Resistant Hypertension: Detection, Evaluation, and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as above-goal elevated blood pressure (BP) in a patient despite the concurrent use of 3 antihypertensive drug classes, commonly including a long-acting calcium channel blocker, a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a diuretic. The antihypertensive drugs should be administered at maximum or maximally tolerated daily doses. RH also includes patients whose BP achieves target values on ≥4 antihypertensive medications. The diagnosis of RH requires assurance of antihypertensive medication adherence and exclusion of the "white-coat effect" (office BP above goal but out-of-office BP at or below target). The importance of RH is underscored by the associated risk of adverse outcomes compared with non-RH. This article is an updated American Heart Association scientific statement on the detection, evaluation, and management of RH. Once antihypertensive medication adherence is confirmed and out-of-office BP recordings exclude a white-coat effect, evaluation includes identification of contributing lifestyle issues, detection of drugs interfering with antihypertensive medication effectiveness, screening for secondary hypertension, and assessment of target organ damage. Management of RH includes maximization of lifestyle interventions, use of long-acting thiazide-like diuretics (chlorthalidone or indapamide), addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (spironolactone or eplerenone), and, if BP remains elevated, stepwise addition of antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action to lower BP. If BP remains uncontrolled, referral to a hypertension specialist is advised.

The growing gap in hypertension control between insured and uninsured adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1988 to 2010.

Hypertension awareness, treatment, and control are lower among uninsured than insured adults. Time trends in differences and underlying modifiable factors are important for informing strategies to improve health equity. National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1988 to 1994, 1999 to 2004, and 2005 to 2010 data in adults aged 18 to 64 years were analyzed to explore this opportunity. The proportion of adults with hypertension who were uninsured increased from 12.3% in 1988 to 1994 to 17.4% in 2005 to 2010. In 1988 to 1994, hypertension awareness, treatment, and control to <140/<90 mm Hg (30.1% versus 26.5%; P=0.27) were similar in insured and uninsured adults. By 2005 to 2010, the absolute gap in hypertension control between uninsured and insured adults of 21.9% (52.5% versus 30.6%; P<0.001) was explained approximately equally by lower awareness (65.2% versus 80.7%), fewer aware adults treated (75.2% versus 88.5%), and fewer treated adults controlled (63.1% versus 73.5%; all P<0.001). Publicly insured and uninsured adults had similar income. Yet, hypertension control was similar across time periods in publicly and privately insured adults, despite lower income and education in the former. In multivariable analysis, hypertension control in 2005 to 2010 was associated with visit frequency (odds ratio, 3.4 [95% confidence interval, 2.4-4.8]), statin therapy (1.8 [1.4-2.3]), and healthcare insurance (1.6 [1.2-2.2]) but not poverty index (1.04 [0.96-1.12]). Public or private insurance linked to more frequent healthcare, greater awareness and effective treatment of hypertension, and appropriate statin use could reverse a long-term trend of growing inequity in hypertension control between insured and uninsured adults.

Closing the gap in hypertension control between younger and older adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1988 to 2010.

BACKGROUND: Joint National Committee goal blood pressure for all adults was <140/<90 mm Hg or lower from 1984 to 2013. Adults aged ≥60 years (older) have mainly isolated systolic hypertension, with major trials attaining systolic blood pressure <150 but not <140 mm Hg. The main objective was to assess changes in hypertension control to <140/<90 mm Hg in younger (aged <60 years) and older adults and <150/<90 mm Hg in the latter. METHODS AND RESULTS: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 1988 to 1994, 1999 to 2004, and 2005 to 2010 were analyzed in adults aged ≥18 years. From 1988 to 1994 to 2005 to 2010, hypertension control to <140/<90 mm Hg improved in older (31.6% to 53.1%; P<0.001) and younger (45.7% to 55.9%; P<0.001) patients. The age gap in control declined from 14.1% (P<0.01) in 1988 to 1994 to 2.8% (P=0.13) in 2005 to 2010. Better hypertension control reflected increased percentages of older (55.6% to 77.5%) and younger (34.6% to 54.7%) patients on treatment and treated older (45.7% to 64.9%) and younger (56.8% to 73.4%) patients controlled (all P<0.001). Control to <150/<90 mm Hg rose from 48.8% to 69.9% in older adults. Antihypertensive medication number and percentages on ≥3 medications increased in both age groups but increased more in older patients (P<0.01). Blood pressure control was higher in both age groups with ≥2 healthcare visits per year and on statin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The age gap in hypertension control to <140/<90 mm Hg was virtually eliminated in 2005 to 2010 as clinicians intensified therapy, especially in older patients in whom isolated systolic hypertension predominates, controlling 70% to <150/<90 mm Hg. More frequent healthcare visits and the use of statin therapy may improve hypertension control in all adults.

Is blood pressure control to less than 140/less than 90 mmHg in 50% of all hypertensive patients as good as we can do in the USA: or is this as good as it gets?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review assesses whether controlling hypertension in 50% of all patients is the best we can do. RECENT FINDINGS: NHANES 2007-2008 data show that blood pressure was controlled to less than 140/less than 90 mmHg in 50% of all hypertensive patients, an increase from 27% in 1988-1994. The 50% control rate reflects the product of 72.5% of all patients treated and 69% of all treated patients controlled. However, there are opportunities for improvement, as 27.5% of all hypertensives, or 55% of uncontrolled patients, were untreated in 2007-2008. These individuals are disproportionately younger, men, and Hispanic. Moreover, 31% of all treated hypertensives, or 45% of uncontrolled patients, have blood pressure of at least 140/at least 90 mmHg. They are disproportionately older, women, and black. SUMMARY: Initiatives to raise hypertension treatment from 72.5% in 2007-2008 to 87.5% in the future are conceivable by targeting unaware and untreated patient groups and engaging them in ongoing healthcare. This could improve hypertension control by an absolute 10% of all patients. Reducing therapeutic inertia and increasing therapeutic efficiency could raise the proportion of patients on treatment who are controlled from 69 to 80% and could increase hypertension control by 8%. Combining these approaches could raise hypertension control to 70% of all hypertensive adults in the USA.

Prehypertension: an opportunity for a new public health paradigm.

From 2005 to 2006, approximately 3 of 8 adults in the United States had blood pressure (BP) in the prehypertensive range of 120 to 139/80 to 89 mm Hg and roughly 1 in 8 adults had BP in the range of 130 to 139/85 to 89 mm Hg, which is referred to as high normal BP or stage 2 prehypertension. Adults with stage 2 prehypertension are also roughly twice as likely as adults with normotension to suffer cardiovascular disease. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Hypertension recommended only lifestyle changes for most prehypertensive patients. BP in the range of 120 to 129/80 to 84 mm Hg is also associated with increased risk but roughly half of that of stage 2 prehypertension.

Effect of psyllium fiber supplementation on C-reactive protein: the trial to reduce inflammatory markers (TRIM).

PURPOSE: Recent evidence supports a significant association between the intake of dietary fiber and levels of inflammatory markers. The objective of this study was to determine whether daily fiber supplementation would reduce levels of inflammatory markers. METHODS: This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial at a single university medical center. Participants were overweight or obese adults with no history of heart disease. The intervention was psyllium supplementation at either 7 or 14 g/d for 3 months compared with no supplements in a control group. The main outcome measure was change in level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) concentration; secondary outcomes included changes in interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels, fibrinogen levels, and white blood cell (WBC) count. Protocol completers attended at least 2 visits and took more than 75% of the prescribed fiber dose. RESULTS: In this intent-to-treat analysis (n = 158), there were no significant differences between either of the 2 treatment groups and the control group in the amount of change in CRP, fibrinogen, or IL-6 levels or in WBC count (P>.05). In the analysis of protocol completers (n = 132), there also were no significant differences between the groups except for a small decrease in fibrinogen level in the high-fiber group (-6 mg/dL [-0.18 micromol/L] compared with 13 mg/dL [0.38 micromol/L] in the control group, P<.05). CONCLUSION: Psyllium fiber supplementation did not significantly reduce CRP levels in overweight or obese individuals in this trial, and changes in other markers were not consistent. Further research is needed to determine whether other fibers or nutrients can reduce inflammatory markers.

Effect of a high-fiber diet vs a fiber-supplemented diet on C-reactive protein level.

BACKGROUND: Diets high in fiber are associated with lower levels of inflammatory markers. This study examined the reduction in inflammation from a diet supplemented with fiber compared with a diet naturally high in fiber. METHODS: Randomized crossover intervention trial of 2 diets, a high-fiber (30-g/d) Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet or fiber-supplemented diet (30 g/d), after a baseline (regular) diet period of 3 weeks. There were 35 participants (18 lean normotensive and 17 obese hypertensive individuals) aged 18 to 49 years. RESULTS: The study included 28 women and 7 men; 16 (46%) were black, the remainder white. The mean (SD) fiber intake on baseline diets was 11.9 (0.3) g/d; on the high-fiber DASH diet, 27.7 (0.6) g/d; and on the supplemented diet, 26.3 (0.4) g/d. Overall, the mean C-reactive protein (CRP) level changed from 4.4 to 3.8 mg/L (-13.7%; P = .046) in the high-fiber DASH diet group and to 3.6 mg/L (-18.1%) in the fiber-supplemented diet group (P = .03). However, CRP levels decreased in the 18 lean normotensive participants in either intervention diet group (2.0 mg/L [baseline] vs 1.4 mg/L [high-fiber DASH] vs 1.2 mg/L [supplemented]); P<.05) but did not change significantly (7.1 mg/L [baseline] vs 6.2 mg/L [high-fiber DASH] vs 6.5 mg/L [supplemented]; P>.05) in obese hypertensive participants. Neither age nor race influenced the response of CRP levels to the diets. No evidence of a crossover effect was detected. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that fiber intake of about 30 g/d) from a diet naturally rich in fiber or from a supplement can reduce levels of CRP. Further research is needed to more clearly elucidate the differential effect seen in lean vs obese individuals and whether modification of dietary fiber may be helpful in modulating inflammation and its consequent cardiovascular consequences.

Awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of older americans about high blood pressure: implications for health care policy, education, and research.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of high blood pressure (HBP), particularly isolated systolic hypertension, rises with age, whereas control rates decline. METHODS: Since awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about HBP can influence control, information on these factors was obtained by telephone interview of a nationally representative sample of 1503 adults 50 years or older. RESULTS: Among Americans 50 years or older, 94% had at least one blood pressure (BP) measurement during the past year, yet 46% did not know their BP. Only 27% acknowledged current HBP, although 37% reported taking antihypertensive medications. Systolic hypertension was probably underrecognized, since 30% who reported a value of 140 mm Hg or higher indicated they did not have HBP. Among those acknowledging current HBP, 80% reported taking medications "precisely as prescribed." Of the approximately 20% of hypertensive patients no longer taking medications or taking fewer medications than prescribed, cost was a major factor in approximately 1 in 5 or roughly 4% of the total. Sixty percent of patients receiving treatment indicated that medications alone do not control HBP. Most survey respondents (>or=90%) concurred that several lifestyle changes lower BP; 75% reported a lifestyle change; and 61% indicated it lowered their BP. When asked what HBP information was most important, 34% reported alternative therapies and 28% reported prevention strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Limited awareness of systolic hypertension emerges as a greater barrier to BP control than cost of medications in Americans 50 years or older. Many older Americans prefer to integrate traditional, complementary, and alternative strategies. Education addressing limited awareness of systolic hypertension, policies facilitating a more holistic management approach, and research identifying the most effective innovations may improve outcomes.