| 1. |
- Karmali, Kunal N., et al.
(författare)
-
Blood pressure-lowering treatment strategies based on cardiovascular risk versus blood pressure : A meta-analysis of individual participant data
- 2018
-
Ingår i: PLoS Medicine. - : PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE. - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 15:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Clinical practice guidelines have traditionally recommended blood pressure treatment based primarily on blood pressure thresholds. In contrast, using predicted cardiovascular risk has been advocated as a more effective strategy to guide treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to compare outcomes from a blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk with one based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) level.Methods and findings: We used individual participant data from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) from 1995 to 2013. Trials randomly assigned participants to either blood pressure-lowering drugs versus placebo or more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering regimens. We estimated 5-y risk of CVD events using a multivariable Weibull model previously developed in this dataset. We compared the two strategies at specific SBP thresholds and across the spectrum of risk and blood pressure levels studied in BPLTTC trials. The primary outcome was number of CVD events avoided per persons treated. We included data from 11 trials (47,872 participants). During a median of 4.0 y of follow-up, 3,566 participants (7.5%) experienced a major cardiovascular event. Areas under the curve comparing the two treatment strategies throughout the range of possible thresholds for CVD risk and SBP demonstrated that, on average, a greater number of CVD events would be avoided for a given number of persons treated with the CVD risk strategy compared with the SBP strategy (area under the curve 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] for the CVD risk strategy versus 0.54 [95% CI 0.53-0.55] for the SBP strategy). Compared with treating everyone with SBP >= 150 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 29% (95% CI 26%-31%) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 16% (95% CI 14%-18%) more events for the same number of persons treated. Compared with treating everyone with SBP >= 140 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 3.8% (95% CI 12.5% fewer to 7.2% more) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 3.1% (95% CI 1.5%-5.0%) more events for the same number of persons treated, although the former estimate was not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, the CVD risk strategy did not appear to be more beneficial than the SBP strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus or established CVD.Conclusions: A blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk is more effective than one based on blood pressure levels alone across a range of thresholds. These results support using cardiovascular risk assessment to guide blood pressure treatment decision-making in moderate- to high-risk individuals, particularly for primary prevention.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pinho-Gomes, Ana-Catarina, et al.
(författare)
-
Blood pressure-lowering treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation : An individual participant data meta-analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: PLoS Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 18:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Randomised evidence on the efficacy of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of BP-lowering drugs in patients with and without AF at baseline. Methods and findings The study was based on the resource provided by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC), in which individual participant data (IPD) were extracted from trials with over 1,000 patient-years of follow-up in each arm, and that had randomly assigned patients to different classes of BP-lowering drugs, BP-lowering drugs versus placebo, or more versus less intensive BP-lowering regimens. For this study, only trials that had collected information on AF status at baseline were included. The effects of BP-lowering treatment on a composite endpoint of major cardiovascular events (stroke, ischaemic heart disease or heart failure) according to AF status at baseline were estimated using fixed-effect one-stage IPD meta-analyses based on Cox proportional hazards models stratified by trial. Furthermore, to assess whether the associations between the intensity of BP reduction and cardiovascular outcomes are similar in those with and without AF at baseline, we used a meta-regression. From the full BPLTTC database, 28 trials (145,653 participants) were excluded because AF status at baseline was uncertain or unavailable. A total of 22 trials were included with 188,570 patients, of whom 13,266 (7%) had AF at baseline. Risk of bias assessment showed that 20 trials were at low risk of bias and 2 trials at moderate risk. Meta-regression showed that relative risk reductions were proportional to trial-level intensity of BP lowering in patients with and without AF at baseline. Over 4.5 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg systolic BP (SBP) reduction lowered the risk of major cardiovascular events both in patients with AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 1.00) and in patients without AF at baseline (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), with no difference between subgroups. There was no evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline SBP or drug class in patients with AF at baseline. The findings of this study need to be interpreted in light of its potential limitations, such as the limited number of trials, limitation in ascertaining AF cases due to the nature of the arrhythmia and measuring BP in patients with AF. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, we found that BP-lowering treatment reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events similarly in individuals with and without AF. Pharmacological BP lowering for prevention of cardiovascular events should be recommended in patients with AF. Author summary Why was this study done? Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia across the world and is strongly associated with future vascular disease, particularly stroke. Blood pressure (BP) lowering is an established strategy for prevention of vascular disease, but whether patients with AF benefit similarly from pharmacological BP reduction is not well understood. What did the researchers do and find? We compared the preventive effect of BP-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without AF at baseline. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using published and unpublished data from large randomised clinical trials (22 trials involving 188,570 patients). We showed that BP-lowering treatment reduced the risk of a major cardiovascular events with no evidence that effects differed according to the presence or absence of AF at baseline. The relative risk reductions were proportional to the intensity of BP reduction in individuals with and without AF. In individuals with AF, the relative risk reduction was comparable irrespective of whether baseline systolic BP was under or over the conventional treatment threshold of 140 mm Hg. What do these findings mean? BP-lowering treatment reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with AF to a similar extent to that of patients without AF. Pharmacological BP-lowering treatment for prevention of cardiovascular events should be recommended as part of care for patients with AF.
|
|
| 3. |
- Salam, Abdul, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular events, in the context of regression to the mean : a systematic review of randomized trials
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 37:1, s. 16-23
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To assess the clinical relevance of regression to the mean for clinical trials and clinical practice. Methods: MEDLINE was searched until February 2018 for randomized trials of BP lowering with over 1000 patient-years follow-up per group. We estimated baseline mean BP, follow-up mean (usual) BP amongst patients grouped by 10 mmHg strata of baseline BP, and assessed effects of BP lowering on coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke according to these BP levels. Results: Eighty-six trials (349 488 participants), with mean follow-up of 3.7 years, were included. Most mean BP change was because of regression to the mean rather than treatment. At high baseline BP levels, even after rigorous hypertension diagnosis, downwards regression to the mean caused much of the fall in BP. At low baseline BP levels, upwards regression to the mean increased BP levels, even in treatment groups. Overall, a BP reduction of 6/3 mmHg lowered CHD by 14% (95% CI 11-17%) and stroke by 18% (15-22%), and these treatment effects occurred at follow-up BP levels much closer to the mean than baseline BP levels. In particular, more evidence was available in the SBP 130-139 mmHg range than any other range. Benefits were apparent in numerous high-risk patient groups with baseline mean SBP less than 140 mmHg. Conclusion: Clinical practice should focus less on pretreatment BP levels, which rarely predict future untreated BP levels or rule out capacity to benefit from BP lowering in high cardiovascular risk patients. Instead, focus should be on prompt, empirical treatment to maintain lower BP for those with high BP and/or high risk.
|
|
