BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials suggest that treating patients with hypertension to lower blood pressure (BP) targets improves cardiovascular outcomes. PURPOSE: To summarize the effects of intensive (or targeted) systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) lowering with pharmacologic treatment on cardiovascular outcomes and harms in adults with hypertension. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched for relevant systematic reviews (SRs) published in English from 15 December 2013 through 25 March 2019, with updated targeted searches through 8 January 2020. STUDY SELECTION: 8 SRs of randomized controlled trials examining either a standardized SBP target of -10 mm Hg (1 SR) or BP lowering below a target threshold (7 SRs). DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, assessed study quality, and performed GRADE assessments; a second investigator checked abstractions and assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: The main outcome of interest was reduction in composite cardiovascular outcomes. High-strength evidence showed benefit of a 10-mm Hg reduction in SBP for cardiovascular outcomes among patients with hypertension in the general population, patients with chronic kidney disease, and patients with heart failure. Evidence on reducing SBP for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (moderate strength) or diabetes mellitus (high strength) to a lower SBP target was mixed. Low-strength evidence supported intensive lowering to a 10-mm Hg reduction in SBP for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a history of stroke. All reported harms were considered, including general adverse events, serious adverse events, cognitive impairment, fractures, falls, syncope, hypotension, withdrawals due to adverse events, and acute kidney injury. Safety results were mixed or inconclusive. LIMITATIONS: This was a qualitative synthesis of new evidence with existing meta-analyses. Data were sparse for outcomes related to treating DBP to a lower target or for patients older than 60 years. CONCLUSION: Overall, current clinical literature supports intensive BP lowering in patients with hypertension for improving cardiovascular outcomes. In most subpopulations, intensive lowering was favored over less-intensive lowering, but the data were less clear for patients with diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular disease. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration.
BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers are widely used for many cardiovascular conditions; however, their efficacy in contemporary clinical practice remains uncertain.
METHODS: We performed a prospectively designed, umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the evidence of beta-blockers in the contemporary management of coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), patients undergoing surgery or hypertension (registration: PROSPERO CRD42016038375). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception until December 2018. Outcomes were analysed as beta-blockers versus control for all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), incident HF or stroke. Two independent investigators abstracted the data, assessed the quality of the evidence and rated the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: We identified 98 meta-analyses, including 284 unique RCTs and 1,617,523 patient-years of follow-up. In CAD, 12 meta-analyses (93 RCTs, 103,481 patients) showed that beta-blockers reduced mortality in analyses before routine reperfusion, but there was a lack of benefit in contemporary studies where ≥ 50% of patients received thrombolytics or intervention. Beta-blockers reduced incident MI at the expense of increased HF. In HF with reduced ejection fraction, 34 meta-analyses (66 RCTs, 35,383 patients) demonstrated a reduction in mortality and HF hospitalisation with beta-blockers in sinus rhythm, but not in atrial fibrillation. In patients undergoing surgery, 23 meta-analyses (89 RCTs, 19,211 patients) showed no effect of beta-blockers on mortality for cardiac surgery, but increased mortality in non-cardiac surgery. In non-cardiac surgery, beta-blockers reduced MI after surgery but increased the risk of stroke. In hypertension, 27 meta-analyses (36 RCTs, 260,549 patients) identified no benefit versus placebo, but beta-blockers were inferior to other agents for preventing mortality and stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blockers substantially reduce mortality in HF patients in sinus rhythm, but for other conditions, clinicians need to weigh up both benefit and potential risk.
DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) jointly developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the benefits and harms of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for the treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older.
METHODS: This guideline is based on a systematic review of published randomized, controlled trials for primary outcomes and observational studies for harms only (identified through EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov), from database inception through January 2015. The MEDLINE search was updated through September 2016. Evaluated outcomes included all-cause mortality, morbidity and mortality related to stroke, major cardiac events (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death), and harms. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) method.
TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes all adults aged 60 years or older with hypertension.
RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians initiate treatment in adults aged 60 years or older with systolic blood pressure persistently at or above 150 mm Hg to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 150 mm Hg to reduce the risk for mortality, stroke, and cardiac events. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians select the treatment goals for adults aged 60 years or older based on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patient.
RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians consider initiating or intensifying pharmacologic treatment in adults aged 60 years or older with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg to reduce the risk for recurrent stroke. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians select the treatment goals for adults aged 60 years or older based on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patient.
RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians consider initiating or intensifying pharmacologic treatment in some adults aged 60 years or older at high cardiovascular risk, based on individualized assessment, to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg to reduce the risk for stroke or cardiac events. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians select the treatment goals for adults aged 60 years or older based on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patient.
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.
There is controversy about the role of statins in chronic heart failure. Even though it is clear they decrease inflammatory markers and probably improve some echocardiographic parameters, it is not clear if they impact clinically important outcomes. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified six systematic reviews including 21 randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded statins in chronic heart failure do not decrease mortality, and might lead to little or no decrease in hospitalizations for heart failure or other clinical outcomes.
Patients with chronic kidney disease have higher cardiovascular risk than general population, a fact that has been linked to high homocysteine levels. Folic acid supplementation can reduce homocysteine levels, which would reduce cardiovascular events. However, there is controversy about the clinical effects of this measure. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified six systematic reviews comprising 13 trials addressing the question of this article. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings following the GRADE approach. We concluded folic acid supplementation does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction or stroke in patients with chronic kidney disease, and might have no effect on mortality.
Angiotensin receptor blockers are usually considered as equivalent to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors for patients with heart failure and low-ejection fraction. Some guidelines even recommend the former as first line treatment given their better adverse effects profile. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified four systematic reviews including eight pertinent randomized controlled trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings following the GRADE approach. We concluded angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors probably have a similar effect on mortality, and they might be equivalent in reducing hospitalization risk too. Treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects is probably lower with angiotensin receptor blockers than with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors.
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) constitute first line treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, their role in patients with preserved ejection fraction remains controversial. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified five systematic reviews including five randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded ACEI and ARB do not decrease mortality or hospitalization risk in this group of patients.
PROBLEM: Aldosterone antagonist therapy in patients with advanced heart failure and reduced ejection fraction is widely recommended as it decreases mortality and hospitalizations. However, it is unclear how useful this class of drugs is in patients with mild to moderate heart failure.
KEY MESSAGES: The addition of aldosterone antagonists to chronic treatment of patients with mild to moderate heart failure reduces mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure decompensation. Aldosterone antagonists have a similar benefit across the spectrum of patients, regardless of their functional capacity and ejection fraction. Major clinical practice guidelines have not considered much of the existing evidence, and therefore the recommendations of these drugs are more restrictive in the type of heart failure patients. Spironolactone, a widely available and low cost drug, seems to be the best choice for the vast majority of patients with heart failure requiring an aldosterone antagonist.
