Dataset Information

Benefits and Harms of Antihypertensive Treatment in Low-Risk Patients With Mild Hypertension.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Evidence to support initiation of pharmacologic treatment in low-risk patients with mild hypertension is inconclusive, with previous trials underpowered to demonstrate benefit. Clinical guidelines across the world are contradictory.

Objective

To examine whether antihypertensive treatment is associated with a low risk of mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low-risk patients with mild hypertension.

Design, setting, and participants

In this longitudinal cohort study, data were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, from January 1, 1998, through September 30, 2015, for patients aged 18 to 74 years who had mild hypertension (untreated blood pressure of 140/90-159/99 mm Hg) and no previous treatment. Anyone with a history of CVD or CVD risk factors was excluded. Patients exited the cohort if follow-up records became unavailable or they experienced an outcome of interest.

Exposures

Prescription of antihypertensive medication. Propensity scores for likelihood of treatment were constructed using a logistic regression model. Individuals treated within 12 months of diagnosis were matched to untreated patients by propensity score using the nearest-neighbor method.

Main outcomes and measures

The rates of mortality, CVD, and adverse events among patients prescribed antihypertensive treatment at baseline, compared with those who were not prescribed such treatment, using Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

A total of 19?143 treated patients (mean [SD] age, 54.7?[11.8] years; 10 705 [55.9%] women; 10 629 [55.5%] white) were matched to 19?143 similar untreated patients (mean [SD] age, 54.9 [12.2] years; 10 631 [55.5%] female; 10 654 [55.7%] white). During a median follow-up period of 5.8 years (interquartile range, 2.6-9.0 years), no evidence of an association was found between antihypertensive treatment and mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.17) or between antihypertensive treatment and CVD (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.95-1.25). Treatment was associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypotension (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.20; number needed to harm at 10 years [NNH10], 41), syncope (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.50; NNH10, 35), electrolyte abnormalities (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12-2.65; NNH10, 111), and acute kidney injury (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.00-1.88; NNH10, 91).

Conclusions and relevance

This prespecified analysis found no evidence to support guideline recommendations that encourage initiation of treatment in patients with low-risk mild hypertension. There was evidence of an increased risk of adverse events, which suggests that physicians should exercise caution when following guidelines that generalize findings from trials conducted in high-risk individuals to those at lower risk.

SUBMITTER: Sheppard JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583613 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Benefits and Harms of Antihypertensive Treatment in Low-Risk Patients With Mild Hypertension.

Sheppard James P JP Stevens Sarah S Stevens Richard R Martin Una U Mant Jonathan J Hobbs F D Richard FDR McManus Richard J RJ

JAMA internal medicine 20181201 12

<h4>Importance</h4>Evidence to support initiation of pharmacologic treatment in low-risk patients with mild hypertension is inconclusive, with previous trials underpowered to demonstrate benefit. Clinical guidelines across the world are contradictory.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine whether antihypertensive treatment is associated with a low risk of mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low-risk patients with mild hypertension.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>In this longitudinal co ...[more]

PMID: 30383082

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLittle is known about how patients weigh benefits and harms of available treatments for Parkinson's Disease (oral medication, deep brain stimulation, infusion therapy). In this study we have (1) elicited patient preferences for benefits, side effects and process characteristics of treatments and (2) measured patients' preferred and perceived involvement in decision-making about treatment.MethodsPreferences were elicited using a best-worst scaling case 2 experiment. Attributes were selected based on 18 patient-interviews: treatment modality, tremor, slowness of movement, posture and balance problems, drowsiness, dizziness, and dyskinesia. Subsequently, a questionnaire was distributed in which patients were asked to indicate the most and least desirable attribute in nine possible treatment scenarios. Conditional logistic analysis and latent class analysis were used to estimate preference weights and identify subgroups. Patients also indicated their preferred and perceived degree of involvement in treatment decision-making (ranging from active to collaborative to passive).ResultsTwo preference patterns were found in the patient sample (N = 192). One class of patients focused largely on optimising the process of care, while the other class focused more on controlling motor-symptoms. Patients who had experienced advanced treatments, had a shorter disease duration, or were still employed were more likely to belong to the latter class. For both classes, the benefits of treatment were more influential than the described side effects. Furthermore, many patients (45%) preferred to take the lead in treatment decisions, however 10.8% perceived a more passive or collaborative role instead.DiscussionPatients weighted the benefits and side effects of treatment differently, indicating there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to choosing treatments. Moreover, many patients preferred an active role in decision-making about treatment. Both results stress the need for physicians to know what is important to patients and to share treatment decisions to ensure that patients receive the treatment that aligns with their preferences.

Project description:ImportancePoorly controlled hypertension is a leading global public health problem requiring new treatment strategies.ObjectiveTo assess whether a low-dose triple combination antihypertensive medication would achieve better blood pressure (BP) control vs usual care.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, open-label trial of a low-dose triple BP therapy vs usual care for adults with hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg; or in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease: >130 mm Hg and/or >80 mm Hg) requiring initiation (untreated patients) or escalation (patients receiving monotherapy) of antihypertensive therapy. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017.InterventionsA once-daily fixed-dose triple combination pill (20 mg of telmisartan, 2.5 mg of amlodipine, and 12.5 mg of chlorthalidone) therapy (n = 349) or usual care (n = 351).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion achieving target systolic/diastolic BP (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included mean systolic/diastolic BP difference during follow-up and withdrawal of BP medications due to an adverse event.ResultsAmong 700 randomized patients (mean age, 56 years; 58% women; 29% had diabetes; mean baseline systolic/diastolic BP, 154/90 mm Hg), 675 (96%) completed the trial. The triple combination pill increased the proportion achieving target BP vs usual care at 6 months (70% vs 55%, respectively; risk difference, 12.7% [95% CI, 3.2% to 22.0%]; P < .001). Mean systolic/diastolic BP at 6 months was 125/76 mm Hg for the triple combination pill vs 134/81 mm Hg for usual care (adjusted difference in postrandomization BP over the entire follow-up: systolic BP, -9.8 [95% CI, -7.9 to -11.6] mm Hg; diastolic BP, -5.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -6.1] mm Hg; P < .001 for both comparisons). Overall, 419 adverse events were reported in 255 patients (38.1% for triple combination pill vs 34.8% for usual care) with the most common being musculoskeletal pain (6.0% and 8.0%, respectively) and dizziness, presyncope, or syncope (5.2% and 2.8%). There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patient withdrawal from BP-lowering therapy due to adverse events (6.6% for triple combination pill vs 6.8% for usual care).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with a pill containing low doses of 3 antihypertensive drugs led to an increased proportion of patients achieving their target BP goal vs usual care. Use of such medication as initial therapy or to replace monotherapy may be an effective way to improve BP control.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864; slctr.lk Identifier: SLCTR/2015/020.

Project description:Antihypertensive medications are commonly prescribed to hemodialysis patients but the optimal regimens to prevent morbidity and mortality are unknown. The goal of our study was to compare the association of routinely prescribed antihypertensive regimens with outcomes in US hemodialysis patients.We used 2 datasets for our analysis. Our primary cohort (US Renal Data System [USRDS]) included adult patients initiating in-center hemodialysis from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008 (n?=?33,005) with follow-up through December 31, 2009. Our secondary cohort included adult patients from Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (DCI), a national not-for-profit dialysis provider, initiating in-center hemodialysis from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008 (n?=?11,291) with follow-up through December 31, 2008. We linked the USRDS cohort with Medicare part D prescriptions-fill data and the DCI cohort with USRDS data. Unique aspect of USRDS cohort was pharmacy prescription-fill data and for DCI cohort was detailed clinical data, including blood pressure, weight, and ultrafiltration. We classified prescribed antihypertensives into the following mutually exclusive regimens: ?-blockers, renin-angiotensin system blocking drugs-containing regimens without a ?-blocker (RAS), ?-blocker?+?RAS, and others. We used marginal structural models accounting for time-updated comorbidities to quantify each regimen's association with mortality (both cohorts) and cardiovascular hospitalization (DCI-Medicare Subcohort).In the USRDS and DCI cohorts there were 9655 (29%) and 3200 (28%) deaths, respectively. In both cohorts, RAS compared to ?-blockers regimens were associated with lower risk of death; (hazard ratio [HR]) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for all-cause mortality, (0.90 [0.82-0.97] in USRDS and 0.87 [0.76-0.98] in DCI) and cardiovascular mortality (0.84 [0.75-0.95] in USRDS and 0.88 [0.71-1.07] in DCI). There was no association between antihypertensive regimens and the risk of cardiovascular hospitalizations.In hemodialysis patients undergoing routine care, renin-angiotensin system blocking drugs-containing regimens were associated with a lower risk of death compared with ?-blockers-containing regimens but there was no association with cardiovascular hospitalizations. Pragmatic clinical trials are needed to specifically examine the effectiveness of these commonly used antihypertensive regimens in dialysis patients.

Dataset Information

Benefits and Harms of Antihypertensive Treatment in Low-Risk Patients With Mild Hypertension.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Benefits and Harms of Antihypertensive Treatment in Low-Risk Patients With Mild Hypertension.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets