Hypertension Guideline was developed to assist primary care physicians and other health care professionals in the outpatient treatment of uncomplicated hypertension in adult men and nonpregnant women aged 18 years and older. A major practice change is the recommendation for goal systolic blood pressure less than 150 mmHg in patients aged 60 years and older who are treated for hypertension in the absence of diabetes or chronic kidney disease. This article describes the reasons for, evidence for, and consequences of the change, and includes the guideline.

The Korean Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in 2013: Its Essentials and Key Points

The Korean Society of Hypertension published new guidelines for the management of hypertension in 2013 which fully revised the first Korean hypertension treatment guideline published in 2004. Due to shortage of Korean data, the Committee decided to establish the guideline in the form of an 'adaptation' of the recently released guidelines. The prevalence of hypertension was 28.5% in the recent Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2011, and the awareness, treatment, and control rates are generally improving. However, the risks for cerebrovascular disease and coronary artery disease which are attributable to hypertension were the highest in Korea. The classification of hypertension is the same as in other guidelines. The remarkable difference is that prehypertension is further classified as stage 1 and 2 prehypertension because the cardiovascular risk is significantly different within the prehypertensive range. Although the decision-making was based on office blood pressure (BP) measured by the auscultation method using a stethoscope, the importance of home BP measurement and ambulatory BP monitoring is also stressed. The Korean guideline does not recommend a drug therapy in patients within the prehypertensive range, even in patients with prediabetes, diabetes mellitus, stroke, or coronary artery disease. In an elderly population over 65 years old, drug therapy can be initiated when the systolic BP (SBP) is ≥160 mm Hg. The target BP is generally an SBP of <140 mm Hg and a diastolic BP (DBP) of <90 mm Hg regardless of previous cardiovascular events. However, in patients with hypertension and diabetes, the lower DBP control <85 mm Hg is recommended. Also, in patients with hypertension with prominent albuminuria, a more strict SBP control <130 mm Hg can be recommended. In lifestyle modification, sodium reduction is the most important factor in Korea. Five classes of antihypertensive drugs, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers, calcium antagonists, and diuretics, are equally recommended as a first-line treatment, whereas a combination therapy chosen from renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and diuretics is preferentially recommended.

2013 Korean Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension. Part II-treatments of hypertension

Treatment strategies are provided in accordance with the level of global cardiovascular risk, from lifestyle modification in the lower risk group to more comprehensive treatment in the higher risk group. Considering the common trend of combination drug regimen, the choice of the first drug is suggested more liberally according to the physician's discretion.

Evidence for the role of isometric exercise training in reducing blood pressure: potential mechanisms and future directions

Hypertension, or the chronic elevation in resting arterial blood pressure (BP), is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease and estimated to affect ~1 billion adults worldwide. The goals of treatment are to lower BP through lifestyle modifications (smoking cessation, weight loss, exercise training, healthy eating and reduced sodium intake), and if not solely effective, the addition of antihypertensive medications. In particular, increased physical exercise and decreased sedentarism are important strategies in the prevention and management of hypertension. Current guidelines recommend both aerobic and dynamic resistance exercise training modalities to reduce BP. Mounting prospective evidence suggests that isometric exercise training in normotensive and hypertensive (medicated and non-medicated) cohorts of young and old participants may produce similar, if not greater, reductions in BP, with meta-analyses reporting mean reductions of between 10 and 13 mmHg systolic, and 6 and 8 mmHg diastolic. Isometric exercise training protocols typically consist of four sets of 2-min handgrip or leg contractions sustained at 20-50 % of maximal voluntary contraction, with each set separated by a rest period of 1-4 min. Training is usually completed three to five times per week for 4-10 weeks. Although the mechanisms responsible for these adaptations remain to be fully clarified, improvements in conduit and resistance vessel endothelium-dependent dilation, oxidative stress, and autonomic regulation of heart rate and BP have been reported. The clinical significance of isometric exercise training, as a time-efficient and effective training modality to reduce BP, warrants further study. This evidence-based review aims to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the effects of isometric exercise training on resting BP.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate alone and in combination with other conventional DMARDs using the T2T strategy. A cohort study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with methotrexate (MTX), by itself or combined with other non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate, MTX with prednisolone, MTX with leflunomide, MTX with chloroquine, and MTX with sulfasalazine) on clinimetric outcomes in a retrospective cohort with a 6-month follow-up and under a Treat to Target (T2T) approach. Patients in treatment with conventional DMARDs and classified as moderate disease activity (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA) were included. Changes in disease activity score (DAS28), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), tender joint count (TJC), and swollen joint count (SJC) are compared using the Wilcoxon nonparametric test for paired data. Hypothesis contrasts were raised in order to look for differences between the different exposure groups and the outcomes defined by means of the Kruskal-Wallis (KW) nonparametric test. Follow-up was documented in 307 patients, including 250 (81.4%) women. At the onset, 243 subjects (79.2%) were classified as MDA and 64 (20.9%) in HDA. A total of 247 subjects (80.4%) presented some degree of improvement, with 156 subjects (51%) entering remission, which is a significant number (p value = 0.047). There were no differences in the level of severity between the treatment groups (p = 0.98). This study, developed in a cohort of patients with RA with moderate or severe disease activity who were treated with MTX by itself or combined with other non-biological DMARDs under T2T strategy, showed a decrease in the severity of disease activity in 80% of patients. The difference between monotherapy (MTX) and the combinations with other non-biological DMARDs could not be established.

Rationale and study design of the Prospective comparison of Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitor with Angiotensin receptor blocker MEasuring arterial sTiffness in the eldERly (PARAMETER) study

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension in elderly people is characterised by elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) and increased pulse pressure (PP), which indicate large artery ageing and stiffness. LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is being developed to treat hypertension and heart failure. The Prospective comparison of Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitor with Angiotensin receptor blocker MEasuring arterial sTiffness in the eldERly (PARAMETER) study will assess the efficacy of LCZ696 versus olmesartan on aortic stiffness and central aortic haemodynamics.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this 52-week multicentre study, patients with hypertension aged ≥60 years with a mean sitting (ms) SBP ≥150 to <180 and a PP>60 mm Hg will be randomised to once daily LCZ696 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg for 4 weeks, followed by a forced-titration to double the initial doses for the next 8 weeks. At 12-24 weeks, if the BP target has not been attained (msSBP <140 and ms diastolic BP <90 mm Hg), amlodipine (2.5-5 mg) and subsequently hydrochlorothiazide (6.25-25 mg) can be added. The primary and secondary endpoints are changes from baseline in central aortic systolic pressure (CASP) and central aortic PP (CAPP) at week 12, respectively. Other secondary endpoints are the changes in CASP and CAPP at week 52. A sample size of 432 randomised patients is estimated to ensure a power of 90% to assess the superiority of LCZ696 over olmesartan at week 12 in the change from baseline of mean CASP, assuming an SD of 19 mm Hg, the difference of 6.5 mm Hg and a 15% dropout rate. The primary variable will be analysed using a two-way analysis of covariance.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was initiated in December 2012 and final results are expected in 2015. The results of this study will impact the design of future phase III studies assessing cardiovascular protection.

CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER

EUDract number 2012-002899-14 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01692301.

Quality of diabetes care in the Canadian forces

BACKGROUND

Published data on quality of care indicators from various countries indicate the challenges of providing high-quality diabetes care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of care provided to members of the Canadian Forces (CF) who have diabetes, by determining the extent to which healthcare providers adhere to recommendations outlined in the 2008 Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

All 14 CF bases meeting eligibility criteria were included in the evaluation. Cases of diabetes were ascertained based on laboratory criteria. Adherence to 21 CDA guideline recommendations was evaluated following a review of patient medical records.

RESULTS

The CF demonstrated high adherence (>75%) with 9 recommendations, moderate adherence (50% to 75%) with 7 recommendations and low adherence (<50%) with 5 recommendations. Most notably, there were 4 recommendations for which adherence was greater than 90%. The mean rate of adherence with all applicable recommendations per patient was 60.3% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 59.0% to 61.6%). CF adherence rates were generally similar to or better than comparable rates in the civilian population within Canada and other industrialized countries.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear what accounts for the favourable quality of diabetes care in the CF Health Services, but this highly structured practice setting has a number of features that distinguish it from provincial healthcare systems. Several strategies can be considered to improve diabetes care even further, including providing feedback to physicians about their performance, promoting the use of diabetes care flow sheets and creating a diabetes registry.

Importance of cardiovascular disease risk management in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is commonly accompanied by other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, such as hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Furthermore, CVD is the most common cause of death in people with T2DM. It is therefore of critical importance to minimize the risk of macrovascular complications by carefully managing modifiable CVD risk factors in patients with T2DM. Therapeutic strategies should include lifestyle and pharmacological interventions targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, cigarette smoking, physical inactivity, and prothrombotic factors. This article discusses the impact of modifying these CVD risk factors in the context of T2DM; the clinical evidence is summarized, and current guidelines are also discussed. The cardiovascular benefits of smoking cessation, increasing physical activity, and reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood pressure are well established. For aspirin therapy, any cardiovascular benefits must be balanced against the associated bleeding risk, with current evidence supporting this strategy only in certain patients who are at increased CVD risk. Although overweight, obesity, and hyperglycemia are clearly associated with increased cardiovascular risk, the effect of their modification on this risk is less well defined by available clinical trial evidence. However, for glucose-lowering drugs, further evidence is expected from several ongoing cardiovascular outcome trials. Taken together, the evidence highlights the value of early intervention and targeting multiple risk factors with both lifestyle and pharmacological strategies to give the best chance of reducing macrovascular complications in the long term.

Blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

When treating elevated blood pressure (BP), doctors often want to know what blood pressure target they should try to achieve. The standard blood pressure target in clinical practice for some time has been less than 140 - 160/90 - 100 mmHg for the general population of people with elevated blood pressure. Several clinical guidelines published in recent years have recommended lower targets (less than 130/80 mmHg) for people with diabetes mellitus. It is not known whether attempting to achieve targets lower than the standard target reduces mortality and morbidity in those with elevated blood pressure and diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if 'lower' BP targets (any target less than 130/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity compared with 'standard' BP targets (less than 140 - 160/90 - 100 mmHg) in people with diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for related reviews. We conducted electronic searches of the Hypertension Group Specialised Register (January 1946 - October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (January 1946 - October 2013), EMBASE (January 1974 - October 2013) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most recent search was performed on October 4, 2013.Other search sources were the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and reference lists of all papers and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing people with diabetes randomized to lower or to standard BP targets as previously defined, and providing data on any of the primary outcomes below.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed and established the included trials and data entry. Primary outcomes were total mortality; total serious adverse events; myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure and end-stage renal disease. Secondary outcomes were achieved mean systolic and diastolic BP, and withdrawals due to adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We found five randomized trials, recruiting a total of 7314 participants and with a mean follow-up of 4.5 years. Only one trial (ACCORD) compared outcomes associated with 'lower' (< 120 mmHg) or 'standard' (< 140 mmHg) systolic blood pressure targets in 4734 participants. Despite achieving a significantly lower BP (119.3/64.4 mmHg vs 133.5/70.5 mmHg, P < 0.0001), and using more antihypertensive medications, the only significant benefit in the group assigned to 'lower' systolic blood pressure (SBP) was a reduction in the incidence of stroke: risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.88, P = 0.009, absolute risk reduction 1.1%. The effect of SBP targets on mortality was compatible with both a reduction and increase in risk: RR 1.05 CI 0.84 to 1.30, low quality evidence. Trying to achieve the 'lower' SBP target was associated with a significant increase in the number of other serious adverse events: RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.91, P < 0.00001, absolute risk increase 2.0%.Four trials (ABCD-H, ABCD-N, ABCD-2V, and a subgroup of HOT) specifically compared clinical outcomes associated with 'lower' versus 'standard' targets for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in people with diabetes. The total number of participants included in the DBP target analysis was 2580. Participants assigned to 'lower' DBP had a significantly lower achieved BP: 128/76 mmHg vs 135/83 mmHg, P < 0.0001. There was a trend towards reduction in total mortality in the group assigned to the 'lower' DBP target (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01), mainly due to a trend to lower non-cardiovascular mortality. There was no difference in stroke (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05), in myocardial infarction (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.40) or in congestive heart failure (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.92), low quality evidence. End-stage renal failure and total serious adverse events were not reported in any of the trials. A sensitivity analysis of trials comparing DBP targets < 80 mmHg (as suggested in clinical guidelines) versus < 90 mmHg showed similar results. There was a high risk of selection bias for every outcome analyzed in favor of the 'lower' target in the trials included for the analysis of DBP targets.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the present time, evidence from randomized trials does not support blood pressure targets lower than the standard targets in people with elevated blood pressure and diabetes. More randomized controlled trials are needed, with future trials reporting total mortality, total serious adverse events as well as cardiovascular and renal events.

Establishing normal reference values in quantitative computed tomography of emphysema

Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) can provide reliable and valid measures of lung structure and volumes. Similar to lung function measured by spirometry, lung measures obtained by QCT vary by demographic and anthropomorphic factors including sex, race/ethnicity, and height in asymptomatic nonsmokers. Hence, accounting for these factors is necessary to define abnormal from normal QCT values. Prediction equations for QCT may be derived from a sample of asymptomatic individuals to estimate reference values. This review article describes the methodology of reference equation development using, as an example, quantitative densitometry to detect pulmonary emphysema. The process described is generalizable to other QCT measures, including lung volumes, airway dimensions, and gas-trapping. Pulmonary emphysema is defined morphologically by airspace enlargement with alveolar wall destruction and has been shown to correlate with low lung attenuation estimated by QCT. Deriving reference values for a normal quantity of low lung attenuation requires 3 steps. First, criteria that define normal must be established. Second, variables for inclusion must be selected on the basis of an understanding of subject-specific, scanner-specific, and protocol-specific factors that influence lung attenuation. Finally, a reference sample of normal individuals must be selected that is representative of the population in which QCT will be used to detect pulmonary emphysema. Sources of bias and confounding inherent to reference values are also discussed. Reference equation development is a multistep process that can define normal values for QCT measures such as lung attenuation. Normative reference values will increase the utility of QCT in both research and clinical practice.

Evaluation of cardiovascular disease burden and therapeutic goal attainment in US adults with chronic kidney disease: an analysis of national health and nutritional examination survey data, 2001-2010

BACKGROUND

For chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, national treatment guidelines recommend a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal <100 mg/dL and blood pressure (BP) target <130/80 mmHg. This analysis assessed the current status of cardiovascular (CV) risk factor treatment and control in US adults with CKD.

METHODS

Weighted prevalence estimates of CV-related comorbidities, utilization of lipid- and BP-lowering agents, and LDL-C and BP goal attainment in US adults with CKD were assessed among 9,915 men and nonpregnant women aged ≥20 years identified from the fasting subsample of the 2001-2010 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES). Analyses were performed using SAS survey procedures that consider the complex, multistage, probability sampling design of NHANES. All estimates were standardized to the 2008 US adult population (≥20 years). Data were stratified by CKD stage based on presence of albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. Stage 3 CKD was subdivided into 3a (eGFR 45-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and 3b (eGFR 30-44 mL/min/1.73 m(2)); Stage 5 CKD and dialysis recipients were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 9,915 NHANES participants identified for analysis, 1,428 had CKD (Stage 1-4), corresponding to a prevalence estimate for US adults aged ≥20 years of 10.2%. Prevalence of CV-related comorbidities increased markedly with CKD stage, with a ~6-12-fold increase in cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke and congestive heart failure between CKD Stage 1 and 4; prevalence of diabetes, hyperlipidemia and hypertension increased by ~1.2-1.6-fold. Use of lipid-lowering agents increased with CKD stage, from 18.1% (Stage 1) to 44.8% (Stage 4). LDL-C goal attainment increased from 35.8% (Stage 1) to 52.8% (Stage 3b), but decreased in Stage 4 (50.7%). BP goal attainment decreased between Stage 1 and 4 (from 49.5% to 30.2%), despite increased use of antihypertensives (from 30.2% to 78.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with CKD have a high prevalence of CV-related comorbidities. However, attainment of LDL-C or BP goals was low regardless of disease stage. These findings highlight the potential for intensive risk factor modification to maximize CV event reduction in CKD patients at high risk for CHD.

Low Diastolic Blood Pressure as a Risk for All-Cause Mortality in VA Patients

Background. A paradoxical increase in cardiovascular events has been reported with intensively lowering diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This J-curve phenomenon has challenged the aggressive lowering of blood pressure, especially in patients with coronary artery disease. Objective. Our objective was to study the effects of low DBP on mortality and determine a threshold for which DBP should not be lowered beyond. Methods. We evaluated a two-year cross-section of primary care veteran patients, from 45 to 85 years of age. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were employed to establish an optimal cut-off point for DBP. Propensity-score matching and multivariate logistic regression were used to control for confounders. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Results. 14,270 patients were studied. An ROC curve found a threshold value of DBP 70 mmHg had the greatest association with mortality (P < 0.001). 49% of patients had a DBP of 70 mmHg or less. Using a propensity-matched multivariate logistic regression, odds ratio for all-cause mortality in subjects with a DBP less than 70 mmHg was 1.5 (95% CI 1.3-1.8). Conclusions. Reduction of DBP below 70 mmHg is associated with increased all-cause mortality. Hypertension guidelines should include a minimum blood pressure target.

Hypertension and kidney disease: what do the data really show?

Hypertension is the most common co-morbidity in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the optimal target BP to prevent CKD progression has been hotly debated. Prior recommendations by various groups for BP targets for CKD in the range of less than 130/80 mm Hg have been based on the assumed benefits of lower BP in this population with exceedingly high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although there is suggestive data that lower BP may be helpful in patients with proteinuria and CKD, studies not directly link a treatment-related reduction in proteinuria to a benefit in kidney outcomes. There are ongoing studies which will provide more data on BP targets in CKD. Based on the currently available data we recommend a BP goal of less than 140/90 mm Hg in all patients with CKD.

The IDEAL study : towards personalized drug treatment of hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To identify markers (phenotypic, genetic, or environmental) of blood pressure (BP) response profiles to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and diuretics.

METHODS

IDEAL was a crossover (two active and two wash out phases), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible patients were untreated hypertensive, aged 25 to 70. After two visits, patients were randomized to one of four sequences. The main outcome was BP differences between the active treatment and placebo.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four patients were randomised: mean age 53, men 65%, family history of hypertension 60%. Average BP fall at each visit before randomisation was about 2% of the initial level reflecting both a regression to the mean and a placebo effect.

CONCLUSION

The results are expected to improve knowledge in drug's mechanisms of action and pathophysiology of hypertension, and to help in personalizing treatment. The estimation of BP responses to each drug in standardized conditions provided a benefit to each participant.

Epidemiology and prevention of stroke: a worldwide perspective

This paper reviews how epidemiological studies during the last 5 years have advanced our knowledge in addressing the global stroke epidemic. The specific objectives were to review the current evidence supporting management of ten major modifiable risk factors for prevention of stroke: hypertension, current smoking, diabetes, obesity, poor diet, physical inactivity, atrial fibrillation, excessive alcohol consumption, abnormal lipid profile and psychosocial stress/depression.

A point-by-point response to recent arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention: this statement is endorsed by the American Society for Preventive Cardiology

Recently, a debate over the merits of statin therapy in primary prevention was published in the Wall Street Journal. The statin opponent claimed that statins should only be used in secondary prevention and never in any primary-prevention patients at risk for cardiovascular events. In this evidence-based rebuttal to those claims, we review the evidence supporting the efficacy of statin therapy in primary prevention. Cardiovascular risk is a continuum in which those at an elevated risk of events stand to benefit from early initiation of therapy. Statins should not be reserved until after a patient suffers the catastrophic consequences of atherosclerosis. Contrary to the assertions of the statin opponent, this principle has been demonstrated through reductions in heart attacks, strokes, and mortality in numerous randomized controlled primary-prevention statin trials. Furthermore, data show that once a patient tolerates the initial treatment period, the few side effects that subsequently emerge are largely reversible. Accordingly, every major guidelines committee endorses statin use in secondary prevention and selectively in primary prevention for those with risk factors. The foundation for prevention remains increased physical activity, better dietary habits, and smoking cessation. However, prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and death from cardiovascular disease does not have to be all or none-all statin or all lifestyle. In selected at-risk individuals, the combination of pharmacotherapy and lifestyle changes is more effective than either alone. Future investigation in prevention should focus on improving our ability to identify these at-risk individuals.

Tight blood pressure control in diabetes: evidence-based review of treatment targets in patients with diabetes

Blood pressure (BP) targets in diabetic patients stills represent the object of a major debate, fueled by the recent publication of post hoc observational analyses of the INVEST and the ONTARGET trials, suggesting an increased risk of cardiovascular events with tighter control, the J-curve effect, and by the results of the ACCORD trial, showing no improvements in the composite primary outcome of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in the intensive BP-lowering arm (<120/80 mmHg). In the present review, we focus on existing evidence about different BP targets in diabetic subjects and we present the results of our recent meta-analysis, showing that tight BP control may significantly reduce the risk of stroke in these patients without increasing the risk of myocardial infarction. Therapeutic inertia (leaving diabetic patients with BP values of 140/90 mmHg or higher) should be avoided at all costs, as this would lead to an unacceptable toll in terms of human lives, suffering, and socioeconomic costs.

Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering in patients at high risk. While placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated 22% reductions in coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke associated with a 10-mmHg difference in systolic BP, it is unclear if more intensive BP lowering strategies are associated with greater reductions in risk of CHD and stroke. We did a systematic review to assess the effects of intensive BP lowering on vascular, eye, and renal outcomes.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for trials published between 1950 and July 2011. We included trials that randomly assigned individuals to different target BP levels. We identified 15 trials including a total of 37,348 participants. On average there was a 7.5/4.5-mmHg BP difference. Intensive BP lowering achieved relative risk (RR) reductions of 11% for major cardiovascular events (95% CI 1%-21%), 13% for myocardial infarction (0%-25%), 24% for stroke (8%-37%), and 11% for end stage kidney disease (3%-18%). Intensive BP lowering regimens also produced a 10% reduction in the risk of albuminuria (4%-16%), and a trend towards benefit for retinopathy (19%, 0%-34%, p = 0.051) in patients with diabetes. There was no clear effect on cardiovascular or noncardiovascular death. Intensive BP lowering was well tolerated; with serious adverse events uncommon and not significantly increased, except for hypotension (RR 4.16, 95% CI 2.25 to 7.70), which occurred infrequently (0.4% per 100 person-years).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive BP lowering regimens provided greater vascular protection than standard regimens that was proportional to the achieved difference in systolic BP, but did not have any clear impact on the risk of death or serious adverse events. Further trials are required to more clearly define the risks and benefits of BP targets below those currently recommended, given the benefits suggested by the currently available data.

A collaborative cardiologist-pharmacist care model to improve hypertension management in patients with or at high risk for cardiovascular disease

Physician led collaborative drug therapy management utilizing clinical pharmacists to aid in the medication management of patients with hypertension has been shown to improve blood pressure control. With recommendations for lower blood pressures in patients with coronary artery disease, a cardiologist-pharmacist collaborative care model may be a novel way to achieve these more rigorous goals of therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this project was to evaluate this type of care model in a high cardiac risk patient population.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study determined the ability of a cardiologist-pharmacist care model (n=59) to lower blood pressure and achieve blood pressure goals (< 130/80 mmHg) in patients with or at high risk for coronary artery disease compared to usual cardiologist care (n=58) in the same clinical setting.

RESULTS

The cardiologist-pharmacist care model showed a higher percentage of patients obtaining their goal blood pressure compared to cardiologist care alone, 49.2% versus 31.0% respectively, p=0.0456. Greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (-22 mmHg versus -12 mmHg, p=0.0077) and pulse pressure (-15 mmHg versus -7 mmHg, p=0.0153) were noted in the cardiologist-pharmacist care model. No differences in diastolic blood pressure were found. There was a shorter duration of clinic follow-up (7.0 versus 13.2 months, p=0.0013) but a higher frequency of clinic visits (10.7 versus 3.45, p<0.0001) in the cardiologist-pharmacist care model compared to usual care. The number of antihypertensive agents used did not change over the time period evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a team-based approach to hypertensive care using a collaborative cardiologist-pharmacist care model improves blood pressure from baseline in a high cardiac risk patient population and was more likely to obtain more stringent blood pressure goals than usual care.

[Blood pressure goals on the test bench]

There is little evidence from controlled prospective studies to support the low blood pressure goals stipulated for the treatment of hypertension by present guidelines, especially in high-risk patients with diabetes, renal insufficiency or coronary heart disease. Aim of this review is to scrutinize the potential benefit and risk of low blood pressure on the basis of recent studies and secondary analyses of older studies.

RESULTS

In patients with coronary heart disease or equivalent or with diabetes lowering systolic blood pressure to 130 to 135 mmHg reduced primary or secondary cardiovascular endpoints in the majority of studies. Between 120 and 129 mmHg some positive effects could be shown in patients with coronary heart disease but not in patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome. In patients with diabetic or nondiabetic nephropathy including those with proteinurea no convincing data exist which show a better outcome with systolic blood pressure below 130 versus below 140 mmHg. However, several studies suggest that the risk of stroke may decrease by lowering systolic pressure to 120 mmHg or even lower. Below 120 mmHg an increased risk of cardiac and noncardiac events or death was shown in quite a number of studies. In patients between 70 and 80 years, current evidence suggests lowering systolic blood pressure to 135 to 145 mmHg and in those above 80 years to 145 to 155 mmHg. No evidence was found to justify different diastolic pressure goals for different groups of patients; optimal values fall between 70 and 85 mmHg. Limitations of recent studies are short follow-up, few event rates and small differences in achieved pressure between groups leaving uncertainty about long-term effects.

PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES

Apart from prevention of stroke there is sparse evidence that lowering systolic blood pressure below 130 mmHg may be beneficial. Current evidence suggests that lowering systolic and diastolic pressure into a range of 130 to 140/70 to 85 may be adequate for all patients with the exception of children, adolescents and patients over 80 years. Further lowering of systolic pressure seems to offer little additional benefit and lowering diastolic pressure below 70 mmHg might increase risk.