Burrell, Louise M.

Horiuchi, Masatsugu

Poulter, Neil R.

Prabhakaran, Dorairaj

Ramirez, Agustin J.

Schiffrin, Ernesto L.

Schutte, Alta E.

Touyz, Rhian

Wang, Ji-Guang

Weber, Michael A.

Hypertension

English

Weber, MA

Poulter, NR

Schutte, AE

Burrell, LM

Horiuchi, M

Prabhakaran, D

Ramirez, AJ

Wang, JG

Schiffrin, EL

Touyz, RM

Spiral - Imperial College Digital Repository

HYPE201607818R Is it time to reappraise blood pressure thresholds and targets? A Statement from the International Society of Hypertension – A Global Perspective. Michael A Weber1, Neil R Poulter2, Alta E Schutte3, Louise M Burrell4, Masatsugu Horiuchi5, Dorairaj Prabhakaran6, Agustin J Ramirez A7, Ji-Guang Wang8, Ernesto L Schiffrin9, Rhian M Touyz10 1State University of New York. Downstate College of Medicine. New York; 2Imperial Imperial College London; 3North-West University, Potchefstroom; 4The University of Melbourne, Victoria; 5 Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Ehime; 6Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, Haryana, India; 7University Hospital, Favaloro Foundation, Buenos Aires; 8Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai; 9Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research and Department of Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal; 10Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, BHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow. Short title: Blood pressure targets and global relevance Key words: hypertension, international guidelines, SPRINT Correspondence  Rhian M Touyz, MD, PhD  Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, 126 University Place, Glasgow, G12 8TA Phone: + 44 (0)141 330 7775/7774; Fax: + 44 (0)141330-3360, Email: Rhian.Touyz@glasgow.ac.uk The SPRINT findings (1), together with the publication of other major studies within the last year addressing how low blood pressure should be targeted to prevent cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension (2-4), supports what we have known for a long time that: 1) blood pressure >115/75 mmHg is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke, 2) blood pressure lowering is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality, 3) antihypertensive drugs reduce the incidence of hypertension-associated events, and 4) prevention of cardiovascular morbidity is largely related to blood pressure lowering per se, although other effects of the drugs used contribute to this benefit.  The questions that are now posed, particularly in response to an editorial commentary by the Editors of this Journal (5), are: What is the threshold at which anti-hypertensive treatment should be initiated and what target blood pressure should we strive for to achieve maximum benefit in patients with hypertension? SPRINT and other recent meta-analyses and trials provide new data that allow us to sharpen and refine recommendations for blood pressure targets in people with hypertension (1-4). Here we will briefly address the questions in the worldwide context of hypertension. In hypertensive patients without diabetes, prior stroke or polycystic kidney disease, SPRINT has provided strong evidence that targeting systolic blood pressure of <120 mmHg (as measured by an automated measurement protocol in the office) (1) provides significantly stronger protection from cardiovascular events and death than the traditionally accepted target of <140 mmHg. This study was conducted in a hypertensive patient cohort of intermediate-to-high cardiovascular risk.  It should be highlighted that the target of 120 mmHg in SPRINT was based on blood pressure readings using a defined protocol with an office automated device, where blood pressure was measured three times in the absence of clinical personnel (1).  Based on the known differences between readings obtained by automated devices and conventional measurements (6), this average would translate to higher readings (130 mmHg) in clinical practice. Hence, if the goal were to reduce blood pressure to <120 mmHg using conventional methods, there is a risk that blood pressures would in fact be lower than SPRINT’s 120 mmHg, with unknown consequences, as highlighted in a recent editorial (7). Accordingly, it is critical that the SPRINT findings are interpreted in the context of the protocol that was used to measure blood pressure. Moreover, while SPRINT aimed for <120 mmHg it should be emphasized that the study did not actually achieve its target below 120 mmHg, with the intensively treated group having an overall systolic blood pressure of ≈ 122 mmHg as recorded by the defined measurement protocol (1). Hence, considering the method used to measure the blood pressure, it may be more appropriate to conclude that SPRINT’s benefits were evident at conventional levels closer to 130 mmHg, in line with other recent reports from individual trials and meta-analyses, which support a target of <130 mmHg (2-4,8).  Importantly, the SPRINT findings do not exclude any particular patient subgroups, except diabetes and prior stroke.  Indeed, black patients benefited equally as well as white, and the results in older patients (75 and above) were at least as good as in the younger group.  However, for patients aged over 80 years, in whom safety data at this low blood pressure are still limited, it would be prudent to follow a cautious path in approaching the <130 mmHg target (9). Regarding safety concerns, mainly reductions in renal function, electrolyte abnormalities and hypotensive symptoms, SPRINT suggests that the benefits of intensive management outweigh adverse outcomes for patients at heightened risk of events.  It should be acknowledged, based on HOPE 3 (10), that there is some uncertainty about whether there is sufficient evidence to support the initiation of antihypertensive treatment in patients with systolic blood pressures below 140 mmHg, particularly if other major cardiovascular risk factors are not present.  It should be noted, however, that HOPE 3 did not test differing blood pressure targets. Since SPRINT excluded hypertensive patients with a history of diabetes or stroke, considerations for blood pressure targets in patients with diabetes need to be considered from data in other trials. For diabetic patients, the ACCORD trial (11), supported by some but not all studies and meta-analyses, appears to suggest a systolic treatment target of <140 mmHg is sufficient. The one caveat is stroke: in ACCORD and at least one other trial, stroke appeared to be best prevented at <120 mmHg.  But to further complicate decision-making, meta-analysis as well as individual trials suggest the possibility of increasing some fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes as well as adverse renal effects if the pressure is reduced to <130 mmHg or <120 mmHg in patients with diabetes (12-14). Even so, given the serious and justifiably feared consequences of stroke and the inconsistency of the currently available evidence, clinicians should consider discussing the selection of treatment targets with their patients. Meanwhile reaching a target of 130 mmHg seems an acceptable compromise. A Global Perspective by the International Society of Hypertension The International Society of Hypertension has a strong commitment to and interest in the work of preventing, identifying and treating hypertensive patients throughout the world.  We recognize that recommendations made for more prosperous nations cannot fully apply to all communities or to low and middle income countries.  Indeed, hypertension diagnosis and management are often hampered by such fundamental problems as the lack of blood pressure measuring devices, shortage of personnel trained to measure blood pressures or to advise patients and initiate therapy..  Basic laboratory procedures to check for concomitant conditions such as diabetes or lipid disorders may not be available. Moreover, even though most modern antihypertensive agents are now produced in inexpensive generic formulations, their cost and availability still limit treatment in many parts of the world.  In 2014, in collaboration with the America Society of Hypertension, ISH published Guidelines on the Treatment of Hypertension in the Community (15).  Even though those guidelines recommended a systolic blood pressure of 140 mmHg as the usual hypertension threshold, they recognized that in several parts of the world this could put an excessive burden on limited budgets.  So, it was suggested for patients without other risk factors, and with systolic blood pressures below 160 mmHg, that initial treatment could be based on lifestyle modifications alone.  But even this suggestion, although well intended, could not address the reality that resources to identify additional risk factors in hypertensive patients are often lacking in low income areas and that, in any case, lifestyle modifications that require dietary adjustments, other than moderation of salt intake, are often unavailable or unaffordable. These challenges may be further compounded by insufficient or ineffective education of health care providers, policy makers and the population.   The findings from SPRINT and the other new reports of the benefits of aggressive therapy emphasize that many underserved hypertensive patients are now even more remote from optimal care.  This could be a compelling concern in Africa given the strong benefits achieved by the black patients in SPRINT. In African and many other developing countries overcrowded clinics are dealing mostly with infectious diseases. We therefore anticipate that the wide publicity given SPRINT and other new high-impact reports will help bring a sense of urgency to resolving this major public health issue – which has more wide-ranging environmental challenges beyond aggressive antihypertensive therapy alone.  Taking into consideration the global target population of interest to the International Society of Hypertension, together with evidence derived from SPRINT and other recent meta-analyses and clinical trials, the practical message from the International Society of Hypertension is to strive for a systolic blood pressure target of 130 mmHg in most patients with hypertension. This is especially important considering that blood pressure measurements in the community are not likely to be performed using the SPRINT protocol. So, advocating a target of <120 mmHg is not justified in clinical practice and in any case would incur the costs of increased clinic visits, more intensive health care and more medications. In regions of low resources this added financial and logistical burden is not tenable.  Accordingly, while we recognize that there might be benefits in targeting treatment to below our recommended level of 130 mmHg in non-diabetic hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk (as in the SPRINT population), the International Society of Hypertension believes it is premature to advocate such low targets at a global level. Funding: Dr Touyz is supported through a Chair from the British Heart Foundation (CH/12/4/29762).  Dr Schiffrin is supported by a Canada Research Chair (CRC) on Hypertension and Vascular Research by the CRC Government of Canada/CIHR Program. Disclosures:  There are no disclosures to declare by any of the authors.    References 1. The SPRINT Research Group.  A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood pressure control.  N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103-2116.  2. Xie X, Atkins E, Lv J, et al.  Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.  Lancet. 2016;387:435-443.  3. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al.  Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death:  a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Lancet. 2016;387:957-967.  4. Weber MA, Lackland DT.  Cardiovascular benefits of lowering blood pressure. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2016;12:202-204.  5. Touyz RM, Dominiczak AF. Hypertension Guidelines: Is It Time to Reappraise Blood Pressure Thresholds and Targets? Hypertension. 2016;67:688-689.  6. Myers MG, Kaczorowski J, Paterson JM, et al.  Thresholds for diagnosing hypertension based upon automated office blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk.  Hypertension. 2015;66:489-495.  7. Schiffrin EL, Calhoun DA, Flack JM. SPRINT proves that lower is better for non-diabetic high risk patients, but at a price. Am J Hypert. 2016;29:2-4.  8. Thomopoulos C, Parati G, Zanchetti A.  Effects of blood pressure lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension:  7. Effects of more vs. less intensive blood pressure lowering and different achieved blood pressure levels – updated overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials.   J Hypertens. 2016;34:613-622.  9. Wright JT Jr, Fine LJ, Lackland DT, Ogedegbe G, Dennison Himmelfarb CR. Evidence supporting a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 150 mm Hg in patients aged 60 years or older: the minority view.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:499-503.  10. Lonn EM, Bosch J, López-Jaramillo P, et al. HOPE-3 Investigators. Blood-Pressure Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2009-2020.  11. Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1575-1585.  12. Cooper-DeHoff RM, Gong Y, Handberg EM, Bavry AA, Denardo SJ, Bakris GL Pepine CJ. Tight blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes among hypertensive patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease.  JAMA. 2010;304:61-68.  13. Brunstrom M, Carlberg B.  Effect of antihypertensive treatment at different blood pressure levels in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analyses.  BMJ. 2016;352:i717.   14. Weber MA, Block M, Bakris GL, et al. Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients with and without Diabetes: An ACCOMPLISH Substudy.  J Clin Hypert. 2016;18:299–307.  15. Weber MA, Schiffrin EL, Mann S, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in the Community: A Statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 2014;32:3-15. 

Is It Time to Reappraise Blood Pressure Thresholds and Targets? A Statement From the International Society of Hypertension-A Global Perspective.

Enlighten: Publications

 
 
 
 
 
Weber, M. A., Poulter, N. R., Schutte, A. E., Burrell, L. M., Horiuchi, M., 
Prabhakaran, D., Ramirez, A. J., Wang, J.-G., Schiffrin, E. L., and Touyz, R. (2016) 
Is it time to reappraise blood pressure thresholds and targets? Statement from the 
international society of hypertension - a global perspective. Hypertension, 
(doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.07818). 
 
 
 
There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are 
advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. 
 
 
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/119806/ 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deposited on: 20 July 2016 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow 
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk 
HYPE201607818R 
Is it time to reappraise blood pressure thresholds and targets? 
A Statement from the International Society of Hypertension – A Global 
Perspective. 
Michael A Weber1, Neil R Poulter2, Alta E Schutte3, Louise M Burrell4, Masatsugu 
Horiuchi5, Dorairaj Prabhakaran6, Agustin J Ramirez A7, Ji-Guang Wang8, Ernesto L 
Schiffrin9, Rhian M Touyz10 
1State University of New York. Downstate College of Medicine. New York; 2Imperial 
Imperial College London; 3North-West University, Potchefstroom; 4The University of 
Melbourne, Victoria; 5 Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, 
Ehime; 6Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, Haryana, India; 7University 
Hospital, Favaloro Foundation, Buenos Aires; 8Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong 
University School of Medicine, Shanghai; 9Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research and Department of Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal; 10Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, BHF 
Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow. 
Short title: Blood pressure targets and global relevance 
Key words: hypertension, international guidelines, SPRINT 
Correspondence  
Rhian M Touyz, MD, PhD  
Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, 
University of Glasgow, 
126 University Place, Glasgow, G12 8TA 
Phone: + 44 (0)141 330 7775/7774; Fax: + 44 (0)141330-3360, 
Email: Rhian.Touyz@glasgow.ac.uk 
The SPRINT findings (1), together with the publication of other major studies within 
the last year addressing how low blood pressure should be targeted to prevent 
cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension (2-4), supports what we have 
known for a long time that: 1) blood pressure >115/75 mmHg is associated with 
increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke, 2) blood pressure lowering is 
associated with reduced morbidity and mortality, 3) antihypertensive drugs reduce the 
incidence of hypertension-associated events, and 4) prevention of cardiovascular 
morbidity is largely related to blood pressure lowering per se, although other effects 
of the drugs used contribute to this benefit.  
The questions that are now posed, particularly in response to an editorial commentary 
by the Editors of this Journal (5), are: What is the threshold at which anti-
hypertensive treatment should be initiated and what target blood pressure should we 
strive for to achieve maximum benefit in patients with hypertension? SPRINT and 
other recent meta-analyses and trials provide new data that allow us to sharpen and 
refine recommendations for blood pressure targets in people with hypertension (1-4). 
Here we will briefly address the questions in the worldwide context of hypertension. 
In hypertensive patients without diabetes, prior stroke or polycystic kidney disease, 
SPRINT has provided strong evidence that targeting systolic blood pressure of <120 
mmHg (as measured by an automated measurement protocol in the office) (1) 
provides significantly stronger protection from cardiovascular events and death than 
the traditionally accepted target of <140 mmHg. This study was conducted in a 
hypertensive patient cohort of intermediate-to-high cardiovascular risk.  It should be 
highlighted that the target of 120 mmHg in SPRINT was based on blood pressure 
readings using a defined protocol with an office automated device, where blood 
pressure was measured three times in the absence of clinical personnel (1).  Based on 
the known differences between readings obtained by automated devices and 
conventional measurements (6), this average would translate to higher readings (130 
mmHg) in clinical practice. Hence, if the goal were to reduce blood pressure to <120 
mmHg using conventional methods, there is a risk that blood pressures would in fact 
be lower than SPRINT’s 120 mmHg, with unknown consequences, as highlighted in a 
recent editorial (7). Accordingly, it is critical that the SPRINT findings are interpreted 
in the context of the protocol that was used to measure blood pressure. 
Moreover, while SPRINT aimed for <120 mmHg it should be emphasized that the 
study did not actually achieve its target below 120 mmHg, with the intensively treated 
group having an overall systolic blood pressure of ≈ 122 mmHg as recorded by the 
defined measurement protocol (1). Hence, considering the method used to measure 
the blood pressure, it may be more appropriate to conclude that SPRINT’s benefits 
were evident at conventional levels closer to 130 mmHg, in line with other recent 
reports from individual trials and meta-analyses, which support a target of <130 
mmHg (2-4,8). 
 Importantly, the SPRINT findings do not exclude any particular patient subgroups, 
except diabetes and prior stroke.  Indeed, black patients benefited equally as well as 
white, and the results in older patients (75 and above) were at least as good as in the 
younger group.  However, for patients aged over 80 years, in whom safety data at this 
low blood pressure are still limited, it would be prudent to follow a cautious path in 
approaching the <130 mmHg target (9). Regarding safety concerns, mainly reductions 
in renal function, electrolyte abnormalities and hypotensive symptoms, SPRINT 
suggests that the benefits of intensive management outweigh adverse outcomes for 
patients at heightened risk of events.  
It should be acknowledged, based on HOPE 3 (10), that there is some uncertainty 
about whether there is sufficient evidence to support the initiation of antihypertensive 
treatment in patients with systolic blood pressures below 140 mmHg, particularly if 
other major cardiovascular risk factors are not present.  It should be noted, however, 
that HOPE 3 did not test differing blood pressure targets. 
Since SPRINT excluded hypertensive patients with a history of diabetes or stroke, 
considerations for blood pressure targets in patients with diabetes need to be 
considered from data in other trials. For diabetic patients, the ACCORD trial (11), 
supported by some but not all studies and meta-analyses, appears to suggest a systolic 
treatment target of <140 mmHg is sufficient. The one caveat is stroke: in ACCORD 
and at least one other trial, stroke appeared to be best prevented at <120 mmHg.  But 
to further complicate decision-making, meta-analysis as well as individual trials 
suggest the possibility of increasing some fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes 
as well as adverse renal effects if the pressure is reduced to <130 mmHg or <120 
mmHg in patients with diabetes (12-14). Even so, given the serious and justifiably 
feared consequences of stroke and the inconsistency of the currently available 
evidence, clinicians should consider discussing the selection of treatment targets with 
their patients. Meanwhile reaching a target of 130 mmHg seems an acceptable 
compromise. 
A Global Perspective by the International Society of Hypertension 
The International Society of Hypertension has a strong commitment to and interest in 
the work of preventing, identifying and treating hypertensive patients throughout the 
world.  We recognize that recommendations made for more prosperous nations cannot 
fully apply to all communities or to low and middle income countries.  Indeed, 
hypertension diagnosis and management are often hampered by such fundamental 
problems as the lack of blood pressure measuring devices, shortage of personnel 
trained to measure blood pressures or to advise patients and initiate therapy..  Basic 
laboratory procedures to check for concomitant conditions such as diabetes or lipid 
disorders may not be available. Moreover, even though most modern antihypertensive 
agents are now produced in inexpensive generic formulations, their cost and 
availability still limit treatment in many parts of the world.  
In 2014, in collaboration with the America Society of Hypertension, ISH published 
Guidelines on the Treatment of Hypertension in the Community (15).  Even though 
those guidelines recommended a systolic blood pressure of 140 mmHg as the usual 
hypertension threshold, they recognized that in several parts of the world this could 
put an excessive burden on limited budgets.  So, it was suggested for patients without 
other risk factors, and with systolic blood pressures below 160 mmHg, that initial 
treatment could be based on lifestyle modifications alone.  But even this suggestion, 
although well intended, could not address the reality that resources to identify 
additional risk factors in hypertensive patients are often lacking in low income areas 
and that, in any case, lifestyle modifications that require dietary adjustments, other 
than moderation of salt intake, are often unavailable or unaffordable. These 
challenges may be further compounded by insufficient or ineffective education of 
health care providers, policy makers and the population.   
The findings from SPRINT and the other new reports of the benefits of aggressive 
therapy emphasize that many underserved hypertensive patients are now even more 
remote from optimal care.  This could be a compelling concern in Africa given the 
strong benefits achieved by the black patients in SPRINT. In African and many other 
developing countries overcrowded clinics are dealing mostly with infectious diseases. 
We therefore anticipate that the wide publicity given SPRINT and other new high-
impact reports will help bring a sense of urgency to resolving this major public health 
issue – which has more wide-ranging environmental challenges beyond aggressive 
antihypertensive therapy alone.  
Taking into consideration the global target population of interest to the International 
Society of Hypertension, together with evidence derived from SPRINT and other 
recent meta-analyses and clinical trials, the practical message from the International 
Society of Hypertension is to strive for a systolic blood pressure target of 130 mmHg 
in most patients with hypertension. This is especially important considering that blood 
pressure measurements in the community are not likely to be performed using the 
SPRINT protocol. So, advocating a target of <120 mmHg is not justified in clinical 
practice and in any case would incur the costs of increased clinic visits, more 
intensive health care and more medications. In regions of low resources this added 
financial and logistical burden is not tenable.  Accordingly, while we recognize that 
there might be benefits in targeting treatment to below our recommended level of 130 
mmHg in non-diabetic hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk (as in the 
SPRINT population), the International Society of Hypertension believes it is 
premature to advocate such low targets at a global level. 
Funding: Dr Touyz is supported through a Chair from the British Heart Foundation 
(CH/12/4/29762).  Dr Schiffrin is supported by a Canada Research Chair (CRC) on 
Hypertension and Vascular Research by the CRC Government of Canada/CIHR 
Program. 
Disclosures:  
There are no disclosures to declare by any of the authors.  
  
References 
1. The SPRINT Research Group.  A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood 
pressure control.  N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103-2116. 
 
2. Xie X, Atkins E, Lv J, et al.  Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on 
cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.  
Lancet. 2016;387:435-443. 
 
3. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al.  Blood pressure lowering for prevention of 
cardiovascular disease and death:  a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Lancet. 
2016;387:957-967. 
 
4. Weber MA, Lackland DT.  Cardiovascular benefits of lowering blood pressure. Nat 
Rev Nephrol. 2016;12:202-204. 
 
5. Touyz RM, Dominiczak AF. Hypertension Guidelines: Is It Time to Reappraise 
Blood Pressure Thresholds and Targets? Hypertension. 2016;67:688-689. 
 
6. Myers MG, Kaczorowski J, Paterson JM, et al.  Thresholds for diagnosing 
hypertension based upon automated office blood pressure measurements and 
cardiovascular risk.  Hypertension. 2015;66:489-495. 
 
7. Schiffrin EL, Calhoun DA, Flack JM. SPRINT proves that lower is better for non-
diabetic high risk patients, but at a price. Am J Hypert. 2016;29:2-4. 
 8. Thomopoulos C, Parati G, Zanchetti A.  Effects of blood pressure lowering on 
outcome incidence in hypertension:  7. Effects of more vs. less intensive blood 
pressure lowering and different achieved blood pressure levels – updated overview 
and meta-analysis of randomized trials.   J Hypertens. 2016;34:613-622. 
 
9. Wright JT Jr, Fine LJ, Lackland DT, Ogedegbe G, Dennison Himmelfarb CR. 
Evidence supporting a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 150 mm Hg in patients 
aged 60 years or older: the minority view.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:499-503. 
 
10. Lonn EM, Bosch J, López-Jaramillo P, et al. HOPE-3 Investigators. Blood-Pressure 
Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J 
Med. 2016;374:2009-2020. 
 
11. Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure 
control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1575-1585. 
 
12. Cooper-DeHoff RM, Gong Y, Handberg EM, Bavry AA, Denardo SJ, Bakris GL 
Pepine CJ. Tight blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes among 
hypertensive patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease.  JAMA. 2010;304:61-
68. 
 
13. Brunstrom M, Carlberg B.  Effect of antihypertensive treatment at different blood 
pressure levels in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-
analyses.  BMJ. 2016;352:i717.  
 
14. Weber MA, Block M, Bakris GL, et al. Cardiovascular Outcomes According to 
Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients with and without Diabetes: An ACCOMPLISH 
Substudy.  J Clin Hypert. 2016;18:299–307. 
 
15. Weber MA, Schiffrin EL, Mann S, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the 
Management of Hypertension in the Community: A Statement by the American 
Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 
2014;32:3-15. 


Is it time to reappraise blood pressure thresholds and targets? Statement from the international society of hypertension - a global perspective

Enlighten

     Weber, M. A., Poulter, N. R., Schutte, A. E., Burrell, L. M., Horiuchi, M., Prabhakaran, D., Ramirez, A. J., Wang, J.-G., Schiffrin, E. L., and Touyz, R. (2016) Is it time to reappraise blood pressure thresholds and targets? Statement from the international society of hypertension - a global perspective. Hypertension, (doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.07818).    There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.   http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/119806/            Deposited on: 20 July 2016                       Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk HYPE201607818R Is it time to reappraise blood pressure thresholds and targets? A Statement from the International Society of Hypertension – A Global Perspective. Michael A Weber1, Neil R Poulter2, Alta E Schutte3, Louise M Burrell4, Masatsugu Horiuchi5, Dorairaj Prabhakaran6, Agustin J Ramirez A7, Ji-Guang Wang8, Ernesto L Schiffrin9, Rhian M Touyz10 1State University of New York. Downstate College of Medicine. New York; 2Imperial Imperial College London; 3North-West University, Potchefstroom; 4The University of Melbourne, Victoria; 5 Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Ehime; 6Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, Haryana, India; 7University Hospital, Favaloro Foundation, Buenos Aires; 8Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai; 9Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research and Department of Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal; 10Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, BHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow. Short title: Blood pressure targets and global relevance Key words: hypertension, international guidelines, SPRINT Correspondence  Rhian M Touyz, MD, PhD  Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, 126 University Place, Glasgow, G12 8TA Phone: + 44 (0)141 330 7775/7774; Fax: + 44 (0)141330-3360, Email: Rhian.Touyz@glasgow.ac.uk The SPRINT findings (1), together with the publication of other major studies within the last year addressing how low blood pressure should be targeted to prevent cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension (2-4), supports what we have known for a long time that: 1) blood pressure >115/75 mmHg is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke, 2) blood pressure lowering is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality, 3) antihypertensive drugs reduce the incidence of hypertension-associated events, and 4) prevention of cardiovascular morbidity is largely related to blood pressure lowering per se, although other effects of the drugs used contribute to this benefit.  The questions that are now posed, particularly in response to an editorial commentary by the Editors of this Journal (5), are: What is the threshold at which anti-hypertensive treatment should be initiated and what target blood pressure should we strive for to achieve maximum benefit in patients with hypertension? SPRINT and other recent meta-analyses and trials provide new data that allow us to sharpen and refine recommendations for blood pressure targets in people with hypertension (1-4). Here we will briefly address the questions in the worldwide context of hypertension. In hypertensive patients without diabetes, prior stroke or polycystic kidney disease, SPRINT has provided strong evidence that targeting systolic blood pressure of <120 mmHg (as measured by an automated measurement protocol in the office) (1) provides significantly stronger protection from cardiovascular events and death than the traditionally accepted target of <140 mmHg. This study was conducted in a hypertensive patient cohort of intermediate-to-high cardiovascular risk.  It should be highlighted that the target of 120 mmHg in SPRINT was based on blood pressure readings using a defined protocol with an office automated device, where blood pressure was measured three times in the absence of clinical personnel (1).  Based on the known differences between readings obtained by automated devices and conventional measurements (6), this average would translate to higher readings (130 mmHg) in clinical practice. Hence, if the goal were to reduce blood pressure to <120 mmHg using conventional methods, there is a risk that blood pressures would in fact be lower than SPRINT’s 120 mmHg, with unknown consequences, as highlighted in a recent editorial (7). Accordingly, it is critical that the SPRINT findings are interpreted in the context of the protocol that was used to measure blood pressure. Moreover, while SPRINT aimed for <120 mmHg it should be emphasized that the study did not actually achieve its target below 120 mmHg, with the intensively treated group having an overall systolic blood pressure of ≈ 122 mmHg as recorded by the defined measurement protocol (1). Hence, considering the method used to measure the blood pressure, it may be more appropriate to conclude that SPRINT’s benefits were evident at conventional levels closer to 130 mmHg, in line with other recent reports from individual trials and meta-analyses, which support a target of <130 mmHg (2-4,8).  Importantly, the SPRINT findings do not exclude any particular patient subgroups, except diabetes and prior stroke.  Indeed, black patients benefited equally as well as white, and the results in older patients (75 and above) were at least as good as in the younger group.  However, for patients aged over 80 years, in whom safety data at this low blood pressure are still limited, it would be prudent to follow a cautious path in approaching the <130 mmHg target (9). Regarding safety concerns, mainly reductions in renal function, electrolyte abnormalities and hypotensive symptoms, SPRINT suggests that the benefits of intensive management outweigh adverse outcomes for patients at heightened risk of events.  It should be acknowledged, based on HOPE 3 (10), that there is some uncertainty about whether there is sufficient evidence to support the initiation of antihypertensive treatment in patients with systolic blood pressures below 140 mmHg, particularly if other major cardiovascular risk factors are not present.  It should be noted, however, that HOPE 3 did not test differing blood pressure targets. Since SPRINT excluded hypertensive patients with a history of diabetes or stroke, considerations for blood pressure targets in patients with diabetes need to be considered from data in other trials. For diabetic patients, the ACCORD trial (11), supported by some but not all studies and meta-analyses, appears to suggest a systolic treatment target of <140 mmHg is sufficient. The one caveat is stroke: in ACCORD and at least one other trial, stroke appeared to be best prevented at <120 mmHg.  But to further complicate decision-making, meta-analysis as well as individual trials suggest the possibility of increasing some fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes as well as adverse renal effects if the pressure is reduced to <130 mmHg or <120 mmHg in patients with diabetes (12-14). Even so, given the serious and justifiably feared consequences of stroke and the inconsistency of the currently available evidence, clinicians should consider discussing the selection of treatment targets with their patients. Meanwhile reaching a target of 130 mmHg seems an acceptable compromise. A Global Perspective by the International Society of Hypertension The International Society of Hypertension has a strong commitment to and interest in the work of preventing, identifying and treating hypertensive patients throughout the world.  We recognize that recommendations made for more prosperous nations cannot fully apply to all communities or to low and middle income countries.  Indeed, hypertension diagnosis and management are often hampered by such fundamental problems as the lack of blood pressure measuring devices, shortage of personnel trained to measure blood pressures or to advise patients and initiate therapy..  Basic laboratory procedures to check for concomitant conditions such as diabetes or lipid disorders may not be available. Moreover, even though most modern antihypertensive agents are now produced in inexpensive generic formulations, their cost and availability still limit treatment in many parts of the world.  In 2014, in collaboration with the America Society of Hypertension, ISH published Guidelines on the Treatment of Hypertension in the Community (15).  Even though those guidelines recommended a systolic blood pressure of 140 mmHg as the usual hypertension threshold, they recognized that in several parts of the world this could put an excessive burden on limited budgets.  So, it was suggested for patients without other risk factors, and with systolic blood pressures below 160 mmHg, that initial treatment could be based on lifestyle modifications alone.  But even this suggestion, although well intended, could not address the reality that resources to identify additional risk factors in hypertensive patients are often lacking in low income areas and that, in any case, lifestyle modifications that require dietary adjustments, other than moderation of salt intake, are often unavailable or unaffordable. These challenges may be further compounded by insufficient or ineffective education of health care providers, policy makers and the population.   The findings from SPRINT and the other new reports of the benefits of aggressive therapy emphasize that many underserved hypertensive patients are now even more remote from optimal care.  This could be a compelling concern in Africa given the strong benefits achieved by the black patients in SPRINT. In African and many other developing countries overcrowded clinics are dealing mostly with infectious diseases. We therefore anticipate that the wide publicity given SPRINT and other new high-impact reports will help bring a sense of urgency to resolving this major public health issue – which has more wide-ranging environmental challenges beyond aggressive antihypertensive therapy alone.  Taking into consideration the global target population of interest to the International Society of Hypertension, together with evidence derived from SPRINT and other recent meta-analyses and clinical trials, the practical message from the International Society of Hypertension is to strive for a systolic blood pressure target of 130 mmHg in most patients with hypertension. This is especially important considering that blood pressure measurements in the community are not likely to be performed using the SPRINT protocol. So, advocating a target of <120 mmHg is not justified in clinical practice and in any case would incur the costs of increased clinic visits, more intensive health care and more medications. In regions of low resources this added financial and logistical burden is not tenable.  Accordingly, while we recognize that there might be benefits in targeting treatment to below our recommended level of 130 mmHg in non-diabetic hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk (as in the SPRINT population), the International Society of Hypertension believes it is premature to advocate such low targets at a global level. Funding: Dr Touyz is supported through a Chair from the British Heart Foundation (CH/12/4/29762).  Dr Schiffrin is supported by a Canada Research Chair (CRC) on Hypertension and Vascular Research by the CRC Government of Canada/CIHR Program. Disclosures:  There are no disclosures to declare by any of the authors.    References 1. The SPRINT Research Group.  A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood pressure control.  N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2103-2116.  2. Xie X, Atkins E, Lv J, et al.  Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.  Lancet. 2016;387:435-443.  3. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al.  Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death:  a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Lancet. 2016;387:957-967.  4. Weber MA, Lackland DT.  Cardiovascular benefits of lowering blood pressure. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2016;12:202-204.  5. Touyz RM, Dominiczak AF. Hypertension Guidelines: Is It Time to Reappraise Blood Pressure Thresholds and Targets? Hypertension. 2016;67:688-689.  6. Myers MG, Kaczorowski J, Paterson JM, et al.  Thresholds for diagnosing hypertension based upon automated office blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk.  Hypertension. 2015;66:489-495.  7. Schiffrin EL, Calhoun DA, Flack JM. SPRINT proves that lower is better for non-diabetic high risk patients, but at a price. Am J Hypert. 2016;29:2-4.  8. Thomopoulos C, Parati G, Zanchetti A.  Effects of blood pressure lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension:  7. Effects of more vs. less intensive blood pressure lowering and different achieved blood pressure levels – updated overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials.   J Hypertens. 2016;34:613-622.  9. Wright JT Jr, Fine LJ, Lackland DT, Ogedegbe G, Dennison Himmelfarb CR. Evidence supporting a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 150 mm Hg in patients aged 60 years or older: the minority view.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:499-503.  10. Lonn EM, Bosch J, López-Jaramillo P, et al. HOPE-3 Investigators. Blood-Pressure Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2009-2020.  11. Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1575-1585.  12. Cooper-DeHoff RM, Gong Y, Handberg EM, Bavry AA, Denardo SJ, Bakris GL Pepine CJ. Tight blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes among hypertensive patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease.  JAMA. 2010;304:61-68.  13. Brunstrom M, Carlberg B.  Effect of antihypertensive treatment at different blood pressure levels in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analyses.  BMJ. 2016;352:i717.   14. Weber MA, Block M, Bakris GL, et al. Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients with and without Diabetes: An ACCOMPLISH Substudy.  J Clin Hypert. 2016;18:299–307.  15. Weber MA, Schiffrin EL, Mann S, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in the Community: A Statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 2014;32:3-15. 

Is it time to reappraise blood pressure thresholds and targets? Statement from the international society of hypertension - a global perspective

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Spiral - Imperial College Digital Repository

Enlighten: Publications

Enlighten

Crossref