Search

Current guidelines recommend angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) (sacubitril/valsartan) as a replacement for angiotensin-converting-enzymeinhibitor (ACE-I) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. The effects of ARNIs have not previously been assessed in a systematic review. We searched for relevant trials until October 2019 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CNKI, VIP, WanFang and CBM. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. We systematically assessed the risks of random errors and systematic errors. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019129336. 48 trials randomising 19 086 participants were included. The ARNI assessed in all trials was sacubitril/valsartan. ACE-I or ARB were used as control interventions. Trials randomising HFrEF participants (27 trials) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) participants (four trials) were analysed separately. In HFrEF participants, meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of sacubitril/valsartan when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.94) and serious adverse events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93); and the results did not differ between the guideline recommended target population and HFrEF participants in general. We found no evidence of an effect of sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF participants. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with either ACE-I or ARB seems to have a beneficial effect in patients with HFrEF. Our results indicate that sacubitril/valsartan might be beneficial in a wider population of patients with heart failure than the guideline recommended target population. Sacubitril/valsartan does not seem to show evidence of a difference compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Self-home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is recommended to guide clinical decisions on hypertension and is used worldwide for cardiovascular risk management. People usually make their own decisions when purchasing BP devices, which can be made online. If patients purchase nonvalidated devices (those not proven accurate according to internationally accepted standards), hypertension management may be based on inaccurate readings resulting in under- or over-diagnosis or treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the number, type, percentage validated, and cost of home BP devices available online. A search of online businesses selling devices for home BP monitoring was conducted. Multinational companies make worldwide deliveries, so searches were restricted to BP devices available for one nation (Australia) as an example of device availability through the global online marketplace. Validation status of BP devices was determined according to established protocols. Fifty nine online businesses, selling 972 unique BP devices were identified. These included 278 upper-arm cuff devices (18.3% validated), 162 wrist-cuff devices (8.0% validated), and 532 wrist-band wearables (0% validated). Most BP devices (92.4%) were stocked by international e-commerce businesses (eg, eBay, Amazon), but only 5.5% were validated. Validated cuff BP devices were more expensive than nonvalidated devices: median (interquartile range) of 101.1 (75.0-151.5) versus 67.4 (30.4-112.8) Australian Dollars. Nonvalidated BP devices dominate the online marketplace and are sold at lower cost than validated ones, which is a major barrier to accurate home BP monitoring and cardiovascular risk management. Before purchasing a BP device, people should check it has been validated at https://www.stridebp.org.

Aims: Averaged measurements, but not the progression based on multiple assessments of carotid intima-media thickness, (cIMT) are predictive of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in individuals. Whether this is true for conventional risk factors is unclear., Methods and Results: An individual participant meta-analysis was used to associate the annualised progression of systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol with future cardiovascular disease risk in 13 prospective cohort studies of the PROG-IMT collaboration ( n  = 34,072). Follow-up data included information on a combined cardiovascular disease endpoint of myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death. In secondary analyses, annualised progression was replaced with average. Log hazard ratios per standard deviation difference were pooled across studies by a random effects meta-analysis. In primary analysis, the annualised progression of total cholesterol was marginally related to a higher cardiovascular disease risk (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07). The annualised progression of systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was not associated with future cardiovascular disease risk. In secondary analysis, average systolic blood pressure (HR 1.20 95% CI 1.11 to 1.29) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.16) were related to a greater, while high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) was related to a lower risk of future cardiovascular disease events., Conclusion: Averaged measurements of systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol displayed significant linear relationships with the risk of future cardiovascular disease events. However, there was no clear association between the annualised progression of these conventional risk factors in individuals with the risk of future clinical endpoints.

: The Lancet Commission on Hypertension identified that a key action to address the worldwide burden of high blood pressure (BP) was to improve the quality of BP measurements by using BP devices that have been validated for accuracy. Currently, there are over 3000 commercially available BP devices, but many do not have published data on accuracy testing according to established scientific standards. This problem is enabled through weak or absent regulations that allow clearance of devices for commercial use without formal validation. In addition, new BP technologies have emerged (e.g. cuffless sensors) for which there is no scientific consensus regarding BP measurement accuracy standards. Altogether, these issues contribute to the widespread availability of clinic and home BP devices with limited or uncertain accuracy, leading to inappropriate hypertension diagnosis, management and drug treatment on a global scale. The most significant problems relating to the accuracy of BP devices can be resolved by the regulatory requirement for mandatory independent validation of BP devices according to the universally-accepted International Organisation for Standardization Standard. This is a primary recommendation for which there is an urgent international need. Other key recommendations are development of validation standards specifically for new BP technologies and online lists of accurate devices that are accessible to consumers and health professionals. Recommendations are aligned with WHO policies on medical devices and universal healthcare. Adherence to recommendations would increase the global availability of accurate BP devices and result in better diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, thus decreasing the worldwide burden from high BP.

Aims: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and the incidence increases with age, hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Reducing in-treatment systolic blood pressure (SBP) prevents new-onset AF but has previously not been studied in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). We aimed to investigate the effect on preventing new-onset AF by decreased in-treatment SBP in patients with ISH compared to patients with non-ISH. Methods and results: Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of 1320 patients with ISH and electrocardiographic (ECG) LVH, included among the 9193 patients in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. Annual ECGs were Minnesota coded centrally, and new-onset AF was evaluated in 1248 ISH patients and compared with 7583 non-ISH patients during mean 4.8 ± 0.9 years follow-up. Cox regression analyses were used to assess the effect of reduced in-treatment SBP. New-onset AF occurred in 61 (4.9%) ISH patients and 292 (3.9%) non-ISH patients. In multivariate analysis lower in-treatment SBP was associated with 17% risk reduction ( p  = 0.008) for new-onset AF in ISH patients and 9% risk reduction ( p  = 0.006) in non-ISH patients per 10 mmHg decrease in in-treatment SBP, independent of treatment modality, baseline risk factors, baseline SBP and in-treatment heart rate and ECG-LVH. There was a significant interaction ( p  = 0.041) in favor of SBP reduction and AF prevention in ISH vs. non-ISH patients. Conclusion: Our data suggest that the effect of in-treatment SBP reduction in preventing new-onset AF is stronger in ISH compared to non-ISH patients with hypertension and ECG-LVH. However, the principal findings were the same in ISH and non-ISH patients.