1
|
Saiz LC, Gorricho J, Garjón J, Celaya MC, Erviti J, Leache L. Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 11:CD010315. [PMID: 36398903 PMCID: PMC9673465 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010315.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is the third update of the review first published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown. OBJECTIVES To determine if lower blood pressure targets (systolic/diastolic 135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 mmHg to 160mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease). SEARCH METHODS For this updated review, we used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 mmHg to 160 mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less). Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included seven RCTs that involved 9595 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Six of seven RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensive drugs to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. We also considered other issues, such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined, to downgrade the certainty of the evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 7 studies, 9595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure (CHF)) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 3 studies, 801 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.77 mmHg, 95% CI -12.82 to -4.73; 7 studies, 8657 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets at one year were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.23; 7 studies, 8699 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Carlos Saiz
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
| | - Javier Gorricho
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
- Healthcare Business Intelligence Service, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Javier Garjón
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
- Medicines Advice and Information Service, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Mª Concepción Celaya
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
- Drug Prescribing Service, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Juan Erviti
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
| | - Leire Leache
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
- Navarre Institute for Health Research (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yau KY, Law PS, Wong CN. Cardiac and Mental Benefits of Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) Diet plus Forest Bathing (FB) versus MIND Diet among Older Chinese Adults: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19:ijerph192214665. [PMID: 36429384 PMCID: PMC9690744 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192214665] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Accepted: 11/05/2022] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
(1) Background: The Mediterranean-DASH intervention for neurodegenerative delay (MIND) diet and forest bathing (FB) are first-line therapies for controlling hypertension. This study aimed to investigate the combined effects of a MIND diet and FB and MIND diet alone among older Chinese patients with hypertension. (2) Methods: Seventy-two participants aged >50 with stages 1 or 2 hypertension were randomly assigned to the MIND group (n = 23), MIND-FB group (n = 25), or control group (n = 24). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) (primary outcome), point-of-care tests for blood lipid panel and glucose (Glu), anxiety levels, mood states, body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and body fat percentage (BFP) were measured. (3) Results: After a four-week intervention, the change in SBP revealed no significant differences between the intervention groups, and SBP tended to decrease in the MIND and MIND-FB groups. Total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) were significantly decreased (p < 0.01), Triglycerides (TG) and Glu levels were significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the MIND-FB and MIND groups, and the mean differences for anxiety level and negative mood states were significantly lower (p < 0.00) in MIND-FB group. (4) Conclusions: The results provide preliminary evidence that the MIND diet and FB are good for promoting cardiac and mental health well-being in the Chinese population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ka-Yin Yau
- School of Nursing, Tung Wah College, Ho Man Tin, Hong Kong
| | - Pui-Sze Law
- School of Nursing, and Health Studies, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Ho Man Tin, Hong Kong
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Philip R, Beaney T, Appelbaum N, Gonzalvez CR, Koldeweij C, Golestaneh AK, Poulter N, Clarke JM. Variation in hypertension clinical practice guidelines: a global comparison. BMC Med 2021; 19:117. [PMID: 33975593 PMCID: PMC8114719 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-01963-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hypertension is the largest single contributor to the global burden of disease, affecting an estimated 1.39 billion people worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can aid in the effective management of this common condition, however, inconsistencies exist between CPGs, and the extent of this is unknown. Understanding the differences in CPG recommendations across income settings may provide an important means of understanding some of the global variations in clinical outcomes related to hypertension. AIMS This study aims to analyse the variation between hypertension CPGs globally. It aims to assess the variation in three areas: diagnostic threshold and staging, treatment and target blood pressure (BP) recommendations in hypertension. METHODS A search was conducted on the MEDLINE repository to identify national and international hypertension CPGs from 2010 to May 2020. An additional country-specific grey-literature search was conducted for all countries and territories of the world as identified by the World Bank. Data describing the diagnosis, staging, treatment and target blood pressure were extracted from CPGs, and variations between CPGs for these domains were analysed. RESULTS Forty-eight CPGs from across all World Bank income settings were selected for analysis. Ninety-six per cent of guidelines defined hypertension as a clinic-based BP of ≥140/90 mmHg, and 87% of guidelines recommended a target BP of < 140/90 mmHg. In the pharmacological treatment of hypertension, eight different first-step, 17 different second-step and six different third-step drug recommendations were observed. Low-income countries preferentially recommended diuretics (63%) in the first-step treatment, whilst high-income countries offered more choice between antihypertensive classes. Forty-four per cent of guidelines, of which 71% were from higher-income contexts recommended initiating treatment with dual-drug therapy at BP 160/100 mmHg or higher. CONCLUSION This study found that CPGs remained largely consistent in the definition, staging and target BP recommendations for hypertension. Extensive variation was observed in treatment recommendations, particularly for second-line therapy. Variation existed between income settings; low-income countries prescribed cheaper drugs, offered less clinician choice in medications and initiated dual therapy at later stages than higher-income countries. Future research exploring the underlying drivers of this variation may improve outcomes for hypertensive patients across clinical contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richu Philip
- Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Thomas Beaney
- Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Nick Appelbaum
- Helix Centre for Design in Healthcare, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Carmen Rodriguez Gonzalvez
- Helix Centre for Design in Healthcare, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Charlotte Koldeweij
- Helix Centre for Design in Healthcare, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | - Neil Poulter
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Jonathan M Clarke
- Centre for Mathematics of Precision Healthcare, Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Saiz LC, Gorricho J, Garjón J, Celaya MC, Erviti J, Leache L. Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 9:CD010315. [PMID: 32905623 PMCID: PMC8094921 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010315.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is the second update of the review first published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown. OBJECTIVES To determine if lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease). SEARCH METHODS For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2019: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less). Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS We included six RCTs that involved 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensives to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. Other issues such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined were also considered to downgrade the quality evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 2 studies, 690 participants; very low-quality evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.90 mmHg, 95% CI -13.24 to -4.56; 6 studies, 8546 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24; 6 studies, 8588 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Carlos Saiz
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Javier Gorricho
- Planning, Evaluation and Management Service, General Directorate of Health, Government of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Javier Garjón
- Medicines Advice and Information Service, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | | | - Juan Erviti
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Leire Leache
- Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lee EKP, Choi RCM, Liu L, Gao T, Yip BHK, Wong SYS. Preference of blood pressure measurement methods by primary care doctors in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Fam Pract 2020; 21:95. [PMID: 32456619 PMCID: PMC7251842 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-020-01153-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2019] [Accepted: 04/26/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Background Hypertension is the most common chronic disease and is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Its screening, diagnosis, and management depend heavily on accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement. It is recommended that the diagnosis of hypertension should be confirmed or corroborated by out-of-office BP values, measured using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM). When office BP is used, automated office BP (AOBP) measurement method, which automatically provides an average of 3–5 BP readings, should be preferred. This study aimed to describe the BP measurement methods commonly used by doctors in primary care in Hong Kong, to screen, diagnose, and manage hypertensive patients. Methods In this cross-sectional survey, all doctors registered in the Hong Kong “Primary Care Directory” were mailed a questionnaire, asking their preferred BP-measuring methods to screen, diagnose, and manage hypertensive patients. Furthermore, we also elicited information on the usual number of office BP or HBPM readings obtained, to diagnose or manage hypertension. Results Of the 1738 doctors included from the directory, 445 responded. Manual measurement using a mercury or aneroid device was found to be the commonest method to screen (63.1%), diagnose (56.4%), and manage (72.4%) hypertension. There was a significant underutilisation of ABPM, with only 1.6% doctors using this method to diagnose hypertension. HBPM was used by 22.2% and 56.8% of the respondents to diagnose and manage hypertension, respectively. A quarter (26.7%) of the respondents reported using only one in-office BP reading, while around 40% participants reported using ≥12 HBPM readings. Doctors with specialist qualification in family medicine were more likely to use AOBP in clinics and to obtain the recommended number of office BP readings for diagnosis and management of hypertension. Conclusion Primary Care doctors in Hong Kong prefer to use manual office BP values, measured using mercury or aneroid devices, to screen, diagnose, and manage hypertension, highlighting a marked underutilisation of AOBP and out-of-office BP measuring techniques, especially that of ABPM. Further studies are indicated to understand the underlying reasons and to minimise the gap between real-life clinical practice and those recommended, based on scientific advances. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov; ref. no.: NCT03926897.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Kam Pui Lee
- Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. .,Room 402, 4/F, Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care building, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China.
| | - Ryan Chun Ming Choi
- Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Licheng Liu
- Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Tiffany Gao
- Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Benjamin Hon Kei Yip
- Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Samuel Yeung Shan Wong
- Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| |
Collapse
|