Search

The absolute benefit from antihypertensive therapy increases with the baseline risk. However, age is a major determinant of cardiovascular risk, so it is important to express therapeutic efficacy with indices for which age is not a confounder. With this aim we explored the expected gain in life expectancy without cardiovascular events according to age at the initiation of the treatment. The treatment effect estimated from the INDANA meta-analysis, was applied to the cardiovascular risk of a French hypertensive population, simulated from national vital statistics. The gain in life expectancy was estimated from the area between survival curves without events. The treatment effect varied according three different hypotheses: increasing, decreasing or constant effect. When assuming a constant treatment effect, our results show a 29 month gain without stroke for a man who began his treatment at 40 years, and 15 months if hypertension is screened and treatment initiated at 75 years. The gains without coronary heart disease are respectively of 11 and 6 months. The variation of treatment effect over time could have a major impact on the treatment benefit. The gain in life expectancy without events is a relevant decision tool, completing usefully the absolute benefit, since it takes into account the influence of age.

Background: Previous meta-analysis of outcome trials in hypertension have not specifically focused on isolated systolic hypertension or they have explained treatment benefit mainly in function of the achieved diastolic blood pressure reduction. We therefore undertook a quantitative overview of the trials to further evaluate the risks associated with systolic blood pressure in treated and untreated older patients with isolated systolic hypertension, Methods: Patients were 60 years old or more. Systolic blood pressure was 160 mm Hg or greater and diastolic blood pressure was less than 95 mm Hg. We used non-parametric methods and Cox regression to model the risks associated with blood pressure and to correct for regression dilution bias. We calculated pooled effects of treatment from stratified 2 x 2 contingency tables after application of Zelen's test of heterogeneity., Findings: In eight trials 15 693 patients with isolated systolic hypertension were followed up for 3.8 years (median). After correction for regression dilution bias, sex, age, and diastolic blood pressure, the relative hazard rates associated with a 10 mm Hg higher initial systolic blood pressure were 1.26 (p=0.0001) for total mortality, 1.22 (p=0.02) for stroke, but only 1.07 (p=0.37) for coronary events. Independent of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure was inversely correlated with total mortality, highlighting the role of pulse pressure as risk factor. Active treatment reduced total mortality by 13% (95% CI 2-22, p=0.02), cardiovascular mortality by 18%, all cardiovascular complications by 26%, stroke by 30%, and coronary events by 23%. The number of patients to treat for 5 years to prevent one major cardiovascular event was lower in men (18 vs 38), at or above age 70 (19 vs 39), and in patients with previous cardiovascular complications (16 vs 37)., Interpretation: Drug treatment is justified in older patients with isolated systolic hypertension whose systolic blood pressure is 160 mm Hg or higher. Absolute benefit is larger in men, in patients aged 70 or more and in those with previous cardiovascular complications or wider pulse pressure. Treatment prevented stroke more effectively than coronary events. However, the absence of a relation between coronary events and systolic blood pressure in untreated patients suggests that the coronary protection may have been underestimated.

Objectives: To assess whether the relative and absolute benefit of hypertension treatment in women varies with age or race., Search Strategy: Literature search of studies from 1966 to 1998 using MEDLINE, reviews, and consultation with experts., Selection Criteria: Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials of pharmacological treatment of primary hypertension, with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality outcomes, and with over one hundred women enrolled., Data Collection and Analysis: The pooled population included 23,000 women. Relative risks were combined for each endpoint to form summary risk ratios (RR) using meta-analytic techniques based on a random-effects model. Summary RR's were converted to numbers needed to treat (NNT). Data were dichotomized by age to approximate menopausal status (30 to 54 years, and 55 years and older), and by race (white and African American)., Main Results: In women ages 55 years or older (90% white), hypertension treatment results in a 38% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events (95% confidence interval (CI) 27-47%, 5 year NNT 78), a 25% reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (95% CI 17-33%, 5 year NNT 58), and a 17% reduction in cardiovascular mortality (95% CI 3-29%, 5 year NNT 282). In women ages 30 to 54 years (79% white), hypertension treatment results in a 41% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events (95% CI 8-63%, 5 year NNT 264), and a 27% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (95% CI 4-44%, 5 year NNT 259). Hypertension treatment in African American women (mean age 52 years) reduced the risk of fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events by 53% (95% CI 29-69%, 5 year NNT 39), fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events by 45% (95% CI 18-63%, 5 year NNT 21), fatal and nonfatal coronary events by 33% (95% CI 6-52%, 5 year NNT 48), and all cause mortality by 34% (95% CI 14-49%, 5 year NNT 32). Analyses in white women 30 to 54 years old did not show any statistically significant treatment benefit or harm., Reviewer's Conclusions: Hypertension treatment lowers the relative and absolute risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in women ages 55 years and older, and in African American women of all ages. A greater effort should be made to increase awareness and treatment in these groups of women. Although relative risk reductions for cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events are similar for younger and older women, the NNT of younger women is at least 4 times higher. Decisions for treatment of hypertension in younger white women should be influenced by the individual patient's absolute risk of cardiovascular disease.

Objective: To assess whether the relative and absolute benefit of hypertension treatment in women varies with age or race., Design: Systematic review of studies from 1966 to 1998 using MEDLINE, reviews, and consultation with experts. Eleven randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatment of prJgiary hypertension with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality outcomes were selected, with a pooled population of 23,000 women. Relative risks were combined for each end point to form a summary risk ratio using meta-analytic techniques based on a random-effects model. Summary risk ratios were converted to numbers needed to treat (NNTs). Data were dichotomized by age to approxJgiate menopausal status (30 to 54 years, and 55 years and older), and by race (white and African American)., Main Results: In women aged 55 years or older (90% white), hypertension treatment resulted in a 38% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events (95% confidence interval [CI] 27%, 47%; 5-year NNT 78), a 25% reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (95% CI 17%, 33%; 5-year NNT 58), and a 17% reduction in cardiovascular mortality (95% CI 3%, 29%; 5-year NNT 282). In women aged 30 to 54 years (79% white), hypertension treatment resulted in a 41% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events (95% CI 8%, 63%; 5-year NNT 264), and a 27% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (95% CI 4%, 44%; 5-year NNT 259). Hypertension treatment in African-American women (mean age, 52 years) reduced the risk of fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events by 53% (95% CI 29%, 69%; 5-year NNT 39), fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events by 45% (95% CI 18%, 63%; 5-year NNT 21), fatal and nonfatal coronary events by 33% (95% CI 6%, 52%; 5-year NNT 48), and all-cause mortality by 34% (95% CI 14%, 49%; 5-year NNT 32). Analyses in white women aged 30 to 54 years did not show any statistically significant treatment benefit or harm., Conclusions: Hypertension treatment lowers the relative and absolute risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in women aged 55 years and older and in African-American women of all ages. A greater effort should be made to increase awareness and treatment in these groups of women. Although relative risk reductions for cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events are sJgiilar for younger and older women, the NNT of younger women is at least 4 tJgies higher. Decisions about treatment of hypertension in younger white women should be influenced by the individual patient's absolute risk of cardiovascular disease.

Background: Beneficial clinical effects of treatment with antihypertensive drugs have been shown in middle-aged patients and in those hypertensive patients over 60 years old, but whether treatment is beneficial in patients over 80 years old is not known., Methods: We collected data from all participants aged 80 years and over in randomised controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs through direct contact with study investigators. Our primary outcome was fatal and non-fatal stroke. Secondary outcomes were death from all causes, cardiovascular death, fatal and non-fatal major coronary and cardiovascular events, and heart failure., Findings: There were 57 strokes and 34 deaths among 874 actively treated patients, compared with 77 strokes and 28 stroke deaths among 796 controls, representing 1 non-fatal stroke prevented for about 100 patients treated each year. The meta-analysis of data from 1670 participants aged 80 years or older suggested that treatment prevented 34% (95% CI 8-52) of strokes. Rates of major cardiovascular events and heart failure were significantly decreased, by 22% and 39%, respectively. However, there was no treatment benefit for cardiovascular death, and a non-significant 6% (-5 to 18) relative excess of death from all causes., Interpretations: The inconclusive findings for mortality contrast with the benefit of treatment for non-fatal events. Results of a large-scale specific trial are needed for definite conclusion that antihypertensive treatment is beneficial in very elderly hypertensive patients. Meanwhile, an age threshold beyond which hypertension should not be treated cannot be justified.

Hypercholesterolemia or hypertension are continuous risk factors for coronary heart disease. When a preventive action is carried out against such a risk factor, it is necessary to specify a risk factor level value, named the treatment threshold, above which a subject should be treated. But a non-arbitrary determination of this threshold value is impossible from the epidemiological data. A method for the non-arbitrary determination of the treatment threshold value is presented, based upon mathematical modelling of the clinical and economics consequences of the prevention policy in the whole population. In a cost-effectiveness approach, the model was used to estimate the cost per coronary event prevented according to the threshold value for blood cholesterol. It was found that a minimum in this outcome proposed as the optimum treatment threshold. It is possible, from a public health point of view, to determine an optimum, non-arbitrary treatment threshold value in the prevention of coronary heart disease with cholesterol-lowering interventions. The model proposed here could be useful in decision making processes.

Background and Purpose: Drug treatment of high blood pressure has been shown to reduce the associated cardiovascular risk. Stroke represents the type of event more strongly linked with high blood pressure, responsible for a high rate of death or invalidity, and with the highest proportion of events that can be avoided by treatment. Hypertensive patients with a history of cerebrovascular accident are at particularly high risk of recurrence. Specific trials of blood pressure lowering drugs in stroke survivors showed inconclusive results in the past., Methods: We performed a meta-analysis using all available randomized controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of blood pressure lowering drugs on clinical outcomes (recurrence of stroke, coronary events, cause-specific, and overall mortality) in patients with prior stroke or transient ischemic attack., Results: We identified 9 trials, including a total of 6752 patients: 2 trials included 551 hypertensive stroke survivors; 6 trials of hypertensive patients included a small proportion of stroke survivors (536 patients); 1 trial included stroke survivors, whether hypertensive or not (5665 patients). The recurrence of stroke, fatal and nonfatal, was significantly reduced in active groups compared with control groups consistently across the different sources of data (relative risk of 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.85). There was no evidence that this intervention induced serious adverse effect., Conclusions: Blood pressure lowering drug interventions reduced the risk of stroke recurrence in stroke survivors. Available data did not allow to verify whether such benefit depends on initial blood pressure level. More data are needed before considering antihypertensive therapy in normotensive patients at high cerebrovascular risk.

The efficacy of treatment may be demonstrated globally but, in some patients, treatment can be either inappropriate or harmful because of undesirable secondary effects. Ideally, treatment should be limited to patients who respond, but this is impossible with the published data from clinical trials. This could become possible by creating a data base containing all published results and carrying out meta analyses on individual parameters. Using the most powerful methods of analysis this could allow identification of patients responding to treatment by taking into account not only the benefits but also the risks of a given treatment (the principle is to identify and estimate factors--demographical, sociological, generic, which interfere with the size of the effect). In order to identify responders to antihypertensive treatment, a meta analysis of individual data was started, the INDANA project. With a common data base of all the preventive trials of antihypertensive therapy, this study should contribute to improved identification of responders and therefore to individualization of treatment of hypertension.

Background: Trials of drug therapy for hypertension have shown that such therapy has a clear overall benefit in preventing cardiovascular disease. Although these trials have included slightly more women than men, it is still not clear whether treatment benefit is similar for both sexes., Objective: To quantify the average treatment effect in both sexes and to determine whether available data show significant differences in treatment effect between women and men., Design: Subgroup meta-analysis of individual patient data according to sex. Analysis was based on seven trials from the INDANA (INdividual Data ANalysis of Antihypertensive intervention trials) database and was adjusted for possible confounders., Patients: 20,802 women and 19,975 men recruited between 1972 and 1990., Interventions: Primarily beta-blockers and thiazide diuretics., Results: In women, treatment effect was statistically significant for stroke (fatal strokes and all strokes) and for major cardiovascular events. In men, it was statistically significant for all categories of events (total and specific mortality, all coronary events, all strokes, and major cardiovascular events). The odds ratios for any category of event did not differ significantly between men and women. In absolute terms, the benefit in women was seen primarily for strokes; in men, treatment prevented as many coronary events as strokes. Graphical analyses suggest that these results could be completely explained by the difference in untreated risk., Conclusions: In terms of relative risk, treatment benefit did not differ between women and men. The absolute risk reduction attributable to treatment seemed to depend on untreated risk. These findings underline the need to predict accurately the untreated cardiovascular risk of an individual person in order to rationalize and individualize antihypertensive treatment.

Unlabelled: This study compares the loop diuretic piretanide 6 mg in a slow-release formulation (PIR) with hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (HCT) and the fixed combination altizide 15 mg-spironolactone 25 mg (ALT-SP) in hypertension. 1105 mild to moderate hypertensive patients entered a three-week placebo wash-out period; 899 were randomized in a 6-month, double-blind, parallel group treatment phase; 800 completed the study. Primary end-points; serum potassium concentration and quality of life at one month; secondary end-points: ionic, renal and metabolic variables; blood pressure (BP) measurements. HCT and ALT-SP were compared only to PIR using Dunnett's or chi 2 tests., Results: No difference was found for the overall quality of life. No change of serum potassium concentration at one month was found in PIR while small decreases were detected with ALT-SP (-0.1 mM) and HCT (-0.26 mM). Serum creatinine concentration increased significantly in ALT-SP when compared to PIR. All the drugs were effective in reducing BP: HCT had a higher rate of responders than PIR with similar mean BP falls and ALT-SP induced greater falls in blood pressure., Conclusion: PIR proves to be a potent antihypertensive drug without significant effect on serum electrolytes, plasma glucose and lipids. HCT was slightly more potent but induced a fall in serum potassium concentration with a significant risk of hypokalaemia. The addition of SP to ALT led to a more potent diuretic with a higher level of serum potassium and plasma creatinine disturbances.

The aim of this trial was to test the hypothesis that a reduced number of doses improves compliance in current medical practice. Compliance with twice a day dosage was compared with compliance with three doses a day. Two bioequivalent presentations of nicardipine were used, the regular presentation (t.i.d.) and the slow-release (b.i.d.). The trial was controlled, randomized, open, in two parallel groups: (1)'t.i.d.' group: one tablet of regular nicardipine, 20 mg, three times a day, three months; (2) 'b.i.d.' group: one capsule of slow-release nicardipine, twice a day, three months. 2651 general practitioners randomized 7274 hypertensive patients. The primary criterion was documented in 93.7 per cent of the cases at the end of the trial. The remaining 6.3 per cent comprised treatment withdrawal (2.8 per cent) and patients lost to follow-up (3.5 per cent). The primary criterion study was compliance, assessed by a self-questionnaire filled in by the patient and a standardised interview by the physician. Compliance was slightly better in the b.i.d. group than in the t.i.d. group (p < 0.001). Remaining pill count was also used but it was a failure. A random sample of investigators made on-site visits. Discordant data were infrequent and were limited to dates of visits. Difficulties with on-site visits were mostly due to a rather frequent lack of source records.

Objectives: To compare compliance with an antihypertensive treatment administered either twice daily or three times daily. The two formulations of the antihypertensive treatment used (nicardipine) "regular tablets" (t.d.) and "slow release tablets" (b.d.) are bioequivalent at the daily dosage used in the study., Study Design: Open, controlled, parallel designed study with centralised, randomised allocation to the treatment groups: TID group: A nicardipine 20 mg tablet, three times daily for 3 months. BID group: A capsule of slow release (SR) nicardipine, 50 mg twice daily for 3 months., Patients: 7274 hypertensive patients were investigated by 2.651 general practitioners. Compliance with the nicardipine was assessed by means of standardised interviews with the patients and by a questionnaire for the investigators., Results: Compliance was slightly higher in the BID than in the TID group; 71.2% and 24.5% of patients in the first group declared their compliance was 100% and 80% compared to 82.3% and 15% in the second group. A statistically significant relationship was shown between compliance with nicardipine and the decrease in blood pressure after three months of therapy. However, no significant difference was noticed between the two groups of patients in the absolute decrease in blood pressure after the treatment period: 25.7/14.7 mm Hg in the TID group compared with 25.9/15.0 mm Hg in the BID group., Conclusions: A difference in compliance between the bioequivalent BID and TID formulations of the same active agent was shown in hypertensive patients. However, the difference was not large enough to lead to a difference either in the number of controlled patients or in the decrease in blood pressure. Reducing the number of daily doses does not automatically lead to greater efficacy of treatment.

Objective: To assess the equivalence of four antihypertensive treatments in patients with mild-to- moderate hypertension, and to compare the effects of those drugs on the subjective quality of life and clinical safety., Design, Setting and Patients: 653 patients aged > or = 18 years with untreated hypertension were randomly allocated to receive a combination of two diuretics (altizide and spironolactone), a beta-blocker (bisoprolol), a calcium antagonist (verapamil), or an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (enalapril). Follow-up lasted for 1 year., Main Outcome Measures: A composite outcome of the following measures was used to define success: attendance at the 12-month visit; at least nine supine DBP measurements during the study; and median supine DBP < 90 mmHg and a reduction of at least 10 mmHg compared with the baseline value. Failure was defined as one or more of those criteria not being fulfilled. Equivalence was concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the success rates differed between two groups by less than +/- 10%. Clinical safety and subjective quality of life were also assessed., Results: No statistically significant differences in the change in DBP or systolic blood pressure were observed between the groups. The success rates were 43.9, 42.0, 32.5 and 43.9% in diuretic, beta-blocker, calcium antagonist and ACE inhibitor groups, respectively. Equivalence between the treatments could not be concluded, although analysis with a larger equivalence interval showed that some comparisons indicated equivalence. Significant improvement in satisfaction was observed for certain items for subjective quality of life at 1 month in the calcium antagonist treatment group, and significant differences in the responses to the clinical safety questionnaire were observed after 1-month follow-up in calcium antagonist and beta-blocker groups. Differences were no longer significant after 9 months., Conclusions: These results do not provide evidence on the basis of efficacy of blood pressure lowering or ability to increase short-term (1-year) safety and quality of life favouring any particular treatment among the studied drugs for newly diagnosed patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

The concentration-effect relationships of pinacidil, a peripheral vasodilator, have been measured in 12 healthy adults who received placebo or pinacidil 25 mg daily for 1 week in a cross-over experiment. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded and blood samples were taken on days 1 and 7. Plasma drug concentration-time data were fitted by a biexponential function with zero-order input. The pharmacokinetic model was incorporated into a combined pharmacokinetic-dynamic model (PK-PD) using the Hill equation, which has three parameters: n, the sigmoidicity parameter, Emax the maximum effect and EC50 the concentration which gives 50% of Emax. For delta DBP, the parameter medians were estimated as n = 5, EC50 = 44.6 ng.ml-1 and Emax = 13.5 mmHg. A hysteresis loop was found when delta HR was plotted against concentration, which could be fitted by a linear effect compartment model. Simulations showed that experimental delta DBP points on Day 7 could be predicted from a simulated curve computed by the model using parameters estimated on Day 1. Using the simulation, it was possible to suggest an optimal dosage regimen for pinacidil tablets.

Objective: To assess whether the relative and absolute benefit of hypertension treatment in women varies with age or race.Design: Systematic review of studies from 1966 to 1998 using MEDLINE, reviews, and consultation with experts. Eleven randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatment of prJgiary hypertension with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality outcomes were selected, with a pooled population of 23,000 women. Relative risks were combined for each end point to form a summary risk ratio using meta-analytic techniques based on a random-effects model. Summary risk ratios were converted to numbers needed to treat (NNTs). Data were dichotomized by age to approxJgiate menopausal status (30 to 54 years, and 55 years and older), and by race (white and African American).Main Results: In women aged 55 years or older (90% white), hypertension treatment resulted in a 38% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events (95% confidence interval [CI] 27%, 47%; 5-year NNT 78), a 25% reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (95% CI 17%, 33%; 5-year NNT 58), and a 17% reduction in cardiovascular mortality (95% CI 3%, 29%; 5-year NNT 282). In women aged 30 to 54 years (79% white), hypertension treatment resulted in a 41% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events (95% CI 8%, 63%; 5-year NNT 264), and a 27% risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (95% CI 4%, 44%; 5-year NNT 259). Hypertension treatment in African-American women (mean age, 52 years) reduced the risk of fatal and nonfatal cerebrovascular events by 53% (95% CI 29%, 69%; 5-year NNT 39), fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events by 45% (95% CI 18%, 63%; 5-year NNT 21), fatal and nonfatal coronary events by 33% (95% CI 6%, 52%; 5-year NNT 48), and all-cause mortality by 34% (95% CI 14%, 49%; 5-year NNT 32). Analyses in white women aged 30 to 54 years did not show any statistically significant treatment benefit or harm.Conclusions: Hypertension treatment lowers the relative and absolute risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in women aged 55 years and older and in African-American women of all ages. A greater effort should be made to increase awareness and treatment in these groups of women. Although relative risk reductions for cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events are sJgiilar for younger and older women, the NNT of younger women is at least 4 tJgies higher. Decisions about treatment of hypertension in younger white women should be influenced by the individual patient's absolute risk of cardiovascular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]