Dataset Information

Do we AGREE on the targets of antihypertensive drug treatment in older adults: a systematic review of guidelines on primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

ABSTRACT:

Background

translation of the available evidence concerning primary cardiovascular prevention into clinical guidance for the heterogeneous population of older adults is challenging. With this review, we aimed to give an overview of the thresholds and targets of antihypertensive drug therapy for older adults in currently used guidelines on primary cardiovascular prevention. Secondly, we evaluated the relationship between the advised targets and guideline characteristics, including guideline quality.

Methods

we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Emcare and five guideline databases. We selected guidelines with (i) numerical thresholds for the initiation or target values of antihypertensive drug therapy in context of primary prevention (January 2008-July 2020) and (ii) specific advice concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. We extracted the recommendations and appraised the quality of included guidelines with the AGREE II instrument.

Results

thirty-four guidelines provided recommendations concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. Twenty advised a higher target of systolic blood pressure (SBP) for octogenarians in comparison with the general population and three advised a lower target. Over half of the guidelines (n = 18) recommended to target a SBP <150 mmHg in the oldest old, while four endorsed targets of SBP lower than 130 or 120 mmHg. Although many guidelines acknowledged frailty, only three gave specific thresholds and targets. Guideline characteristics, including methodological quality, were not related with the recommended targets.

Conclusion

the ongoing debate concerning targets of antihypertensive treatment in older adults, is reflected in an inconsistency of recommendations across guidelines. Recommended targets are largely set on chronological rather than biological age.

SUBMITTER: Bogaerts JMK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8753036 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFor primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on statin use (hereafter European-ESC) recommend a new risk model (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 [European-SCORE2]) as well as new age-specific treatment thresholds (≥7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk if aged 40-49 years and ≥10% if aged 50-69 years).ObjectiveTo compare the clinical performance of the 2021 European-ESC, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (hereafter US-ACC/AHA), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK-NICE), and 2019 ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines in apparently healthy individuals.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based contemporary cohort study included 66 909 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. Participants were aged 40 to 69 years and were free of ASCVD, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and statin use at baseline in 2003 to 2015. Mean follow-up time was 9.2 years. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to April 2022.ExposuresStatin treatment according to guideline criteria.Main outcomes and measuresCalibration of risk calculators, statin eligibility, sensitivity, and specificity for ASCVD events according to guideline criteria.ResultsDuring follow-up, a range of 2962 to 4277 nonfatal and fatal ASCVD events was observed, as defined by the 2021 European-SCORE2, US pooled cohort equations (PCE), and UK-QRISK3 models, and 180 fatal ASCVD events were noted as defined by the 2019 European-SCORE1 model. European-SCORE2 was slightly better calibrated with a predicted/observed ASCVD event ratio of 0.8 vs 1.3 for US-PCE, 1.3 for UK-QRISK3, and 5.8 for European-SCORE1. For primary prevention class I recommendations in individuals aged 40 to 69 years, 2862 of 66 909 (4%) qualified for statins according to the 2021 European-ESC guidelines compared with 23 029 (34%) with US-ACC/AHA, 17 659 (26%) with UK-NICE, and 13 496 (20%) with 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines, with associated sensitivities for detecting future European-SCORE2-defined ASCVD events of 12%, 60%, 51%, and 36%, respectively. The sensitivity of the European-ESC guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds, resulting in smaller losses in specificity. To obtain similar clinical performance with the 2021 European-ESC guidelines as in the other guidelines, the threshold with European-SCORE2 should be reduced to 5% overall to match US-ACC/AHA, to 6% to match UK-NICE, and to 7% to match 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines.Conclusions and relevanceDespite an improved European-SCORE2 prediction model, the new treatment thresholds in the 2021 European-ESC guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for primary prevention with statins in low-risk European countries. Using lower treatment thresholds can improve overall guideline performance.

Project description:Tanzania is facing a double burden of disease, with non-communicable diseases being an increasingly important contributor. Evidence-based preventive measures are important to limit the growing financial burden. This article aims to estimate the cost of providing medical primary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among at-risk patients, reflecting actual resource use and if the World Health Organization (WHO)'s CVD medical preventive guidelines are implemented in Tanzania. In addition, we estimate and explore the cost to patients of receiving these services. Cost data were collected in four health facilities located in both urban and rural settings. Providers' costs were identified and measured using ingredients approach to costing and resource valuation followed the opportunity cost method. Unit costs were estimated using activity-based and step-down costing methodologies. The patient costs were obtained through a structured questionnaire. The unit cost of providing CVD medical primary prevention services ranged from US$30-41 to US$52-71 per patient per year at the health centre and hospital levels, respectively. Employing the WHO's absolute risk approach guidelines will substantially increase these costs. The annual patient cost of receiving these services as currently practised was estimated to be US$118 and US$127 for urban and rural patients, respectively. Providers' costs were estimated from two main viewpoints: 'what is', that is the current practice, and 'what if', reflecting a WHO guidelines scenario. The higher cost of implementing the WHO guidelines suggests the need for further evaluation of whether these added costs are reasonable relative to the added benefits. We also found considerably higher patient costs, implying that distributive and equity implications of access to care require more consideration. Facility location surfaced as the main explanatory variable for both direct and indirect patient costs in the regression analysis; further research on the influence of other provider characteristics on these costs is important.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Considering the scarcity of health care resources and the high costs associated with cardiovascular diseases, we investigated the spending on cardiovascular primary preventive activities and the prescribing behaviour of primary preventive cardiovascular medication (PPCM) in Dutch family practices (FPs). METHODS: A mixed methods design was used, which consisted of a questionnaire (n = 80 FPs), video recordings of hypertension- or cholesterol-related general practitioner visits (n = 56), and the database of Netherlands Information Network of General Practice (n = 45 FPs; n = 157,137 patients). The questionnaire and video recordings were used to determine the average frequency and time spent on cardiovascular primary preventive activities per FP respectively. Taking into account the annual income and full time equivalents of general practitioners, health care assistants, and practice nurses as well as the practice costs, the total spending on cardiovascular primary preventive activities in Dutch FPs was calculated. The database of Netherlands Information Network of General Practice was used to determine the prescribing behaviour in Dutch FPs by conducting multilevel regression models and adjusting for patient and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Total expenditure on cardiovascular primary preventive activities in FPs in 2009 was €38.8 million (€2.35 per capita), of which 47% was spent on blood pressure measurements, 26% on cardiovascular risk profiling, and 11% on lifestyle counselling. Fifteen percent (€11 per capita) of all cardiovascular medication prescribed in FPs was a PPCM. FPs differed greatly on prescription of PPCM (odds ratio of 3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Total costs of cardiovascular primary preventive activities in FPs such as blood pressure measurements and lifestyle counselling are relatively low compared to the costs of PPCM. There is considerable heterogeneity in prescribing behaviour of PPCM between FPs. Further research is needed to determine whether such large differences in prescription rates are justified. Striving for an optimal use of cardiovascular primary preventive activities might lead to similar health outcomes, but may achieve important cost savings.

Project description:Food allergy is a significant issue worldwide, particularly in Westernised countries. There is no clear explanation why food allergy appears to have increased so rapidly in recent years, particularly in young children, hence ongoing research to identify effective primary prevention strategies. Food allergy prevention guidelines for health professionals have been developed based on existing clinical trial evidence for effective translation and implementation. As these guidelines underpin clinical practice, it is important to ensure robust processes of development. We conducted a systematic review to identify food allergy prevention guidelines for health professional use; to compare the recommendations made by the identified guideline documents; and to assess the quality of the identified guideline documents. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Global Health and Guidelines International Network for the period 1990 to 13 August 2019, to identify articles referring to English-language food allergy prevention guidelines or the guidelines themselves. A grey literature search of Google Scholar and reference checking was also undertaken. The guidelines were compared for recommendation similarities and differences. An Appraisal Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) appraisal was undertaken to assess guideline quality. The electronic database search yielded 1121 publications and reference checking identified an additional 16 publications. After title, abstract and full text screening, data extraction was undertaken on 156 publications and with additional reference checking, 28 food allergy prevention guidelines and advice documents were identified. Comparison of the recommendations within the guidelines and advice documents indicated the greatest variation in recommendations related to exclusive breastfeeding and timing of solid food introduction. Eight of the 10 guidelines and none of the 18 advice documents met the quality threshold set by the reviewers. Overall, documents specifically termed "guidelines" scored better than advice documents when assessed using the AGREE II tool. Variation in recommendations may create confusion for health professionals and result in inconsistent advice being provided to parents, and less translation of the evidence into actual food allergy reduction in the population. Appraisal using the AGREE II tool identified that there is considerable room for improvement in the development of guidelines and advice documents for food allergy prevention. The AGREE II appraisal identified common areas of poorer quality development and/or documentation of processes to inform future guideline development. Based on this study, we recommend the use of validated guideline development tools, to direct food allergy prevention guideline review or development. Use of the AGREE II tool, to direct the review and development of guidelines, is very likely to improve guideline quality.