Clinical Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT): A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≤ 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events compared to SBP of ≤ 140 mm Hg (standard treatment); however, it is unclear if this effect is similar in all racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: We analyzed SPRINT data within non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and Hispanic subgroups to address this question. High-risk nondiabetic hypertensive patients (N = 9,361; 30% NHB; 11% Hispanic) 50 years and older were randomly assigned to intensive or standard treatment. Primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of a myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or CVD death. RESULTS: Average postbaseline SBP was similar among NHW, NHB, and Hispanics in both treatment arms. Hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval) (intensive vs. standard treatment groups) for primary outcome were 0.70 (0.57–0.86), 0.71 (0.51–0.98), 0.62 (0.33–1.15) (interaction P value = 0.85) in NHW, NHB, and Hispanics. CVD mortality HRs were 0.49 (0.29–0.81), 0.77 (0.37–1.57), and 0.17 (0.01–1.08). All-cause mortality HRs were 0.61 (0.47–0.80), 0.92 (0.63–1.35), and 1.58 (0.73–3.62), respectively. A test for differences among racial/ethnic groups in the effect of treatment assignment on all-cause mortality was not significant (Hommel-adjusted P value = 0.062) after adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Targeting a SBP goal of ≤ 120 mm Hg compared to ≤ 140 mm Hg led to similar SBP control and was associated with similar benefits and risks among all racial ethnic groups, though NHBs required an average of ~0.3 more medications

Comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive medication for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and multiple treatments meta-analysis

Background: We conducted a systematic review of evidence from randomized controlled trials to answer the following research question: What are the relative effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease outcomes for healthy people at risk of cardiovascular disease? Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (up to February 2011) and CENTRAL (up to May 2009), and reference lists in recent systematic reviews. Titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance and those potentially fulfilling our inclusion criteria were then assessed in full text. Two reviewers made independent assessments at each step. We selected the following main outcomes: total mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. We also report on angina, heart failure and incidence of diabetes. We conducted a multiple treatments meta-analysis using random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE-instrument. Results: We included 25 trials. Overall, the results were mixed, with few significant dif-ferences, and with no drugclass standing out as superior across multiple outcomes. The only significant finding for total mortality based on moderate to high quality evidence was that beta-blockers (atenolol) were inferior to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (relative risk (RR) 1.14; 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.02 to 1.28). Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)- inhibitors came out inferior to calcium-channel blockers (CCB) regarding stroke-risk (RR 1.19; 1.03 to 1.38), but superior regarding risk of heart failure (RR 0.82; 0.69 to 0.94), both based on moderate quality evidence. Diuretics reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared to beta-blockers (RR 0.82; 0.68 to 0.98), and lowered the risk of heart failure compared to CCB (RR 0.73; 0.62 to 0.84), beta-blockers (RR 0.73; 0.54 to 0.96), and alpha-blockers (RR 0.51; 0.40 to 0.64). The risk of diabetes increased with diuretics compared to ACE-inhibitors (RR 1.43; 1.12 to 1.83) and CCB (RR 1.27; 1.05 to 1.57). Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, there seems to be little or no difference between commonly used blood pressure lowering medications for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Beta-blockers (atenolol) and alpha-blockers may not be first-choice drugs as they were the only drug-classes that were not significantly superior to any other, for any outcomes

Achieved systolic blood pressure in older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: It remains unclear into which level the systolic blood pressure (SBP) should be lowered in order to provide the best cardiovascular protection among older people. Hypertension guidelines recommendation on attaining SBP levels 33,600 participants) were included. Compared with attaining SBP levels ≥140 mmHg, levels of 130 to <140 mmHg were not associated with lower risk of outcomes in the meta-analysis of RCTs, whereas there was an associated reduction of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99) in the meta-analysis of post-hoc analyses or subanalyses of RCTs. Limited and conflicting data were available for the SBP levels of <130 mmHg and 140 to <150 mmHg. Conclusions: Among older people, there is suggestive evidence that achieving SBP levels of 130 to <140 mmHg is associated with lower risks of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Future trials are required to confirm these findings and to provide additional evidence regarding the <130 and 140 to <150 mmHg SBP levels

The epidemiology and management of severe hypertension

Hypertension guidelines stress that patients with severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure (BP)⩾180 or diastolic BP⩾110 mm Hg) require multiple drugs to achieve control and should have close follow-up to prevent adverse outcomes. However, little is known about the epidemiology or actual management of these patients. We retrospectively studied 59 207 veterans with hypertension. Patients were categorized based on their highest average BP over an 18-month period (1 July 1999 to 31 December 2000) as controlled (<140/90 mm Hg), mild (140–159/90–99 mm Hg), moderate (160–179/100–109 mm Hg) and severe hypertension. We examined severe hypertension prevalence, pattern, duration, associated patient characteristics, time to subsequent visit, percentage of visits with a medication increase, and final BP control and antihypertensive medication adequacy. Twenty-three per cent had ⩾1 visit with severe hypertension, 42% of whom had at least two such visits; median day with severe hypertension was 80 (range 1–548). These subjects were significantly older, more likely black, and with more comorbidities than other hypertension subjects. Medication increases occurred at 20% of visits with mild hypertension compared to 40% with severe hypertension; P<0.05). At study end, 76% of patients with severe hypertension remained uncontrolled; severe hypertension subjects with uncontrolled BP were less likely to be on adequate therapy than those with controlled BP (43.7 vs 45.4%). Among hypertensive veterans, severe hypertension episodes are common. Many subjects had relatively prolonged elevations, with older, sicker subjects at highest risk. Although, follow-up times are shorter and antihypertensive medication use greater in severe hypertension subjects, they are still not being managed aggressively enough. Interventions to improve providers' management of these high-risk patients are needed

Is blood pressure reduction a valid surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention? an analysis incorporating a systematic review of randomised controlled trials, a by-trial weighted errors-in-variables regression, the surrogate threshold effect (STE) and the biomarker-surrogacy (BioSurrogate) evaluation schema (BSES)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Blood pressure is considered to be a leading example of a valid surrogate endpoint. The aims of this study were to (i) formally evaluate systolic and diastolic blood pressure reduction as a surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention and (ii) determine what blood pressure reduction would predict a stroke benefit.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified randomised trials of at least six months duration comparing any pharmacologic anti-hypertensive treatment to placebo or no treatment, and reporting baseline blood pressure, on-trial blood pressure, and fatal and non-fatal stroke. Trials with fewer than five strokes in at least one arm were excluded. Errors-in-variables weighted least squares regression modelled the reduction in stroke as a function of systolic blood pressure reduction and diastolic blood pressure reduction respectively. The lower 95% prediction band was used to determine the minimum systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure difference, the surrogate threshold effect (STE), below which there would be no predicted stroke benefit. The STE was used to generate the surrogate threshold effect proportion (STEP), a surrogacy metric, which with the R-squared trial-level association was used to evaluate blood pressure as a surrogate endpoint for stroke using the Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema (BSES3).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 18 qualifying trials representing all pharmacologic drug classes of antihypertensives, assuming a reliability coefficient of 0.9, the surrogate threshold effect for a stroke benefit was 7.1 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and 2.4 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The trial-level association was 0.41 and 0.64 and the STEP was 66% and 78% for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The STE and STEP were more robust to measurement error in the independent variable than R-squared trial-level associations. Using the BSES3, assuming a reliability coefficient of 0.9, systolic blood pressure was a B + grade and diastolic blood pressure was an A grade surrogate endpoint for stroke prevention. In comparison, using the same stroke data sets, no STEs could be estimated for cardiovascular (CV) mortality or all-cause mortality reduction, although the STE for CV mortality approached 25 mmHg for systolic blood pressure.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this report we provide the first surrogate threshold effect (STE) values for systolic and diastolic blood pressure. We suggest the STEs have face and content validity, evidenced by the inclusivity of trial populations, subject populations and pharmacologic intervention populations in their calculation. We propose that the STE and STEP metrics offer another method of evaluating the evidence supporting surrogate endpoints. We demonstrate how surrogacy evaluations are strengthened if formally evaluated within specific-context evaluation frameworks using the Biomarker- Surrogate Evaluation Schema (BSES3), and we discuss the implications of our evaluation of blood pressure on other biomarkers and patient-reported instruments in relation to surrogacy metrics and trial design.</p

Clinical inertia in poorly controlled elderly hypertensive patients: a cross-sectional study in Spanish physicians to ascertain reasons for not intensifying treatment

Background Clinical inertia, the failure of physicians to initiate or intensify therapy when indicated, is a major problem in the management of hypertension and may be more prevalent in elderly patients. Overcoming clinical inertia requires understanding its causes and evaluating certain factors, particularly those related to physicians. Objective The objective of our study was to determine the rate of clinical inertia and the physician-reported rea- sons for it. Conclusion Physicians provided reasons for not intensi- fying treatment in poorly controlled patients in only 30 % of instances. Main reasons for not intensifying treatment were borderline BP values, co-morbidity, suspected white coat effect, or perceived difficulty achieving target. nJCI was associated with high borderline BP values and car- diovascular diseas

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)