Dataset Information

Blood pressure in adults with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine the overall mean blood pressure and prevalence of hypertension among a representative sample of adults living with cerebral palsy by combining individual participant data. Additional objectives included estimating variations between subgroups and investigating potential risk factors for hypertension.

Methods

Potential datasets were identified by literature searches for studies published between January 2000 and November 2017 and by experts in the field. Samples of adults with cerebral palsy (n ≥ 10, age ≥ 18 years) were included if blood pressure data, cerebral palsy-related factors (e.g. cerebral palsy subtype), and sociodemographic variables (e.g. age, sex) were available. Hypertension was defined as at least 140/90 mmHg and/or use of antihypertensive medication.

Results

We included data from 11 international cohorts representing 444 adults with cerebral palsy [median (IQR) age of the sample was 29.0 (23.0-38.0); 51% men; 89% spastic type; Gross Motor Function Classification System levels I-V]. Overall mean SBP was 124.9 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) 121.7-128.1] and overall mean DBP was 79.9 mmHg (95% CI 77.2-82.5). Overall prevalence of hypertension was 28.7% (95% CI 18.8-39.8%). Subgroup analysis indicated higher blood pressure levels or higher prevalence of hypertension in adults with cerebral palsy above 40 years of age, men, those with spastic cerebral palsy or those who lived in Africa. BMI, resting heart rate and alcohol consumption were risk factors that were associated with blood pressure or hypertension.

Conclusion

Our findings underscore the importance of clinical screening for blood pressure in individuals with cerebral palsy beginning in young adulthood.

SUBMITTER: Noten S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8452335 | 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:BackgroundBlood pressure lowering is an established strategy for preventing microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes, but its role in the prevention of diabetes itself is unclear. We aimed to examine this question using individual participant data from major randomised controlled trials.MethodsWe performed a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis, in which data were pooled to investigate the effect of blood pressure lowering per se on the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes. An individual participant data network meta-analysis was used to investigate the differential effects of five major classes of antihypertensive drugs on the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes. Overall, data from 22 studies conducted between 1973 and 2008, were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We included all primary and secondary prevention trials that used a specific class or classes of antihypertensive drugs versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure lowering medications that had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each randomly allocated arm. Participants with a known diagnosis of diabetes at baseline and trials conducted in patients with prevalent diabetes were excluded. For the one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis we used stratified Cox proportional hazards model and for the individual participant data network meta-analysis we used logistic regression models to calculate the relative risk (RR) for drug class comparisons.Findings145 939 participants (88 500 [60·6%] men and 57 429 [39·4%] women) from 19 randomised controlled trials were included in the one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis. 22 trials were included in the individual participant data network meta-analysis. After a median follow-up of 4·5 years (IQR 2·0), 9883 participants were diagnosed with new-onset type 2 diabetes. Systolic blood pressure reduction by 5 mm Hg reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes across all trials by 11% (hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·84-0·95]). Investigation of the effects of five major classes of antihypertensive drugs showed that in comparison to placebo, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (RR 0·84 [95% 0·76-0·93]) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (RR 0·84 [0·76-0·92]) reduced the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes; however, the use of β blockers (RR 1·48 [1·27-1·72]) and thiazide diuretics (RR 1·20 [1·07-1·35]) increased this risk, and no material effect was found for calcium channel blockers (RR 1·02 [0·92-1·13]).InterpretationBlood pressure lowering is an effective strategy for the prevention of new-onset type 2 diabetes. Established pharmacological interventions, however, have qualitatively and quantitively different effects on diabetes, likely due to their differing off-target effects, with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers having the most favourable outcomes. This evidence supports the indication for selected classes of antihypertensive drugs for the prevention of diabetes, which could further refine the selection of drug choice according to an individual's clinical risk of diabetes.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough intensive blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment reduces risk for cardiovascular disease, there are concerns that it might cause orthostatic hypotension (OH).PurposeTo examine the effects of intensive BP-lowering treatment on OH in hypertensive adults.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through 7 October 2019, without language restrictions.Study selectionRandomized 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 extraction2 investigators independently abstracted articles and rated risk of bias.Data synthesis5 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.LimitationsAssessments 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.ConclusionIntensive 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 sourceNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42020153753).

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals aged 70 years and older, particularly when blood pressure is not substantially increased, is uncertain. We compared the effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events in groups of patients stratified by age and blood pressure at baseline.MethodsWe did a meta-analysis using individual participant-level data from randomised controlled trials of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering versus placebo or other classes of blood-pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment strategies, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each treatment group. Participants with previous history of heart failure were excluded. Data were obtained from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Triallists' Collaboration. We pooled the data and categorised participants into baseline age groups (<55 years, 55-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and ≥85 years) and blood pressure categories (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and from <70 mm Hg to ≥110 mm Hg diastolic). We used a fixed effects one-stage approach and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyse the data. The primary outcome was defined as either a composite of fatal or non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospital admission.FindingsWe included data from 358 707 participants from 51 randomised clinical trials. The age of participants at randomisation ranged from 21 years to 105 years (median 65 years [IQR 59-75]), with 42 960 (12·0%) participants younger than 55 years, 128 437 (35·8%) aged 55-64 years, 128 506 (35·8%) 65-74 years, 54 016 (15·1%) 75-84 years, and 4788 (1·3%) 85 years and older. The hazard ratios for the risk of major cardiovascular events per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure for each age group were 0·82 (95% CI 0·76-0·88) in individuals younger than 55 years, 0·91 (0·88-0·95) in those aged 55-64 years, 0·91 (0·88-0·95) in those aged 65-74 years, 0·91 (0·87-0·96) in those aged 75-84 years, and 0·99 (0·87-1·12) in those aged 85 years and older (adjusted pinteraction=0·050). Similar patterns of proportional risk reductions were observed for a 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure. Absolute risk reductions for major cardiovascular events varied by age and were larger in older groups (adjusted pinteraction=0·024). We did not find evidence for any clinically meaningful heterogeneity of relative treatment effects across different baseline blood pressure categories in any age group.InterpretationPharmacological blood pressure reduction is effective into old age, with no evidence that relative risk reductions for prevention of major cardiovascular events vary by systolic or diastolic blood pressure levels at randomisation, down to less than 120/70 mm Hg. Pharmacological blood pressure reduction should, therefore, be considered an important treatment option regardless of age, with the removal of age-related blood-pressure thresholds from international guidelines.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford Martin School.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised 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 findingsThe 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension.Methods and findingsMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies.ConclusionsSelf-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.