hypertension

The Unrecognized Prevalence of Primary Aldosteronism

Author/s: 
Brown, JM, Siddiqui, M, Calhoun, DA, Carey, RM, Hopkins, PN, Williams, GH, Vaidya, A

Background:

Primary aldosteronism is a nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production that causes hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

 

Objective:

To characterize the prevalence of nonsuppressible renin-independent aldosterone production, as well as biochemically overt primary aldosteronism, in relation to blood pressure.

 

Design:

Cross-sectional study.

 

Setting:

4 U.S. academic medical centers.

 

Participants:

Participants with normotension (n = 289), stage 1 hypertension (n = 115), stage 2 hypertension (n = 203), and resistant hypertension (n = 408).

 

Measurements:

Participants completed an oral sodium suppression test, regardless of aldosterone or renin levels, as a confirmatory diagnostic for primary aldosteronism and to quantify the magnitude of renin-independent aldosterone production. Urinary aldosterone was measured in participants in high sodium balance with suppressed renin activity. Biochemically overt primary aldosteronism was diagnosed when urinary aldosterone levels were higher than 12 µg/24 h.

 

Results:

Every blood pressure category had a continuum of renin-independent aldosterone production, where greater severity of production was associated with higher blood pressure, kaliuresis, and lower serum potassium levels. Mean adjusted levels of urinary aldosterone were 6.5 µg/24 h (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.7 µg/24 h) in normotension, 7.3 µg/24 h (CI, 5.6 to 8.9 µg/24 h) in stage 1 hypertension, 9.5 µg/24 h (CI, 8.2 to 10.8 µg/24 h) in stage 2 hypertension, and 14.6 µg/24 h (CI, 12.9 to 16.2 µg/24 h) in resistant hypertension; corresponding adjusted prevalence estimates for biochemically overt primary aldosteronism were 11.3% (CI, 5.9% to 16.8%), 15.7% (CI, 8.6% to 22.9%), 21.6% (CI, 16.1% to 27.0%), and 22.0% (CI, 17.2% to 26.8%). The aldosterone–renin ratio had poor sensitivity and negative predictive value for detecting biochemically overt primary aldosteronism.

 

Limitation:

Prevalence estimates rely on arbitrary and conventional thresholds, and the study population may not represent nationwide demographics.

 

Conclusion:

The prevalence of primary aldosteronism is high and largely unrecognized. Beyond this categorical definition of primary aldosteronism, there is a prevalent continuum of renin-independent aldosterone production that parallels the severity of hypertension. These findings redefine the primary aldosteronism syndrome and implicate it in the pathogenesis of “essential” hypertension.

 

Primary Funding Source:

National Institutes of Health.

Bedtime hypertension treatment improves cardiovascular risk reduction: the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial

Author/s: 
Hermida, R.C., Crespo, J.J., Domínguez-Sardiña, M, Otero, A., Moyá, A., Ríos, M.T., Sineiro, E., Castiñeira, M.C., Callejas, P.A., Pousa, L., Salgado, J.L., Durán, C., Sánchez, J.J., Fernández, J.R., Mojón, A., Ayala, D.E., Hygia Project Investigators

AIMS:

The Hygia Chronotherapy Trial, conducted within the clinical primary care setting, was designed to test whether bedtime in comparison to usual upon awakening hypertension therapy exerts better cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction.

METHODS AND RESULTS:

In this multicentre, controlled, prospective endpoint trial, 19 084 hypertensive patients (10 614 men/8470 women, 60.5 ± 13.7 years of age) were assigned (1:1) to ingest the entire daily dose of ≥1 hypertension medications at bedtime (n = 9552) or all of them upon awakening (n = 9532). At inclusion and at every scheduled clinic visit (at least annually) throughout follow-up, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring was performed for 48 h. During the 6.3-year median patient follow-up, 1752 participants experienced the primary CVD outcome (CVD death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, or stroke). Patients of the bedtime, compared with the upon-waking, treatment-time regimen showed significantly lower hazard ratio-adjusted for significant influential characteristics of age, sex, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, smoking, HDL cholesterol, asleep systolic blood pressure (BP) mean, sleep-time relative systolic BP decline, and previous CVD event-of the primary CVD outcome [0.55 (95% CI 0.50-0.61), P < 0.001] and each of its single components (P < 0.001 in all cases), i.e. CVD death [0.44 (0.34-0.56)], myocardial infarction [0.66 (0.52-0.84)], coronary revascularization [0.60 (0.47-0.75)], heart failure [0.58 (0.49-0.70)], and stroke [0.51 (0.41-0.63)].

CONCLUSION:

Routine ingestion by hypertensive patients of ≥1 prescribed BP-lowering medications at bedtime, as opposed to upon waking, results in improved ABP control (significantly enhanced decrease in asleep BP and increased sleep-time relative BP decline, i.e. BP dipping) and, most importantly, markedly diminished occurrence of major CVD events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00741585.

Yoga as Antihypertensive Lifestyle Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author/s: 
Wu, Yin, Johnson, Blair T., Acabchuk, Rebecca L., Chen, Shiqi, Lewis, Holly K., Livingston, Jill, Park, Crystal L., Pescatello, Linda S.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the efficacy of yoga as antihypertensive lifestyle therapy and identify moderators that account for variability in the blood pressure (BP) response to yoga.

METHODS:

We systematically searched 6 electronic databases from inception through June 4, 2018, for articles published in English language journals on trials of yoga interventions that involved adult participants, reported preintervention and postintervention BP, and had a nonexercise/nondiet control group. Our search yielded 49 qualifying controlled trials (56 interventions). We (1) evaluated the risk of bias and methodological study quality, (2) performed meta-regression analysis following random-effects assumptions, and (3) generated additive models that represented the largest possible clinically relevant BP reductions.

RESULTS:

On average, the 3517 trial participants were middle-aged (49.2±19.5 years), overweight (27.9±3.6 kg/m2) adults with high BP (systolic BP, 129.3±13.3 mm Hg; diastolic BP, 80.7±8.4 mm Hg). Yoga was practiced 4.8±3.4 sessions per week for 59.2±25.0 minutes per session for 13.2±7.5 weeks. On average, yoga elicited moderate reductions in systolic BP (weighted mean effect size, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.62-0.32, -5.0 mm Hg) and diastolic BP (weighted mean effect size, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.32; -3.9 mm Hg) compared with controls (P<.001 for both systolic BP and diastolic BP). Controlling for publication bias and methodological study quality, when yoga was practiced 3 sessions per week among samples with hypertension, yoga interventions that included breathing techniques and meditation/mental relaxation elicited BP reductions of 11/6 mm Hg compared with those that did not (ie, 6/3 mm Hg).

CONCLUSION:

Our results indicate that yoga is a viable antihypertensive lifestyle therapy that produces the greatest BP benefits when breathing techniques and meditation/mental relaxation are included.

Association Between Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors, Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors With All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Author/s: 
Zheng, Sean L., Roddick, Alistair J., Aghar-Jaffar, Rochan, Shun-Shin, Matthew J., Francis, Darrel, Oliver, Nick, Meeran, Karim

IMPORTANCE:

The comparative clinical efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors for treatment of type 2 diabetes is unknown.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the efficacies of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and DPP-4 inhibitors on mortality and cardiovascular end points using network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES:

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and published meta-analyses from inception through October 11, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION:

Randomized clinical trials enrolling participants with type 2 diabetes and a follow-up of at least 12 weeks were included, for which SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and DPP-4 inhibitors were compared with either each other or placebo or no treatment.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:

Data were screened by 1 investigator and extracted in duplicate by 2 investigators. A Bayesian hierarchical network meta-analysis was performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary outcome: all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes: cardiovascular (CV) mortality, heart failure (HF) events, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, and stroke; safety end points: adverse events and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS:

This network meta-analysis of 236 trials randomizing 176 310 participants found SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute risk difference [RD], -1.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.71 to 0.89]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, -0.6%; HR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.81 to 0.94]) were associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality than the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, -0.9%; HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.68 to 0.90]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, -0.5%; HR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.96]) were associated with lower mortality than were DPP-4 inhibitors. DPP-4 inhibitors were not significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (absolute RD, 0.1%; HR, 1.02 [95% CrI, 0.94 to 1.11]) than were the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, -0.8%; HR, 0.79 [95% CrI, 0.69 to 0.91]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, -0.5%; HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.94]) were significantly associated with lower CV mortality than were the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors were significantly associated with lower rates of HF events (absolute RD, -1.1%; HR, 0.62 [95% CrI, 0.54 to 0.72]) and MI (absolute RD, -0.6%; HR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.97]) than were the control groups. GLP-1 agonists were associated with a higher risk of adverse events leading to trial withdrawal than were SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, 5.8%; HR, 1.80 [95% CrI, 1.44 to 2.25]) and DPP-4 inhibitors (absolute RD, 3.1%; HR, 1.93 [95% CrI, 1.59 to 2.35]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

In this network meta-analysis, the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was associated with lower mortality than DPP-4 inhibitors or placebo or no treatment. Use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with lower mortality than placebo or no treatment.

2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task F

Author/s: 
Whelton, Paul K., Aronow, Wilbert S., Casey, Donald E., Jr., Collins, Karen J., Himmelfarb, Charyl Dennison, DePalma, Sondra M., Gidding, Samuel, Jamerson, Kenneth A., Jones, Daniel W., MacLaughlin, Eric J., Muntner, Paul, Ovbiagele, Bruce, Smith, Sidney C., Jr., Spencer, Crystal C., Stafford, Randall S., Taler, Sandra J., Thomas, Randal J., Williams, Kim A., Williamson, Jeff D., Wright, Jackson T., Jr.

Preamble

Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines (guidelines) with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. In 2013, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory Council recommended that the NHLBI focus specifically on reviewing the highest-quality evidence and partner with other organizations to develop recommendations.P-1,P-2 Accordingly, the ACC and AHA collaborated with the NHLBI and stakeholder and professional organizations to complete and publish 4 guidelines (on assessment of cardiovascular risk, lifestyle modifications to reduce cardiovascular risk, management of blood cholesterol in adults, and management of overweight and obesity in adults) to make them available to the widest possible constituency. In 2014, the ACC and AHA, in partnership with several other professional societies, initiated a guideline on the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure (BP) in adults. Under the management of the ACC/ AHA Task Force, a Prevention Subcommittee was appointed to help guide development of the suite of guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). These guidelines, which are based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a cornerstone for quality cardiovascular care. The ACC and AHA sponsor the development and publication of guidelines without commercial support, and members of each organization volunteer their time to the writing and review efforts. Guidelines are official policy of the ACC and AHA.

Keywords 

Management of Systolic BP in the Elderly

Author/s: 
Mold, James

 Discuss management of blood pressure in the elderly:

§ Disease or risk factor

§ BP components and their significance

§ Benefits and hazards of BP reduction

§ Other ways to reduce CV risk and law of diminishing returns

§ BP reduction strategies

§ Individualization relevant to prevention of premature death and disability

Blood Pressure Targets for the Treatment of People with Hypertension and Cardiovascular Disease

Author/s: 
Saiz, Luis Carlos, Gorricho, Javier, Garjón, Javier, Celaya, Mª Concepción, Erviti, Juan, Leache, Leire

BACKGROUND:

Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine if 'lower' blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/ 90 to 100 mmHg) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease).

SEARCH METHODS:

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (from 1982) and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group and at least six months follow-up. Trial reports needed to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions were lower target for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (≤ 135/85 mmHg) compared with standard target for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).Participants were adults with documented hypertension or who were receiving treatment for hypertension and cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease or angina pectoris.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9795 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Five RCTs provided individual patient data for 6775 participants.We found no change in total mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences were found in serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; low-quality evidence). There was a reduction in fatal and non fatal cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization or death from congestive heart failure) with the lower target (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98; ARR 1.6% over 3.7 years; low-quality evidence). There were more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower' target group by 9.5/4.9 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

No evidence of a difference in total mortality and serious adverse events was found between treating to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target in people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. This suggests no net health benefit from a lower systolic blood pressure target despite the small absolute reduction in total cardiovascular serious adverse events. There was very limited evidence on adverse events, which lead to high uncertainty. At present there is insufficient evidence to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to answer this question.

Subscribe to hypertension