First-line diuretics versus other classes of antihypertensive drugs for hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.

Pravastatin for lowering lipids.

BACKGROUND: A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review. Secondary objectives • To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. • To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

Inpatient virtual shared medical appointments to improve health literacy, increase patient self-efficacy, and reduce provider burnout in acute cerebrovascular pathology patients and their caregivers: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Admission to the hospital for an acute cerebrovascular condition such as stroke or brain hemorrhage can be a traumatic and disorienting experience for patients and their family members. The COVID-19 pandemic has further intensified this experience in addition to exacerbating clinician and resident burnout. To ameliorate some of these concerns, a team of resident and medical student trainees implemented a virtual shared medical appointment (vSMA) program for inpatients with acute cerebrovascular disorders and their caregivers. The authors hypothesized that an early intervention in the form of a vSMA improves patient and caregiver health literacy and preparedness while simultaneously educating clinical trainees on effective communication skills and reducing clinician burnout. METHODS: Patients and caregivers of admitted patients were identified through a census of neurosurgery, neurocritical care, and neurology electronic medical records. A weekly 60-minute secure virtual session consisted of introductions and a 10-minute standardized presentation on cerebrovascular disease management, followed by participant-guided discussion. Participants completed presession and postsession surveys. Through this small feasibility study data were obtained regarding present challenges, both expected and unforeseen. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were screened, and 13 patients and 26 caregivers participated in at least 1 vSMA session. A total of 6 different healthcare providers facilitated sessions. The vSMA program received overwhelmingly positive feedback from caregivers. Survey responses demonstrated that 96.4% of caregivers and 75% of patients were satisfied with the session, 96.4% of caregivers and 87.5% of patients would recommend this type of appointment to a friend or family member, and 88.8% of providers reported feeling validated by conducting the session. The participant group had a 20% greater percentage of patients discharged home without home needs compared to the nonparticipant group. The primary obstacles encountered included technological frustrations with the consent process and the sessions themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a vSMA program at a tertiary care center during a pandemic was feasible. Themes caregivers expressed on the postsession survey included better understanding of caring for a stroke patient and coping with the unpredictability of a patient's prognosis. The pandemic has precipitated shifts toward telehealth, but this study highlights the importance of avoiding marginalization of elderly and less technologically inclined populations.

Effects of 24-hour versus night-float call schedules on the clinical and operative experiences of postgraduate year 2 and 3 neurosurgical residents.

OBJECTIVE: To comply with the removal of the 88-hour week exemption and to support additional operative experience during junior residency, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) switched from a night-float call schedule to a modified 24-hour call schedule on July 1, 2019. This study compared the volumes of clinical, procedural, and operative cases experienced by postgraduate year 2 (PGY-2) and PGY-3 residents under these systems. METHODS: The authors retrospectively studied billing and related clinical records, call schedules, and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs for PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents at OHSU, a tertiary academic health center, for the first 4 months of the academic years from 2017 to 2020. The authors analyzed the volumes of new patient consultations, bedside procedures, and operative procedures performed by each PGY-2 and PGY-3 resident during these years, comparing the volumes experienced under each call system. RESULTS: Changing from a PGY-2 resident-focused night-float call system to a 24-hour call system that was more evenly distributed between PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents resulted in decreased volume of new patient consultations, increased volume of operative procedures, and no change in volume of bedside procedures for PGY-2 residents. PGY-3 residents experienced a decrease in operative procedure volume under the 24-hour call system. CONCLUSIONS: Transition from a night-float system to a 24-hour call system altered the distribution of clinical and procedural experiences between PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents. Further research is necessary to understand the impact of these changes on educational outcomes, quality and safety of patient care, and resident satisfaction.

Prone Position Ventilation in Neurologically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Proposed Protocol.

OBJECTIVES: Prone positioning has been shown to be a beneficial adjunctive supportive measure for patients who develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. Studies have excluded patients with reduced intracranial compliance, whereby patients with concomitant neurologic diagnoses and acute respiratory distress syndrome have no defined treatment algorithm or recommendations for management. In this study, we aim to determine the safety and feasibility of prone positioning in the neurologically ill patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of the literature, performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses 2009 guidelines, yielded 10 articles for analysis. Using consensus from these articles, in combination with review of multi-institutional proning protocols for patients with nonneurologic conditions, a proning protocol for patients with intracranial pathology and concomitant acute respiratory distress syndrome was developed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 10 studies included in the final analysis, we found that prone positioning is safe and feasible in the neurologically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Increased intracranial pressure and compromised cerebral perfusion pressure may occur with prone positioning. We propose a prone positioning protocol for the neurologically ill patients who require frequent neurologic examinations and intracranial monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Although elevations in intracranial pressure and reductions in cerebral perfusion pressure do occur during proning, they may not occur to a degree that would warrant exclusion of prone ventilation as a treatment modality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and concomitant neurologic diagnoses. In cases where intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, and brain tissue oxygenation can be monitored, prone position ventilation should be considered a safe and viable therapy.

Comparative Safety of Smoking Cessation Pharmacotherapies During a Government-Sponsored Reimbursement Program.

INTRODUCTION: The British Columbia Ministry of Health launched a Smoking Cessation Program on September 30, 2011, providing financial coverage for smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. Although pharmacotherapies have been shown to have a moderate short-term benefit as a quitting aid, substantial cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric safety concerns have been identified in adverse-reporting databases, leading to prescription label warnings by Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, recent studies indicate these warnings may be without merit. This study examined the comparative safety of medications commonly used to aid smoking cessation. AIMS AND METHODS: Population-based retrospective cohort study using B.C. administrative data to assess the relative safety between varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes included mortality, a composite of neuropsychiatric hospitalizations, and individual components of the primary outcome. Statistical analysis used propensity score-adjusted log-binomial regression models. A sensitivity analysis excluded patients with a history of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: The study included 116 442 participants. Compared with NRT, varenicline was associated with a 10% 1-year relative risk decrease of cardiovascular hospitalization (adjusted risk ratio [RR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82 to 1.00), a 20% 1-year relative risk decrease of neuropsychiatric hospitalization (RR: 0.80, CI: 0.7 to 0.89), and a 19% 1-year relative risk decrease of mortality (RR: 0.81, CI: 0.71 to 0.93). We found no significant association between NRT and bupropion for cardiovascular hospitalizations, neuropsychiatric hospitalizations, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NRT, varenicline is associated with fewer serious adverse events and bupropion the same number of serious adverse events. IMPLICATIONS: This study addresses the need for comparative safety evidence in a real-world setting of varenicline and bupropion against an active comparator. Compared with NRT, varenicline was associated with a decreased risk of mortality, serious cardiovascular events, and neuropsychiatric events during the treatment, or shortly after the treatment, in the general population of adults seeking pharmacotherapy to aid smoking cessation. These results provide support for the removal of the varenicline boxed warning for neuropsychiatric events and add substantively to the cardiovascular safety findings of previous observational studies and randomized clinical trials.

Effect of atorvastatin on testosterone levels.

BACKGROUND: Statins are one of the most prescribed classes of drugs worldwide. Atorvastatin, the most prescribed statin, is currently used to treat conditions such as hypercholesterolaemia and dyslipidaemia. By reducing the level of cholesterol, which is the precursor of the steroidogenesis pathway, atorvastatin may cause a reduction in levels of testosterone and other androgens. Testosterone and other androgens play important roles in biological functions. A potential reduction in androgen levels, caused by atorvastatin might cause negative effects in most settings. In contrast, in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), reducing excessive levels of androgens with atorvastatin could be beneficial. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To quantify the magnitude of the effect of atorvastatin on total testosterone in both males and females, compared to placebo or no treatment. Secondary objectives To quantify the magnitude of the effects of atorvastatin on free testosterone, sex hormone binding globin (SHBG), androstenedione, dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEAS) concentrations, free androgen index (FAI), and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in both males and females, compared to placebo or no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 9 November 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; ;two international trials registries, and the websites of the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Patent Office and the Pfizer pharmaceutical corporation. These searches had no language restrictions. We also contacted authors of relevant articles regarding further published and unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of daily atorvastatin for at least three weeks, compared with placebo or no treatment, and assessing change in testosterone levels in males or females. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the citations, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We used the mean difference (MD) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) to report the effect size of continuous outcomes,and the risk ratio (RR) to report effect sizes of the sole dichotomous outcome (WDAEs). We used a fixed-effect meta-analytic model to combine effect estimates across studies, and risk ratio to report effect size of the dichotomous outcomes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs involving 265 participants who completed the study and their data was reported. Participants in two of the studies were male with normal lipid profile or mild dyslipidaemia (N = 140); the mean age of participants was 68 years. Participants in four of the studies were female with PCOS (N = 125); the mean age of participants was 32 years. We found no significant difference in testosterone levels in males between atorvastatin and placebo, MD -0.20 nmol/L (95% CI -0.77 to 0.37). In females, atorvastatin may reduce total testosterone by -0.27 nmol/L (95% CI -0.50 to -0.04), FAI by -2.59 nmol/L (95% CI -3.62 to -1.57), androstenedione by -1.37 nmol/L (95% CI -2.26 to -0.49), and DHEAS by -0.63 µmol/l (95% CI -1.12 to -0.15). Furthermore, compared to placebo, atorvastatin increased SHBG concentrations in females by 3.11 nmol/L (95% CI 0.23 to 5.99). We identified no studies in healthy females (i.e. females with normal testosterone levels) or children (under age 18). Importantly, no study reported on free testosterone levels. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference between atorvastatin and placebo on the levels of total testosterone in males. In females with PCOS, atorvastatin lowered the total testosterone, FAI, androstenedione, and DHEAS. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low for both comparisons. More RCTs studying the effect of atorvastatin on testosterone are needed.

Blood pressure targets in adults with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of this review first published in 2009. When treating elevated blood pressure, doctors usually try to achieve a blood pressure target. That target is the blood pressure value below which the optimal clinical benefit is supposedly obtained. "The lower the better" approach that guided the treatment of elevated blood pressure for many years was challenged during the last decade due to lack of evidence from randomised trials supporting that strategy. For that reason, the standard blood pressure target in clinical practice during the last years has been less than 140/90 mm Hg for the general population of patients with elevated blood pressure. However, new trials published in recent years have reintroduced the idea of trying to achieve lower blood pressure targets. Therefore, it is important to know whether the benefits outweigh harms when attempting to achieve targets lower than the standard target. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine if lower blood pressure targets (any target less than or equal to 135/85 mm Hg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (less than or equal to 140/ 90 mm Hg) for the treatment of patients with chronic arterial hypertension. The secondary objectives were: to determine if there is a change in mean achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP associated with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets" in patients with chronic arterial hypertension; and to determine if there is a change in withdrawals due to adverse events with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets", in patients with elevated blood pressure. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients allocated to lower or to standard blood pressure targets (see above). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JAA, VL) independently assessed the included trials and extracted data. Primary outcomes were total mortality; total serious adverse events; myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, end stage renal disease, and other serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were achieved mean SBP and DBP, withdrawals due to adverse effects, and mean number of antihypertensive drugs used. We assessed the risk of bias of each trial using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 11 RCTs involving 38,688 participants with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years. This represents 7 new RCTs compared with the original version. At baseline the mean weighted age was 63.1 years and the mean weighted blood pressure was 155/91 mm Hg. Lower targets do not reduce total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05; 11 trials, 38,688 participants; high-certainty evidence) and do not reduce total serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; 6 trials, 18,165 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that the benefits of lower targets do not outweigh the harms as compared to standard blood pressure targets. Lower targets may reduce myocardial infarction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; 6 trials, 18,938 participants, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.4%, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 250 over 3.7 years) and congestive heart failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92; 5 trials, 15,859 participants, ARR 0.6%, NNTB  167 over 3.7 years) (low-certainty for both outcomes). Reduction in myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure was not reflected in total serious adverse events. This may be due to an increase in other serious adverse events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.59; 6 trials. 18,938 participants, absolute risk increase (ARI) 3%,  number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 33 over four years) (low-certainty evidence). Participants assigned to a "lower" target received one additional antihypertensive medication and achieved a significantly lower mean SBP (122.8 mm Hg versus 135.0 mm Hg, and a lower mean DBP (82.0 mm Hg versus 85.2 mm Hg, than those assigned to "standard target". AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the general population of persons with elevated blood pressure, the benefits of trying to achieve a lower blood pressure target rather than a standard target (≤ 140/90 mm Hg) do not outweigh the harms associated with that intervention. Further research is needed to see if some groups of patients would benefit or be harmed by lower targets. The results of this review are primarily applicable to older people with moderate to high cardiovascular risk. They may not be applicable to other populations.

Renin inhibitors versus angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Renin inhibitors (RIs) reduce blood pressure more than placebo, with the magnitude of this effect thought to be similar to that for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. However, a drug's efficacy in lowering blood pressure cannot be considered as a definitive indicator of its effectiveness in reducing mortality and morbidity. The effectiveness and safety of RIs compared to ACE inhibitors in treating hypertension is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors in people with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to August 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least four weeks follow-up in people with primary hypertension, which compared renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors and reported morbidity, mortality, adverse events or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We include 11 RCTs involving 13,627 participants, with a mean baseline age from 51.5 to 74.2 years. Follow-up duration ranged from four weeks to 36.6 months. There was no difference between RIs and ACE inhibitors for the outcomes: all-cause mortality: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.18; 5 RCTs, 5962 participants; low-certainty evidence; total myocardial infarction: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.39; 2 RCTs, 957 participants; very low-certainty evidence; adverse events: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants;  moderate-certainty evidence; serious adverse events: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.64; 10 RTCs, 6007 participants; low-certainty evidence; and withdrawal due to adverse effects: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.06; 10 RTCs, 6008 participants; low-certainty evidence. No data were available for total cardiovascular events, heart failure, stroke, end-stage renal disease or change in heart rate. Low-certainty evidence suggested that RIs reduced systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -1.72, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.97; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants;  and diastolic blood pressure: MD -1.18, 95% CI -1.65 to -0.72; 9 RCTs, 5001 participants,  to a greater extent than ACE inhibitors, but we judged this to be more likely due to bias than a true effect.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of hypertension, we have low certainty that renin inhibitors (RI) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors do not differ for all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. We have low to moderate certainty that they do not differ for adverse events. Small reductions in blood pressure with renin inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitors are of low certainty.  More independent, large, long-term trials are needed to compare RIs with ACE inhibitors, particularly assessing morbidity and mortality outcomes, but also on blood pressure-lowering effect.

Effect of alcohol on blood pressure.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is consumed by over 2 billion people worldwide. It is a common substance of abuse and its use can lead to more than 200 disorders including hypertension. Alcohol has both acute and chronic effects on blood pressure. This review aimed to quantify the acute effects of different doses of alcohol over time on blood pressure and heart rate in an adult population. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To determine short-term dose-related effects of alcohol versus placebo on systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in healthy and hypertensive adults over 18 years of age. Secondary objective To determine short-term dose-related effects of alcohol versus placebo on heart rate in healthy and hypertensive adults over 18 years of age. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 2), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (from 1946); Embase (from 1974); the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant articles regarding further published and unpublished work. These searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effects of a single dose of alcohol versus placebo on blood pressure (BP) or heart rate (HR) in adults (≥ 18 years of age). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (ST and CT) independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. We also contacted trial authors for missing or unclear information. Mean difference (MD) from placebo with 95% confidence interval (CI) was the outcome measure, and a fixed-effect model was used to combine effect sizes across studies.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs involving 767 participants. Most of the study participants were male (N = 642) and were healthy. The mean age of participants was 33 years, and mean body weight was 78 kilograms. Low-dose alcohol (< 14 g) within six hours (2 RCTs, N = 28) did not affect BP but did increase HR by 5.1 bpm (95% CI 1.9 to 8.2) (moderate-certainty evidence). Medium-dose alcohol (14 to 28 g) within six hours (10 RCTs, N = 149) decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 5.6 mmHg (95% CI -8.3 to -3.0) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 4.0 mmHg (95% CI -6.0 to -2.0) and increased HR by 4.6 bpm (95% CI 3.1 to 6.1) (moderate-certainty evidence for all).  Medium-dose alcohol within 7 to 12 hours (4 RCTs, N = 54) did not affect BP or HR. Medium-dose alcohol > 13 hours after consumption (4 RCTs, N = 66) did not affect BP or HR. High-dose alcohol (> 30 g) within six hours (16 RCTs, N = 418) decreased SBP by 3.5 mmHg (95% CI -6.0 to -1.0), decreased DBP by 1.9 mmHg (95% CI-3.9 to 0.04), and increased HR by 5.8 bpm (95% CI 4.0 to 7.5). The certainty of evidence was moderate for SBP and HR, and was low for DBP. High-dose alcohol within 7 to 12 hours of consumption (3 RCTs, N = 54) decreased SBP by 3.7 mmHg (95% CI -7.0 to -0.5) and DBP by 1.7 mmHg (95% CI -4.6 to 1.8) and increased HR by 6.2 bpm (95% CI 3.0 to 9.3). The certainty of evidence was moderate for SBP and HR, and low for DBP. High-dose alcohol ≥ 13 hours after consumption (4 RCTs, N = 154) increased SBP by 3.7 mmHg (95% CI 2.3 to 5.1), DBP by 2.4 mmHg (95% CI 0.2 to 4.5), and HR by 2.7 bpm (95% CI 0.8 to 4.6) (moderate-certainty evidence for all).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-dose alcohol has a biphasic effect on BP; it decreases BP up to 12 hours after consumption and increases BP > 13 hours after consumption. High-dose alcohol increases HR at all times up to 24 hours. Findings of this review are relevant mainly to healthy males, as only small numbers of women were included in the included trials.

Pitavastatin for lowering lipids.

BACKGROUND: Pitavastatin is the newest statin on the market, and the dose-related magnitude of effect of pitavastatin on blood lipids is not known. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of pitavastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without cardiovascular disease. To compare the effect of pitavastatin on surrogate markers with other statins.  Secondary objectives To quantify the effect of various doses of pitavastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects.  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for trials up to March 2019: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 2, 2019), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCT and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pitavastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without cardiovascular disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from RCT and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. Withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE) information was collected from the RCTs. We assessed all included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of allocation (selection bias), blinding (performance bias and detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), and other potential sources of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven studies (five RCTs and 42 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pitavastatin in 5436 participants. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease, and pitavastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 mg to 16 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pitavastatin on blood HDL cholesterol, which was increased by 4% on average by pitavastatin. Pitavastatin 1 mg/day to 16 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 33.3% to 54.7%, total cholesterol by 23.3% to 39.0% and triglycerides by 13.0% to 28.1%. For every two-fold dose increase, there was a 5.35% (95% CI 3.32 to 7.38) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 3.93% (95% CI 2.35 to 5.50) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 3.76% (95% CI 1.03 to 6.48) decrease in blood triglycerides. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to other statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pitavastatin is about 6-fold more potent than atorvastatin, 1.7-fold more potent than rosuvastatin, 77-fold more potent than fluvastatin and 3.3-fold less potent than cerivastatin. For the placebo group, there were no participants who withdrew due to an adverse effect per 109 subjects and for all doses of pitavastatin, there were three participants who withdrew due to an adverse effect per 262 subjects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pitavastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, pitavastatin is about 6-fold more potent than atorvastatin, 1.7-fold more potent than rosuvastatin, 77-fold more potent than fluvastatin and 3.3-fold less potent than cerivastatin. There were not enough data to determine risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects due to pitavastatin.

Cerivastatin for lowering lipids.

BACKGROUND: Cerivastatin was the most potent statin until it was withdrawn from the market due to a number of fatalities due to rhabdomyolysis, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of cerivastatin on blood lipids is not known. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of cerivastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in children and adults with and without cardiovascular disease. The aim of this review is to examine the pharmacology of cerivastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of cerivastatin on surrogate markers. Secondary objectives To quantify the effect of various doses of cerivastatin compared to placebo on withdrawals due to adverse effects. To compare the relative potency of cerivastatin with respect to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin for LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for RCTs up to March 2019: CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov.We also searched the European Patent Office, FDA.gov, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of cerivastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without cardiovascular disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for trials to be included and extracted data. We entered data from RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data respectively. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from the RCTs. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty trials (19 RCTs and 31 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of cerivastatin in 12,877 participants who had their LDL cholesterol measured. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease and the trials studied cerivastatin effects within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Cerivastatin 0.025 mg/day to 0.8 mg/day caused LDL cholesterol decreases of 11.0% to 40.8%, total cholesterol decreases of 8.0% to 28.8% and triglyceride decreases of 9.0% to 21.4%. We judged the certainty of evidence for these effects to be high. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol and triglycerides. When compared to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol; 233-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 18-fold more potent than atorvastatin and six-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol; and 125-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 11-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 13-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of cerivastatin on HDL cholesterol, but overall cerivastatin increased HDL cholesterol by 5%. There was a high risk of bias for the outcome withdrawals due to adverse effects, but a low risk of bias for the lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not different between cerivastatin and placebo in 11 of 19 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride lowering effect of cerivastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Cerivastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin in reducing LDL cholesterol, and 233-fold greater potency than fluvastatin, 18-fold greater potency than atorvastatin and six-fold greater potency than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with cerivastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 42% of the RCTs.

Examining the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act: impact on telemedicine for neurotrauma.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) protects patient access to emergency medical treatment regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status. A significant result of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the rapid acceleration in the adoption of telemedicine services across many facets of healthcare. However, very little literature exists regarding the use of telemedicine in the context of EMTALA. This work aimed to evaluate the potential to expand the usage of telemedicine services for neurotrauma to reduce transfer rates, minimize movement of patients across borders, and alleviate the burden on tertiary care hospitals involved in the care of patients with COVID-19 during a global pandemic. In this paper, the authors outline EMTALA provisions, provide examples of EMTALA violations involving neurosurgical care, and propose guidelines for the creation of telemedicine protocols between referring and consulting institutions.

Racial/ethnic differences in survival for patients with gliosarcoma: an analysis of the National cancer database.

PURPOSE: Gliosarcoma is characterized by the World Health Organization as a Grade IV malignant neoplasm and a variant of glioblastoma. The association of race and ethnicity with survival has been established for numerous CNS malignancies, however, no epidemiological studies have reported these findings for patients with gliosarcoma. The aim of this study was to examine differences by race and ethnicity in overall survival, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmission. METHODS: Data were obtained by query of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for years 2004-2014. Patients with gliosarcoma were identified by International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3)-Oncology morphologic code 9442/3 and topographical codes C71.0-C71.9. Differences in survival by race/ethnicity were examined using univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Readmission and mortality outcomes were examined with univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 1988 patients diagnosed with gliosarcoma were identified (White Non-Hispanic n = 1,682, Black Non-Hispanic n = 165, Asian n = 40, Hispanic n = 101). There were no differences in overall survival, 30- and 90-day mortality, or 30-day readmission between the races and ethnicities examined. Median survival was 10.4 months for White Non-Hispanics (95% CI 9.8, 11.2), 10.2 months for Black Non-Hispanics (95% CI 8.6, 13.1), 9.0 months for Asian Non-Hispanics (95% CI 5.1, 18.2), and 10.6 months for Hispanics (95% CI 8.3,16.2). 7.3% of all patients examined had an unplanned readmission within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Race/ethnicity are not associated with differences in overall survival, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, or 30-day readmission following surgical intervention for gliosarcoma.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults 60 years or older.

BACKGROUND: This is the second substantive update of this review. It was originally published in 1998 and was previously updated in 2009. Elevated blood pressure (known as 'hypertension') increases with age - most rapidly over age 60. Systolic hypertension is more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease than is diastolic hypertension, and it occurs more commonly in older people. It is important to know the benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment for hypertension in this age group, as well as separately for people 60 to 79 years old and people 80 years or older. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertensionSecondary objectives• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular-specific morbidity and mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension• To quantify the rate of withdrawal due to adverse effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 24 November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least one year's duration comparing antihypertensive drug therapy versus placebo or no treatment and providing morbidity and mortality data for adult patients (≥ 60 years old) with hypertension defined as blood pressure greater than 140/90 mmHg. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality; cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality; coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality; and withdrawal due to adverse effects. We modified the definition of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity to exclude transient ischaemic attacks when possible. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes one additional trial (MRC-TMH 1985). Sixteen trials (N = 26,795) in healthy ambulatory adults 60 years or older (mean age 73.4 years) from western industrialised countries with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension (average 182/95 mmHg) met the inclusion criteria. Most of these trials evaluated first-line thiazide diuretic therapy for a mean treatment duration of 3.8 years.Antihypertensive drug treatment reduced all-cause mortality (high-certainty evidence; 11% with control vs 10.0% with treatment; risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.97; cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (moderate-certainty evidence; 13.6% with control vs 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.77; cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (moderate-certainty evidence; 5.2% with control vs 3.4% with treatment; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74; and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity (moderate-certainty evidence; 4.8% with control vs 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.88. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with treatment (low-certainty evidence; 5.4% with control vs 15.7% with treatment; RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.56 to 3.30. In the three trials restricted to persons with isolated systolic hypertension, reported benefits were similar.This comprehensive systematic review provides additional evidence that the reduction in mortality observed was due mostly to reduction in the 60- to 79-year-old patient subgroup (high-certainty evidence; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95). Although cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was significantly reduced in both subgroups 60 to 79 years old (moderate-certainty evidence; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.77) and 80 years or older (moderate-certainty evidence; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87), the magnitude of absolute risk reduction was probably higher among 60- to 79-year-old patients (3.8% vs 2.9%). The reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was primarily due to a reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treating healthy adults 60 years or older with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension with antihypertensive drug therapy reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity, and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity. Most evidence of benefit pertains to a primary prevention population using a thiazide as first-line treatment.

Fluvastatin for lowering lipids.

BACKGROUND: Fluvastatin is thought to be the least potent statin on the market, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of fluvastatin on blood lipids is not known. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectiveTo quantify the effects of various doses of fluvastatin on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol), high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol), and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.Secondary objectivesTo quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of fluvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in randomised placebo-controlled trials. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 2 2017), MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase (1974 to February Week 2 2017), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, CDSR, DARE, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of fluvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases. MAIN RESULTS: One-hundred and forty-five trials (36 placebo controlled and 109 before and after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of fluvastatin in 18,846 participants. The participants were of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and fluvastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of fluvastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Fluvastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 15% to 33%, total cholesterol by 11% to 25% and triglycerides by 3% to 17.5%. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 6.0% (95% CI 5.4 to 6.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 4.2% (95% CI 3.7 to 4.8) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 4.2% (95% CI 2.0 to 6.3) decrease in blood triglycerides. The quality of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, fluvastatin was about 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol. Very low quality of evidence showed no difference in WDAEs between fluvastatin and placebo in 16 of 36 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.52 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.45). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Fluvastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, fluvastatin is 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with fluvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 56% of the placebo-controlled trials.

First-line drugs for hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical question: What class of drug to use first-line? This review attempted to answer that question. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the mortality and morbidity effects from different first-line antihypertensive drug classes: thiazides (low-dose and high-dose), beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and alpha-blockers, compared to placebo or no treatment.Secondary objectives: when different antihypertensive drug classes are used as the first-line drug, to quantify the blood pressure lowering effect and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse drug effects, compared to placebo or no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials (RCT) of at least one year duration, comparing one of six major drug classes with a placebo or no treatment, in adult patients with blood pressure over 140/90 mmHg at baseline. The majority (over 70%) of the patients in the treatment group were taking the drug class of interest after one year. We included trials with both hypertensive and normotensive patients in this review if the majority (over 70%) of patients had elevated blood pressure, or the trial separately reported outcome data on patients with elevated blood pressure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), total cardiovascular events (CVS), decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and withdrawals due to adverse drug effects. We used a fixed-effect model to to combine dichotomous outcomes across trials and calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We presented blood pressure data as mean difference (MD) with 99% CI. MAIN RESULTS: The 2017 updated search failed to identify any new trials. The original review identified 24 trials with 28 active treatment arms, including 58,040 patients. We found no RCTs for ARBs or alpha-blockers. These results are mostly applicable to adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. The mean age of participants was 56 years, and mean duration of follow-up was three to five years.High-quality evidence showed that first-line low-dose thiazides reduced mortality (11.0% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97); total CVS (12.9% with control versus 9.0% with treatment; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.76), stroke (6.2% with control versus 4.2% with treatment; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77), and coronary heart disease (3.9% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line high-dose thiazides reduced stroke (1.9% with control versus 0.9% with treatment; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61) and total CVS (5.1% with control versus 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), but did not reduce mortality (3.1% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05), or coronary heart disease (2.7% with control versus 2.7% with treatment; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line beta-blockers did not reduce mortality (6.2% with control versus 6.0% with treatment; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07) or coronary heart disease (4.4% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.03), but reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and total CVS (7.6% with control versus 6.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line ACE inhibitors reduced mortality (13.6% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95), stroke (6.0% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82), coronary heart disease (13.5% with control versus 11.0% with treatment; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94), and total CVS (20.1% with control versus 15.3% with treatment; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85).Low-quality evidence showed that first-line calcium channel blockers reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 1.9% with treatment; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.84) and total CVS (8.0% with control versus 5.7% with treatment; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87), but not coronary heart disease (3.1% with control versus 2.4% with treatment; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09), or mortality (6.0% with control versus 5.1% with treatment; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09).There was low-quality evidence that withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with first-line low-dose thiazides (5.0% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 2.38, 95% CI 2.06 to 2.75), high-dose thiazides (2.2% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 4.48, 95% CI 3.83 to 5.24), and beta-blockers (3.1% with control versus 14.4% with treatment; RR 4.59, 95% CI 4.11 to 5.13). No data for these outcomes were available for first-line ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers. The blood pressure data were not used to assess the effect of the different classes of drugs as the data were heterogeneous, and the number of drugs used in the trials differed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: First-line low-dose thiazides reduced all morbidity and mortality outcomes in adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective, but the evidence was of lower quality. First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers were inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides.

Acupuncture for hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure (hypertension) affects about one billion people worldwide. It is important as it is a major risk factor for stroke and myocardial infarction. However, it remains a challenge for the medical profession as many people with hypertension have blood pressure (BP) that is not well controlled. According to Traditional Chinese Medicine theory, acupuncture has the potential to lower BP. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for lowering blood pressure in adults with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register (February 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2017, Issue 2; MEDLINE (February 2017); Embase (February 2017), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (January 2015), VIP Database (January 2015), the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform (February 2017)and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2017). There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical effects of an acupuncture intervention (acupuncture used alone or add-on) with no treatment, a sham acupuncture or an antihypertensive drug in adults with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. They extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each trial, and telephoned or emailed the authors of the studies to ask for missing information. A third review author resolved disagreements. Outcomes included change in systolic blood pressure (SBP), change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), withdrawal due to adverse effects, and any adverse events. We calculated pooled mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes using a fixed-effect or random-effects model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two RCTs (1744 people) met our inclusion criteria. The RCTs were of variable methodological quality (most at high risk of bias because of lack of blinding). There was no evidence for a sustained BP lowering effect of acupuncture; only one trial investigated a sustained effect and found no BP lowering effect at three and six months after acupuncture. Four sham acupuncture controlled trials provided very low quality evidence that acupuncture had a short-term (one to 24 hours) effect on SBP (change) -3.4 mmHg (-6.0 to -0.9) and DBP -1.9 mmHg (95% CI -3.6 to -0.3). Pooled analysis of eight trials comparing acupuncture with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and seven trials comparing acupuncture to calcium antagonists suggested that acupuncture lowered short-term BP better than the antihypertensive drugs. However, because of the very high risk of bias in these trials, we think that this is most likely a reflection of bias and not a true effect. As a result, we did not report these results in the 'Summary of findings' table. Safety of acupuncture could not be assessed as only eight trials reported adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no evidence for the sustained BP lowering effect of acupuncture that is required for the management of chronically elevated BP. The short-term effects of acupuncture are uncertain due to the very low quality of evidence. The larger effect shown in non-sham acupuncture controlled trials most likely reflects bias and is not a true effect. Future RCTs must use sham acupuncture controls and assess whether there is a BP lowering effect of acupuncture that lasts at least seven days.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of renin inhibitors for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a chronic condition associated with an increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Renin is the enzyme responsible for converting angiotensinogen to angiotensin I, which is then converted to angiotensin II. Renin inhibitors are a new class of drugs that decrease blood pressure (BP) by preventing the formation of both angiotensin I and angiotensin II. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related BP lowering efficacy of renin inhibitors compared to placebo in the treatment of primary hypertension.To determine the change in BP variability, pulse pressure, and heart rate and to evaluate adverse events (mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events, total adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse effects and specific adverse events such as dry cough, diarrhoea and angioedema). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. There was no restriction by language or publication status. We also searched the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for clinical study reports, the Novartis Clinical Study Results Database, bibliographic citations from retrieved references, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies evaluating BP lowering efficacy of fixed-dose monotherapy with renin inhibitor compared with placebo for a minimum duration of three to 12 weeks in adult patients with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review is a comprehensive update which includes four additional studies and extensive detail from nine clinical study reports (CSRs) of previously included studies obtained from EMA. The remaining three CSRs are not available.Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. In all cases where there was a difference between the CSR and the published report, data from the CSR was used. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS: 12 studies (mean duration of eight weeks) in 7439 mostly Caucasian patients (mean age 54 years) with mild-to-moderate uncomplicated hypertension were eligible for inclusion in the review. Aliskiren was the only renin inhibitor evaluated. All included studies were assessed to have high likelihood of attrition, reporting and funding bias.Aliskiren has a dose-related systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) lowering effect as compared with placebo MD with 95% CI: aliskiren 75 mg (MD -2.97, 95% CI -4.76 to -1.18)/(MD -2.05, 95% CI -3.13 to -0.96) mm Hg (moderate-quality evidence), aliskiren 150 mg (MD -5.95, 95% CI -6.85 to -5.06)/ (MD -3.16, 95% CI -3.74 to -2.58) mm Hg (moderate-quality evidence), aliskiren 300 mg (MD -7.88, 95% CI -8.94 to -6.82)/ (MD -4.49, 95% CI -5.17 to -3.82) mm Hg (moderate-quality evidence), aliskiren 600 mg (MD -11.35, 95% CI -14.43 to -8.27)/ (MD -5.86, 95% CI -7.73 to -3.99) mm Hg (low-quality evidence). There was a dose-dependent decrease in blood pressure for aliskiren 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg. The blood pressure lowering effect of aliskiren 600 mg was not different from 300 mg (MD -0.61, 95% CI -2.78 to 1.56)/(MD -0.68, 95% CI -2.03 to 0.67). Aliskiren had no effect on blood pressure variability. Due to very limited information available regarding change in heart rate and pulse pressure, it was not possible to meta-analyze these outcomes.Mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events were not increased. This review found that in studies of eight week duration aliskiren may not increase withdrawal due to adverse events (low-quality evidence). Diarrhoea was increased in a dose-dependent manner (RR 7.00, 95% CI 2.48 to 19.72) with aliskiren 600 mg (low-quality evidence). The most frequent adverse events reported were headache, nasopharyngitis, diarrhoea, dizziness and fatigue. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, aliskiren lowered BP and this effect is dose-dependent. This magnitude of BP lowering effect is similar to that for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). There is no difference in mortality, nonfatal serious adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse effects with short term aliskiren monotherapy. Diarrhoea was considerably increased with aliskiren 600 mg.