Hypertension Guidelines: Is It Time to Reappraise Blood Pressure Thresholds and Targets? Position Statement of the Latin American Society of Hypertension

[Comprehensive Therapeutic Approach to Hypertension. Recommendations for Central America and the Caribbean]

Latin American hypertension guidelines, tailored to the needs of countries of Central and South America, should be applied and known by most Latin American physicians. The knowledge and implementation of the Guidelines is one of the greatest challenges of hypertension societies in Latin America such as the Central American and Caribbean Society of Arterial Hypertension (SCCH), the Latin American Society of Hypertension (LASH) and the Inter-American Society of Cardiology (SIAC). In 2020, the Inter-American Society of Cardiology (SIAC) published its position on the current Guidelines for Arterial Hypertension due to the need to standardize the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment and control of hypertension, establishing recommendations that should be adopted in all Latin American countries, aimed at optimizing the management of cardiovascular risk and achieving a substantial improvement in the reduction of cardiovascular events and mortality. This document intends to reinforce all proposals by the LASH guidelines and the position of the SIAC in relation to the therapeutic approach and pharmacological recommendations for patients with hypertension (HT), in order to achieve better HT control in the Central American and Caribbean area, and the consequently prognosis improvement of cardiovascular disease in the area.

Latin American Consensus on the management of hypertension in the patient with diabetes and the metabolic syndrome

: The prevalence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) and the metabolic syndrome continues to increase in Latin America, while the rates of diagnosis, treatment and control of these disorders remain low. The frequency of the risk factors that constitute the metabolic syndrome and are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease has not diminished since the publication of the previous consensus. This document discusses the socioeconomic, demographic, environmental and cultural characteristics of most associated Latin American countries and partially explains the lack of better results in improving clinical and public health actions that allow high morbidity and mortality rates caused by cardiovascular diseases and DM2 to be reduced through programs aligned with the so-called precision medicine, which should be predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory. The Consensus ratifies the diagnostic criteria expressed in the previous consensus to define hypertension and DM2 but, for the metabolic syndrome, and in the absence of evidence, the recommendation is to implement a cohort study that determines the abdominal perimeter value associated with hard outcomes, such as DM2 and CVD. Meanwhile, we recommend modifying the criterion to more than 94 cm in men and more than 84 cm in women according to WHO recommendations. We also recommend the carrying out of a study that identifies the situation of hypertension and DM2 in people of African ancestry who, in Latin America, exceed 75 million and whose epidemiology does not include solid studies. With respect to the proposed therapeutic targets, we recommended maintaining those defined in the previous consensus, but insisting that early pharmacological management of prediabetes with metformin should be introduced, as should the treatment of diabetic hypertensive patients with a combination therapy of two fixed-dose antihypertensive drugs and management with statins. To increase adherence, the use of different drugs combined in a single pill (polypill) is recommended. The simplification of the therapeutic regimen is accompanied by greater control of cardiovascular risk factors, both in primary and secondary prevention, and has been shown to be cost-effective. The consensus recommends the use of the currently available polypill combining an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a statin and aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention and in patients with a high cardiovascular risk, such as hypertension patients with DM2.

[Will the new figures from the AHA/ACC guidelines on the definition and treatment of hypertension in Latin America have an impact?]

Given the fact that new guidelines from the American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) propose important changes in the definition of hypertension, from equal or greater than 140/90mmHg to equal or greater than 130/80mmHg, major debate has been generated about the diagnostic criteria and the treatment of high blood pressure (HBP). In addition, these guidelines recommend that in order to achieve control of hypertension the goal should be a reading lower than 130/80mmHg. These new figures will significantly increase the amount of individuals considered hypertensive, some of whom will need more medication to achieve the new goal. This paradigm has led to questioning the goal's clinical applicability given the enormous financial burden that would result from treating millions of new hypertensive patients. The academic validity of the AHA-ACC guidelines has also been questioned given the fact that the recommendations emerged basically from results obtained from a single study with important methodological differences compared to the majority of studies carried out previously. Furthermore, its outcomes are inconsistent with those of previous studies. This conflict has led to some scientific institutions, such as the Latin American Society of Hypertension (LASH), continuing to adhere to the previous recommendations.

Cross-sectional survey evaluating blood pressure control ACHIEVEment in hypertensive patients treated with multiple anti-hypertensive agents in Belgium and Luxembourg

Objective

This study evaluates the actual blood pressure control rate and its estimation by general practitioners, the use of single-pill or free combinations, and the attitude towards single-pill combinations in primary care.

Methods

Cross-sectional observational survey in primary care between January 2015 and September 2016 in Belgium and Luxembourg. The participating general practitioners enrolled hypertensive patients taking at least 2 antihypertensive molecules (as fixed or free associations).

Results

742 general practitioners included a total of 8,006 patients, with a mean age of 66 ± 12 years. Systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were respectively 141 ± 17 mmHg and 82 ± 10 mmHg (means ± SD). These patients had a blood pressure control rate of 45%, whereas it was estimated by general practitioners to be 60%. General practitioners with 11–25 years’ experience performed better than general practitioners with 36–51 years’ experience in the evaluation of blood pressure control. Combinations used were free in 39%, single-pill in 34% and mixed in 27% of the patients. Patients receiving single-pill combinations were younger than those treated with free combinations (63 ± 12 vs. 68 ± 12 years, p < 0.001), with fewer comorbidities (39 vs. 55%, p < 0.001). In patients treated solely with free pill associations, 66% of patient cases, general practitioners were willing to switch to a single-pill combination. The main reasons were improved adherence (76%) and better blood pressure control (64%).

Conclusion

In patients requiring at least two antihypertensive drugs, blood pressure control rate remains low and is overestimated by general practitioners. Free combinations remain largely used although many general practitioners seem willing to shift to single-pill combinations. Treatment simplification could improve adherence and blood pressure control rate, which has been shown to lead to reduced morbidity and mortality.

Hypertension in Developing Countries: A Major Challenge for the Future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Outline recent epidemiologic data regarding hypertension in developing countries, distinguish differences from developed countries, and identify challenges in management and future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increased sugar intake, air and noise pollution, and low birth weight are emerging hypertension risk factors. The major challenges in management are difficulties in accurate diagnosis of hypertension and adequate blood pressure control. In contrast to developed countries, hypertension prevalence rates are on the rise in developing countries with no improvement in awareness or control rates. The increasing burden of hypertension is largely attributable to behavioral factors, urbanization, unhealthy diet, obesity, social stress, and inactivity. Health authorities, medical societies, and drug industry can collaborate to improve hypertension control through education programs, public awareness campaigns, legislation to limit salt intake, encourage generic drugs, development and dissemination of national guidelines, and involving nurses and pharmacists in hypertension management. More epidemiologic data are needed in the future to identify reasons behind increased prevalence and poor blood pressure control and examine trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control. National programs for better hypertension control based on local culture, economic characteristics, and available resources in the population are needed. The role of new tools for hypertension management should be tested in developing world.

Has the SPRINT trial introduced a new blood-pressure goal in hypertension?

SPRINT is the first randomized, controlled trial showing that a systolic blood-pressure goal of <120 mmHg can be attained with cardiovascular benefits in a select group of patients with hypertension and an elevated cardiovascular risk with different origins. Although the patient population with characteristics like those in SPRINT makes up only 20-30% of the total hypertensive population, SPRINT is a landmark study that highlights the need to consider lower blood- pressure goals in the treatment of hypertension. Extending this study to include other patient populations and geographical areas is the next step for evaluating the benefits of strict blood-pressure targets and the generalizability of the SPRINT results. Importantly, the blood-pressure measurement method used in SPRINT differs from previous clinical trials, and raises the issue of whether a more accurate method should be used in clinical trials and if such method is feasible in clinical practice. This Perspectives article provides an analysis of the SPRINT data, focusing on patient characteristics, blood-pressure measurement method, and applicability of the SPRINT findings for future management guidelines.

Impact of Achieved Blood Pressure on First Stroke in Uncomplicated Grade 1 Hypertension

Background

We aimed to test the impact of achieved blood pressure (BP) on first stroke among patients with grade 1 hypertension and without cardiovascular diseases in the China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial.

Methods and Results

A total of 3187 patients with uncomplicated grade 1 hypertension were included. The risk of outcomes was assessed according to: (1) the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 mm Hg, and (2) the time‐averaged systolic BP (SBP) or diastolic BP levels during the study treatment period. The median antihypertensive treatment duration was 4.6 years. Only 1.5% of the participants discontinued the treatments because of adverse reaction. Overall, the risk of stroke decreased with the increase of the proportion of study visits with BP <140/90 mm Hg (for per 5% increase; hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87–0.98]). Consistently, compared with patients with time‐averaged SBP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg, the risk of stroke was lower in patients with time‐averaged SBP of 120 to <140 mm Hg (1.1% versus 2.9%; hazard ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22–0.69]) or diastolic BP <90 mm Hg (1.5% versus 2.7%; hazard ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.17–0.98]). The beneficial results were consistent across age (<60 versus ≥60 years), sex, baseline SBP (<150 versus 150 to <160 mm Hg), study treatment groups (enalapril or enalapril‐folic acid), and hypertension subtypes (isolated systolic hypertension or systolic‐diastolic hypertension). However, a time‐averaged SBP <120 mm Hg (versus 120–140 mm Hg) was associated with an increased risk for stroke. Similar results were observed for composite cardiovascular events or all‐cause death.

Conclusions

Achieved BP <140/90 mm Hg was significantly associated with a decreased risk of stroke or all‐cause death in patients with uncomplicated grade 1 hypertension.

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

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