Rationale for the Inclusion of β-Blockers Among Major Antihypertensive Drugs in the 2023 European Society of Hypertension Guidelines

We address the reasons why, unlike other guidelines, in the 2023 guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension β-blockers (BBs) have been regarded as major drugs for the treatment of hypertension, at the same level as diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. We argue that BBs, (1) reduce blood pressure (the main factor responsible for treatment-related protection) not less than other drugs, (2) reduce pooled cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in placebo-controlled trials, in which there has also been a sizeable reduction of all major cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes, (3) have been associated with a lower global cardiovascular protection in 2 but not in several other comparison trials, in which the protective effect of BBs versus the other major drugs has been similar or even greater, with a slightly smaller or no difference of global benefit in large trial meta-analyses and a similar protective effect when comparisons extend to BBs in combination versus other drug combinations. We mention the large number of cardiac and other comorbidities for which BBs are elective drugs, and we express criticism against the exclusion of BBs because of their lower protective effect against stroke in comparison trials, because, for still uncertain reasons, differences in protection against cause-specific events (stroke, heart failure, and coronary disease) have been reported for other major drugs. These partial data cannot replace global benefits as the main deciding factor for drug choice, also because in the general hypertensive population whether and which type of event might occur is unknown.

Medical Measures in Hypertensives Considered Resistant

BACKGROUND

Patients with resistant hypertension are the group of hypertensive patients with the highest cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

All rules and guidelines for treatment of hypertension should be followed strictly to obtain blood pressure (BP) control in resistant hypertension. The mainstay of treatment of hypertension, also for resistant hypertension, is pharmacological treatment, which should be tailored to each patient's specific phenotype. Therefore, it is pivotal to assess nonadherence to pharmacological treatment as this remains the most challenging problem to investigate and manage in the setting of resistant hypertension.

RESULTS

Once adherence has been confirmed, patients must be thoroughly worked-up for secondary causes of hypertension. Until such possible specific causes have been clarified, the diagnosis is apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH). Surprisingly few patients remain with true TRH when the various secondary causes and adherence problems have been detected and resolved. Refractory hypertension is a term used to characterize the treatment resistance in hypertensive patients using ≥5 antihypertensive drugs. All pressor mechanisms may then need blockage before their BPs are reasonably controlled.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with resistant hypertension need careful and sustained follow-up and review of their medications and dosages at each term since medication adherence is a very dynamic process.

Rationale of treatment recommendations in the 2023 ESH hypertension guidelines

No abstract available.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence

BACKGROUND

More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension.

METHODS

HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

RESULTS

For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

2023 ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension: Endorsed by the International Society of Hypertension (ISH) and the European Renal Association (ERA)

DOCUMENT REVIEWERS

Luis Alcocer (Mexico), Christina Antza (Greece), Mustafa Arici (Turkey), Eduardo Barbosa (Brazil), Adel Berbari (Lebanon), Luís Bronze (Portugal), John Chalmers (Australia), Tine De Backer (Belgium), Alejandro de la Sierra (Spain), Kyriakos Dimitriadis (Greece), Dorota Drozdz (Poland), Béatrice Duly-Bouhanick (France), Brent M. Egan (USA), Serap Erdine (Turkey), Claudio Ferri (Italy), Slavomira Filipova (Slovak Republic), Anthony Heagerty (UK), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Dagmara Hering (Poland), Sang Hyun Ihm (South Korea), Uday Jadhav (India), Manolis Kallistratos (Greece), Kazuomi Kario (Japan), Vasilios Kotsis (Greece), Adi Leiba (Israel), Patricio López-Jaramillo (Colombia), Hans-Peter Marti (Norway), Terry McCormack (UK), Paolo Mulatero (Italy), Dike B. Ojji (Nigeria), Sungha Park (South Korea), Priit Pauklin (Estonia), Sabine Perl (Austria), Arman Postadzhian (Bulgaria), Aleksander Prejbisz (Poland), Venkata Ram (India), Ramiro Sanchez (Argentina), Markus Schlaich (Australia), Alta Schutte (Australia), Cristina Sierra (Spain), Sekib Sokolovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Jonas Spaak (Sweden), Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios (Greece), Bruno Trimarco (Italy), Thomas Unger (The Netherlands), Bert-Jan van den Born (The Netherlands), Anna Vachulova (Slovak Republic), Agostino Virdis (Italy), Jiguang Wang (China), Ulrich Wenzel (Germany), Paul Whelton (USA), Jiri Widimsky (Czech Republic), Jacek Wolf (Poland), Grégoire Wuerzner (Switzerland), Eugene Yang (USA), Yuqing Zhang (China).

Effect of antihypertensive treatment in isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) - systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in middle-aged and elderly is associated with high cardiovascular risk, but no randomised controlled trial has assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in ISH using today's definition, i.e. systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. Studies with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing more intensive versus less intensive BP targets, or active drug versus placebo, were included if the mean baseline SBP was ≥140 mmHg and the mean baseline DBP was <90 mmHg. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative risks from each trial were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline and attained SBP level.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials, including 113,105 participants (mean age 67 years; mean blood pressure 149/83 mmHg) were included in the analysis. Overall, treatment reduced the risk of MACE by 9% (relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.93). Treatment was more effective if baseline SBP was ≥160 mmHg (RR 0.77, 95% CIs 0.70-0.86) compared to 140-159 mmHg (RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.95; p = 0.002 for interaction), but provided equal additional benefit across all attained SBP levels (RR 0.80, 95% CIs 0.70-0.92 for <130 mmHg, RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.96 for 130-139 mmHg, and RR 0.87, 95% CIs 0.82-0.93 for ≥140 mmHg; p = 0.070 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension, regardless of baseline SBP, to target SBP <140 mmHg and even <130 mmHg if well tolerated.

Late outcomes of renal denervation are more favourable than early ones: facts or fancies?

Following second-generation randomized trials, there is evidence that renal denervation (RDN) decreases blood pressure (BP), although to a lesser extent than suggested in the initial controlled and observational studies. The recent publication of the 36-month follow-up of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial has raised expectations, suggesting increasing, late benefits of the procedure, despite initially negative results. These findings come after those obtained at 36 months in the sham-controlled trial SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and in the Global Symplicity Registry. However, they are susceptible to biases inherent in observational studies (after unblinding for sham-control) and non-random, substantial attrition of treatment groups at 36 months, and used interpolation of missing BPs. More importantly, in SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and Symplicity HTN-3, long-term BP changes in patients from the initial RDN group were compared with those in a heterogeneous control group, including both control patients who did not benefit from RDN and patients who eventually crossed over to RDN. In crossover patients, the last BP before RDN was imputed to subsequent follow-up. In Symplicity HTN-3, this particular approach led to the claim of increasing long-term benefits of RDN. However, comparison of BP changes in patients from the RDN group and control patients who did not undergo RDN, without imputation of BPs from crossover patients, does not support this view. The good news is that despite the suggestion of sympathetic nerve regrowth after RDN in some animal models, there is no strong signal in favour of a decreasing effect of RDN over time, up to 24 or even 36 months. Still, current data do not support a long-term increase in the effect of RDN and the durability of RDN-related BP reduction remains to be formally demonstrated.

How to optimize the use of diuretics in patients with heart failure?

Considering the pathophysiology and clinical presentation of heart failure, using diuretics or drugs with diuretic properties is indispensable for adequate management of heart failure patients. However, in clinical practice, fluid expansion is often undiagnosed, and diuretic therapy is not always adequately titrated. Today, several drug classes with diuretic properties are available in addition to classical thiazides, thiazide-like, and loop diuretics. The purpose of this short review is to discuss different ways to optimize diuretic therapy using currently available drugs. Several approaches are considered, including a combination of diuretics to obtain a sequential nephron blockade, use of a drug combining a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and an inhibitor of the metabolism of natriuretic peptides (ARNI), prescription of potassium binders to maintain and up-titrate RAS blockers and mineralocorticoid antagonists, and finally use of inhibitors of renal reabsorption of glucose through the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 system. Optimal use of these various drug classes should improve the quality of life and reduce the need for hospital admissions and mortality in heart failure patients.

Sex Differences in Atrial Fibrillation and Associated Complications in Hypertensive Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The LIFE Study

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on whether biological differences account for the higher risk of stroke seen in females compared to males with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

Capitalizing on The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial randomizing 9,193 patients and followed for at least four years, we aimed to identify sex differences in the risk of stroke in the presence of AF in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH).

RESULTS

342 Patients had a history of AF, and 669 developed new-onset AF. History of AF and new-onset AF were more prevalent among males (5.0% vs. 2.9% and 3.0% vs. 0.9%) in patients aged 55-63 years, but the relative difference decreased with age. Females with new-onset AF tended to have a higher risk of stroke than males (HR 1.52 [95% CI 0.95-2.43]). However, females with a history of AF did not have a higher risk than males (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.5-1.6]). In patients with new-onset AF, the relative higher stroke risk in females increased with age. Among patients with a history of AF, stroke risk was comparable and increased with age in both sexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with hypertension and LVH, females with new-onset AF had a higher risk of stroke than males, especially in patients above 64 years. However, the risk did not differ between the sexes among patients with a history of AF.

Middle-Aged and Older Patients With Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: Higher Mortality With Drug Treated Systolic Blood Pressure Below 130 mm Hg

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% of people with hypertension have left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) detected by ECG or echocardiography. Because patients with LVH have poor myocardial microcirculation, they may be too sensitive to lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) too much due to a lack of myocardial perfusion pressure. We aimed to investigate whether the average achieved SBP <130 mm Hg may cause harm in patients with LVH in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial (VALUE).

METHODS

Of the 15 245 VALUE participants, we identified 13 803 patients without cardiovascular events during the first 6 months after randomization. Of these, 2458 patients had electrocardiographic LVH (ECG-LVH). Cox analyses adjusted for age, gender, and baseline variables compared cardiac and all-cause mortality and other prespecified end points for patients who achieved average SBP 130 to 139 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=4863; ECG-LVH group n=929) and <130 mm Hg (No-LVH group n=2107; ECG-LVH group n=305). Reference groups were patients who achieved average SBP ≥140 mm Hg following the first excluded 6 months (No-LVH group n=4375; ECG-LVH group n=1224).

RESULTS

The No-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had a significantly lower incidence of several cardiovascular end points. The ECG-LVH group achieving average SBP <130 mm Hg had higher cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 1.98 [95% CIs, 1.06-3.70]; P=0.032) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CIs, 1.17-2.60]; P=0.007), and SBP <130 mm Hg was not associated with a reduction in any end point.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings may be seen as a signal that caution is warranted when treating middle-aged and older patients with electrocardiographic or echocardiographic LVH to SBP <130 mm Hg.

Diverse pharmacological properties, trial results, comorbidity prescribing and neural pathophysiology suggest European hypertension guideline downgrading of beta-blockers is not justified

Beta-blockers have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications in the treatment of hypertension; atenolol, metoprolol, oxprenolol and propranolol demonstrate proven cardiovascular prevention in hypertension mega-trials. Hypertension is characterised by activation of the sympathetic nervous system from early to late phases, which makes beta-blockers an appropriate treatment seen from a pathophysiological viewpoint, especially in patients with an elevated heart rate. Beta-blockers represent a heterogenous class of drugs with regard to both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. This position is manifest by reference to another clinical context, beta-blocker treatment of heart failure, where unequivocally there is no class effect (no similar benefit from all beta-blockers); there are good and less good beta-blockers for heart failure. Analogous differences in beta-blocker efficacy is also likely in hypertension. Beta-blockers are widely used for the treatment of diseases comorbid with hypertension, in approximately 50 different concomitant medical conditions that are frequent in patients with hypertension, leading to many de facto beta-blocker first choices in clinical practice. Thus, beta-blockers should be regarded as relevant first choices for hypertension in clinical practice, particularly if characterised by a long half-life, highly selective beta-1 blocking activity and no intrinsic agonist properties.SUMMARYBeta-blockers have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications in the treatment of hypertension; atenolol, metoprolol, oxprenolol and propranolol demonstrate proven cardiovascular prevention in hypertension mega-trialsHypertension is characterised by activation of the sympathetic nervous system from early to late phases, which makes beta-blockers an appropriate treatment seen from a pathophysiological viewpoint, especially in patients with an elevated heart rateBeta-blockers represent a heterogenous class of drugs with regard to both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic propertiesThis position is manifest by reference to another clinical context, beta-blocker treatment of heart failure, where unequivocally there is no class effect (no similar benefit from all beta-blockers); there are good and less good beta-blockers for heart failureAnalogous differences in beta-blocker efficacy is also likely in hypertensionBeta-blockers are widely used for the treatment of diseases comorbid with hypertension, in approximately 50 different concomitant medical conditions that are frequent in patients with hypertension, leading to many de facto beta-blockers first choices in clinical practiceThese observations, in totality, inform our opinion that beta-blockers are relevant first choices for hypertension in clinical practice and this fact needs highlightingFurther, these arguments suggest European hypertension guideline downgrading of beta-blockers is not justified.

Nonadherence by Serum Drug Analyses in Resistant Hypertension: 7-Year Follow-Up of Patients Considered Adherent by Directly Observed Therapy

Background Measurement of serum concentrations of drugs is a novelty found useful in detecting poor drug adherence in patients taking ≥2 antihypertensive agents. Regarding patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, we previously based our assessment on directly observed therapy. The present study aimed to investigate whether serum drug measurements in patients with resistant hypertension offer additional information regarding drug adherence, beyond that of initial assessment with directly observed therapy. Methods and Results Nineteen patients assumed to have true treatment-resistant hypertension and adherence to antihypertensive drugs based on directly observed therapy were investigated repeatedly through 7 years. Serum concentrations of antihypertensive drugs were measured by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry from blood samples taken at baseline, 6-month, 3-year, and 7-year visits. Cytochrome P450 polymorphisms, self-reported adherence and beliefs about medicine were performed as supplement investigations. Seven patients (37%) were redefined as nonadherent based on their serum concentrations during follow-up. All patients reported high adherence to medications. Nonadherent patients expressed lower necessity and higher concerns regarding intake of antihypertensive medication (P=0.003). Cytochrome P450 polymorphisms affecting metabolism of antihypertensive drugs were found in 16 patients (84%), 21% were poor metabolizers, and none were ultra-rapid metabolizers. Six of 7 patients redefined as nonadherent had cytochrome P450 polymorphisms, however, not explaining the low serum drug concentrations measured in these patients. Conclusions Our data suggest that repeated measurements of serum concentrations of antihypertensive drugs revealed nonadherence in one-third of patients previously evaluated as adherent and treatment resistant by directly observed therapy, thereby improving the accuracy of adherence evaluation. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; unique identifier: NCT01673516.

Abstract P221: Cardiovascular Outcomes In Hypertensive Patients Who Discontinue Study Medication In A Large Outcome Trial. The Life Study

Objective: Patient discontinuation of study medication during a hypertension outcome trial has implications for study power. We aimed to assess patient characteristics and outcomes in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) who discontinued the study drug but otherwise remained in the study until the end of follow-up.

Methods: In patients who discontinued vs. those continuing, Cox proportional hazards models identified baseline variables that had a significant impact on the occurrence of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction) in 9,193 hypertensive patients and LVH in the LIFE study.

Results: During a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 3,281 patients (35.7%) discontinued one or more days, not counting death as a reason for discontinuation. The distribution of days to discontinuation was highly skewed towards the first part of the study; the 25 th percentile was at day 161, and the median was at day 669. Reasons for discontinuation were a clinical adverse event (50%), a secondary study endpoint (19%), required study therapy (11%), withdrawal (2%), administrative (18%), and lost to follow-up (0.2%). Those who discontinued were older, more often male, had slightly lower body mass index, higher systolic and lower diastolic pressure, higher Framingham Risk Score (FRS), and more ECG LVH determined by either Cornell product or Sokolow-Lyon criteria. Patients randomized to losartan discontinued less than those randomized to atenolol. Multivariate analyses showed that older age, male gender, FRS, Sokolow-Lyon criteria, atenolol treatment as well as a history of pre-study myocardial infarction, cerebral vascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and atrial fibrillation as well as lower levels of hemoglobin, higher serum creatinine and lower cholesterol independently predicted discontinuation.

Conclusions: Patients discontinued during the first part of the study mainly due to a clinical adverse event. Patients who discontinued the study drug had, on average, more previous and concurrent cardiovascular disease than those who continued until the study ended. Thus, too high risk in an outcome study implies early drug discontinuation and thus reduction in the study power.

Individualized Beta-Blocker Treatment for High Blood Pressure Dictated by Medical Comorbidities: Indications Beyond the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension Guidelines

Several hypertension guidelines have removed beta-blockers from their previous position as first-choice drugs for the treatment of hypertension. However, this downgrading may not be justified by available evidence because beta-blockers lower blood pressure as effectively as other major antihypertensive drugs and have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications. Suspected inconveniences of beta-blockers such as increased risk of depression or erectile dysfunction may have been overemphasized, while patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or peripheral artery disease, that is, conditions in which their use was previously restricted, will benefit from beta-blocker therapy. Besides, evidence that from early to late phases, hypertension is accompanied by activation of the sympathetic nervous system makes beta-blockers pathophysiologically an appropriate treatment in hypertension. Beta-blockers have favorable effects on a variety of clinical conditions that may coexist with hypertension, making their use either as specific treatment or as co-treatment potentially common in clinical practice. Guidelines typically limit recommendations on specific beta-blocker use to cardiac conditions including angina pectoris, postmyocardial infarction, or heart failure, with little or no mention of the additional cardiovascular or noncardiovascular conditions in which these drugs may be needed or preferred. In the present narrative review, we focus on multiple additional diseases and conditions that may occur and affect patients with hypertension, often more frequently than people without hypertension, and that may favor the choice of beta-blocker. Notwithstanding, beta-blockers represent an in-homogenous group of drugs and choosing beta-blockers with documented effect in prevention and treatment of disease is important for first choice in guidelines.

Development of systolic dysfunction unrelated to myocardial infarction in treated hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. The LIFE Study

Aim: While it is commonly thought that left ventricular (LV) systolic function may insidiously deteriorate in hypertensive patients, few prospective data are available to support this notion. Methods: We evaluated 680 hypertensive patients (66 ± 7 years; 45% women) with electrocardiographic (ECG)-LV hypertrophy (ECG-LVH) enrolled in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) echo-sub-study free of prevalent cardiovascular disease and with baseline ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 55%. Echocardiographic examinations were performed annually for 5 years during anti-hypertensive treatment. Development of reduced systolic function was defined as incident EF < 50%. Results: During a mean follow-up of 4.8 ± 1 years, 37 patients developed reduced EF without an inter-current myocardial infarction (5.4%). In analysis of covariance, patients who developed reduced EF were more often men, had greater baseline LV diameter and LV mass, lower mean EF (all P < 0.05), and similar diastolic function indices. At the last available examination before EF reduction, independently of covariates, patients with reduced EF showed a significant increase in left atrium (LA) size, LV diameter, end-systolic stress and mitral E/A ratio, as compared to those who did not develop reduced EF (all P < 0.05). In time-varying Cox regression analysis, also controlling for baseline EF, predictors of developing reduced EF were higher in-treatment LV diameter [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.19 per cm; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.58–10.41] and higher in-treatment mitral E/A ratio (HR = 2.37 per unit; 95% CI: 1.58–3.56; both P < 0.0001). Conclusions: In treated hypertensive patients with ECG-LVH at baseline, incident reduced EF is associated with the development of dilated LV chamber and signs of increased LV filling pressure (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00338260).

Incident left bundle branch block predicts cardiovascular events and death in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. The LIFE Study

Aim: Whether incident left bundle branch block (LBBB) is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in treated hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is unknown. Thus, the present study aimed to examine CV outcomes of incident LBBB in treated hypertensive patients with LVH. Methods: In the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, 9,193 hypertensive patients with LVH on screening electrocardiogram (ECG) were randomized to losartan or atenolol based treatment. Participants (n = 8,567) did not have LBBB (Minnesota code 7.1) on baseline ECG. Cox regression models controlling for significant covariates assessed independent associations of incident LBBB with CV events and all-cause mortality during 4.8 years mean follow-up. Results: Annual follow-up ECGs identified 295 patients (3.4%) with incident LBBB associated with male gender (P < 0.05), older age, higher Cornell voltage (both P < 0.005) and history of diabetes, isolated systolic hypertension and prevalent CV disease. When adjusted for the history of previous CV disease, diabetes, isolated systolic hypertension, the Framingham risk score, ECG-LVH and randomized study treatment, Cox regression models showed that incident LBBB predicted higher risk of the composite endpoint CV death, myocardial infarction and stroke [hazard ratio (HR) 1.9, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.3–2.9, P < 0.001], CV death (HR 3.0, 95% CIs 1.84–5.0, P < 0.001), heart failure (HR 3.6, 95% CIs 1.9–6.6, P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR 3.0, 95% CIs 2.0–4.3, P < 0.001). Conclusions: These data suggest that among hypertensive patients with ECG-LVH receiving aggressive antihypertensive therapy, incident LBBB independently predicts increased risk of subsequent CV events including congestive heart failure and CV and all-cause mortality (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00338260).

Incident atrial fibrillation and heart failure in treated hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. The LIFE Study

Aim: The present study investigated the appearance and severity of atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) in 8,702 hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) receiving antihypertensive treatment in a prospective trial. Methods: Patients who had a history of AF or HF were not included, and the participants had sinus rhythm when they were randomly allocated to blinded study medication. Endpoints were adjudicated. Results: Incident AF occurred in 679 patients (7.8%) and HF in 246 patients (2.8%) during 4.7 ± 1.1 years mean follow-up. Incident AF was associated with a > 4-fold increased risk of developing subsequent HF [hazards ratios (HRs) = 4.7; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), 3.1–7.0; P < 0.001] in multivariable Cox analyses adjusting for age, sex, race, randomized treatment, standard cardiovascular risk factors and incident myocardial infarction. The development of HF as a time-dependent variable was associated with a multivariable-adjusted 3-fold increase of the primary study endpoint (HRs = 3.11; 95% CIs, 1.52–6.39; P < 0.001) which was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death. Incident HF was associated with a > 3-fold increased risk of developing subsequent AF (HRs = 3.3; 95% CIs, 2.3–4.9; P < 0.001). This development of AF was associated with a > 2-fold increase of the composite primary study endpoint in multivariable Cox analysis (HRs = 2.26; 95% CIs, 1.09–4.67; P = 0.028). Conclusions: Incident atrial fibrillation and heart failure are associated with increased risk of the other in treated hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. Such high-risk hypertensive patients who subsequently develop both atrial fibrillation and heart failure have particular high risk of composite myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00338260).

Time-varying serum uric acid predicts new-onset atrial fibrillation in treated hypertensive patients. The LIFE Study

Aim: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) Study showed less new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in hypertensive patients receiving losartan- vs. atenolol-based treatment. Because losartan reduces serum uric acid (SUA) levels, the aim of the present study was to investigate relations of SUA with new-onset AF in the study. Methods: Hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic (ECG) left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and no prior AF (n = 8,243) were treated for 5.0 ± 0.4 years with losartan- or atenolol-based therapy. Associations of SUA with new-onset AF documented by Minnesota coding were assessed by Cox models using SUA and systolic blood pressure as time-varying covariates to take into account changes of SUA related to losartan or diuretic treatment, changes in renal function, and aging. Results: Time-varying SUA was associated with new AF defined by Minnesota code [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.19 per 16.8 μmol/L (1 mg/dL), (95% confidence intervals (CIs), 1.12–1.26), P < 0.0001], independent of losartan treatment [HR = 0.75 (95% CIs, 0.61–0.93), P = 0.007], older age [HR = 1.95 per 7.0 years (95% CIs, 1.73–2.20), P < 0.0001], male sex [HR = 1.46 (95% CIs, 1.09–1.94), P = 0.010] and higher Cornell voltage-duration product [HR = 1.10 per 1,023 ms·mm (95% CIs, 1.01–1.21), P = 0.034]. Similar results were obtained in Cox models with SUA levels partitioned according to baseline quartiles and in which AF was defined by physician reports or by both Minnesota coding and physician reports. Conclusions: In-treatment SUA is a strong predictor for new-onset AF in hypertensive patients, independent of effects of antihypertensive treatment, age, sex, and ECG-LVH. Further research is needed to clarify how uric acid may provoke AF (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00338260).

The Oslo Ischaemia Study: cohort profile

PURPOSE

The Oslo Ischaemia Study was designed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of silent coronary disease in Norwegian middle-aged men, specifically validating exercise electrocardiography (ECG) findings compared with angiography. The study has been important in investigating long-term predictors of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as well as investigating a broad spectrum of epidemiological and public health perspectives.

PARTICIPANTS

In 1972-1975, 2014 healthy men, 40-59 years old, were enrolled in the study. Comprehensive clinical examination included an ECG-monitored exercise test at baseline and follow-ups. The cohort has been re-examined four times during 20 years. Linkage to health records and national health registries has ensured complete endpoint registration of morbidity until the end of 2006, and cancer and mortality until the end of 2017.

FINDINGS TO DATE

The early study results provided new evidence, as many participants with a positive exercise ECG, but no chest pain ('silent ischaemia'), did not have significant coronary artery stenosis after all. Still, they were over-represented with coronary disease after years of follow-up. Furthermore, participants with the highest physical fitness had lower risk of cardiovascular disease, and the magnitude of blood pressure responses to moderate exercise was shown to influence the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. With time, follow-up data allowed the scope of research to expand into other fields of medicine, with the aim of investigating predictors and the importance of lifestyle and risk factors.

FUTURE PLANS

Recently, the Oslo Ischaemia Study has been found worthy, as the first scientific study, to be preserved by The National Archives of Norway. All the study material will be digitised, free to use and accessible for all. In 2030, the Oslo Ischaemia Study will be linked to the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry to obtain complete follow-up to death. Thus, a broad spectrum of additional opportunities opens.

Age-stratified and blood-pressure-stratified effects of blood-pressure-lowering pharmacotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals aged 70 years and older, particularly when blood pressure is not substantially increased, is uncertain. We compared the effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events in groups of patients stratified by age and blood pressure at baseline.

METHODS

We did a meta-analysis using individual participant-level data from randomised controlled trials of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering versus placebo or other classes of blood-pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment strategies, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each treatment group. Participants with previous history of heart failure were excluded. Data were obtained from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Triallists' Collaboration. We pooled the data and categorised participants into baseline age groups (<55 years, 55-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and ≥85 years) and blood pressure categories (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and from <70 mm Hg to ≥110 mm Hg diastolic). We used a fixed effects one-stage approach and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyse the data. The primary outcome was defined as either a composite of fatal or non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospital admission.

FINDINGS

We included data from 358 707 participants from 51 randomised clinical trials. The age of participants at randomisation ranged from 21 years to 105 years (median 65 years [IQR 59-75]), with 42 960 (12·0%) participants younger than 55 years, 128 437 (35·8%) aged 55-64 years, 128 506 (35·8%) 65-74 years, 54 016 (15·1%) 75-84 years, and 4788 (1·3%) 85 years and older. The hazard ratios for the risk of major cardiovascular events per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure for each age group were 0·82 (95% CI 0·76-0·88) in individuals younger than 55 years, 0·91 (0·88-0·95) in those aged 55-64 years, 0·91 (0·88-0·95) in those aged 65-74 years, 0·91 (0·87-0·96) in those aged 75-84 years, and 0·99 (0·87-1·12) in those aged 85 years and older (adjusted pinteraction=0·050). Similar patterns of proportional risk reductions were observed for a 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure. Absolute risk reductions for major cardiovascular events varied by age and were larger in older groups (adjusted pinteraction=0·024). We did not find evidence for any clinically meaningful heterogeneity of relative treatment effects across different baseline blood pressure categories in any age group.

INTERPRETATION

Pharmacological blood pressure reduction is effective into old age, with no evidence that relative risk reductions for prevention of major cardiovascular events vary by systolic or diastolic blood pressure levels at randomisation, down to less than 120/70 mm Hg. Pharmacological blood pressure reduction should, therefore, be considered an important treatment option regardless of age, with the removal of age-related blood-pressure thresholds from international guidelines.

FUNDING

British Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford Martin School.

Detection of Nonadherence to Antihypertensive Treatment by Measurements of Serum Drug Concentrations

[Figure: see text].

Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of pharmacological blood pressure lowering at normal or high-normal blood pressure ranges in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease remains uncertain. We analysed individual participant data from randomised trials to investigate the effects of blood pressure lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure.

METHODS

We did a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised trials of pharmacological blood pressure lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment regimens, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively done with participants with heart failure or short-term interventions in participants with acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. Data from 51 studies published between 1972 and 2013 were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We pooled the data to investigate the stratified effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment in participants with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease (ie, any reports of stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic heart disease before randomisation), overall and across seven systolic blood pressure categories (ranging from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a major cardiovascular event (defined as a composite of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring admission to hospital), analysed as per intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Data for 344 716 participants from 48 randomised clinical trials were available for this analysis. Pre-randomisation mean systolic/diastolic blood pressures were 146/84 mm Hg in participants with previous cardiovascular disease (n=157 728) and 157/89 mm Hg in participants without previous cardiovascular disease (n=186 988). There was substantial spread in participants' blood pressure at baseline, with 31 239 (19·8%) of participants with previous cardiovascular disease and 14 928 (8·0%) of individuals without previous cardiovascular disease having a systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg. The relative effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment were proportional to the intensity of systolic blood pressure reduction. After a median 4·15 years' follow-up (Q1-Q3 2·97-4·96), 42 324 participants (12·3%) had at least one major cardiovascular event. In participants without previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the incidence rate for developing a major cardiovascular event per 1000 person-years was 31·9 (95% CI 31·3-32·5) in the comparator group and 25·9 (25·4-26·4) in the intervention group. In participants with previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the corresponding rates were 39·7 (95% CI 39·0-40·5) and 36·0 (95% CI 35·3-36·7), in the comparator and intervention groups, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with a reduction of systolic blood pressure by 5 mm Hg for a major cardiovascular event were 0·91, 95% CI 0·89-0·94 for partipants without previous cardiovascular disease and 0·89, 0·86-0·92, for those with previous cardiovascular disease. In stratified analyses, there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects on major cardiovascular events by baseline cardiovascular disease status or systolic blood pressure categories.

INTERPRETATION

In this large-scale analysis of randomised trials, a 5 mm Hg reduction of systolic blood pressure reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about 10%, irrespective of previous diagnoses of cardiovascular disease, and even at normal or high-normal blood pressure values. These findings suggest that a fixed degree of pharmacological blood pressure lowering is similarly effective for primary and secondary prevention of major cardiovascular disease, even at blood pressure levels currently not considered for treatment. Physicians communicating the indication for blood pressure lowering treatment to their patients should emphasise its importance on reducing cardiovascular risk rather than focusing on blood pressure reduction itself.

FUNDING

British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to all middle-aged and elderly hypertensive study patients with high cardiovascular risk

PURPOSE

Event-based clinical outcome trials have shown limited evidence to support guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus or with general high cardiovascular (CV) risk. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of CV events in patients who participated in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and compared the hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with all high-risk hypertensive patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. Patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 5250) were compared with the entire VALUE population with high CV risk (n = 15,245).

RESULTS

After adjustments for baseline differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 mmHg, but not to <130/80 mmHg, was accompanied by a progressive increase in the risk of CV morbidity and mortality as well as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure in both diabetes mellitus and in all high-risk patients. Target BP <130/80 mmHg reduced stroke risk in the main population but not in the diabetes mellitus patients. Patients with diabetes mellitus had higher event rates for the primary cardiac endpoint and all-cause mortality driven by a higher rate of heart failure.

CONCLUSION

In the high-risk hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg, but not <130/80 mmHg, showed principally the same protective effect on overall and cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and in the general high-risk hypertensive population.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension

PURPOSE

Available data of event-based clinical outcomes trials show that little evidence supports the guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients (n = 5250) were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥ 75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg.

RESULTS

After adjustment for baseline demographic differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP achieved <140/90 mmHg accompanied a progressive increase in the risk of CV mortality and morbidity as well as of cause-specific events such as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. A progressive reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced <130/80 mmHg did not have any effect on CV risks.

CONCLUSION

In mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the VALUE trial, achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg showed a marked protective effect on overall and all cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes. This was not the case for a more frequent achievement of the more intensive BP target, i.e. <130/80 mmHg.