Medicine
- Stephen Martin, MD
A recent systematic review published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (and discussed by Dr. Lin in a previous post) revisited the potential efficacy of drug treatment for mild hypertension. The authors concluded that this treatment “in the primary preventive setting is likely to reduce the risk for several important adverse health outcomes.” This is an interesting finding, given that a 2012 Cochrane review found no evidence of mortality or morbidity benefits from drug treatment of mild hypertension. What changed?
The Annals authors explain their different conclusions as follows (italics mine): “Besides the inclusion of persons with diabetes or prior antihypertensive treatment, the disparity between the conclusions of this review and the one immediately preceding it is primarily attributable to statistical power. The present review nearly doubled the number of patients, quadrupled the number of cardiovascular events, and provides data on end points not available in the prior meta-analysis.”
Having recently examined this literature for our BMJ piece, “Mild hypertension in people at low risk,” my interpretation is different. In order to gain statistical power, the new review combined high-risk and low-risk patients with mild hypertension. This is equivalent of mixing apples—e.g., higher-risk people with diabetes and prior treatment—with oranges— people without diabetes or prior treatment of hypertension.
There is hope yet. The paper buried a worthy point when it concluded that “… estimation of cardiovascular risk may aid prioritization in this patient group.” Rather than combining apples and oranges, we need to treat them as different fruit. Apples may benefit from treatment of mild hypertension while oranges do not. Blending them serves neither fruit well.
For now, I’ll continue to generally avoid drug treatment for my low-risk patients with mild hypertension.
- Managing Hypertension With Home Blood Pressure Measurements
Several of my hypertensive patients always have significantly higher blood pressures at the office than at home. Even after verifying the appropriate size cuff, and re-measuring blood pressure several minutes into the visit, the numbers don't change....
- The Best Recent Posts You May Have Missed
Every few months, I post a list of my top 5 favorite posts since the preceding "best of" list on this blog, for those of you who have only recently started reading Common Sense Family Doctor or don't read it regularly. Here are my favorites from January...
- Acc/aha And Framingham Calculators Overestimate Cardiovascular Risk
After more than a decade of titrating medications to low density lipoprotein cholesterol targets, family physicians who have transitioned to the 2013 American College of Cardiology / American Heart Association cholesterol treatment guideline now...
- Think Twice Before Taking Tamiflu For Seasonal Influenza
As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that people who received this season's influenza vaccine were only 23 percent less likely to be diagnosed with influenza than unvaccinated persons, CDC director Tom Frieden was...
- Uncertain Benefits Of Medicating Mild Hypertension
In the July 1st issue of American Family Physician, Dr. Janelle Guirguis-Blake commented on a Cochrane Review that found no benefits from pharmacotherapy for mild hypertension (systolic blood pressure of 140 to 159 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood...
Medicine
Guest Post: Apples, oranges, and treating mild hypertension
- Stephen Martin, MD
A recent systematic review published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (and discussed by Dr. Lin in a previous post) revisited the potential efficacy of drug treatment for mild hypertension. The authors concluded that this treatment “in the primary preventive setting is likely to reduce the risk for several important adverse health outcomes.” This is an interesting finding, given that a 2012 Cochrane review found no evidence of mortality or morbidity benefits from drug treatment of mild hypertension. What changed?
The Annals authors explain their different conclusions as follows (italics mine): “Besides the inclusion of persons with diabetes or prior antihypertensive treatment, the disparity between the conclusions of this review and the one immediately preceding it is primarily attributable to statistical power. The present review nearly doubled the number of patients, quadrupled the number of cardiovascular events, and provides data on end points not available in the prior meta-analysis.”
Having recently examined this literature for our BMJ piece, “Mild hypertension in people at low risk,” my interpretation is different. In order to gain statistical power, the new review combined high-risk and low-risk patients with mild hypertension. This is equivalent of mixing apples—e.g., higher-risk people with diabetes and prior treatment—with oranges— people without diabetes or prior treatment of hypertension.
To summarize this systematic review a bit differently, I derived the table below from Annals Appendix Table 3 and assigned the sources of patients as being oranges (Cochrane) or apples (BPLTTC Trials):
Cochrane (Oranges) | BPLTTC Trials (Apples) | Difference (Apples/Oranges) | |
Active Participants | 4,478 | 3,364 | |
Diabetes (%) | 0 | 96 | ∞ |
Previous antihypertensive treatment (%) | 0 | 62 | ∞ |
Total Deaths (#, events per participant) | 77 (0.018) | 230 (0.068) | 3.78 (0.068/0.018) |
Cardiovascular Deaths | NA* | 96 (0.029) | NC^ |
Strokes | 10 (0.002) | 89 (0.026) | 13 (0.026/0.002) |
Coronary Events | 71 (0.016) | 114 (0.034) | 2.13 (0.034/0.016) |
Heart Failure | NA | 62 | NC |
* NA = “Not Available,” which occurred for individual trials in the Cochrane and BPLTTC, more so the former (see Appendix Table 3 link above)
Unfortunately, these subtleties were absent from the journal’s communication to the mainstream media, which simply stated: “Blood pressure drugs likely to prevent stroke and death in patients with mild hypertension.”
There is hope yet. The paper buried a worthy point when it concluded that “… estimation of cardiovascular risk may aid prioritization in this patient group.” Rather than combining apples and oranges, we need to treat them as different fruit. Apples may benefit from treatment of mild hypertension while oranges do not. Blending them serves neither fruit well.
For now, I’ll continue to generally avoid drug treatment for my low-risk patients with mild hypertension.
**
Dr. Martin is a family physician and an Assistant Professor at University of Massachusetts Medical School.
- Managing Hypertension With Home Blood Pressure Measurements
Several of my hypertensive patients always have significantly higher blood pressures at the office than at home. Even after verifying the appropriate size cuff, and re-measuring blood pressure several minutes into the visit, the numbers don't change....
- The Best Recent Posts You May Have Missed
Every few months, I post a list of my top 5 favorite posts since the preceding "best of" list on this blog, for those of you who have only recently started reading Common Sense Family Doctor or don't read it regularly. Here are my favorites from January...
- Acc/aha And Framingham Calculators Overestimate Cardiovascular Risk
After more than a decade of titrating medications to low density lipoprotein cholesterol targets, family physicians who have transitioned to the 2013 American College of Cardiology / American Heart Association cholesterol treatment guideline now...
- Think Twice Before Taking Tamiflu For Seasonal Influenza
As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that people who received this season's influenza vaccine were only 23 percent less likely to be diagnosed with influenza than unvaccinated persons, CDC director Tom Frieden was...
- Uncertain Benefits Of Medicating Mild Hypertension
In the July 1st issue of American Family Physician, Dr. Janelle Guirguis-Blake commented on a Cochrane Review that found no benefits from pharmacotherapy for mild hypertension (systolic blood pressure of 140 to 159 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood...