General Principles, Etiologies, Evaluation, and Management in Older Adults.

Hypertension impacts most older adults as one of many multiple chronic conditions. A thorough evaluation is required to assess overall health, cardiovascular status, and comorbid conditions that impact treatment targets. In the absence of severe frailty or dementia, intensive treatment prevents more cardiovascular events than standard treatment and may slow cognitive decline. "Start low and go slow" is not the best strategy for many older adults as fewer cardiovascular events occur when hypertension is controlled within the first 3 to 6 months of treatment.

Long-term exposure to antihypertensive drugs and the risk of cancer occurrence: evidence from a large population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Available data on the association between antihypertensive drugs and cancer are characterized by a few years follow-up. Our aim has been to evaluate the association between long-term exposure to antihypertensive drugs and the risk of cancer occurrence. METHODS: Using the healthcare utilization databases of the Lombardy region (Italy), individuals aged 40-85 years who had no previous history of cancer and were newly dispensed with at least one antihypertensive drug from the major drug classes between 2009 and 2011 were followed from the first drug dispensation to December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed according to the first drug used and the intention to treat principle, but also via an "as treated" approach, that is, by considering changes of and exposure to drugs during follow-up. The association between the duration of exposure to each drug class and the risk of cancer occurrence was evaluated using the adjusted Cox regression models. RESULTS: The study cohort included 338 910 new drug users (median age, 59 years; 49.5% males). During a median follow-up of 10.2 years, 36 556 cancers occurred. There was no consistent significant association between the risk of cancer occurrence and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, or thiazides. A progressive, weak increase in cancer occurrence was associated with progressive exposure to calcium channel blockers and, limited to long-term exposure, to beta-blockers. A modest progressive increase in risk was observed also for thiazide-like and loop diuretics in the as treated, although not in the intention to treat approach. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term evaluation of exposure to antihypertensive drugs did not show consistent associations between thiazides, angiotensin-receptor blockers, or angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and the risk of cancer occurrence. A weak association was observed between cancer and the duration of exposure to calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers.

Effect of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring on Adherence and Blood Pressure: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug concentration in blood or urine is an acknowledged method to detect nonadherence. Observational studies suggest that informing patients about low or absent serum drug levels improves blood pressure (BP). We performed a multicenter randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) could improve drug adherence and BP in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (HT). METHODS: Patients were ≥18 years on stable treatment with at least 2 antihypertensive agents. We planned to randomize 80 nonadherent patients with a systolic daytime ambulatory BP ≥135 mm Hg to TDM intervention or not. The control group and the study personnel who measured BP remained uninformed about serum drug measurements throughout. All patients and physicians were blinded for BPs. Lifestyle advice and detailed information on the disease process and the importance of BP treatment were given to both groups. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2022, we randomized 46 diagnosed nonadherent from a total of 606 patients with uncontrolled HT. The TDM group had a 6.7 (±14.5) mm Hg reduction from 147.9 (±10.3) to 141.1 (±14.1) mm Hg, and the control group experienced a 7.3 (±13.2) mm Hg reduction from 147.1 (±9.2) to 139.1 (±17.4) mm Hg, P = 0.9 between groups. Adherence improved in both groups, 73% in the TDM group and 59% in the control group became adherent at 3 months, P = 0.51. CONCLUSIONS: In our prospective multicenter clinical trial of uncontrolled and nonadherent hypertensive patients, we found no additional effect of TDM on BP and drug adherence compared with standard care. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Trial Number NCT03209154, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Cardiovascular Outcomes in Hypertension-Treated Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease: The VALUE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systolic blood pressure (BP) is a key predictor of cardiovascular events, but patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are rarely included in hypertension trials. The VALUE trial (Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation) investigated the long-term effects of valsartan- or amlodipine-based treatments on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension with a high cardiovascular risk. The aim of this subanalysis was to clarify the relationship between achieved BP on treatment and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension with PAD. METHODS: Patients were followed for 4 to 6 years, and BP was measured regularly. The primary end point was time to the first major adverse cardiovascular event, including myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and heart failure requiring hospitalization. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression, adjusting for various baseline covariates. RESULTS: Of the 13 803 participants, 1898 (13.8%) had PAD. During a median follow-up of 4.5 years, patients with PAD had a 23% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with patients without PAD. Patients with an achieved systolic BP <130 mm Hg and 130 to 139 mm Hg, compared with those with systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg, were associated with a decreased risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43-0.97]; P=0.037; 0.85 [95% CI, 0.74-0.97]; P=0.016, respectively). Additionally, systolic BP <130 mm Hg was associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.12-0.92]; P=0.034). The incidence of the primary outcome did not differ between antihypertensive treatment regimens (P=0.365). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that more intensive BP control is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertensive PAD.

Rationale for the Inclusion of ß-Blockers Among Major Antihypertensive Drugs in the 2023 European Society of Hypertension Guidelines.

We address the reasons why, unlike other guidelines, in the 2023 guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension ß-blockers (BBs) have been regarded as major drugs for the treatment of hypertension, at the same level as diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. We argue that BBs, (1) reduce blood pressure (the main factor responsible for treatment-related protection) not less than other drugs, (2) reduce pooled cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in placebo-controlled trials, in which there has also been a sizeable reduction of all major cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes, (3) have been associated with a lower global cardiovascular protection in 2 but not in several other comparison trials, in which the protective effect of BBs versus the other major drugs has been similar or even greater, with a slightly smaller or no difference of global benefit in large trial meta-analyses and a similar protective effect when comparisons extend to BBs in combination versus other drug combinations. We mention the large number of cardiac and other comorbidities for which BBs are elective drugs, and we express criticism against the exclusion of BBs because of their lower protective effect against stroke in comparison trials, because, for still uncertain reasons, differences in protection against cause-specific events (stroke, heart failure, and coronary disease) have been reported for other major drugs. These partial data cannot replace global benefits as the main deciding factor for drug choice, also because in the general hypertensive population whether and which type of event might occur is unknown.

Rationale of treatment recommendations in the 2023 ESH hypertension guidelines.

No abstract available.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension. METHODS: HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. RESULTS: For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Medical Measures in Hypertensives Considered Resistant.

BACKGROUND: Patients with resistant hypertension are the group of hypertensive patients with the highest cardiovascular risk. METHODS: All rules and guidelines for treatment of hypertension should be followed strictly to obtain blood pressure (BP) control in resistant hypertension. The mainstay of treatment of hypertension, also for resistant hypertension, is pharmacological treatment, which should be tailored to each patient's specific phenotype. Therefore, it is pivotal to assess nonadherence to pharmacological treatment as this remains the most challenging problem to investigate and manage in the setting of resistant hypertension. RESULTS: Once adherence has been confirmed, patients must be thoroughly worked-up for secondary causes of hypertension. Until such possible specific causes have been clarified, the diagnosis is apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH). Surprisingly few patients remain with true TRH when the various secondary causes and adherence problems have been detected and resolved. Refractory hypertension is a term used to characterize the treatment resistance in hypertensive patients using ≥5 antihypertensive drugs. All pressor mechanisms may then need blockage before their BPs are reasonably controlled. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with resistant hypertension need careful and sustained follow-up and review of their medications and dosages at each term since medication adherence is a very dynamic process.

Late outcomes of renal denervation are more favourable than early ones: facts or fancies?

Following second-generation randomized trials, there is evidence that renal denervation (RDN) decreases blood pressure (BP), although to a lesser extent than suggested in the initial controlled and observational studies. The recent publication of the 36-month follow-up of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial has raised expectations, suggesting increasing, late benefits of the procedure, despite initially negative results. These findings come after those obtained at 36 months in the sham-controlled trial SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and in the Global Symplicity Registry. However, they are susceptible to biases inherent in observational studies (after unblinding for sham-control) and non-random, substantial attrition of treatment groups at 36 months, and used interpolation of missing BPs. More importantly, in SPYRAL HTN-ON MED and Symplicity HTN-3, long-term BP changes in patients from the initial RDN group were compared with those in a heterogeneous control group, including both control patients who did not benefit from RDN and patients who eventually crossed over to RDN. In crossover patients, the last BP before RDN was imputed to subsequent follow-up. In Symplicity HTN-3, this particular approach led to the claim of increasing long-term benefits of RDN. However, comparison of BP changes in patients from the RDN group and control patients who did not undergo RDN, without imputation of BPs from crossover patients, does not support this view. The good news is that despite the suggestion of sympathetic nerve regrowth after RDN in some animal models, there is no strong signal in favour of a decreasing effect of RDN over time, up to 24 or even 36 months. Still, current data do not support a long-term increase in the effect of RDN and the durability of RDN-related BP reduction remains to be formally demonstrated.

Diabetes og kronisk nyresykdom.

Chronic kidney disease is one of the most serious complications of diabetes. One of the challenges in the follow-up of patients with diabetes is to discover signs of kidney disease. Recent research shows that several drugs have renal protective effects. In this clinical review article we present markers used in the follow-up of patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and new treatment options.

How to optimize the use of diuretics in patients with heart failure?

Considering the pathophysiology and clinical presentation of heart failure, using diuretics or drugs with diuretic properties is indispensable for adequate management of heart failure patients. However, in clinical practice, fluid expansion is often undiagnosed, and diuretic therapy is not always adequately titrated. Today, several drug classes with diuretic properties are available in addition to classical thiazides, thiazide-like, and loop diuretics. The purpose of this short review is to discuss different ways to optimize diuretic therapy using currently available drugs. Several approaches are considered, including a combination of diuretics to obtain a sequential nephron blockade, use of a drug combining a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and an inhibitor of the metabolism of natriuretic peptides (ARNI), prescription of potassium binders to maintain and up-titrate RAS blockers and mineralocorticoid antagonists, and finally use of inhibitors of renal reabsorption of glucose through the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 system. Optimal use of these various drug classes should improve the quality of life and reduce the need for hospital admissions and mortality in heart failure patients.

Effect of antihypertensive treatment in isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) - systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) in middle-aged and elderly is associated with high cardiovascular risk, but no randomised controlled trial has assessed the effect of antihypertensive treatment in ISH using today's definition, i.e. systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed. Studies with ≥1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing more intensive versus less intensive BP targets, or active drug versus placebo, were included if the mean baseline SBP was ≥140 mmHg and the mean baseline DBP was <90 mmHg. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Relative risks from each trial were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by baseline and attained SBP level. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials, including 113,105 participants (mean age 67 years; mean blood pressure 149/83 mmHg) were included in the analysis. Overall, treatment reduced the risk of MACE by 9% (relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.93). Treatment was more effective if baseline SBP was ≥160 mmHg (RR 0.77, 95% CIs 0.70-0.86) compared to 140-159 mmHg (RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.95; p = 0.002 for interaction), but provided equal additional benefit across all attained SBP levels (RR 0.80, 95% CIs 0.70-0.92 for <130 mmHg, RR 0.92, 95% CIs 0.89-0.96 for 130-139 mmHg, and RR 0.87, 95% CIs 0.82-0.93 for ≥140 mmHg; p = 0.070 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension, regardless of baseline SBP, to target SBP <140 mmHg and even <130 mmHg if well tolerated.