Dataset Information

Eligibility and subsequent burden of cardiovascular disease of four strategies for blood pressure-lowering treatment: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Worldwide treatment recommendations for lowering blood pressure continue to be guided predominantly by blood pressure thresholds, despite strong evidence that the benefits of blood pressure reduction are observed in patients across the blood pressure spectrum. In this study, we aimed to investigate the implications of alternative strategies for offering blood pressure treatment, using the UK as an illustrative example.

Methods

We did a retrospective cohort study in primary care patients aged 30-79 years without cardiovascular disease, using data from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics mortality. We assessed and compared four different strategies to determine eligibility for treatment: using 2011 UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline, or proposed 2019 NICE guideline, or blood pressure alone (threshold ≥140/90 mm Hg), or predicted 10-year cardiovascular risk alone (QRISK2 score ≥10%). Patients were followed up until the earliest occurrence of a cardiovascular disease diagnosis, death, or end of follow-up period (March 31, 2016). For each strategy, we estimated the proportion of patients eligible for treatment and number of cardiovascular events that could be prevented with treatment. We then estimated eligibility and number of events that would occur during 10 years in the UK general population.

Findings

Between Jan 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1 222 670 patients in the cohort were followed up for a median of 4·3 years (IQR 2·5-5·2). 271 963 (22·2%) patients were eligible for treatment under the 2011 NICE guideline, 327 429 (26·8%) under the proposed 2019 NICE guideline, 481 859 (39·4%) on the basis of a blood pressure threshold of 140/90 mm Hg or higher, and 357 840 (29·3%) on the basis of a QRISK2 threshold of 10% or higher. During follow-up, 32 183 patients were diagnosed with cardiovascular disease (overall rate 7·1 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI 7·0-7·2). Cardiovascular event rates in patients eligible for each strategy were 15·2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 15·0-15·5) under the 2011 NICE guideline, 14·9 (14·7-15·1) under the proposed 2019 NICE guideline, 11·4 (11·3-11·6) with blood pressure threshold alone, and 16·9 (16·7-17·1) with QRISK2 threshold alone. Scaled to the UK population, we estimated that 233 152 events would be avoided under the 2011 NICE guideline (28 patients needed to treat for 10 years to avoid one event), 270 233 under the 2019 NICE guideline (29 patients), 301 523 using a blood pressure threshold (38 patients), and 322 921 using QRISK2 threshold (27 patients).

Interpretation

A cardiovascular risk-based strategy (QRISK2 ≥10%) could prevent over a third more cardiovascular disease events than the 2011 NICE guideline and a fifth more than the 2019 NICE guideline, with similar efficiency regarding number treated per event avoided.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Herrett E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6717081 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical 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 findingsWe 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.ConclusionsA 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.

Project description:ImportanceHigh blood pressure (BP) is the most important risk factor for death and cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide. The optimal cutoff for treatment of high BP is debated.ObjectiveTo assess the association between BP lowering treatment and death and CVD at different BP levels.Data sourcesPrevious systematic reviews were identified from PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect. Reference lists of these reviews were searched for randomized clinical trials. Randomized clinical trials published after November 1, 2015, were also searched for in PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials during February 2017.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials with at least 1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing BP-lowering drugs vs placebo or different BP goals were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted from original publications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations assessment tool. Relative risks (RRs) were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses with Knapp-Hartung modification. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresPrespecified outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, heart failure, and end-stage renal disease.ResultsSeventy-four unique trials, representing 306 273 unique participants (39.9% women and 60.1% men; mean age, 63.6 years) and 1.2 million person-years, were included in the meta-analyses. In primary prevention, the association of BP-lowering treatment with major cardiovascular events was dependent on baseline systolic BP (SBP). In trials with baseline SBP 160 mm Hg or above, treatment was associated with reduced risk for death (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00) and a substantial reduction of major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87). If baseline SBP ranged from 140 to 159 mm Hg, the association of treatment with mortality was similar (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00), but the association with major cardiovascular events was less pronounced (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). In trials with baseline SBP below 140 mm Hg, treatment was not associated with mortality (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06) and major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04). In trials including people with previous CHD and mean baseline SBP of 138 mm Hg, treatment was associated with reduced risk for major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97), but was not associated with survival (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07).Conclusions and relevancePrimary preventive BP lowering is associated with reduced risk for death and CVD if baseline SBP is 140 mm Hg or higher. At lower BP levels, treatment is not associated with any benefit in primary prevention but might offer additional protection in patients with CHD.

Project description:IntroductionCigarette smoking affects blood pressure and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. The role of smoking cessation programs with respect to blood pressure remains inconclusive. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the effects of a smoking cessation program on blood pressure.MethodsParticipants who attended the smoking cessation program in an outpatient clinic of a tertiary medical center in Taiwan from 2017 to 2018 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Their smoking cessation status was traced via phone calls during the third month, and the researchers collected participant characteristics and blood pressure before and after the program. Differences in the participants' blood pressure, based on those with and those without hypertension, were compared using analysis of covariance. Univariable logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with success in smoking cessation. In total, there were 721 participants. The participants had a mean age of 55.8±11.4 years and 68.1% of the participants were hypertensive.ResultsDuring the program, the overall systolic blood pressure decreased by 4.0±17.9 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure decreased by 2.5±12.0 mmHg, from the baseline. Hypertensive participants showed a more prominent blood pressure lowering effect compared to non-hypertensive participants in terms of the subtraction difference of systolic blood pressure (-5.0±19.0 vs -1.9±15.2 mmHg, p=0.018) and diastolic blood pressure (-3.1±12.9 vs -1.1±9.6 mmHg, p=0.016). After multivariate control, the results showed that the adjusted subtraction difference of diastolic blood pressure was still more significant in the hypertensive group than in the non-hypertensive group.ConclusionsThe smoking cessation program significantly reduced both systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in the entire cohort. The results were more significant in the hypertensive group compared to the non-hypertensive group.

Project description:Objective: High systolic blood pressure (HSBP) remains the leading risk factor for mortality worldwide; however, limited data have revealed all-cause and cause-specific burdens attributed to HSBP at global and regional levels. This study aimed to estimate the global burden and priority diseases attributable to HSBP by region, sex, and age. Methods: Based on data and evaluation methods from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, we estimated trends of age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR), the age-standardized rate of disability-adjusted life years (ASDRs), and the age-standardized rate of years lived with disability (ASYRs) attributable to HSBP during 1990-2019. Further, we analyzed cause-specific burdens attributable to HSBP by sex, age, year, and region. Results: Globally, a significant downtrend was found in the ASMR attributed to HSBP while ASYRs did not change substantially during 1990-2019. The majority of HSBP burden has shifted from high-middle sociodemographic index (SDI) regions to lower SDI regions. All-cause and most cause-specific burdens related to HSBP were improved in high SDI regions but the downtrends have stagnated in recent years. Although many cause-specific deaths associated with HSBP declined, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and endocarditis associated deaths were aggravated globally and ischemic heart disease (IHD), atrial fibrillation and flutter, aortic aneurysm (AA), and peripheral artery disease (PAD) associated deaths were on the rise in low/low-middle/middle SDI regions. Additionally, males had higher disease burdens than females. Middle-aged people with CVDs composed the major subgroup affected by HSBP while older people had the highest ASMRs associated with HSBP. Conclusions: This study revealed the global burden and priority diseases attributable to HSBP with wide variation by region, sex, and age, calling for effective and targeted strategies to reduce the prevalence and mortality of HSBP, especially in low/low-middle/middle SDI regions.