Efficacy of treating hypertension in women

How often can meta-analyses of individual-level data individualize treatment? A meta-epidemiologic study

BACKGROUND

One of the claimed main advantages of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is that it allows assessment of subgroup effects based on individual-level participant characteristics, and eventually stratified medicine. In this study, we evaluated the conduct and results of subgroup analyses in IPDMA.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 31 December 2014. We included papers if they described an IPDMA based on randomized clinical trials that investigated a therapeutic intervention on human subjects and in which the meta-analysis was preceded by a systematic literature search. We extracted data items related to subgroup analysis and subgroup differences (subgroup-treatment interaction p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Overall, 327 IPDMAs were eligible. A statistically significant subgroup-treatment interaction for the primary outcome was reported in 102 (36.6%) of 279 IPDMAs that reported at least one subgroup analysis. This corresponded to 187 different statistically significant subgroup-treatment interactions: 124 for an individual-level subgrouping variable (in 76 IPDMAs) and 63 for a group-level subgrouping variable (in 36 IPDMAs). Of the 187, only 7 (3.7%; 6 individual and 1 group-level subgrouping variables) had a large difference between strata (standardized effect difference d  ≥  0.8). Among the 124 individual-level statistically significant subgroup differences, the IPDMA authors claimed that 42 (in 21 IPDMAs) should lead to treating the subgroups differently. None of these 42 had d  ≥  0.8.

CONCLUSIONS

Availability of individual-level data provides statistically significant interactions for relative treatment effects in about a third of IPDMAs. A modest number of these interactions may offer opportunities for stratified medicine decisions.

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.

Considerations in women with hypertension

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in women in the United States, and hypertension is a major contributor to cardiovascular mortality. The incidence of hypertension in women is steadily increasing, paralleling the epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Blood pressure control rates among women are suboptimal, even when secondary causes are identified and treated. There are few high-quality data describing specific hypertension-related outcomes in women. Some data comparing hypertensive women to age-matched men suggest advantages to sex-specific strategies, but further study is needed to determine optimal regimens for women throughout their lives. Pregnancy and menopause present unique, complex challenges in hypertension management.

Management of hypertension in women

A gender-specific approach to cardiovascular (CV) diseases has been practiced for decades, although not always to the advantage of women. Based on population data showing that women are at lower risk for CV events than men female gender has generally been regarded as a protective factor for CV disease. Unfortunately, CV risk assessment has therefore received less attention in women. Despite the lower absolute risk of CV events in women compared with age-matched men, the majority of women die from CV diseases. In absolute numbers, since 1984, more women than men died of CV disease each year. Most CV events occur in women with known traditional CV risk factors. Improving risk factor management in women of all ages therefore yields an enormous potential to reduce CV morbidity and mortality in the population. Aside from smoking cessation, hypertension (HTN) control is the single most important intervention to reduce the risk of future CV events in women. This review highlights peculiarities of HTN as they pertain to women, and points out where diagnosis and management of HTN may require a gender-specific focus.

Antihypertensive drug therapy and blood pressure control in men and women: an international perspective

Cardiovascular death represents the single largest cause of mortality in women with 70% of deaths attributable to modifiable risk factors, such as hypertension. This analysis aims at evaluating, whether there are gender disparities in antihypertensive drug usage and blood pressure (BP) control. We included 18 017 patients with arterial hypertension from the International Survey Evaluating Microalbuminuria Routinely by Cardiologists in patients with Hypertension (I-SEARCH). The study was conducted between September 2005 and March 2006 in 26 countries, and data on patient demographics, cardiovascular disease and risk factors, BP, and cardiovascular drug treatment were collected. Mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 2.1 mm Hg higher in women (150.6+/-0.35 mm Hg, n=8357/18 017) than in men (148.5+/-0.35 mm Hg; P<0.0001, n=9526/18 017), whereas no difference in diastolic BP was seen (88.2+/-0.20 vs 88+/-0.20 mm Hg; P=0.198). Gender differences in SBP were more pronounced in diabetic as compared with non-diabetic patients (3.5 vs 1.7 mm Hg, n=4272 vs n=13 611; P<0.0001) and became evident at an age 55 years old. Overall BP-control rate was 33.6% in men and 30.6% in women (P<0.0001) and was lower in diabetic as compared with non-diabetic patients. In all, 30% of patients used one, 40% used two and 30% used > or = 3 drugs without gender differences. Response rates to different drug regimens appeared to be similar. However, women received more frequently thiazides and beta-blockers, and less frequently ACE-inhibitors as monotherapy. Major efforts are required to improve BP-management, especially in women.

Risk factors associated with hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in a multi-ethnic Asian population

OBJECTIVES

To investigate demographic and cardiovascular disease risk factors associated with awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in a multi-ethnic Asian population.

METHODS

Participants from four previous cross-sectional studies were invited for a repeat examination (2004--2007). Information of demographic details and cardiovascular disease risk factors was obtained using questionnaire, physical examination and blood tests. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using multiple logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The final number of respondents was 5022 (response rate 49.7%). Although hypertension treatment (84.4% of those aware of hypertension) was high, awareness (51.8% of those having hypertension) and control (27.1% of hypertension on treatment) were low. Reduced awareness and treatment were associated with being younger, never married, and working adults with a higher education level. Low socioeconomic status individuals were more likely to be treated but had poorer control. A similar relationship was found for treatment and control for individuals with coexisting cardiovascular disease risk factors. The use of multiple drug classes was not associated with better control. Diuretic use for treatment of hypertension, as recommended by local and international guidelines, was not common (15.0% of all hypertension medications used).

CONCLUSIONS

The awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in Singapore can be improved. There is a need to improve awareness through education and target screening and treatment in younger, working adults with higher levels of education and higher economic status, as well as Malays. Control of hypertension could be improved among older or diabetic hypertensive individuals.

Combination therapy versus monotherapy as initial treatment for stage 2 hypertension: a prespecified subgroup analysis of a community-based, randomized, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines suggest consideration of initial combination therapy for patients with stage 2 hypertension, but rates of hypertension treatment and control in clinical practice vary according to age, race, sex, and body mass index (BMI).

OBJECTIVE

This was a prespecified subgroup analysis of one of the primary efficacy end points-mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 6 weeks -in a previously published community-based, randomized, open-label trial comparing valsartan monotherapy with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy as initial treatment for high-risk patients with stage 2 hypertension.

METHODS

Eligible participants with stage 2 hypertension (SBP >or=160 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >or=100 mm Hg) were treated with valsartan 160 mg/d or valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg/d for 2 weeks, followed by forced titration to valsartan 320 mg/d or valsartan/HCTZ 320/12.5 mg/d for an additional 4 weeks. In addition to the primary blood pressure end point (change in SBP at 6 weeks), secondary blood pressure end points at 6 weeks included changes in DBP and the proportion of patients achieving a blood pressure control threshold of <140/90 mm Hg (<130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes), as recommended by the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7). The subgroups of interest were women, blacks, Hispanics, the elderly (age >or=65 years), patients with diabetes, smokers, and lean, overweight, and obese subjects (BMI <25, 25-<30, and =30 kg/m(2), respectively).

RESULTS

The randomized trial included 1668 patients (756 [45.3%] female, 392 [23.5%] black, 109 [6.5%] Hispanic, 220 [13.2%] elderly, 970 of 1641 [59.1%] obese, 166 [10.0%] with diabetes, 467 [28.0%] smokers) with stage 2 hypertension. Among those allocated to combination therapy compared with monotherapy, the mean (SD) change in SBP at 6 weeks was -27.4 (18.5) and -19.3 (17.7) mm Hg in women, -21.4 (17.6) and -12.6 (18.5) mm Hg in black subjects, -21.7 (17.6) and -16.3 (16.5) mm Hg in Hispanic subjects, -25.5 (20.2) and -16.9 (17.9) mm Hg in the elderly, and -23.6 (18.1) and -15.9 (16.2) mm Hg in obese subjects. With the exception of the results for Hispanics, all comparisons of combination therapy and monotherapy were statistically significant (P<or=0.01). A higher proportion of those receiving valsartan/ HCTZ compared with valsartan monotherapy reached the JNC 7-defined blood pressure goal (44.5% vs 29.1%, respectively; P<0.001). This pattern was seen consistently in most subgroups analyzed, including men (41.8% vs 27.9%; P<0.001), women (47.8% vs 30.5%; P<0.001), white subjects (46.4% vs 33.8%; P<0.001), black subjects (41.8% vs 19.1%; P<0.001), those aged <65 years (44.6% vs 29.7%; P<0.001), those aged >or=65 years (43.9% vs 24.5%; P=0.004), overweight subjects (49.0% vs 31.2%; P<0.001), and obese subjects (41.4% vs 26.0%; P<0.001). In the entire study cohort, patients assigned to combination therapy had a significantly higher incidence of dizziness compared with those assigned to monotherapy (8.5% vs 4.7%; P=0.002); however, there was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of adverse events between treatment groups in the prespecified subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Across various subgroups of patients with stage 2 hypertension, combination therapy was consistently associated with a significantly greater reduction in SBP than monotherapy. With the exception of a significantly greater increase in dizziness compared with monotherapy, combination therapy was well tolerated.

Do men and women respond differently to blood pressure-lowering treatment? Results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials

AIMS

Large-scale observational studies show that lower blood pressure is associated with lower cardiovascular risk in both men and women although some studies have suggested that different outcomes between the sexes may reflect different responses to blood pressure-lowering treatment. The aims of these overview analyses were to quantify the effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment in each sex and to determine if there are important differences in the proportional benefits of treatment between men and women.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-one randomized trials that included 103,268 men and 87,349 women contributed to these analyses. For each outcome and each comparison summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for men and women using a random-effects model. The consistency of the effects of each treatment regimen across the sexes was examined using chi(2) tests of homogeneity. Achieved blood pressure reductions were comparable for men and women in every comparison made. For the primary outcome of total major cardiovascular events there was no evidence that men and women obtained different levels of protection from blood pressure lowering or that regimens based on angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, calcium antagonists, angiotensin receptor blockers, or diuretics/beta-blockers were more effective in one sex than the other (all P-homogeneity > 0.08).

CONCLUSION

All of the blood pressure-lowering regimens studied here provided broadly similar protection against major cardiovascular events in men and women. Differences in cardiovascular risks between sexes are unlikely to reflect differences in response to blood pressure-lowering treatments.

Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses based on individual patient data (IPD) are regarded as the gold standard for systematic reviews. However, the methods used for analysing and presenting results from IPD meta-analyses have received little discussion.

METHODS

We review 44 IPD meta-analyses published during the years 1999-2001. We summarize whether they obtained all the data they sought, what types of approaches were used in the analysis, including assumptions of common or random effects, and how they examined the effects of covariates.

RESULTS

Twenty-four out of 44 analyses focused on time-to-event outcomes, and most analyses (28) estimated treatment effects within each trial and then combined the results assuming a common treatment effect across trials. Three analyses failed to stratify by trial, analysing the data is if they came from a single mega-trial. Only nine analyses used random effects methods. Covariate-treatment interactions were generally investigated by subgrouping patients. Seven of the meta-analyses included data from less than 80% of the randomized patients sought, but did not address the resulting potential biases.

CONCLUSIONS

Although IPD meta-analyses have many advantages in assessing the effects of health care, there are several aspects that could be further developed to make fuller use of the potential of these time-consuming projects. In particular, IPD could be used to more fully investigate the influence of covariates on heterogeneity of treatment effects, both within and between trials. The impact of heterogeneity, or use of random effects, are seldom discussed. There is thus considerable scope for enhancing the methods of analysis and presentation of IPD meta-analysis.

The importance of preventive health care in post-menopausal women

Women make up 55% of the total world population. This percentage is set to steadily increase over the next three decades. Europe also has the highest proportion of older women in the world. In fact, there are now approximately 3 women for every 2 men over 65. All of this data confirms the importance of prevention. An ideal approach for the female post-menopausal population would be treatment of any condition that can improve physical, mental and social well-being. Nevertheless, it is understood that the efficacy and cost/benefits of every screening programme need to be analysed. One of the largest and most neglected groups that could benefit from prevention consists of women without hot flushes (asymptomatic women), but with risk factors. The strategic measures are information, research and development of programmes. The more practical approach would be to identify patients and therefore yield better results in terms of health status and improvement. Statistics show that the three main causes of mortality and disability in developed countries for post-menopausal women are cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer and osteoporosis-associated fractures. There are agreed recommendations to include some preventive measures for these three disorders in clinical practice for health professionals, at least at the minimal level. Research into the role that other diseases play will allow strategies to be developed in order to enhance prevention. Disorders such as urinary incontinence, dyspareunia, visual and hearing impairment and cognitive dysfunction are seen in significant percentages in post-menopausal women and may affect their quality of life. Health care professionals should bear in mind that many women may be reluctant to raise questions about some disorders spontaneously. Physicians should therefore search for patients with risk factors for these diseases. Prevention and treatment to avoid medical accidents will improve the quantity and quality of life.

Pregnancy–Related Mortality Among Women Aged 35 Years and Older, United States, 1991–1997

OBJECTIVE

To describe pregnancy-related deaths among women 35 years and older and to compare their risk of death to that for 25-29-year-old women.

METHODS

Pregnancy-related deaths in the United States among women 35 years and older from 1991 through 1997 were identified through the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. Pregnancy-related mortality ratios (deaths per 100,000 live births) and risk ratios (compared with 25-29-year-old women) for women 35-39 years old or 40 years and older were calculated and stratified by race, obstetric and demographic variables, and cause of death.

RESULTS

There was an excess risk of death for women 35 years and older regardless of parity, time of entry into prenatal care, and level of education. Among white women, the risk ratios for death from hemorrhage, infection, embolisms, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, cardiomyopathy, cerebrovascular accidents, or other medical conditions ranged from 1.8 to 2.7 for those aged 35-39 years and from 2.5 to 7.9 for those 40 years and older. Among black women the risk ratios for death from these conditions ranged from 2.0 to 4.1 for those aged 35-39 years and from 4.3 to 7.6 for those 40 years and older.

CONCLUSION

Recognition of the risk of death borne by older pregnant women is needed to inform their care before, during, and after pregnancy. Thorough review of all maternal deaths as a core public health function may shed light on the reasons for excess pregnancy-related mortality among older women.

Risks of coronary heart disease in women: current understanding and evolving concepts

The population of older individuals in the United States is growing rapidly. Because women generally live longer than men and make up the majority of this aging population, the elucidation of health issues related to older women is important. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and disability for women and claims the lives of more women than the next 14 causes combined. The majority of these deaths are due to atherosclerotic coronary heart disease, with nearly 250,000 women dying of myocardial infarction each year. There is evidence that women with suspected or established cardiovascular disease have not benefited fully from recent advances in the detection and management of coronary heart disease. Regardless of the mechanism and extent of the effect that sex differences have on approaches to cardiovascular disease, women appear to benefit from proven efficacious therapies, and the longer-term outcomes associated with these treatments are positive. The data regarding women and coronary heart disease are rapidly evolving and sometimes conflicting. The intent of this article is to summarize the most current understanding of coronary heart disease risks in women, highlighting the impact of prevention, and to discuss the latest novel findings that may become important in our armamentarium for prevention of coronary heart disease.