Managing Hypertension in Older Adults.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The population of older adults 60-79 years globally is projected to double from 800 million to 1.6 billion between 2015 and 2050, while adults ≥ 80 years were forecast to more than triple from 125 to 430 million. The risk for cardiovascular events doubles with each decade of aging and each 20 mmHg increase of systolic blood pressure. Thus, successful management of hypertension in older adults is critical in mitigating the projected global health and economic burden of cardiovascular disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Women live longer than men, yet with aging systolic blood pressure and prevalent hypertension increase more, and hypertension control decreases more than in men, i.e., hypertension in older adults is disproportionately a women's health issue. Among older adults who are healthy to mildly frail, the absolute benefit of hypertension control, including more intensive control, on cardiovascular events is greater in adults ≥ 80 than 60-79 years old. The absolute rate of serious adverse events during antihypertensive therapy is greater in adults ≥ 80 years older than 60-79 years, yet the excess adverse event rate with intensive versus standard care is only moderately increased. Among adults ≥ 80 years, benefits of more intensive therapy appear non-existent to reversed with moderate to marked frailty and when cognitive function is less than roughly the twenty-fifth percentile. Accordingly, assessment of functional and cognitive status is important in setting blood pressure targets in older adults. Given substantial absolute cardiovascular benefits of more intensive antihypertensive therapy in independent-living older adults, this group merits shared-decision making for hypertension targets.

Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring at Home: A Joint Policy Statement From the American Heart Association and American Medical Association.

The diagnosis and management of hypertension, a common cardiovascular risk factor among the general population, have been based primarily on the measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the office. BP may differ considerably when measured in the office and when measured outside of the office setting, and higher out-of-office BP is associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of office BP. Self-measured BP monitoring, the measurement of BP by an individual outside of the office at home, is a validated approach for out-of-office BP measurement. Several national and international hypertension guidelines endorse self-measured BP monitoring. Indications include the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension and the identification of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension. Other indications include confirming the diagnosis of resistant hypertension and detecting morning hypertension. Validated self-measured BP monitoring devices that use the oscillometric method are preferred, and a standardized BP measurement and monitoring protocol should be followed. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials indicates that self-measured BP monitoring is associated with a reduction in BP and improved BP control, and the benefits of self-measured BP monitoring are greatest when done along with cointerventions. The addition of self-measured BP monitoring to office BP monitoring is cost-effective compared with office BP monitoring alone or usual care among individuals with high office BP. The use of self-measured BP monitoring is commonly reported by both individuals and providers. Therefore, self-measured BP monitoring has high potential for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the United States. Randomized controlled trials examining the impact of self-measured BP monitoring on cardiovascular outcomes are needed. To adequately address barriers to the implementation of self-measured BP monitoring, financial investment is needed in the following areas: improving education and training of individuals and providers, building health information technology capacity, incorporating self-measured BP readings into clinical performance measures, supporting cointerventions, and enhancing reimbursement.

How We Got Where We Are in Blood Pressure Targets.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While we started clinical trials evaluating the benefit of lowering systolic BP's >160 mm Hg and diastolic BPs of <130 mm Hg, the latest guideline suggests a target of <130/80 mm Hg in those with hypertension. This article summarizes exactly how we got to where we are looking over the last half-century. RECENT FINDINGS: Our understanding of systolic and diastolic blood pressure targets to improve cardiovascular outcomes has changed substantially over the past 5 decades. Regarding diastolic blood pressure targets to improve cardiovascular outcomes, initially the VA1 in 1967 had set the goal to <115 mmHg. Over time, several studies including the VA2, Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT), and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group 38 (UKPDS38) highlighted even greater cardiovascular benefit with lower diastolic targets <80 mmHg, especially in diabetic patients. Of equal importance, multiple studies have focused the attention to systolic blood pressure targets. Starting in 1948 with the Framingham study, passing through the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP), Syst-Eur and Syst-China trials, all have set the systolic blood pressure goal <150 mmHg. Most recently, the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial showed an improved cardiovascular outcome with a systolic blood pressure target <140 mmHg in patients with type 2 diabetes, while the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) in non-diabetic patients moved it closer to 120 mmHg. There is "no one size fits all" when it comes to blood pressure targets to improve cardiovascular outcomes. To progress our understanding of individual blood pressure goals, future studies might develop a more standardized approach to highlight characteristics such as design and end point definitions while allowing clinical practitioners greater latitude to adapt guideline recommendations to individual patient characteristics and clinical needs.

Characteristics and long-term follow-up of participants with peripheral arterial disease during ALLHAT.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major risk factor for peripheral artery disease (PAD). Little is known about relative efficacy of antihypertensive treatments for preventing PAD. OBJECTIVES: To compare, by randomized treatment groups, hospitalized or revascularized PAD rates and subsequent morbidity and mortality among participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lower Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, active-control trial in high-risk hypertensive participants. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred thirty participants with specified secondary outcome of lower extremity PAD events during the randomized phase of ALLHAT. INTERVENTIONS/EVENTS: In-trial PAD events were reported during ALLHAT (1994-2002). Post-trial mortality data through 2006 were obtained from administrative databases. Mean follow-up was 8.8 years. MAIN MEASURES: Baseline characteristics and intermediate outcomes in three treatment groups, using the Kaplan-Meier method to calculate cumulative event rates and post-PAD mortality rates, Cox proportional hazards regression model for hazard ratios and 95 % confidence intervals, and multivariate Cox regression models to examine risk differences among treatment groups. KEY RESULTS: Following adjustment for baseline characteristics, neither participants assigned to the calcium-channel antagonist amlodipine nor to the ACE-inhibitor lisinopril showed a difference in risk of clinically advanced PAD compared with those in the chlorthalidone arm (HR, 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.72-1.03 and HR, 0.98; 95 % CI, 0.83-1.17, respectively). Of the 830 participants with in-trial PAD events, 63 % died compared to 34 % of those without PAD; there were no significant treatment group differences for subsequent nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularizations, strokes, heart failure, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Neither amlodipine nor lisinopril showed superiority over chlorthalidone in reducing clinically advanced PAD risk. These findings reinforce the compelling need for comparative outcome trials examining treatment of PAD in high-risk hypertensive patients. Once PAD develops, cardiovascular event and mortality risk is high, regardless of type of antihypertensive treatment.

Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS: A total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years. RESULTS: After 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensive-therapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P=0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P=0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P=0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

Pravastatin and cardiovascular outcomes stratified by baseline eGFR in the lipid- lowering component of ALLHAT.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The role of statins in preventing cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. This paper compares cardiovascular outcomes with pravastatin vs. usual care, stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS: Post-hoc analyses of a prospective randomized open-label clinical trial; 10,151 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) were randomized to pravastatin 40 mg/day or usual care. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. RESULTS: Through Year 6, total cholesterol declined in pravastatin (-20.7%) and usualcare groups (-11.2%). Use of statin therapy in the pravastatin group was 89.8% (Year 2) and 87.0% (Year 6). Usual-care group statin use increased from 8.2% (Year 2) to 23.5% (Year 6). By primary intention-to-treat analyses, no significant differences were seen between groups for coronary heart disease (CHD), total mortality or combined cardiovascular disease; findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In exploratory "as-treated" analyses (patients actually using pravastatin vs. not using), pravastatin therapy was associated with lower mortality (HR = 0.76 (0.68 - 0.85), p<0.001) and lover CHD (HR=0.84 (0.73-0.97), p=0.01), but not combined cardiovascular disease (HR=0.95 (0.88-1.04), p=0.30). Total cholesterol reduction of 10 mg/dl from baseline to Year 2 was associated with 5% lower CHD risk. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing total mortality or CHD independent of baseline eGFR level. However, exploratory "as-treated" analyses suggest improved mortality and CHD risk in participants using pravastatin, and decreased CHD events associated with achieved reduction in total cholesterol. Potential benefit from statin therapy may depend on degree of reduction achieved in total and LDL-cholesterol and adherence to therapy.

Clinical outcomes by race in hypertensive patients with and without the metabolic syndrome: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive drugs with favorable metabolic effects are advocated for first-line therapy in hypertensive patients with metabolic/cardiometabolic syndrome (MetS). We compared outcomes by race in hypertensive individuals with and without MetS treated with a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate), an alpha-blocker (doxazosin mesylate), or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril). METHODS: A subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind hypertension treatment trial of 42 418 participants. We defined MetS as hypertension plus at least 2 of the following: fasting serum glucose level of at least 100 mg/dL, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of at least 30, fasting triglyceride levels of at least 150 mg/dL, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of less than 40 mg/dL in men or less than 50 mg/dL in women. RESULTS: Significantly higher rates of heart failure were consistent across all treatment comparisons in those with MetS. Relative risks (RRs) were 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.90), 1.49 (1.17-1.90), and 1.88 (1.42-2.47) in black participants and 1.25 (1.06-1.47), 1.20 (1.01-1.41), and 1.82 (1.51-2.19) in nonblack participants for amlodipine, lisinopril, and doxazosin comparisons with chlorthalidone, respectively. Higher rates for combined cardiovascular disease were observed with lisinopril-chlorthalidone (RRs, 1.24 [1.09-1.40] and 1.10 [1.02-1.19], respectively) and doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparisons (RRs, 1.37 [1.19-1.58] and 1.18 [1.08-1.30], respectively) in black and nonblack participants with MetS. Higher rates of stroke were seen in black participants only (RR, 1.37 [1.07-1.76] for the lisinopril-chlorthalidone comparison, and RR, 1.49 [1.09-2.03] for the doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparison). Black patients with MetS also had higher rates of end-stage renal disease (RR, 1.70 [1.13-2.55]) with lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. CONCLUSIONS: The ALLHAT findings fail to support the preference for calcium channel blockers, alpha-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with thiazide-type diuretics in patients with the MetS, despite their more favorable metabolic profiles. This was particularly true for black participants.

Progression of kidney disease in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin versus usual care: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia is common in patients with chronic kidney disease. The role of statin therapy in the progression of kidney disease is unclear. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial, post hoc analyses. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 10,060 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): less than 60, 60 to 89, and 90 or greater mL/min/1.73 m(2). Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. INTERVENTION: Randomized; pravastatin, 40 mg/d, or usual care. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Total, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; end-stage renal disease (ESRD), eGFR. RESULTS: Through year 6, total cholesterol levels decreased in the pravastatin (-20.7%) and usual-care groups (-11.2%). No significant differences were seen between groups for rates of ESRD (1.36 v 1.45/100 patient-years; P = 0.9), composite end points of ESRD and 50% or 25% decrease in eGFR, or rate of change in eGFR. Findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In patients with eGFR of 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or greater, the pravastatin arm tended to have a higher eGFR. LIMITATIONS: Proteinuria data unavailable, post hoc analyses, unconfirmed validity of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation in normal eGFR range, statin drop-in rate in usual-care group with small cholesterol differential between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia and decreased eGFR, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing clinical renal outcomes. This was consistent across the strata of baseline eGFR. However, benefit from statin therapy may depend on the degree of the cholesterol level decrease achieved.

Blood pressure control by drug group in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

Blood pressure (BP) control rates and number of antihypertensive medications were compared (average follow-up, 4.9 years) by randomized groups: chlorthalidone, 12.5-25 mg/d (n=15,255), amlodipine 2.5-10 mg/d (n=9048), or lisinopril 10-40 mg/d (n=9054) in a randomized double-blind hypertension trial. Participants were hypertensives aged 55 or older with additional cardiovascular risk factor(s), recruited from 623 centers. Additional agents from other classes were added as needed to achieve BP control. BP was reduced from 145/83 mm Hg (27% control) to 134/76 mm Hg (chlorthalidone, 68% control), 135/75 mm Hg (amlodipine, 66% control), and 136/76 mm Hg (lisinopril, 61% control) by 5 years; the mean number of drugs prescribed was 1.9, 2.0, and 2.1, respectively. Only 28% (chlorthalidone), 24% (amlodipine), and 24% (lisinopril) were controlled on monotherapy. BP control was achieved in the majority of each randomized group-a greater proportion with chlorthalidone. Over time, providers and patients should expect multidrug therapy to achieve BP <140/90 mm Hg in a majority of patients.

Rationale for fixed-dose combination therapy to reach lower blood pressure goals.

Expert committees in the United States and Europe formulated their currently recommended target blood pressures of <140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in persons with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or coronary artery disease based on the totality of clinical data available at the time. However, accumulating evidence indicates that increased risk for cardiovascular and renal complications of hypertension may begin at a threshold of 115/75 mm Hg, suggesting that benefit from treatment may occur when blood pressure targets are lower than those currently recommended. Combination therapy with two or more agents having complementary mechanisms of action is the most effective method for achieving strict blood pressure goals in high-risk patients. Several clinical trials are under way to further determine the risks and benefits of lowering blood pressure beyond the currently recommended threshold.

Rationale and design for the blood pressure intervention of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial.

The Action to Control Cardiovascular Disease in Diabetes (ACCORD) blood pressure trial is an unmasked, open-label, randomized trial with a sample size of 4,733 participants. This report describes the rationale, design, and methods of the blood pressure interventions in ACCORD. Participants eligible for the blood pressure trial are randomized to 1 of 2 groups with different treatment goals: systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg for the more intensive goal and systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg for the less intensive goal. The primary outcome measure for the trial is the first occurrence of a major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event, specifically nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, or cardiovascular death during a follow-up period ranging from 4-8 years. The ACCORD blood pressure trial should provide the first definitive clinical trial data on the possible benefit of treating to a more aggressive systolic blood pressure goal in reducing CVD events in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Clinical considerations and practical recommendations for the primary care practitioner in the management of anemia of chronic kidney disease.

Anemia is prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is a risk factor for poor disease outcome. Anemia acts as a risk multiplier, significantly increasing the risk of death in anemic versus nonanemic CKD patients with similar comorbidities. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) are a mainstay for the treatment of anemia in renal patients on dialysis, but recent data suggests that earlier treatment of anemia in CKD may delay the onset of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and decrease mortality. Nonetheless, anemia of CKD is under-recognized and undertreated during the period before initiation of dialysis, when anemia correction may have the greatest impact on disease outcome. This report describes anemia in CKD and its association with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and poor disease outcome, and offers suggestions for the recognition and treatment of anemia of CKD in the primary care setting.

A Multifactorial Approach to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Now More Than Ever.

Managing cardiovascular (CV) risk is an important part of caring for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, as the disease itself confers CV risk. Many CV risk factors (such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity) have been found to be more common among individuals with diabetes than in the general population. A growing body of evidence provides guidance for clinicians on how to balance control of hyperglycemia with management of these risk factors. Newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents have been associated with beneficial effects on several CV risk factors; several studies evaluating the effect of these newer diabetic medications on CV outcomes have been published, and several more are in progress. While evidence continues to unfold about the benefits of risk factor control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, this article reviews evidence related to risk-factor control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as recent findings on the effect of newer drug classes on CV risk factors and outcomes. Favorably altering CV risk factors appears to improve outcomes, and is more important now than ever before.

Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients With and Without Diabetes: An ACCOMPLISH Substudy.

To evaluate the effects of achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) during treatment on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, the authors measured event rates of a composite primary endpoint (CV death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke) at on-treatment SBPs of ≥140 mm Hg and the 10 mm Hg intervals of <140 mm Hg, <130 mm Hg, and <120 mm Hg in 6459 patients with diabetes (mean age, 67) and 4246 patients without diabetes (mean age, 69) from the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. In the diabetic cohort, the primary endpoint was 49% lower (P<.001) at <140 mm Hg than at ≥140 mm Hg, and the separate components of this endpoint were also significantly reduced. Further SBP reductions did not improve outcomes, and at <120 mm Hg they were no longer different (except for stroke) from ≥140 mm Hg. In contrast, in the nondiabetic cohort, the primary endpoint event rate fell steadily (although not significantly) through the decreasing SBP categories until it was reduced by 45% (P=.0413) at <120 mm Hg. Total stroke rates for both the diabetic (-56%, P=.0120) and nondiabetic (-68%, P=.0067) cohorts were lowest at <120 mm Hg, and adverse renal events (serum creatinine increase ≥50%) were significantly lowest in the range of 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg for both cohorts. Diabetic patients (<140 mm Hg or <130 mm Hg) and nondiabetic patients (<120 mm Hg) may require different SBP targets for optimal CV protection, although stroke and renal considerations should also influence the selection of blood pressure targets.

Orthostatic Hypotension in the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) Blood Pressure Trial: Prevalence, Incidence, and Prognostic Significance.

Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is associated with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. However, in populations with both hypertension and diabetes mellitus, its prevalence, the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure (BP) targets on incident OH, and its prognostic significance are unclear. In 4266 participants in the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial, seated BP was measured 3×, followed by readings every minute for 3 minutes after standing. Orthostatic BP change, calculated as the minimum standing minus the mean seated systolic BP and diastolic BP, was assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 48 months. The relationship between OH and clinical outcomes (total and cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, heart failure hospitalization or death and the primary composite outcome of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) was assessed using proportional hazards analysis. Consensus OH, defined by orthostatic decline in systolic BP ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg, occurred at ≥1 time point in 20% of participants. Neither age nor systolic BP treatment target (intensive, <120 mm Hg versus standard, <140 mm Hg) was related to OH incidence. Over a median follow-up of 46.9 months, OH was associated with increased risk of total death (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.36) and heart failure death/hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.85, 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.93), but not with the primary outcome or other prespecified outcomes. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension, OH was common, not associated with intensive versus standard BP treatment goals, and predicted increased mortality and heart failure events.

Optimizing antihypertensive treatment in clinical practice.

Hypertension affects approximately 50 million individuals in the United States (US) and approximately 1 billion individuals worldwide. Blood pressure (BP) reduction significantly lowers the risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease-the most common cause of death in the US-yet only approximately one third of Americans with hypertension have their disease controlled to the minimum recommended level of <140/90 mm Hg. Clinical trials such as the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study, and Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS) have shown that control of BP to targets of < or =140/90 mm Hg reduces the likelihood of CV disease and improves quality of life. This appears to be true even in patients at high risk, such as those with diabetes. Furthermore, it has become increasingly recognized that multiple BP-lowering agents are usually necessary to achieve BP control (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease). In fact, current hypertension guidelines clearly state that most hypertensive patients will require two or more agents, and recommend initiating treatment with two antihypertensive medications if the BP is >20/10 mm Hg above goal BP. A valuable class of drug in the management of hypertension, beta-blockers (betaB) play an important role-whether as initial agents or as add-on therapy. They are especially useful in hypertensive patients with certain comorbidities such as diabetes or heart failure, in patients post-myocardial infarction, or in those generally at high risk for coronary disease. This article explores the cardioprotective role of how betaB may be used to optimize antihypertensive treatment.

American Society of Hypertension regional chapters: leveraging the impact of the clinical hypertension specialist in the local community.

Hypertension control has remained at 24% to 27% for the past decade, despite revision of national treatment guidelines, expansion of therapeutic options, and evidence from clinical trials that higher control rates are attainable. Uncontrolled hypertension contributes to the enormous health and economic burden from cardiovascular and renal disease. The risk for hypertension-related complications is increasing in the United States as comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus and congestive heart failure rise in a population that is becoming progressively older, more obese, and more ethnically diverse. Given regional variations in demographic characteristics and disease burdens, implementing evidence-based guidelines will be more effective if tailored appropriately to the local community. The Clinical Hypertension Specialist program is a positive response to an impending health care crisis. The impact of the Hypertension Specialist on blood pressure control can be leveraged by extending the academic mission of education, patient care, and health services research to the local community. The American Society of Hypertension regional chapter can serve as a forum for Clinical Hypertension Specialists from academic medicine and the community to define mutual goals, develop an action plan which is responsive to community needs, and monitor progress. With support from the chapter, Clinical Hypertension Specialists in the community can have an impact on the practice of medicine locally by contributing to the education of primary care providers, receiving referrals of patients with complicated hypertension, monitoring progress in meeting evidence-based goals, providing feedback to peers, and participating in multicenter trials.

Controlling blood pressure in 50% of all hypertensive patients: an achievable goal in the healthy people 2010 report?

BACKGROUND: One important objective defined in the Healthy People 2010 report was to improve blood pressure (BP) control to < 140/90 mm Hg in 50% of all hypertensive patients. Because the US population is becoming older, more obese, and ethnically diverse, the health and economic benefits of reaching this goal become more valuable each year. Hypertension control rates are currently at approximately 31% of all hypertensives and have risen slowly and erratically since 1988. In the absence of a coordinated strategic plan, achieving this critically important goal for BP control is highly unlikely. METHODS: A selected literature review was undertaken to briefly assess the cardiovascular benefits of controlling hypertension. Greater focus was placed on variables that impact hypertension awareness, treatment, and control. The impact on hypertension control rates of theoretic changes in awareness, treatment, and control individually and collectively was examined. Four categories of potential barriers to optimizing BP control are discussed: systems, provider, patient, and treatment factors. RESULTS: Raising awareness to 80% of all hypertensives, ensuring treatment of 90% of aware hypertensives, and controlling BP to < 140/90 mm Hg in 70% of treated patients would achieve control rates of 50%. CONCLUSIONS: The barriers to achieving the Healthy People 2010 goal of controlling hypertension in 50% of all patients are formidable but appear to be resolvable with a coordinated strategic plan. Given projected demographic changes in the United States, the health and economic benefits of attaining the national goal for hypertension control would seem to merit a serious integrated effort.