| 1. |
- Brunström, Mattias, et al.
(författare)
-
Blood pressure treatment levels and choice of antihypertensive agent in people with diabetes mellitus : an overview of systematic reviews
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 35, s. 435-462
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Brunström, Mattias, et al.
(författare)
-
SPRINT in context : meta-analysis of trials with baseline normotension and low levels of previous cardiovascular disease
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 36:5, s. 979-986
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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 66816 participants, were included in the meta-analyses. Mean baseline SBP was 138mmHg, and mean difference between treatment arms was 5.5mmHg. 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-2=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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Brunström, Mattias, et al.
(författare)
-
Standardization according to blood pressure lowering in meta-analyses of antihypertensive trials : comparison of three methodological approaches
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 36:1, s. 4-15
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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 = 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 = 0.99 before standardization vs. P = 0.063, R = 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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Carlberg, Bo
(författare)
-
Is lower really better? : Issue of the J curve hypothesis in hypertension
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 34, s. e196-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The J curve hypothesis propose that the relation between blood pressure and risk for cardiovascular events is non-linear. Instead of a decreased risk with lower blood pressure, the risk increases at lower blood pressures. This issue has been discussed for many years, and is still a hot topic. The debates have most often had its origin in the question about how far blood pressure should be lowered with antihypertensive drugs.One one hand, we know that many patients with hypertension is not treated to targets according to guidelines and that this contributes to the high risk for cardiovascular diseases in patients with hypertension. On the other hand, overtreatment could be one reason for the subobtimal effect of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular diseases.The issue about a J curve in the effect of antihypertensive drugs is complicated.The relation between blood pressure and cardiovascular risk is different for different cardiovascular outcomes. For example, the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage seem to increase steeper at higher blood pressure than for most other outcomes. On the other hand, the risk for abdominal aortic aneurysm increases only modestly with higher blood pressure. In addition, end stage renal disease and cognitive decline could have other relations between blood pressure and risk. Age, cardiovascular disease and diabetes have also been found to modify the relation between risk and outcome.Earlier this year, we published a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with antihypertensive drugs in patients with diabetes mellitus (ref). Included trials had to compare treatment with an antihypertensive drug against placebo, two antihypertensive agents against one or one blood pressure target against another target. The studies were stratified according to blood pressure at randomization (baseline blood pressure), mimicking the situation you as a clinician meet when you decide to recommend a patients additional antihypertensive therapy or not. We contacted authors to receive data from diabetic subgroups in large studies. Thus, we were able to include more studies than in previous systematic reviews in this field. All together, we included data from 49 randomized controlled trials, including 73 738 patients.The systematic review showed that the effect of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular outcomes is different at different blood pressure levels. For most outcomes, adding antihypertensive drugs were beneficial in patients with diabetes mellitus and high blood pressure. However, this benefit decreased with decreasing blood pressure. The risk for cardiovascular death increased when therapy was added in patents with diabetes and systolic blood pressure below 140 mmHg. The benefits of adding antihypertensive treatment at different blood pressure levels are summarized in the figure below.Thus, in patients with diabetes, the relations between treatment effect of antihypertensive drugs are different at different blood pressure levels. Treatment effects differ for different cardiovascular outcomes. These data question previous guidelines that recommend a systolic blood pressure target below 130 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus.In a very recent systematic review, we have reexamined the relation between randomization blood pressure and cardiovascular stratified for different baseline blood pressures. The meta-analyses include patients with and without diabetes, with and without previous cardiovascular disease etc. Altogether, 58 trials with 290 000 patients were included. The study shows that the effect of blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular outcomes is dependent on baseline systolic blood pressure but also differ between different subsets of patients. This study is under review and the results will be presented during the lecture.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
