Search

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.

Purpose: Education and feedback on hypertension management has been associated with improved hypertension control. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of such interventions to reduce the risk of stroke and cardiovascular events., Materials and Methods: Individuals ≥18 years with a blood pressure (BP) recording in Västerbotten or Södermanland County during the study period 2001 to 2009 were included in 108 serial cohort studies, each with 24 months follow-up. The primary outcome was risk of first-ever stroke in Västerbotten County (intervention) compared with Södermanland County (control). Secondary outcomes were first-ever major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and heart failure, as well as all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were analysed using time-to-event data included in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, systolic BP at inclusion, marital status, and disposable income., Results: A total of 121 365 individuals (mean [SD] age at inclusion 61.7 [16.3] years; 59.9% female; mean inclusion BP 142.3/82.6 mmHg) in the intervention county were compared to 131 924 individuals (63.6 [16.2] years; 61.2% female; 144.1/81.1 mmHg) in the control county. A first-ever stroke occurred in 2 823 (2.3%) individuals in the intervention county, and 3 584 (2.7%) individuals in the control county (adjusted hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03). No differences were observed for MACE, myocardial infarction or heart failure, whereas all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98) were lower in the intervention county., Conclusions: This study does not support an association between education and feedback on hypertension management to primary care physicians and the risk for stroke or cardiovascular outcomes. The observed differences for mortality outcomes should be interpreted with caution.

Current European guidelines for the management of hypertension and on cardiovascular disease prevention place the threshold for pharmacological treatment at a SBP level of 140 mmHg or above, with the exception of patients at very high risk (mainly because of coronary heart disease). This is in agreement with the current definition of hypertension, that is, the level of blood pressure at which the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks of treatment, as documented by clinical trials. This rationale and definition was recently challenged by meta-analyses using individual participant-level data from 48 randomized trials by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC). The authors calculated for a fixed 5 mmHg pharmacological reduction of SBP an overall 10% risk reduction for major cardiovascular events. It was concluded that there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline SBP categories; that the effect was independent from the presence of cardiovascular disease; applied also to old and very old individuals up to 84 years or beyond; and that BP-lowering was also beneficial in individuals with normal or high-normal SBP down to a baseline SBP less than 120 mmHg. In this report, we identify and discuss a number of shortcomings of the BPLTTC meta-analyses. In our view, the conclusions by the BPLTTC must be -together with accompanying suggestions to abandon the definition of hypertension - strongly rejected as they are not justified and may be harmful for cardiovascular health in individuals without hypertension., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often considered the highest level of evidence, with high impact on clinical practice guidelines. The methodological literature on systematic reviews and meta-analyses is extensive and covers most aspects relevant to the design and interpretation of meta-analysis findings in general. Analyzing the effect of blood pressure-lowering on clinical outcomes poses several challenges over and above what is covered in the general literature, including how to combine placebo-controlled trials, target-trials, and comparative studies depending on the research question, how to handle the potential interaction between baseline blood pressure level, common comorbidities, and the estimated treatment effect, and how to consider different magnitudes of blood pressure reduction across trials. This review aims to address the most important methodological considerations, to guide the general reader of systematic reviews and meta-analyses within our field, and to help inform the design of future studies. Furthermore, we highlight issues where published meta-analyses have applied different analytical strategies and discuss pros and cons with different strategies.

Importance: Preventive drugs are often underused. Carotid intima-media thickness and carotid plaques are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), and their detection could possibly improve estimation of the likelihood of CVD and prescription of preventive drugs., Objective: To evaluate whether pictorial information on participants' asymptomatic atherosclerosis based on carotid ultrasonographic examinations to participants and their physicians had an effect on prescribing of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive drugs during the following 465 days., Design, Setting, and Participants: Visualization of Asymptomatic Atherosclerotic Disease for Optimum Cardiovascular Prevention is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial nested within the Västerbotten Intervention Program, a CVD screening and prevention program in Sweden with 60% to 70% participation rates and small social selection bias. A total of 4177 individuals aged 40, 50, or 60 years participating in the Västerbotten Intervention Program who had low to moderate risk of CVD were invited to enroll in this trial from April 29, 2013, to June 7, 2016. Prescriptions for all participants were monitored for 465 days after the intervention. Data analysis was conducted from December 6, 2019, to April 2, 2020., Interventions: Participants and their family physicians were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive or not receive pictorial information from carotid ultrasonographic determination of vascular age, assessed as carotid intima-media thickness and the presence of carotid plaques, combined with a follow-up call to participants by nurses., Main Outcomes and Measures: Two outcome measures of prescriptions of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs within 465 days after ultrasonography was performed. Data obtained through intention-to-treat analysis are presented as proportions of individuals with a prescription among those who had no baseline prescription for agents from these drug classes., Results: Of the 4177 individuals invited to enroll, 3532 participants were randomized and included in the analysis; 1870 (52.9%) were women, 2278 (64.5%) were aged 60 years, 978 (27.7%) were 50 years, and 276 (7.8%) were 40 years. First prescriptions of lipid-lowering drugs were higher in the intervention group vs the control group among men (118 of 639 [18.5%] vs 38 of 692 [5.5%]; P < .001) and women (126 of 804 [15.5%] vs 38 of 817 [4.7%]; P < .001). There were no significant differences in the proportion with prescription of antihypertensive drugs in the intervention vs control groups after ultrasonography among men (58 of 482 [12.0%] vs 56 of 528 [10.6%]; P = .47) and women (60 of 612 [9.8%] vs 64 of 615 [10.4%]; P = .73)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial demonstrate that provision of pictorial information on vascular age and carotid plaques based on the results of ultrasonographic examination increased physician prescription of lipid-lowering drugs but not antihypertensive drugs within the following 465 days., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01849575.

Importance: Elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) is the most important risk factor for premature death worldwide. However, hypertension detection and control rates continue to be suboptimal., Objective: To assess the association of education and feedback to primary care physicians with population-level SBP and hypertension control rates., Design, Setting, and Participants: This pooled series of 108 population-based cohort studies involving 283 079 patients used data from primary care centers in 2 counties (Västerbotten and Södermanland) in Sweden from 2001 to 2009. Participants were individuals aged 18 years or older who had their blood pressure (BP) measured and recorded in either county during the intervention period. All analyses were performed in February 2019., Exposures: An intervention comprising education and feedback for primary care physicians in Västerbotten County (intervention group) compared with usual care in Södermanland County (control group)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference in mean SBP levels between counties and likelihood of hypertension control in the intervention county compared with the control county during 24 months of follow-up., Results: A total of 136 541 unique individuals (mean [SD] age at inclusion, 64.6 [16.1] years; 57.0% female; mean inclusion BP, 142/82 mm Hg) in the intervention county were compared with 146 538 individuals (mean [SD] age at inclusion, 65.7 [15.9] years; 58.3% female; mean inclusion BP, 144/80 mm Hg) in the control county. Mean SBP difference between counties during follow-up, adjusted for inclusion BP and other covariates, was 1.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.0-1.1 mm Hg). Hypertension control improved by 8.4 percentage points, and control was achieved in 37.8% of participants in the intervention county compared with 29.4% in the control county (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.29-1.31). Differences between counties increased during the intervention period and were more pronounced in participants with higher SBP at inclusion. Results were consistent across all subgroups., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that SBP levels and hypertension control rates in a county population may be improved by educational approaches directed at physicians and other health care workers. Similar strategies may be adopted to reinforce the implementation of clinical practice guidelines for hypertension management.

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with high blood pressure. The magnitude of blood pressure effects from sleep apnea treatment is unclear. We aimed to determine the effect of mandibular advancement device therapy on ambulatory nighttime and daytime blood pressure in women and men with daytime sleepiness and snoring or mild to moderate sleep apnea (apnea-hypopnea index, <30)., Methods and Results: In this 4-month, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comprising 96 untreated patients, 27 women and 58 men, aged 31 to 70 years, completed the study. The active group received individually made adjustable mandibular advancement devices, and the control group was given individually made sham devices, to be used during sleep. Polysomnographic sleep recordings and ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure measurements were performed at baseline and at follow-up. In women with mandibular advancement devices, the mean nighttime systolic blood pressure was 10.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 4.0-17.7 mm Hg; P =0.004) lower than in the women in the sham group, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, age, body mass index, and the apnea-hypopnea index. The mean nighttime adjusted diastolic blood pressure was 6.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 2.7-10.4 mm Hg; P =0.002) lower in the mandibular advancement device group. In men, there were no significant differences in blood pressure at night or during the daytime between the intervention groups., Conclusions: A mandibular advancement device for obstructive sleep apnea reduces nocturnal blood pressure in women., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00477009., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Objective: To estimate the effect of antihypertensive treatment in trials with baseline normotension and low levels of previous cardiovascular disease. To test if the results from SPRINT are compatible with those from other trials, and test the impact of SPRINT results on overall effect estimates., Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with at least 1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing antihypertensive treatment versus placebo, or different blood pressure goals against each other. Trials with at least 50% previous cardiovascular disease were excluded., Results: Sixteen trials, including 66 816 participants, were included in the meta-analyses. Mean baseline SBP was 138 mmHg, and mean difference between treatment arms was 5.5 mmHg. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a neutral effect on all-cause mortality [relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.05] and major cardiovascular events (0.97, 0.91-1.03). Results from SPRINT differed significantly from those of other trials (P = 0.012 for all-cause mortality; P = 0.016 for major cardiovascular events), but overall effect estimates were similar when SPRINT was excluded (1.01, 0.95-1.06 for all-cause mortality; 0.98, 0.93-1.03 for major cardiovascular events). Treatment was associated with reduced risk of secondary outcomes stroke (0.84, 0.71-1.00) and heart failure (0.88, 0.78-0.98), although heterogeneity was high in the stroke analysis (I = 54%)., Conclusion: SPRINT results are not representative for trials with baseline normotension and low levels of previous cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive treatment does not protect against death or major cardiovascular events in this setting.

Objective: Assess how standardization of relative risks (RRs) and standard errors (SEs), according to blood pressure differences within trials, affects heterogeneity, overall effect estimates and study weights in meta-analyses of antihypertensive treatment., Method: Data from a previous systematic review were used. Three sets of analyses were performed, using both random-effects and fixed-effects model for meta-analyses. First, we used raw data from the included trials. Second, we standardized RRs as if SBP was reduced by 10 mmHg in all trials. Third, we standardized both RRs and SEs., Results: When RRs were standardized according to blood pressure lowering, heterogeneity between trials increased (I(2) = 36 vs. 93% for mortality). This conferred large differences in treatment effect estimates using random-effects and fixed-effects model (RR 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.70-0.89, respectively, 0.97, 0.94-0.99). When SEs were standardized, confidence intervals for individual trials widened, resulting in lower power to detect heterogeneity across trials. Study weights were dissociated from number of events in trials (P < 0.0001, R(2) = 0.99 before standardization vs. P = 0.063, R(2) = 0.05 after standardization). This induced a secondary shift in weight from trials with lower baseline SBP to trials with higher baseline SBP, resulting in exaggerated overall effect estimates., Conclusion: Standardization of RRs exaggerates differences between trials and makes meta-analyses highly sensitive to choice of statistical method. Standardization of SEs masks heterogeneity and results in biased effect estimates.

Background People with low socioeconomic status have higher blood pressure (BP), increasing their risk of myocardial infarction and stroke. We hypothesized that the gap in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP, according to educational level, has decreased over time but, that economical vulnerability would confer higher BP. Methods A total of 4564 women and 4363 men aged 25-74 years participated in five population-based surveys in the Northern Sweden MONICA study between 1994 and 2014 (participation rate 76.8-62.5%). Results SBP decreased by 10 mmHg in women and 4 mmHg in men, while DBP was unchanged. Treatment with antihypertensives increased in all but the youngest men. The prevalence of BP control in the population (<140/90 mmHg) increased and in 2014 reached 75% among women and 70% among men. The decrease in SBP was more pronounced in people without university education than in people with university education and DBP showed the same pattern, regardless of education. After adjustment for confounding factors, age, male sex, higher body mass index, and being born in a Nordic country were related to higher SBP and DBP. University education was related to lower SBP, while variables mirroring economic vulnerability were not associated with BP levels. Conclusions BP levels as well as the socioeconomic gap in BP has decreased in Sweden but people with a lower level of education still have higher SBP. Lacking economic resources is not associated with high BP.

Objective: Multiple systematic reviews address the effect of antihypertensive treatment in people with diabetes. Here, we summarize current systematic reviews concerning antihypertensive treatment effect at different blood pressure (BP) levels, and relative treatment effect of different antihypertensive agents., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, BIOSIS, DARE and CDSR during years 2005-2016. Eligibility criteria, number of trials and participants, outcomes analysed, statistical methods used for data synthesis, and principal results were extracted for each review. Review quality was assessed using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool., Results: We found four reviews concerning BP treatment level. These consistently showed that the effect of antihypertensive treatment on mortality, cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease was attenuated at lower BP levels. If SBP was more than 140 mmHg, treatment reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular disease, stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. If SBP was less than 140 mmHg, treatment increased the risk of cardiovascular death. We found eight reviews concerning choice of agent. We found no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers and diuretics in preventing all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, combined cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Minor differences exist for stroke and heart failure. Data were limited on people with type 1 diabetes and very elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. None of the reviews concerning choice of agent included all relevant trials., Conclusion: The available evidence supports treatment in people with type 2 diabetes and SBP more than 140 mmHg, using any of the major antihypertensive drug classes.

Introduction: High blood pressure (BP) increases the risk of stroke, but there is limited evidence from studies including very old people. The aim was to investigate risk factors for incident stroke among very old people., Methods: A prospective population-based cohort study was performed among participants aged at least 85 years in northern Sweden. The 955 participants were tested at their homes. BP was measured manually after 5-min supine rest. Incident stroke data were collected from medical charts guided by hospital registry, death records, and 5-year reassessments. Cox proportional hazards models were used., Results: The stroke incidence was 33.8/1000 person-years (94 stroke events) during a mean follow-up period of 2.9 years. In a comprehensive multivariate model, atrial fibrillation [hazard ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-3.19] and higher SBP (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.30 per 10-mmHg increase) were associated with incident stroke overall. However, higher SBP was not associated with incident stroke in participants with SBP less than 140 mmHg (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.53-1.53 per 10-mmHg increase). In additional multivariate models, DBP at least 90 mmHg (hazard ratio 2.45, 95% CI 1.47-4.08) and SBP at least 160 mmHg (vs. <140 mmHg; hazard ratio 2.80, 95% CI 1.53-5.14) were associated with incident stroke. The association between BP and incident stroke was not affected by interactions related to sex, dependence in activities of daily living, or cognitive impairment., Conclusion: High SBP (≥160 mmHg) and DBP (≥90 mmHg) and atrial fibrillation appeared to be risk factors for incident stroke among very old people.

Blood pressure treatment has shown great efficacy in reducing cardiovascular events in randomized controlled trials. If this is effective in reducing cardiovascular disease in the general population, is less studied. Between 2001 and 2009 we performed an intervention to improve blood pressure control in the county of Västerbotten, using Södermanland County as a control. The intervention was directed towards primary care physicians and included lectures on blood pressure treatment, a computerized decision support system with treatment recommendations, and yearly feed back on hypertension control. Each county had approximately 255 000 inhabitants. Differences in age and incidence of cardiovascular disease were small. During follow-up, more than 400 000 patients had their blood pressure recorded. The mean number of measurements was eight per patient, yielding a total of 3.4 million blood pressure recordings. The effect of the intervention will be estimated combining the blood pressure data collected from the electronic medical records, with data on stroke, myocardial infarction and mortality from Swedish health registers. Additional variables, from health registers and Statistics Sweden, will be collected to address for confounders. The blood pressure data collected within this study will be an important asset for future epidemiological studies within the field of hypertension.

Objective: To assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in people with diabetes mellitus, at different blood pressure levels., Design: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials., Data Sources: CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, and BIOSIS were searched using highly sensitive search strategies. When data required according to the protocol were missing but trials were potentially eligible, we contacted researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and authorities., Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials including 100 or more people with diabetes mellitus, treated for 12 months or more, comparing any antihypertensive agent against placebo, two agents against one, or different blood pressure targets., Results: 49 trials, including 73,738 participants, were included in the meta-analyses. Most of the participants had type 2 diabetes. If baseline systolic blood pressure was greater than 150 mm Hg, antihypertensive treatment reduced the risk of all cause mortality (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.99), cardiovascular mortality (0.75, 0.57 to 0.99), myocardial infarction (0.74, 0.63 to 0.87), stroke (0.77, 0.65 to 0.91), and end stage renal disease (0.82, 0.71 to 0.94). If baseline systolic blood pressure was 140-150 mm Hg, additional treatment reduced the risk of all cause mortality (0.87, 0.78 to 0.98), myocardial infarction (0.84, 0.76 to 0.93), and heart failure (0.80, 0.66 to 0.97). If baseline systolic blood pressure was less than 140 mm Hg, however, further treatment increased the risk of cardiovascular mortality (1.15, 1.00 to 1.32), with a tendency towards an increased risk of all cause mortality (1.05, 0.95 to 1.16). Metaregression analyses showed a worse treatment effect with lower baseline systolic blood pressures for cardiovascular mortality (1.15, 1.03 to 1.29 for each 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure) and myocardial infarction (1.12, 1.03 to 1.22 for each 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure). Patterns were similar for attained systolic blood pressure., Conclusions: Antihypertensive treatment reduces the risk of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in people with diabetes mellitus and a systolic blood pressure more than 140 mm Hg. If systolic blood pressure is less than 140 mm Hg, however, further treatment is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, with no observed benefit., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: A large proportion of treated hypertensive subjects do not achieve target blood pressure (BP) levels. We investigated trends in treatment and BP levels in the population, and among treated hypertensive subjects in northern Sweden., Methods: The six Northern Sweden MONICA population surveys 1986 to 2009, included 6342 subjects aged 45 to 74 years of age, participation rate 79.3%. Factors associated with lack of BP control are presented for 1106 participants in 2009. BP control was defined as a systolic BP <140 and a diastolic BP <90 mm Hg among treated hypertensive patients., Results: Between 1986 and 2009, the proportion of the population that received antihypertensive treatment increased. The proportion of the whole population having BP <140/90 mm Hg increased for all (p < 0.001 for each subgroup), except for men 45-55 years old. In 2009, 62.4% of the population had BP <140/90 mm Hg, 67.2% in women and 58.1% in men (p = 0.002). In the group of treated hypertensive patients, the proportion having BP control increased (p < 0.001) with no difference between sex or age groups. In 2009 52.1% of treated hypertensives had BP control. In 2009, adequate BP control among treated hypertensive patients was 63.9% for those with BMI <25, but only 48.8% for those with BMI > 25 (p = 0.015). Abdominal obesity was associated with less BP control (48.1%) than without abdominal obesity (66.2%, p = 0.007). Women who were physically inactive had better BP control than those who were active (p = 0.03). Men treated with two or more antihypertensive drugs were 50% more likely to reach target BP than men with monotherapy (60.4% vs. 40.0 %, p = 0.035). Rural or urban living, level of education, diabetes mellitus or having a high cardiovascular risk were not associated with better BP control., Conclusion: Antihypertensive treatment and BP control have increased in northern Sweden since 1986, although in 2009 still barely half of the treated patients achieved adequate BP levels. Intensified treatment and weight reduction may help to further improve BP control.

Objectives: Clinical trials and observational studies have produced contradictory results regarding the association of blood pressure (BP) and mortality in people aged 80 years or older. Gait speed at usual pace has been shown to moderate this association in a population of noninstitutionalized people aged 65 years or older. The aims of this study were to investigate the association of BP with all-cause mortality in a representative sample of people aged 85 years or older and to assess whether gait speed moderates this association., Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 806 participants in the population-based prospective Umeå 85+/GERDA study aged 85, 90, and 95 years or older., Measurements: Gait speed at usual pace was measured over 2.4 m. The main outcome was hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality according to systolic and diastolic BP categories in the total sample and in faster-walking (≥0.5 m/s, n = 312) and slower-walking (<0.5 m/s, n = 433) subcohorts; the latter also included habitually nonwalking participants. Comprehensive adjustments were made for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with death., Results: Mean age and baseline systolic and diastolic BP were 89.6 ± 4.6 years, 146.8 ± 23.9 mm Hg, and 74.8 ± 11.1 mm Hg, respectively. Most (n = 561 [69%]) participants were women, 315 (39%) were care facility residents, and 566 (70%) were prescribed BP-lowering drugs. Within 5 years, 490 (61%) participants died. In the total sample and slower-walking subcohort, systolic BP appeared to be inversely associated with mortality, although not independent of adjustments. Among faster-walking participants, mortality risk after adjustment was more than 2 times higher in those with systolic BP of 140 to 149 mm Hg (HR = 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-4.94) and 165 mm Hg or higher (HR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.01-4.49), compared with systolic BP of 126 to 139 mm Hg. Mortality risk was also independently higher in faster-walking participants with diastolic BP higher than 80 mm Hg, compared with diastolic BP of 75 to 80 mm Hg (HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.07-2.90)., Conclusion: The gait speed threshold of 0.5 m/s may be clinically useful for the distinction of very old people with and without increased all-cause mortality risk due to elevated systolic and diastolic BP., (Copyright © 2015 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Availability of longitudinal data on hypertension and blood pressure levels are important to assess changes over time at the population level. Moreover, detailed information in different population sub-groups is important to understand inequity and social determinants of blood pressure distribution in the population., Objectives: The objectives of this study are to: (1) describe the trends of population blood pressure levels in men and women between different educational levels and geographic areas in Sweden during 1990-2010; (2) identify prevalences of hypertension, awareness, treatment, and control in the population; and (3) assess the 10-year risk of developing hypertension among individuals with normal and high normal blood pressures., Methods: This study is based on data from the Västerbotten Intervention Program (VIP) in Västerbotten County, Sweden. The cross-sectional analysis includes 133,082 VIP health examinations among individuals aged 30, 40, 50, and 60 years from 1990 to 2010. The panel analysis includes 34,868 individuals who were re-examined 10 years after the baseline examination. Individuals completed a self-administered health questionnaire that covers demographic and socio-economic information, self-reported health, and lifestyle behaviours. Blood pressure measurement was obtained prior to the questionnaire. In the cross-sectional analysis, trends of blood pressure by sex, and between educational groups and geographic areas are presented. In the panel analysis, the 10-year risk of developing hypertension is estimated using the predicted probability from logistic regression analysis for each sex, controlling for age and educational level., Results: The prevalence of hypertension decreased from 1990 to 2010; from 43.8 to 36.0% (p < 0.001) among men, and 37.6 to 27.5% among women (p < 0.001). Individuals with basic education had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension compared to those with medium or high education. Although the decreases were observed in all geographic areas, individuals in rural inland areas had a much higher prevalence compared to those who lived in Umeå City. The proportion of hypertensive women who were aware of their hypertension (61.7%) was significantly higher than men (51.6%). About 34% of men and 42% of women with hypertension reported taking blood pressure medication. Over time, awareness and control of hypertension improved (from 46.5% in 1990 to 69% in 2010 and from 30 to 65%, respectively). The gaps between educational groups diminished. This study shows a significantly higher risk of developing hypertension for men and women with high normal blood pressure compared to those with normal blood pressure at baseline in all age cohorts and educational groups. The average risks of developing hypertension among men with high normal blood pressure were 21.5, 45.8, and 56.3% in the 30, 40, and 50-year cohorts, respectively. Corresponding numbers for women were 22.6, 47.4, and 57.9%., Conclusions: Levels of blood pressure and hypertension decreased significantly among the Västerbotten population in the last 21 years. Hypertension management has improved and there is increased awareness, treatment, and control of blood pressure. Despite these achievements, the persisting social gaps in blood pressure levels and management demand further investigation and action from policy makers. Future research should attempt to identify and address the root causes of these health inequities to ensure better and equal health for the whole population.

For the aging populations of Europe, many emerging health problems in addition to myocardial infarction and stroke are associated with hypertension. Recently, the role of hypertension in the risk of vascular cognitive impairment and dementia has been highlighted, and there are studies to show that control of hypertension may slow this process. Furthermore, as many elderly individuals will also develop type 2 diabetes or impaired renal function, the risk of hypertension in these patients is more pronounced. New guidelines have tried to provide evidence-based treatment algorithms in which control of hypertension is just one aspect of general risk factor control, with the aim of decreasing the total risk.

The effectiveness of biofeedback-assisted behavioral treatment with Internet-based client-therapist contact for hypertension was tested in outpatient settings. A pilot study with a randomized controlled design was adopted with two conditions (treatment versus passive controls), lasting for 8 weeks. There were two assessment time points (pre-treatment and post-treatment) measuring clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) and administration of a questionnaire collecting demographic and subjective data. Participants included 19 Swedish adults diagnosed with hypertension. The treatment group lowered their SBP 5.9 mm Hg and their DBP 7.6 mm Hg while the control group lowered their SBP 0.8 mm Hg and DBP 3.0 mm Hg. The effect of treatment was significant for DBP but not for SBP. There were no other significant effects of treatment. This pilot study shows encouraging results regarding Internet-based biofeedback treatment for hypertensive adults. However, further research using a larger sample is needed.

Treatment with angiotensin II receptor blockers is associated with lower risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with thiazide diuretics. The Mechanisms for the Diabetes Preventing Effect of Candesartan Study addressed insulin action and secretion and body fat distribution after treatment with candesartan, hydrochlorothiazide, and placebo. Twenty-six nondiabetic, abdominally obese, hypertensive patients were included in a multicenter 3-way crossover trial, and 22 completers (by predefined criteria; 10 men and 12 women) were included in the analyses. They underwent 12-week treatment periods with candesartan (C; 16 to 32 mg), hydrochlorothiazide (H; 25 to 50 mg), and placebo (P), respectively, and the treatment order was randomly assigned and double blinded. Intravenous glucose tolerance tests and euglycemic hyperinsulinemic (56 mU/m(2) per minute) clamps were performed. Intrahepatic and intramyocellular and extramyocellular lipid content and subcutaneous and visceral abdominal adipose tissue were measured using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and MRI. Insulin sensitivity (M-value) was reduced following H versus C and P (6.07+/-2.05, 6.63+/-2.04, and 6.90+/-2.10 mg/kg of body weight per minute, mean+/-SD; P

Objective: To present a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation study (ALPINE)., Design: In newly diagnosed hypertensive individuals as yet untreated with drugs, the ALPINE study compared the 1-year metabolic effects of inexpensive treatment with a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), alone or in combination (84%) with a beta-adrenoceptor blocker (atenolol), with that of newer but also more expensive antihypertensive treatment with an angiotensin II receptor blocker (candesartan), alone or in combination (71%) with a calcium antagonist (felodipine). No crossover of medication was allowed. The cost-effectiveness analysis included costs for antihypertensive treatment during follow-up, and lifetime costs for care of diabetes mellitus diagnosed during follow-up. Cost per patient was calculated using Swedish prices and costs, translated into US dollars (US$), at 2004 prices., Results: Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in nine patients during the 1-year follow-up period of the study, eight in the hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1%) and one (0.5%) in the candesartan/felodipine group (P < 0.05). The cost of antihypertensive treatment per patient was US$92 in the hydrochlorothiazide/atenolol group and US$422 in the candesartan/felodipine group. Lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus per patient in the two groups was US$1013 and US$127, respectively. Total cost per patient was US$556 less in the candesartan/felodipine group. In sensitivity analyses, the outcome for the candesartan/felodipine group ranged from cost savings to an incremental cost of US$30 000 per case of diabetes mellitus prevented. In all analyses but one, the additional cost for antihypertensive treatment in the candesartan/felodipine group could be balanced by the reduced lifetime cost for care of diabetes mellitus., Conclusions: The results suggest that an antihypertensive treatment strategy with candesartan and felodipine may have a favourable health economic impact in the longer term.

Background: Beta blockers have been used widely in the treatment of hypertension and are recommended as first-line drugs in hypertension guidelines. However, a preliminary analysis has shown that atenolol is not very effective in hypertension. We aim to substantially enlarge the data on atenolol and analyse the effect of different beta blockers., Methods: The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched for beta blocker treatment in patients with primary hypertension. Data were then entered into the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager package and were summarised in meta-analyses. 13 randomised controlled trials (n=105 951) were included in a meta-analysis comparing treatment with beta blockers with other antihypertensive drugs. Seven studies (n=27 433) were included in a comparison of beta blockers and placebo or no treatment., Findings: The relative risk of stroke was 16% higher for beta blockers (95% CI 4-30%) than for other drugs. There was no difference for myocardial infarction. When the effect of beta blockers was compared with that of placebo or no treatment, the relative risk of stroke was reduced by 19% for all beta blockers (7-29%), about half that expected from previous hypertension trials. There was no difference for myocardial infarction or mortality., Interpretation: In comparison with other antihypertensive drugs, the effect of beta blockers is less than optimum, with a raised risk of stroke. Hence, we believe that beta blockers should not remain first choice in the treatment of primary hypertension and should not be used as reference drugs in future randomised controlled trials of hypertension.

Background: Atenolol is one of the most widely used beta blockers clinically, and has often been used as a reference drug in randomised controlled trials of hypertension. However, questions have been raised about atenolol as the best reference drug for comparisons with other antihypertensives. Thus, our aim was to systematically review the effect of atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients., Methods: Reports were identified through searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, relevant textbooks, and by personal communication with established researchers in hypertension. Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with primary hypertension were included., Findings: We identified four studies that compared atenolol with placebo or no treatment, and five that compared atenolol with other antihypertensive drugs. Despite major differences in blood pressure lowering, there were no outcome differences between atenolol and placebo in the four studies, comprising 6825 patients, who were followed up for a mean of 4.6 years on all-cause mortality (relative risk 1.01 [95% CI 0.89-1.15]), cardiovascular mortality (0.99 [0.83-1.18]), or myocardial infarction (0.99 [0.83-1.19]). The risk of stroke, however, tended to be lower in the atenolol than in the placebo group (0.85 [0.72-1.01]). When atenolol was compared with other antihypertensives, there were no major differences in blood pressure lowering between the treatment arms. Our meta-analysis showed a significantly higher mortality (1.13 [1.02-1.25]) with atenolol treatment than with other active treatment, in the five studies comprising 17671 patients who were followed up for a mean of 4.6 years. Moreover, cardiovascular mortality also tended to be higher with atenolol treatment than with other antihypertensive treatment. Stroke was also more frequent with atenolol treatment., Interpretation: Our results cast doubts on atenolol as a suitable drug for hypertensive patients. Moreover, they challenge the use of atenolol as a reference drug in outcome trials in hypertension.

Objective: The aim of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation study was to compare the long-term effect of the commonly used inexpensive medication with a low-dose diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide), alone or in combination with a beta-adrenoceptor (atenolol), with that of more modern but also more expensive antihypertensive treatment with an angiotensin-II-receptor blocker (candesartan), alone or in combination with a calcium antagonist (felodipine), and to do so in newly diagnosed patients with primary hypertension. The objectives included comparisons of the effects on the glucose metabolism, lipoprotein metabolism, electrolytes, blood pressure, and subjective symptoms., Design: A 1-year, prospective randomized, double-blind, controlled trial., Subjects: In an investigator-initiated study, we included 392 patients (mean age 55 years, 48% men); 370 patients (94%) had never been treated with antihypertensive drugs before the study. No patient was lost to follow-up., Results: Both treatment regimens lowered blood pressure well (23/13 mmHg in the hydrochlorothiazide group and 21/13 mmHg in the candesartan group), with a majority of patients needing two drugs. Fasting levels of both serum insulin and plasma glucose increased in the hydrochlorothiazide group in contrast to unaffected levels in the candesartan group. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in nine patients during follow-up, in eight patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1%) and in one patient (0.5%) in the candesartan group (P = 0.030). Triglycerides increased and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol decreased more in the hydrochlorothiazide group than in the candesartan group. Both the low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein and the apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A-I ratios increased in the hydrochlorothiazide group. At 12 months, 18 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group versus five in the candesartan group had a 'metabolic syndrome', as defined by the World Health Organization (P = 0.007) despite 1 year of active blood pressure-lowering therapy. There were less (P = 0.020) adverse events in the candesartan group, but no major differences in the subjective symptoms assessment profile. One subject in each group had a myocardial infarction., Conclusion: Antihypertensive treatment with a diuretic, if needed combined with a beta-adrenoceptor blocker, was associated with an aggravated metabolic profile; this was not so for patients treated with an angiotensin-II-receptor blocker, if needed combined with a calcium antagonist. An antihypertensive treatment strategy that costs more in the short run but has no metabolic adverse effects may have a health economic impact in the long term.

Background: The World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) Hypertension Guidelines from 1999 propose a risk stratification scheme for estimating absolute risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Risk equations estimated by statistical methods are another way of predicting cardiovascular risk., Objective: We studied the differences between these two approaches when applied to the same set of individuals with high blood pressure., Design and Methods: The two northernmost counties in Sweden (NSW) constitute one of the centres in the WHO MONICA (monitoring trends and determinants in cardiovascular disease) Project. Three population surveys have been carried out in 1986, 1990 and 1994, and were used to estimate a risk equation for predicting the 10-year risk of fatal/non-fatal stroke and myocardial infarction. Another MONICA sample from 1999, a total of 5997 subjects, was classified according to the recent WHO/ISH risk stratification scheme. A risk assessment was also performed, by using the risk equations from the NSW MONICA sample and Framingham risk equations., Results: The agreement between the two methods was good when the values obtained from the risk equation were averaged for each risk group obtained from the risk classification by guidelines. However, if the predicted risk for each individual was considered, the agreement was poor for the medium and high-risk groups. Although the average risk for all individuals is the same, many subjects have a higher risk or a lower risk than predicted by guidelines., Conclusions: Risk classification by the 1999 WHO/ISH Hypertension Guidelines is not accurate and detailed enough for medium- and high-risk patients, which could be of clinical importance in the medium risk group.

Background: Treating hypertension with drugs is so far the most cost-effective way to reduce this important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). It is, however, important to determine absolute risk, and thereby estimate indication for drug treatment, in order to maintain a cost-effective drug treatment. WHO/ISH Hypertension Guidelines from 1999 propose a risk stratification for estimating absolute risk for CVD based on blood pressure and additional risk factors, target organ damage (TOD) and CVD., Objectives: We studied the consequences of applying the recent WHO/ISH risk stratification scheme to a MONICA sample of 6000 subjects from a geographically defined population in northern Sweden, regarding indications for treatment, target blood pressure and risk distribution., Methods: We have risk-classified each of these patients using a computer program, according to the WHO/ISH scheme. Data on TOD were not available., Results: In all, 917 (15%) had drug-treated hypertension. Three-quarters (n = 737) were inadequately treated, with blood pressure levels at or above 140 or 90 mmHg. 1773 (30% of 5997) untreated subjects had a blood pressure of 140/90 or above; 16% in the low-, 62% in the medium-, 8% in the high-, and 14% in the very-high-risk group. The corresponding risk-group pattern for the inadequately treated hypertensives (n = 737) was 5.5, 48.3, 11.1 and 35.2%, respectively. If we shifted the target blood pressure from below 140/90 to below 130/85 for drug-treated subjects under 60 (n = 278) the number of inadequately treated subjects increased by 34 (12.2% of 278); 14 in the low-risk group, 15 in the medium-risk group, and only five in the high- or very-high-risk groups., Conclusions: Only one-fifth of the drug-treated hypertensives were well controlled. Moreover, the incidence of newly detected blood pressure elevation was high. The majority of younger subjects with high blood pressure had low risk, but in those aged 45-54 this had already risen to a medium risk. Changing the target blood pressure to below 130/85, for subjects aged below 60, as recommended by WHO/ISH, affects predominantly low- and medium-risk groups.

Objective: To evaluate a computerized decision support system (DSS) for drug treatment of hypertension, regarding quality, safety, and cost compared to actual antihypertensive drug treatment., Design: The medical profiles of 338 hypertensive patients treated with drugs against hypertension were processed by the DSS. The drug treatment proposed by the system was then compared to actual treatment given by their physician., Setting: Four health centres in the county of Västerbotten, in Sweden., Subjects: A list of hypertensive patients was extracted from the computerized medical records of each health centre and every fifth patient's medical profile was assessed by the system., Interventions: None., Main Outcome Measures: Drug used, drug used in relation to certain major diseases such as diabetes mellitus, asthma, ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and previous myocardial infarction. Adherence to hypertension guidelines, safety, and cost., Results: The DSS suggested significantly more thiazides and significantly fewer calcium antagonists than the physicians had prescribed, with a total cost reduction of 33-40%, depending on doses chosen. The DSS drug profile was more adherent to guidelines in patients with major complicating diseases, suggesting an improvement in treatment quality for these patients by the DSS., Conclusion: The DSS which fully implements current guidelines may improve the quality of antihypertensive treatment, concurrently leading to a considerable reduction in drug costs.

The article discusses blood pressure targets for patients with diabetes and those who suffered stroke. It references two studies published in "The BMJ" journal in 2016, one by M. Brunström and B. Carlberg about the effect of antihypertensive treatment on mortality and cardiovascular events at different blood pressure levels in diabetes mellitus patients, and another by J. Mant et al. about the appropriateness of blood pressure targets in patients with hypertension and diabetes.