Do recent meta-analyses truly prove that treatment with blood pressure-lowering drugs is beneficial at any blood pressure value, no matter how low? A critical review

Efficacy and Safety of Allisartan Isoproxil/Amlodipine in Patients With Essential Hypertension Uncontrolled by Amlodipine: A Phase III, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Randomized Controlled Trial

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy of Allisartan Isoproxil 240 mg and Amlodipine 5 mg (ALI/AML) compared to AML 5 mg monotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. In this phase III, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, patients aged 18-70 years with mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) between 140 and <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) between 90 and <110 mmHg, following a 4-week treatment with AML 5 mg, were randomized 1:1 to receive either ALI/AML or AML once daily for 12 weeks. This 12-week double-blind period was followed by an open-label extension of ALI/AML treatment through week 52. A total of 300 patients were enrolled, with 149 and 151 patients randomly assigned to ALI/AML and AML groups, respectively. Of these, 257 patients completed the study. Baseline demographics and characteristics were comparable between groups. After 12 weeks, the reduction in msSBP (the primary endpoint) was significantly greater in the ALI/AML group compared to the AML group (-15.7 vs. -10.2 mmHg, p = 0.0019). Similarly, reductions in msDBP (-5.7 vs. -2.4 mmHg, p < 0.001) and 24-h mean ambulatory SBP and DBP (-10.4 and -7.7 mmHg vs. -5.6 and -3.8 mmHg) were more pronounced in the ALI/AML group. Additionally, a higher proportion of patients achieved both a BP response and target office BP in the ALI/AML group compared to the AML group (51.4% vs. 37.4%, 42.5% vs. 30.6%, both p < 0.05). The ALI/AML combination was generally well tolerated, and the antihypertensive effect was maintained for up to 52 weeks. In patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled by AML, the ALI/AML combination provided superior reductions in msSBP and was significantly more effective than AML monotherapy. This once-daily single-pill combination demonstrated promising efficacy and tolerability. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06465264.

[Cardiovascular preventive recommendations. PAPPS 2024 thematic updates]

The recommendations of the semFYC's Program for Preventive Activities and Health Promotion (PAPPS) for the prevention of vascular diseases (VD) are presented. New in this edition are new sections such as obesity, chronic kidney disease and metabolic hepatic steatosis, as well as a 'Don't Do' section in the different pathologies treated. The sections have been updated: epidemiological review, where the current morbidity and mortality of CVD in Spain and its evolution as well as the main risk factors are described; vascular risk (VR) and recommendations for the calculation of CV risk; main risk factors such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, describing the method for their diagnosis, therapeutic objectives and recommendations for lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatment; indications for antiplatelet therapy, and recommendations for screening of atrial fibrillation, and recommendations for management of chronic conditions. The quality of testing and the strength of the recommendation are included in the main recommendations.

Blood pressure management in type 2 diabetes: a review of recent evidence

The frequent concurrence of elevated blood pressure (BP) and type 2 diabetes markedly elevates the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. In this review, we discuss the evidence supporting the role of BP-lowering therapies in preventing cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes and the most appropriate BP treatment target in these individuals. We outline possible reasons for the heterogeneous effect of BP lowering in patients with and without diabetes and consider several pathophysiological mechanisms that could potentially explain such differences. The review introduces a mediation model, delineating the intricate interplay between hypertension and diabetes and their joint contribution to cardiovascular and renal pathologies. Finally, we outline the role of lifestyle changes and other pharmacological options in attenuating cardiometabolic risks in patients with type 2 diabetes. We propose a comprehensive, patient-centred management strategy, integrating various antihypertensive therapeutic approaches and providing clinicians with a systematic framework for better decision-making.

The Polypill: A New Alternative in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary cause of death and disability worldwide. Although age-standardized CVD mortality rates decreased globally by 14.5% between 2006 and 2016, the burden of CVD remains disproportionately higher in low- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries. Even though proven, effective approaches based on multiple-drug intake aimed at the prevention and treatment of CVD are currently available, poor adherence, early discontinuation of treatment, and suboptimal daily execution of the prescribed therapeutic regimes give rise to shortfalls in drug exposure, leading to high variability in the responses to the prescribed medications. Wald and Law, in their landmark paper published in BMJ 2003, hypothesized that the use of a fixed-dose combination of statins, β-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and aspirin (classic Polypill composition) may increase adherence and decrease CVD by up to 80% when prescribed as primary prevention or in substitution of traditional protocols. Since then, many clinical trials have tested this hypothesis, with comparable results. This review aims to describe the available clinical trials performed to assess the impact of fixed-dose combinations on adherence, cost-effectiveness, and the risk factors critical to the onset of CVD.

Does high-normal blood pressure lead to excess cardiovascular disease events and deaths in Chinese people? A post-hoc analysis of the 30-year follow-up of the Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study

AIM

Whether systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) values of 130-139/80-89 mmHg should be defined as hypertension has been debated for decades. We aimed to characterize the effect of high-normal BP on cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and deaths.

METHODS

In total, 1726 individuals from the original Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study were enrolled, and divided into the normal BP group (SBP <130 mmHg and DBP <80 mmHg), high-normal BP group (SBP 130-139 mmHg and/or DBP 80-89 mmHg) and hypertension group (SBP ≥140 mmHg and/or DBP ≥90 mmHg). CVD events and their components were assessed from 1986 to 2016.

RESULTS

During the 30-year follow-up, the high-normal BP group was not at higher risk for CVD events [hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.30, p = .68], coronary heart disease (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.63, p = .57), stroke (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82-1.34, p = .71), or CVD deaths (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.82-1.60, p = .41) compared with the normal BP group, after adjusting for covariates. However, the hypertension group exhibited significantly increased cardiovascular risk (CVD events, HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.48-2.46, p < .0001; coronary heart disease, HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.12-2.67, p = .01; stroke, HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.43-2.52, p < .0001; CVD deaths, HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.43-3.01, p = .0001) than the normal BP group. Subgroup analyses showed that, regardless of the presence of diabetes, high-normal BP did not increase CVD events compared with normal BP.

CONCLUSIONS

This post-hoc study provided no evidence that the high-normal BP increased cardiovascular risk in the Da Qing study population, suggesting that it was reasonable to continue to define hypertension at 140/90 mmHg in China.

Recent understandings about hypertension management in type 2 diabetes: What are the roles of SGLT2 inhibitor, GLP-1 receptor agonist, and finerenone?

Diabetes and hypertension often coexist, with about half of patients with diabetes also having hypertension. The risk of cardiovascular disease increases by three to six-fold with the coexistence of diabetes and hypertension; therefore, the management of blood pressure to prevent cardiovascular disease is a particularly important issue in patients with diabetes. Clinical trial findings have resulted in recommendations to control blood pressure to <130/80 mmHg in Japanese patients with diabetes. However, the target blood pressure and selection of anti-hypertensive medications should vary depending on the duration of diabetes and comorbidities, and guidelines and clinical trial results should be interpreted flexibly to provide anti-hypertensive treatment tailored to individual patients. In recent years, a number of drugs have emerged that have significant cardio-renal protective effects in patients with diabetes, and a typical example is sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, finerenone. They have also shown modest but significant blood pressure-lowering effects. In the future, beyond considering the thresholds for how far to lower blood pressure, blood pressure management in patients with diabetes will require understanding the additive cardioprotective value of drugs aimed at lowering blood pressure and the quality of blood pressure lowering. Clinical questions of blood pressure lowering in patients with diabetes GLP-1RA, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist; SGLT2i, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

[Hypertension: Who to treat, to what extent and how?]

Hypertension is the modifiable risk factor causing the largest loss in healthy life-years. The risk of cardiovascular events increases exponentially with the level of blood pressure (BP), starting from 115mmHg for systolic BP. Out-of-office BP measurements (self-measurements or ambulatory BP measurements) are now preferred for the diagnosis and follow up. In the absence of a preferred indication, antihypertensive treatment is based on thiazide diuretics, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. These treatments are associated with a significant reduction in morbidity and mortality in people with office BP ≥ 140/90mmHg (self-measurements ≥ 135/85mmHg). For people at high cardiovascular risk, especially those with a history of cardiovascular disease, starting the treatment for an office BP ≥ 130/80mmHg is also beneficial (self-measurements ≥ 130/80mmHg as well). It is now common to start treatment with half-dose dual therapy, which is more effective and better tolerated than full-dose monotherapy. The clinical effect is assessed at 4 weeks and intensification, if required, is then usually done by switching to the same dual therapy at full-dose for both components.

Longer-Term All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality With Intensive Blood Pressure Control: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive blood pressure control reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the legacy effect of intensive treatment is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate the long-term effects of randomization to intensive treatment with the incidence of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality approximately 4.5 years after the trial ended.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial, randomization began on November 8, 2010, the trial intervention ended on August 20, 2015, and trial close-out visits occurred through July 2016. Patients 50 years and older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but without diabetes or history of stroke were included from 102 clinic sites in the US and Puerto Rico. Analyses were conducted between October 2021 and February 2022.

Interventions

Randomization to systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group; n = 4678) vs less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group; n = 4683).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Extended observational follow-up for mortality via the US National Death Index from 2016 through 2020. In a subset of 2944 trial participants, outpatient SBP from electronic health records during and after the trial were examined.

Results

Among 9361 randomized participants, the mean (SD) age was 67.9 (9.4) years, and 3332 (35.6%) were women. Over a median (IQR) intervention period of 3.3 (2.9-3.9) years, intensive treatment was beneficial for both cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.01). However, at the median (IQR) total follow-up of 8.8 (8.3-9.3) years, there was no longer evidence of benefit for cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.84-1.24) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94-1.23). In a subgroup of participants, the estimated mean outpatient SBP among participants randomized to intensive treatment increased from 132.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 132.0-133.7) at 5 years to 140.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 137.8-143.0) at 10 years following randomization.

Conclusions and Relevance

The beneficial effect of intensive treatment on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality did not persist after the trial. Given increasing outpatient SBP levels in participants randomized to intensive treatment following the trial, these results highlight the importance of consistent long-term management of hypertension.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Effects of elevated systolic blood pressure on ischemic heart disease: a Burden of Proof study

High systolic blood pressure (SBP) is a major risk factor for ischemic heart disease (IHD), the leading cause of death worldwide. Using data from published observational studies and controlled trials, we estimated the mean SBP-IHD dose-response function and burden of proof risk function (BPRF), and we calculated a risk outcome score (ROS) and corresponding star rating (one to five). We found a very strong, significant harmful effect of SBP on IHD, with a mean risk-relative to that at 100 mm Hg SBP-of 1.39 (95% uncertainty interval including between-study heterogeneity 1.34-1.44) at 120 mm Hg, 1.81 (1.70-1.93) at 130 mm Hg and 4.48 (3.81-5.26) at 165 mm Hg. The conservative BPRF measure indicated that SBP exposure between 107.5 and 165.0 mm Hg raised risk by 101.36% on average, yielding a ROS of 0.70 and star rating of five. Our analysis shows that IHD risk was already increasing at 120 mm Hg SBP, rising steadily up to 165 mm Hg and increasing less steeply above that point. Our study endorses the need to prioritize and strengthen strategies for screening, to raise awareness of the need for timely diagnosis and treatment of hypertension and to increase the resources allocated for understanding primordial prevention of elevated blood pressure.