Dataset Information

Effects of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment on Orthostatic Hypotension : A Systematic Review and Individual Participant-based Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although intensive blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment reduces risk for cardiovascular disease, there are concerns that it might cause orthostatic hypotension (OH).

Purpose

To examine the effects of intensive BP-lowering treatment on OH in hypertensive adults.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through 7 October 2019, without language restrictions.

Study selection

Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) that involved more than 500 adults with hypertension or elevated BP and that were 6 months or longer in duration. Trial comparisons were groups assigned to either less intensive BP goals or placebo, and the outcome was measured OH, defined as a decrease of 20 mm Hg or more in systolic BP or 10 mm Hg or more in diastolic BP after changing position from seated to standing.

Data extraction

2 investigators independently abstracted articles and rated risk of bias.

Data synthesis

5 trials examined BP treatment goals, and 4 examined active agents versus placebo. Trials examining BP treatment goals included 18 466 participants with 127 882 follow-up visits. Trials were open-label, with minimal heterogeneity of effects across trials. Intensive BP treatment lowered risk for OH (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). Effects did not differ by prerandomization OH (P for interaction = 0.80). In sensitivity analyses that included 4 additional placebo-controlled trials, overall and subgroup findings were unchanged.

Limitations

Assessments of OH were done while participants were seated (not supine) and did not include the first minute after standing. Data on falls and syncope were not available.

Conclusion

Intensive BP-lowering treatment decreases risk for OH. Orthostatic hypotension, before or in the setting of more intensive BP treatment, should not be viewed as a reason to avoid or de-escalate treatment for hypertension.

Primary funding source

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42020153753).

SUBMITTER: Juraschek SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7855528 | 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:BACKGROUND:The absolute risk reduction (ARR) in cardiovascular events from therapy is generally assumed to be proportional to baseline risk-such that high-risk patients benefit most. Yet newer analyses have proposed using randomized trial data to develop models that estimate individual treatment effects. We tested 2 hypotheses: first, that models of individual treatment effects would reveal that benefit from intensive blood pressure therapy is proportional to baseline risk; and second, that a machine learning approach designed to predict heterogeneous treatment effects-the X-learner meta-algorithm-is equivalent to a conventional logistic regression approach. METHODS AND RESULTS:We compared conventional logistic regression to the X-learner approach for prediction of 3-year cardiovascular disease event risk reduction from intensive (target systolic blood pressure <120 mm?Hg) versus standard (target <140 mm?Hg) blood pressure treatment, using individual participant data from the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial; N=9361) and ACCORD BP (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure; N=4733) trials. Each model incorporated 17 covariates, an indicator for treatment arm, and interaction terms between covariates and treatment. Logistic regression had lower C statistic for benefit than the X-learner (0.51 [95% CI, 0.49-0.53] versus 0.60 [95% CI, 0.58-0.63], respectively). Following the logistic regression's recommendation for individualized therapy produced restricted mean time until cardiovascular disease event of 1065.47 days (95% CI, 1061.04-1069.35), while following the X-learner's recommendation improved mean time until cardiovascular disease event to 1068.71 days (95% CI, 1065.42-1072.08). Calibration was worse for logistic regression; it over-estimated ARR attributable to intensive treatment (slope between predicted and observed ARR of 0.73 [95% CI, 0.30-1.14] versus 1.06 [95% CI, 0.74-1.32] for the X-learner, compared with the ideal of 1). Predicted ARRs using logistic regression were generally proportional to baseline pretreatment cardiovascular risk, whereas the X-learner observed-correctly-that individual treatment effects were often not proportional to baseline risk. CONCLUSIONS:Predictions for individual treatment effects from trial data reveal that patients may experience ARRs not simply proportional to baseline cardiovascular disease risk. Machine learning methods may improve discrimination and calibration of individualized treatment effect estimates from clinical trial data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT01206062; NCT00000620.