13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Time to Clinical Benefit of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering in Patients 60 Years and Older With Hypertension : A Secondary Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This secondary analysis of randomized clinical trials estimates the time needed to potentially derive clinical benefit from intensive blood pressure treatment in patients 60 years and older.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Recent guidelines recommend a systolic blood pressure (BP) goal of less than 150 mm Hg or even 130 mm Hg for adults aged 60 years or older. However, harms from intensive BP treatments occur immediately (eg, syncope, fall), and benefits for cardiovascular event reduction emerge over time. Therefore, harms with low chance of benefit need to be clearer, particularly for those with limited life expectancy.

          Objective

          To estimate the time needed to potentially derive clinical benefit from intensive BP treatment in patients 60 years and older.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This secondary analysis included individual patient data from published randomized clinical trials with 27 414 patients 60 years or older with hypertension. Patient-level survival data were reconstructed when the original data were not available. Published trials were identified by searching PubMed until October 15, 2021.

          Exposures

          Intensive BP lowering vs standard BP lowering with the treat-to-target design.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) defined by each trial, which was broadly similar with all trials including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality.

          Results

          Six trials (original data from 2 trials and reconstructed data from 4 trials) with 27 414 participants (mean age, 70 years; 56.3% were women) were included in the analysis. Intensive BP treatment with a systolic BP target below 140 mm Hg was significantly associated with a 21% reduction in MACE (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.88; P < .001). On average, 9.1 (95% CI, 4.0-20.6) months were needed to prevent 1 MACE per 500 patients with the intensive BP treatment (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 0.002). Likewise, 19.1 (95% CI, 10.9-34.2) and 34.4 (95% CI, 22.7-59.8) months were estimated to avoid 1 MACE per 200 (ARR, 0.005) and 100 (ARR, 0.01) patients, respectively.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this analysis, findings suggest that for patients 60 years and older with hypertension, intensive BP treatment may be appropriate for some adults with a life expectancy of greater than 3 years but may not be suitable for those with less than 1 year.

          Key Points

          Question

          What is the time to benefit of intensive blood pressure treatment in adults 60 years and older?

          Findings

          In this analysis of 6 randomized clinical trials consisting of 27 414 individuals with hypertension aged 60 years and older, 19.1 months and 34.4 months were needed to avoid 1 cardiovascular event for 100 and 200 patients, respectively.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that intensive blood pressure treatment may be appropriate for some adults with hypertension aged 60 years and older with a life expectancy of greater than 3 years but may not be suitable for those with less than 1 year.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control

            New England Journal of Medicine, 373(22), 2103-2116
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Internal Medicine
                American Medical Association
                2168-6106
                2168-6114
                9 May 2022
                June 2022
                9 May 2022
                : 182
                : 6
                : 660-667
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu, Nanjing, China
                [4 ]Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Hefei, China
                [5 ]Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
                [6 ]Medical Research and Biometrics Center, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Mentougou District, Beijing, China
                [7 ]Department of Geriatric Medicine, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
                [8 ]Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi’an, China
                [9 ]Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
                [10 ]Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, China
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: March 26, 2022.
                Published Online: May 9, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.1657
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Chen T et al. JAMA Internal Medicine.
                Corresponding Authors: Chao Li, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi’an 710061, China ( lcxjtu@ 123456xjtu.edu.cn ); Zhixin Jiang, PhD, Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China ( zhixin_jiang@ 123456njmu.edu.cn ).
                Author Contributions: Drs T. Chen and Li had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Li, Cornelius, and Jiang are joint senior authors.
                Concept and design: T. Chen, Shao, K. Chen, Li, Jiang.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: T. Chen, Shao, K. Chen, Yang Wang, Wu, Yongjuan Wang, Gao, Cornelius, Li.
                Drafting of the manuscript: T. Chen, Shao, Li, Jiang.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: T. Chen, Shao, Li.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Shao, K. Chen, Yang Wang, Li, Jiang.
                Supervision: T. Chen, Li.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored the SPRINT and ACCORD BP trials. The National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81803264) and the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (JSPH-511C-2018-5) support the current analysis.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the SPRINT and ACCORD BP trials or the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
                Additional Contributions: The ACCORD BP and SPRINT investigators and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute investigators are greatly acknowledged for conducting the trials and making both data sets publicly available.
                Article
                ioi220022
                10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.1657
                9086939
                35532917
                43926f13-e12e-45d9-a67a-295dcb5ae1b6
                Copyright 2022 Chen T et al. JAMA Internal Medicine.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 18 January 2022
                : 26 March 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Less Is More
                Online First

                Comments

                Comment on this article