Bottom blood pressure or bottom cardiovascular risk? How far can cardiovascular risk be reduced?

Failure of Antihypertensive Treatment to Restore Normal Sympathetic Activity

BACKGROUND

Sympathetic deactivation represents a major goal of antihypertensive drug treatment. However, whether treatment normalizes the hypertension-related sympathetic cardiovascular overdrive remains uncertain.

METHODS

In 219 middle-aged essential hypertensives, we analyzed, along with office systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) and heart rate, muscle sympathetic nerve traffic (MSNA, microneurography) before and after 3-month treatment, either as monotherapy or as combination. Controls were represented by 100 age-matched normotensives.

RESULTS

Treatment caused, along with a small heart rate decrease, a clear BP reduction (from 160.5/95.5 to 142.3/85.0 mm Hg, P<0.01) and a significant MSNA inhibition (from 70.7±11.5 to 65.0±10.2 bursts/100 heartbeats, mean±SD, P<0.01). A similar pattern was detected in patients under monotherapy (n=81) or combination drug treatment (n=138). MSNA was significantly related to systolic BP before and during treatment but unrelated to heart rate. In treated patients achieving the lower BP (135.1/84.5 mm Hg, n=90), the MSNA reduction was greater than that detected in patients with the higher on-treatment BP (146.7/87.4 mm Hg, n=129). However, even in patients achieving a BP target <140/90 mm Hg, MSNA remained markedly higher (on average +66.4%) compared with controls. This was the case even when treated BP was <130/80 mm Hg. Data were similar for different antihypertensive drug classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, antihypertensive treatment, even when effective in achieving BP control, fails to restore the level of normotension-related MSNA, with a persistence of the pattern of heightened sympathetic influences typical of untreated patients with hypertension. Failure of normalization may contribute to the development of the residual cardiovascular risk reported in treated hypertensives.

Comparison between visit-to-visit office and 24-h blood pressure variability in treated hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVES

In any treated hypertensive patient office blood pressure (BP) values may differ between visits and this variability (V) has an adverse prognostic impact. However, little information is available on visit-to-visit 24-h BPV.

METHODS

In 1114 hypertensives of the ELSA and PHYLLIS trials we compared visit-to-visit office and 24-h mean BPV by coefficient of variation (CV) of the mean systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP obtained from yearly measurements during a 3-4 year treatment period. Visit-to-visit BPV during daytime and night-time were also compared.

RESULTS

Twenty-four-hour SBP-CV was about 20% less than office SBP-CV ( P  < 0.0001). SBP-CV was considerably greater for the night-time than for the daytime period (20%, P  < 0.0001). Results were similar for DBP and in males and females, older and younger patients, patients under different antihypertensive drugs or with different baseline or achieved BP values. In the group as a whole and in subgroups there was significant correlations between office and 24-h BP-CV but the correlation coefficients was weak, indicating that office SBP or DBP CV accounted for only about 1-4% of 24-h SBP or DBP-CV values.

CONCLUSION

Twenty-four-hour mean BP across visits is more stable than across visit office BP. Visit-to-visit office and 24-h BPV are significantly related to each other, but correlation coefficients are low, making visit-to-visit office BP variations poorly predictive of the concomitant 24-h BP variations and thus of on-treatment ambulatory BP stability.

Sympathetic modulation as a goal of antihypertensive treatment: from drugs to devices

The present study aims to examine the effects of nonpharmacological, pharmacological and devices-based treatment on hypertension-related sympathetic overactivity. This will be done by analyzing the results of different published studies, in which sympathetic activity has been assessed via indirect or direct techniques. After examining the rationale for sympathomodulatory interventions in antihypertensive treatment, the study will discuss the methodological intrinsic limitations of the studies aimed at assessing different therapeutic interventions. The core of the study will be then focused on the effects of nonpharmacological (dietary restriction of sodium intake, physical exercise training, weight reduction), pharmacological (monotherapy, combination drug treatment, new drugs such as sodium glucose co-transport protein-2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors), as well as devices-based interventions (renal sympathetic nerves ablation and carotid baroreceptor activation therapy) on the hypertension-related sympathetic overdrive. Finally, the areas worthy of future research as well as the debated issues in the field will be highlighted.

High residual cardiovascular risk after lipid-lowering: prime time for Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, Participatory, and Psycho-cognitive medicine

As time has come to translate trial results into individualized medical diagnosis and therapy, we analyzed how to minimize residual risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by reviewing papers on "residual cardiovascular disease risk". During this review process we found 989 papers that started off with residual CVD risk after initiating statin therapy, continued with papers on residual CVD risk after initiating therapy to increase high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), followed by papers on residual CVD risk after initiating therapy to decrease triglyceride (TG) levels. Later on, papers dealing with elevated levels of lipoprotein remnants and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] reported new risk factors of residual CVD risk. And as new risk factors are being discovered and new therapies are being tested, residual CVD risk will be reduced further. As we move from CVD risk reduction to improvement of patient management, a paradigm shift from a reductionistic approach towards a holistic approach is required. To that purpose, a personalized treatment dependent on the individual's CVD risk factors including lipid profile abnormalities should be configured, along the line of P5 medicine for each individual patient, i.e., with Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, Participatory, and Psycho-cognitive approaches.

Sympathetic Neural Mechanisms in Hypertension: Recent Insights

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine published and unpublished data documenting the role of sympathetic neural factors in the pathogenesis of different hypertensive phenotypes. These phenotypes relate to attended or unattended blood pressure measurements, to nighttime blood pressure profile alterations, and to resistant, pseudoresistant, and refractory hypertension. Results of original clinical studies as well as of recent meta-analyses based on the behavior of different sympathetic biomarkers in various hypertensive forms will be also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies performed in the past decade have shown that office blood pressure measurements, including in recent years those characterizing unattended or attended blood pressure assessment, are associated with profound changes in the behavior of different sympathetic biomarkers. This is the case for the clinical hypertensive phenotypes characterized by alterations in the nocturnal blood pressure profile and by sleep duration abnormalities. This is also the case for the clinical conditions defined as resistant, refractory, and pseudoresistant hypertension. Data reviewed in the present paper highlight the relevance of sympathetic neural factors in the development and progression of different clinical hypertensive phenotypes. This suggests that a common hallmark of the majority of the essential hypertensive states detectable in current clinical practice is represented by the alteration in the sympathetic blood pressure control.

Association between Variability of Metabolic Risk Factors and Cardiometabolic Outcomes

Despite strenuous efforts to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk by improving cardiometabolic risk factors, such as glucose and cholesterol levels, and blood pressure, there is still residual risk even in patients reaching treatment targets. Recently, researchers have begun to focus on the variability of metabolic variables to remove residual risks. Several clinical trials and cohort studies have reported a relationship between the variability of metabolic parameters and CVDs. Herein, we review the literature regarding the effect of metabolic factor variability and CVD risk, and describe possible mechanisms and potential treatment perspectives for reducing cardiometabolic risk factor variability.

The Sympathetic Nervous System in Hypertension: Roadmap Update of a Long Journey

The present paper will provide an update on the role of sympathetic neural factors in the development and progression of essential hypertension by reviewing data collected in the past 10 years. This will be done by discussing the results of the published studies in which sympathetic neural function in essential hypertension and related disease has been investigated via sophisticated and highly sensitive techniques, such as microneurographic recording of sympathetic nerve traffic and regional norepinephrine spillover. First, the relevance of the pathophysiological background of the neurogenic alterations will be discussed. It will be then examined the behavior of the sympathetic neural function in specific clinical phenotypes, such as resistant hypertension, pseudoresistant hypertension, and hypertensive states displaying elevated resting heart values. This will be followed by a discussion of the main results of the meta-analytic studies examining the behavior of sympathetic nerve traffic in essential hypertension, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and chronic renal failure. The sympathetic effects of renal denervation and carotid baroreceptor stimulation as well as the possible involvement of sympathetic neural factors in the determination of the so-called "residual risk" of the treated hypertensive patients will be finally discussed.

Legacy in Cardiovascular Risk Factors Control: From Theory to Future Therapeutic Strategies?

In medicine, a legacy effect is defined as the sustained beneficial effect of a given treatment on disease outcomes, even after cessation of the intervention. Initially described in optimized control of diabetes, it was also observed in clinical trials exploring intensification strategies for other cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. Mechanisms of legacy were particularly deciphered in diabetes, leading to the concept of metabolic memory. In a more discreet manner, other memory phenomena were also described in preclinical studies that demonstrated long-lasting deleterious effects of lipids or angiotensin II on vascular wall components. Interestingly, epigenetic changes and reactive oxygen species (ROS) appear to be common features of “memory” of the vascular wall.

Physiological and clinical insights from reservoir-excess pressure analysis

There is a growing body of evidence indicating that reservoir-excess pressure model parameters provide physiological and clinical insights above and beyond standard blood pressure (BP) and pulse waveform analysis. This information has never been collectively examined and was the aim of this review. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, with BP as the greatest cardiovascular disease risk factor. However, brachial systolic and diastolic BP provide limited information on the underlying BP waveform, missing important BP-related cardiovascular risk. A comprehensive analysis of the BP waveform is provided by parameters derived via the reservoir-excess pressure model, which include reservoir pressure, excess pressure, and systolic and diastolic rate constants and Pinfinity. These parameters, derived from the arterial BP waveform, provide information on the underlying arterial physiology and ventricular-arterial interactions otherwise missed by conventional BP and waveform indices. Application of the reservoir-excess pressure model in the clinical setting may facilitate a better understanding and earlier identification of cardiovascular dysfunction associated with disease. Indeed, reservoir-excess pressure parameters have been associated with sub-clinical markers of end-organ damage, cardiac and vascular dysfunction, and future cardiovascular events and mortality beyond conventional risk factors. In the future, greater understanding is needed on how the underlying physiology of the reservoir-excess pressure parameters informs cardiovascular disease risk prediction over conventional BP and waveform indices. Additional consideration should be given to the application of the reservoir-excess pressure model in clinical practice using new technologies embedded into conventional BP assessment methods.

Long-term evolution of ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is now considered the gold standard to evaluate BP, and predicts related cardiovascular risk. However, no study has reported the association of long-term changes in ABPM with the incidence of cardiovascular events, therefore the objective of this work. We included patients from the Bordeaux cohort of hypertensive patients, who had undergone at least two ABPM; the first was performed before or after antihypertensive treatment was started, and the second was the last recording available before any cardiovascular event. We included 591 patients (mean age, 54 years) with a 7-year average interval between the first and last ABPM, a 10-year average follow-up, and a total of 111 cardiovascular events. The patients were divided into four groups: G0, first and last 24 h systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 130; G1, first 24 h SBP ≥ 130, last 24 h SBP < 130; G2, first 24 h SBP < 130, last 24 h SBP ≥ 130; and G3, first 24 h SBP ≥ 130, last 24 h SBP ≥ 130 mmHg. Baseline ABPM better predicted future events than the last ABPM. G0 and G2 had similar survival. G1 and G3 had a worse prognosis than G0 and G2, while G1 had an intermediate risk between G0 and G3, indicating some benefit of treatment. In conclusion, our study showed the prognostic value of the first ABPM recorded in hypertensive patients and the persistence of risk when 24 h BP is controlled by antihypertensive treatment.

Prevalence of isolated nocturnal hypertension according to 2018 European Society of Cardiology and European Society of Hypertension office blood pressure categories

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence of isolated nocturnal hypertension (INH) and its relationships with office blood pressure (BP) categories defined by 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study in consecutive patients referred to perform an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for diagnosis or therapeutic purposes. Office BP measurements and ABPM were performed in the same visit. The cohort was divided according to office BP in optimal, normal, high-normal and hypertension. The prevalence and adjusted risk for combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension and INH were estimated for each category.

RESULTS

We evaluated 1344 individuals, 59.3% women (51 ± 14 years old) and 40.7% men (52 ± 15 years old). 61.5% of the individuals had nocturnal hypertension, 12.9% INH and 48.7% combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension. Prevalence of combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension increased through office BP categories (P < 0.001). Conversely, prevalence of INH was lower in individuals with hypertension than in normotensives (7.4 vs. 17.2%, P < 0.001) and similar between nonhypertensive office BP categories, 16.6, 15 and 19.4% for optimal, normal and high-normal BP, respectively (P < 0.399). In individuals with office BP values less than 140/90 mmHg, the prevalence of masked hypertension phenotypes were 8.6, 17.2 and 30.2% for daytime, INH and combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension, respectively. Adjusted risk for combined daytime and nocturnal hypertension increased significantly through office BP categories; conversely, the risk for INH was similar in all nonhypertensive office BP categories.

CONCLUSION

Nocturnal hypertension was the more prevalent phenotype of masked hypertension and more than one-third of the individuals with nocturnal hypertension had INH. The risk for INH was not related to nonhypertensive office BP categories.

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.

Cardiovascular Risk Factors: It's Time to Focus on Variability!

Atherosclerotic heart disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. While extensive research supports cardiovascular risk factor reduction in the form of achieving evidence-based blood pressure, lipid, glucose, and body weight targets as a means to improve cardiovascular outcomes, residual risk remains. Emerging data have demonstrated that the intraindividual variability of these risk factor targets potentially contribute to this residual risk. It may therefore be time to define risk factor by not only its magnitude and duration as done traditionally, but perhaps also by the variability of that particular risk factor over time.

Cardiovascular Disease Guideline Adherence: An RCT Using Practice Facilitation

INTRODUCTION

Practice facilitation is a promising practice transformation strategy, but further examination of its effectiveness in improving adoption of guidelines for multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors is needed. The objective of the study is to determine whether practice facilitation is effective in increasing the proportion of patients meeting the Million Hearts ABCS outcomes: (A) aspirin when indicated, (B) blood pressure control, (C) cholesterol management, and (S) smoking screening and cessation intervention.

STUDY DESIGN

The study used a stepped-wedge cluster RCT design with 4 intervention waves. Data were extracted for 13 quarters between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2018, which encompassed the control, intervention, and follow-up periods for all waves, and analyzed in 2019.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A total of 257 small independent primary care practices in New York City were randomized into 1 of 4 waves.

INTERVENTION

The intervention consisted of practice facilitators conducting at least 13 practice visits over 1 year, focused on capacity building and implementing system and workflow changes to meet cardiovascular disease care guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were the Million Hearts' ABCS measures. Two additional measures were created: (1) proportion of tobacco users who received a cessation intervention (smokers counseled) and (2) a composite measure that assessed the proportion of patients meeting treatment targets for A, B, and C (ABC composite).

RESULTS

The S measure improved when comparing follow-up with the control period (incidence rate ratio=1.152, 95% CI=1.072, 1.238, p<0.001) and when comparing follow-up with intervention (incidence rate ratio=1.060, 95% CI=1.013, 1.109, p=0.007). Smokers counseled improved when comparing the intervention period with control (incidence rate ratio=1.121, 95% CI=1.037, 1.211, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the impact of practice facilitation programs that target multiple risk factors may require a longer, more intense intervention and greater attention to external policy and practice context.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02646488.

Rapid treatment of moderate to severe hypertension using a novel protocol in a single-centre, before and after interventional study

Rapid treatment to target in hypertension may have beneficial effects on long-term outcomes. This has led to a new recommendation in the 2018 European hypertension guidelines for patients with grade II/III hypertension to be treated to target within three months. However, whether it is feasible and safe to quickly manage treatment-naïve grade II/III hypertension to target was unclear. We examined this using a single-centre before and after interventional study, treating newly diagnosed, never-treated, grade II/III hypertensive patients with a daytime average systolic ABP ≥ 150 mmHg to target within 18 weeks. The proportion at office target BP at 18 weeks was determined, together with office and ambulatory BP change from baseline to after the intervention. The protocol was designed to maximise medication adherence, including a low threshold for treatment adaptation. Safety was evaluated through close monitoring of adverse events and protocol discontinuation. Fifty-five participants were enrolled with 54 completing the protocol. 69 ± 12.3% were at office target BP at their final visit, despite a high average starting BP of 175/103 mmHg, as a consequence of significant reductions in both office and ambulatory BP. Of those at office target BP, 51% were above target on ambulatory measurement. Adherence testing demonstrated that 92% of participants were adherent to treatment at their final visit. Therefore we conclude that the accelerated management of treatment-naïve grade II/III hypertension is feasible and safe to implement in routine practice and there is no evidence to suggest it causes harm. Further large-scale randomised studies of rapid, adaptive treatment, including a cost-effectiveness analysis, are required.

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.

Effectiveness of blood pressure-lowering drug treatment by levels of absolute risk: post hoc analysis of the Australian National Blood Pressure Study

OBJECTIVES

In many current guidelines, blood pressure (BP)-lowering drug treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is based on absolute risk. However, in clinical practice, therapeutic decisions are often based on BP levels alone. We sought to investigate which approach was superior by conducting a post hoc analysis of the Australian National Blood Pressure (ANBP) cohort, a seminal study establishing the efficacy of BP lowering in 'mild hypertensive' persons.

DESIGN

A post hoc subgroup analysis of the ANBP trial results by baseline absolute risk tertile.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

3244 participants aged 35-69 years in a community-based randomised placebo controlled trial of blood pressure-lowering medication.

INTERVENTIONS

Chlorothiazide500 mg versus placebo.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality and non-fatal events (non-fatal CVD, congestive cardiac failure, renal failure, hypertensive retinopathy or encephalopathy).

RESULTS

Treatment effects were assessed by HR, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. Participants had an average 5-year CVD risk in the intermediate range (10.5±6.5) with moderately elevated BP (mean 159/103 mmHg) and were middle aged (52±8 years). In a subgroup analysis, the relative effects (HR) and absolute effects (absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat) did not statistically differ across the three risk groups except for the absolute benefit in all-cause mortality (p for heterogeneity=0.04). With respect to absolute benefit, drug treatment significantly reduced the number of events in the high-risk group regarding any event with a number needed to treat of 18 (10 to 64), death from any cause with 45 (25 to 196) and major CVD events with 23 (12 to 193).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis confirms that the benefit of treatment was substantial only in the high-risk tertile, reaffirming the rationale of treating elevated blood pressure in the setting of all risk factors rather than in isolation.

Is early and fast blood pressure control important in hypertension management?

Control of blood pressure (BP) in hypertension is recognized as a key measure in the management of cardiovascular (CV) risk and is a cornerstone of preventive strategies. It is not defined, however, whether an initiation of the antihypertensive treatment in the early stages of hypertension (such as prehypertension or high-normal BP), may bring benefits for the long-term prevention of CV events. In addition, it has not been thoroughly addressed the issue whether achievement of a prompt BP reduction in hypertensive patients may contribute to reduce CV damage and events. The aim of this article is to critically examine data from studies exploring these important questions. Our conclusion is that the available evidence, though not very extensive, supports the prevailing benefits associated with early BP control. We also discuss the therapeutic strategies to achieve early control of BP. Finally, we believe that this aspect deserves to be more thoroughly addressed in upcoming international guidelines.

High blood pressure: An obscuring misnomer?

High blood pressure (BP) has been identified as a major risk factor for cardiovascular complications. Although two-way association between BP and hypertensive complications makes hypertension a near-ideal biomarker, BP as “the cause” for the complications of HT per se still needs more evidence. Another entirely possible hemodynamic candidate for causing hypertensive cardiovascular adverse events can be flow or its iterations, which might have escaped the attention because of its perfect correlation with pressure and harder technical measurement. In this article, we analyze the evidence in hand to compare flow- and pressure-related phenomena to delineate which of the two is the dominant mediator of complications related to hypertension and should be the target for therapy. A “flow-” rather than a “pressure-” based factor, as the causative or major driving mediator of common hypertensive complications, may change our understanding of hypertension pathophysiology.

Sympathomodulatory Effects of Antihypertensive Drug Treatment

BACKGROUND

An activation of sympathetic neural influences to the heart and peripheral circulation has been shown to represent a hallmark of the essential hypertensive state, adrenergic neural factors participating together with other variables at the development and progression of the high blood pressure state as well as of the hypertension-related target organ damage. This represents the rationale for employing in hypertension treatment drugs which combine the blood pressure-lowering properties with the modulatory effects on the sympathetic neural function.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Several studies published during the past 40 years have investigated the impact of antihypertensive drugs on the sympathetic target as assessed by indirect and direct approaches. In the present paper, the effects of different monotherapies or combination drug treatment used in hypertension to lower elevated blood pressure values on various adrenergic markers will be examined. This will be followed by a discussion of the (i) hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic consequences of employing antihypertensive drugs with sympathomodulatory or sympathoexcitatory properties and (ii) mechanisms potentially responsible for the adrenergic responses to a given antihypertensive drug. The final part of this review will address the questions still open related to the impact of antihypertensive drug treatment on sympathetic function. Two questions in particular will be examined, i.e., whether antihypertensive drugs with sympathomodulatory properties may be capable to fully restore a "normal" adrenergic drive and how far sympathetic activity should be reduced in hypertensive patients.

CONCLUSION

Future investigations aimed at answering these questions will be needed in order to improve cardiovascular protection in treated hypertensive patients.

Antihypertensive treatment is not a risk factor for major cardiovascular events in the Gubbio residential cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Demonstration of antihypertensive beneficial role in population settings is difficult. Relationships of antihypertensive treatment, blood pressure control, risk factors and cardiovascular outcomes were investigated in the Gubbio study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Among 2248 cardiovascular disease-free men and women aged 35-74 years, individuals were classified as nonhypertensive, controlled hypertensive, uncontrolled hypertensive and untreated hypertensive based on cut-off limits of 140/90  mmHg for SBP/DBP and/or the use of antihypertensive drugs. End-point was the first major coronary, cerebrovascular or peripheral hard event [cardiovascular disease (CVD)] during a 15-year average. Univariate and multivariate analyses were run.

RESULTS

Nonhypertensive individuals were about 10 years younger and had lower risk factor levels than the other categories. The relative risk (and 95% confidence interval) for CVD versus nonhypertension was 1.78 (1.02-3.10) for controlled hypertension, 3.76 (2.79-5.06) for uncontrolled hypertension and 3.30 (2.59-4.21) for untreated hypertension (UTH). After adjusting for covariates, such as sex, age, achieved blood pressure and other risk factors, the CVD risk of controlled hypertension was practically equal to that of nonhypertension, and remained unchanged even when blood pressure was excluded from the model (1.03, 0.58-1.82). The higher cardiovascular risk of uncontrolled hypertension and UTH was reduced after adjusting for covariates, but remained significantly higher than in nonhypertension, with no significant differences between uncontrolled hypertension and UTH.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher level of baseline risk is not due to treatment per se, the risk being similar in uncontrolled hypertension and UTH. Adjustment for risk factors reduces the risk only in controlled hypertension, suggesting that there may be structural alterations scarcely reversible by antihypertensive treatment.

Abnormal Pulsatile Hemodynamics in Hypertensive Patients With Normalized 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure by Combination Therapy of Three or More Antihypertensive Agents

It remains uncertain whether intensive antihypertensive therapy can normalize pulsatile hemodynamics resulting in minimized residual cardiovascular risks. In this study, office and 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), pulse pressure, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), and forward (Pf) and reflected (Pb) pressure wave from a decomposed carotid pressure wave were measured in hypertensive participants. Among them, 57 patients whose 24-hour SBP and DBP were normalized by three or more classes of antihypertensive medications were included. Another 57 age- and sex-matched normotensive participants were randomly selected from a community survey. The well-treated hypertensive patients had similar 24-hour SBP, lower DBP, and higher PP values. The treated patients had higher PWV (11.7±0.3 vs 8.3±0.2 m/s, P<.001), Pf, Pb, Pb/Pf, and left ventricular mass index values. After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, and office SBP, the differences for PWV, Pb, and Pb/Pf remained significant. Hypertensive patients whose 24-hour SBP and DBP are normalized may still have markedly increased arterial stiffness and wave reflection.

Chronotherapy with conventional blood pressure medications improves management of hypertension and reduces cardiovascular and stroke risks

Correlation between blood pressure (BP) and target organ damage, vascular risk and long-term patient prognosis is greater for measurements derived from around-the-clock ambulatory BP monitoring than in-clinic daytime ones. Numerous studies consistently substantiate the asleep BP mean is both an independent and a much better predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk than either the awake or 24 h means. Sleep-time hypertension is much more prevalent than suspected, not only in patients with sleep disorders, but also among those who are elderly or have type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease or resistant hypertension. Hence, cost-effective adequate control of sleep-time BP is of marked clinical relevance. Ingestion time, according to circadian rhythms, of hypertension medications of six different classes and their combinations significantly affects BP control, particularly sleep-time BP, and adverse effects. For example, because the high-amplitude circadian rhythm of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activates during nighttime sleep, bedtime vs. morning ingestion of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers better reduces the asleep BP mean, with additional benefit, independent of medication terminal half-life, of converting the 24 h BP profile into more normal dipper patterning. The MAPEC (Monitorización Ambulatoria para Predicción de Eventos Cardiovasculares) study, first prospective randomized treatment-time investigation designed to test the worthiness of bedtime chronotherapy with ⩾1 conventional hypertension medications so as to specifically target attenuation of asleep BP, demonstrated, relative to conventional morning therapy, 61% reduction of total CVD events and 67% decrease of major CVD events, that is, CVD death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. The MAPEC study, along with other earlier conducted less refined trials, documents the asleep BP mean is the most significant prognostic marker of CVD morbidity and mortality; moreover, it substantiates attenuation of the asleep BP mean by a bedtime hypertension treatment strategy entailing the entire daily dose of ⩾1 hypertension medications significantly reduces CVD risk in both general and more vulnerable hypertensive patients, that is, those diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, diabetes and resistant hypertension.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diabetes for the assessment and control of vascular risk

The diagnosis of hypertension and the clinical decisions regarding its treatment are usually based on daytime clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements. However, the correlation between BP levels and target organ damage, cardiovascular (CV) risk, and long-term prognosis, is higher for ambulatory (ABPM) than clinic measurements, both in the general population as well as in patients with diabetes. Moreover, there is consistent evidence in numerous studies that the asleep BP better predicts CV events than either the awake or 24h means. The prevalence of abnormal BP pattern and sleep-time hypertension is extensive in diabetes, often leading to inaccurate diagnoses of hypertension and its therapeutic control in the absence of complete and careful assessment of the entire 24h, i.e., daytime and night-time, BP pattern. Accordingly, ABPM should be the preferred method to comprehensively assess and decide the optimal clinical management of patients with diabetes directed to properly reduce elevated sleep-time BP, which might also lead to a significant reduction of CV events.

Cardiovascular mortality among a cohort of hypertensive and normotensives in Rio de Janeiro - Brazil - 1991-2009

Background

Although there is strong evidence of the benefits of antihypertensive treatment, the high prevalence of this important cardiovascular risk factor and its complications, as well as the low control rates of hypertension observed in many studies justify the investigation of these relationships in population studies. The objective was to investigate the ratio of cardiovascular disease mortality between hypertensives (non-treated, controlled and uncontrolled) and non-hypertensives in a cohort of a population sample of adults living in Ilha do Governador, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil, who were classified in a survey conducted in 1991 and 1992 and whose death certificates were sought 19 years later.

Methods

A cohort study was performed on probabilistic linkage between data from an epidemiological study of hypertension performed in Ilha do Governador, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (1991 to 1992) and data from the Mortality Information System of Rio de Janeiro (1991 to 2009). The survey aimed to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors in 1,270 adults aged 20 years or older selected through a probabilistic sampling of households at three economic levels (low, middle and high income). We performed a probabilistic record linkage of these databases and estimated the risk of cardiovascular death using Kaplan-Meier method to plot survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models comparing hypertensive subjects all together, and by hypertension subgroups: untreated, controlled, and uncontrolled hypertensives with non-hypertensive ones.

Results

A total of 170 deaths occurred, of which 31.2 % attributed to cardiovascular causes. The hazard ratio for cardiovascular death was 6.1 times higher (95 % CI 2.7 – 13.7) in uncontrolled hypertensive patients relative to non-hypertensive patients. The hazard ratios for untreated hypertensive and controlled hypertensive patients were 2.7 times (95 % CI 1.1 – 6.3) and 2.1 times (95 % CI 0.38 – 11.5) higher than for normotensive patients, respectively.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated a higher cardiovascular death risk among hypertensive than among non-hypertensive ones that is not associated uniquely to treatment, because uncontrolled hypertensives demonstrated a greater risk than untreated ones. Although the subgroups of hypertensive individuals were susceptible to changes in their classification over the 19 years of the study, the baseline classification was consistent with a worse prognosis in these individuals.

Impact of glucose-lowering drugs on cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized by multiple pathophysiologic abnormalities. With time, multiple glucose-lowering medications are commonly required to reduce and maintain plasma glucose concentrations within the normal range. Type 2 diabetes mellitus individuals also are at a very high risk for microvascular complications and the incidence of heart attack and stroke is increased two- to three-fold compared with non-diabetic individuals. Therefore, when selecting medications to normalize glucose levels in T2DM patients, it is important that the agent not aggravate, and ideally even improve, cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) and reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In this review, we examine the effect of oral (metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones, DPP4 inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and α-glucosidase inhibitors) and injectable (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and insulin) glucose-lowering drugs on established CVRFs and long-term studies of cardiovascular outcomes. Firm evidence that in T2DM cardiovascular disease can be reversed or prevented by improving glycaemic control is still incomplete and must await large, long-term clinical trials in patients at low risk using modern treatment strategies, i.e., drug combinations designed to maximize HbA1c reduction while minimizing hypoglycaemia and excessive weight gain.

Clinical value of ambulatory blood pressure: evidence and limits

This article reviews the clinical value of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) vis-à-vis the traditional BP measurements taken in the physician's office or in the hospital. Mention is initially made that longitudinal studies conducted in the general population or in hypertensive cohorts have shown that ambulatory BP provides a more accurate prediction of outcome than office BP. Namely, that (1) the risk of cardiovascular events increases in a less steep fashion with office than with 24-hour mean BP, (2) the 24-hour BP-dependent prediction is maintained after adjustment for office BP values, and (3) among individuals with normal office BP, those with increased ambulatory BP (masked hypertension) have an increased prevalence of organ damage, a more frequent unfavorable metabolic profile and a higher risk of new onset sustained hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular events than those with normal ambulatory BP. It is further mentioned, however, that more recently similar observations have been made for individuals with high office but normal ambulatory BP (white coat hypertension) suggesting a complementary role of out-of-office and office BP values in the determination of patients' prognosis. The evidence in favor of an independent prognostic value also of some within 24-hour BP phenomena (night BP reduction or absolute values, short-term BP variations, and morning BP surge) is then critically appraised for its elements of strength and weakness. Finally, whether the clinical advantages of ambulatory BP make this approach necessary for all patients with hypertension is discussed. The conclusion is that this is at present still premature because crucial evidence pro or against routine use of this approach in untreated and treated hypertensives is not yet available. It will be crucial for future studies to determine whether, compared with a treatment guided by office BP, a treatment tailored on ambulatory BP allows to improve prevention or regression of organ damage as well as protection from major cardiovascular complications to a degree that justifies the complexity and cost of the procedure.

Clinical implications of the 2013 ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines: targets, choice of therapy, and blood pressure monitoring

The European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2013 guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension included simplified blood pressure (BP) targets across patient groups, more balanced discussion on monotherapy vs. combination therapy, as well as reconfirmation of the importance of out-of-office BP measurements. In light of these updates, we wished to review some issues raised and take a fresh look at the role of calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy; an established antihypertensive class that appears to be a favorable choice in many patients. Relaxed BP targets for high-risk hypertensive patients in the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines were driven by a lack of commanding evidence for an aggressive approach. However, substantial evidence demonstrates cardiovascular benefits from more intensive BP lowering across patient groups. Individualized treatment of high-risk patients may be prudent until more solid evidence is available. Individual patient profiles and preferences and evidence for preferential therapy benefits should be considered when deciding upon the optimal antihypertensive regimen. CCBs appear to be a positive choice for monotherapy, and in combination with other agent classes, and may provide specific benefits beyond BP lowering. Ambulatory and home BP monitoring have an increasing role in defining the diagnosis and prognosis of hypertension (especially non-sustained); however, their value for comprehensive diagnosis and appropriate treatment selection should be more widely acknowledged. In conclusion, further evidence may be required on BP targets in high-risk patients, and optimal treatment selection based upon individual patient profiles and comprehensive diagnosis using out-of-office BP measurements may improve patient management.

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.

Randomized Controlled Trials of Blood Pressure Lowering in Hypertension

Sixty-eight blood pressure (BP)–lowering randomized controlled trials (defined as randomized controlled trials comparing active treatment with placebo, or less active treatment, achieving a BP difference, performed between 1966 and end 2013 in cohorts with ≥40% hypertensive patients, and exclusive of trials in acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and dialysis) were identified and meta-analyzed grouping the randomized controlled trials on the basis of clinically relevant questions: (1) does BP lowering reduce all types of cardiovascular outcome? (2) Is prevention of all outcomes proportional to the extent of systolic, diastolic, and pulse BP? (3) Have all classes of BP-lowering drugs been shown capable of reducing all types of cardiovascular outcome? (4) Is BP lowering beneficial when intervention is initiated at any grade (or stage) of hypertension? (5) Do BP-lowering randomized controlled trials provide evidence about systolic BP and diastolic BP targets of treatment? (6) Should BP-lowering treatment be preferentially addressed to patients in higher risk categories promising larger absolute treatment benefits? The results of these meta-analyses provide further support to current hypertension treatment guidelines by showing that BP lowering can significantly reduce major cardiovascular outcomes largely independent of the agents used, significant risk reduction is found at all hypertension grades (stages), and when systolic BP is lowered below a cut off of 140 mm Hg with some further reduction limited to stroke at systolic BP values just <130 mm Hg. Absolute risk reduction progressively increases higher is total cardiovascular risk, but this greater benefit is associated with a progressively higher residual risk, ie, higher treatment failures.

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.

Impact of angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy (olmesartan or valsartan) on coronary atherosclerotic plaque volume measured by intravascular ultrasound in patients with stable angina pectoris

Coronary plaques can be reduced by some medications. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 2 angiotensin II receptor blockers (olmesartan at 20 mg/day or valsartan at 80 mg/day) on coronary plaque by coronary intravascular ultrasound. One hundred hypertensive patients with stable angina pectoris who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly selected to receive 1 of the 2 angiotensin II receptor blockers after coronary intervention. Nontarget coronary lesions with mild to moderate stenosis were measured by volumetric intravascular ultrasound at baseline and after 6 months. After 6 months, both the olmesartan and the valsartan groups showed significant reduction of the examined coronary plaque volume (46.2 ± 24.1 mm³ at baseline vs 41.6 ± 21.1 mm³ at 6 months: 4.7% decrease, p = 0.0002; and 47.2 ± 32.7 mm³ at baseline vs 42.5 ± 30.2 mm³ at 6 months: 4.8% decrease, p = 0.002, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference of plaque regression between the 2 groups (p = 0.96). In conclusion, there was a significant decrease from baseline in the coronary plaque volume in patients with stable angina pectoris who received olmesartan or valsartan for 6 months. In addition, there was no significant difference in the reduction of plaque volume achieved by these 2 medications.