No evidence that panic attacks are associated with the white coat effect in hypertension.

The authors aimed to determine whether hypertensive patients with panic attacks or panic disorder have a larger white coat effect (difference between clinic blood pressure measured under standard conditions and mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure) than hypertensive patients without panic attacks. White coat effect was compared in a hospital hypertension clinic between 24 patients with panic attacks in the previous 6 months (12 with panic disorder) and 23 hypertensive controls. There were no significant differences between cases and controls in clinic blood pressure, mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure, or white coat effect (18/3 vs. 19/6 mm Hg; difference for systolic, -1.9 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -15.8 to +12.0; difference for diastolic, -3.0 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -10.2 to +4.3). Comparing only patients with panic disorder with controls, there were again no significant differences in clinic blood pressure, mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure, or white coat effect. This study provides no evidence for an exaggerated white coat effect in hypertensive patients who have experienced panic attacks or panic disorder. However, only larger studies could exclude differences in white coat effect <12/4 mm Hg, or an exaggerated white coat effect in a minority of patients with panic attacks.

Magnetic resonance angiography for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis: a meta-analysis.

AIM: To review the published literature comparing the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) with and without gadolinium in diagnosing renal artery stenosis, using catheter angiography as reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed of English language articles identified by computer search using PubMed/MEDLINE, followed by extensive bibliography review from 1985 to May 2001. Inclusion criteria were: (1) blinded comparison with catheter angiography; (2)indication for MRA stated; (3) clear descriptions of imaging techniques; and (4) interval between MRA and catheter angiography < 3 months and only the largest of all studies from one centre was selected in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies were identified, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria. The number of patients included in the meta-analysis was 998: 499 with non-enhanced MRA and 499 with gadolinium-enhanced MRA. The sensitivity and specificity of non-enhanced MRA were 94% (95% CI: 90-97%) and 85% (95% CI: 82-87%), respectively. For gadolinium-enhanced MRA sensitivity was 97% (95% CI: 93-98%) and specificity was 93% (95% CI: 91-95%). Thus, specificity and positive predictive value were significantly better for gadolinium-enhanced MRA (P < 0.001). Accessory renal arteries were depicted better by gadolinium-enhanced MRA (82%; 95% CI: 75-87%) than non-gadolinium MRA (49%; 95% CI: 42-60%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Gadolinium-enhanced MRA may replace arteriography in most patients with suspected renal artery stenosis, and has major advantages in that it is non-invasive, avoids ionizing radiation and uses a non-nephrotoxic contrast agent.

Statins for primary prevention: at what coronary risk is safety assured?

AIMS: Increasingly HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are being used for primary prevention of vascular disease in patients with a raised cholesterol but at low absolute risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). This study uses clinical trial results to explore the limits of absolute safety for statin use in such patients. METHODS: The major placebo controlled statin outcome trials were identified by automated and manual literature searches. Principal results including all cause mortality in placebo and intervention groups and baseline values of standard coronary risk factors were abstracted for each trial. For the trials identified the reduction in overall mortality with statin treatment for each study was regressed against the underlying CHD risk of the population recruited into that trial using a statistically robust method. RESULTS: The regression line describing the relationship between mortality benefit and risk suggests that statin use could be associated with an increase in mortality of 1% in 10 years. This would be sufficiently large to negate statin's beneficial effect on CHD mortality in patients with a CHD event risk less than 13% over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute safety of statins has not been demonstrated for patients at low risk of CHD. Patients absolute risk of CHD should be calculated before starting statin treatment for primary prevention. Extensions of such treatment to low risk patients should await further evidence of safety.

Population implications of lipid lowering for prevention of coronary heart disease: data from the 1995 Scottish health survey.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of the population, firstly, with cholesterol >/= 5.0 mmol/l and, secondly, with any cholesterol concentration, who might benefit from statin treatment for the following: secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD); primary prevention at CHD risk 30%, 20%, 15%, and 6% over 10 years; and primary prevention at projected CHD risk 20% over 10 years (CHD risk at age 60 years if actual age < 60 years). SUBJECTS: Random stratified sample of 3963 subjects aged 35-64 years from the Scottish health survey 1995. RESULTS: For secondary prevention 7.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.9% to 8.6%) of the population with cholesterol >/= 5.0 mmol/l would benefit from statins. For primary prevention, the prevalence of people at CHD risk 30%, 20%, 15%, and 6% over 10 years is 1.5% (95% CI 1.2% to 1.9%), 5.4% (95% CI 4.7% to 6.1%), 9.7% (95% CI 8.8% to 10.6%), and 32.9% (95% CI 31.5% to 34.4%), respectively. At projected CHD risk 20% over 10 years, 12.4% (95% CI 11.4% to 13.5%) would be treated with statins. Removing the 5.0 mmol/l cholesterol threshold makes little difference to population prevalence at high CHD risk. CONCLUSIONS: Statin treatment would be required for 7.8% of the population for secondary prevention. For primary prevention, among other factors, guidelines should take into account the number of patients needing treatment at different levels of CHD risk when choosing the CHD risk to target. The analysis supports a policy of targeting treatment at CHD risk 30% over 10 years as a minimum, as recommended in current British guidelines, with a move to treating at CHD risk 15% over 10 years as resources permit.

Is coronary risk an accurate surrogate for cardiovascular risk for treatment decisions in mild hypertension? A population validation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between coronary (CHD) and cardiovascular (CVD) risk in patients with uncomplicated mild hypertension and to determine the accuracy of using CHD risk > or = 15% over 10 years to identify for antihypertensive treatment those patients with CVD risk > or = 20% over 10 years as advised in recent British guidelines. DESIGN: Comparison of decisions made using CHD risk > or = 15% over 10 years calculated by the Framingham risk function and estimated using a simple table with CVD risk > or = 20% over 10 years. SETTING: British population. SUBJECTS: People aged 35-64 years with uncomplicated mild systolic hypertension (SBP 140-159 mmHg, n = 624) from the 1995 Scottish Health Survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relationship between CHD and CVD risk. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV). RESULTS: CHD risk 15% over 10 years was equivalent to CVD risk 21% over 10 years. Exact CHD risk > or = 15% over 10 years had sensitivity 79%, specificity 98%, PPV 94% and NPV 93% in detecting CVD risk > or = 20% over 10 years. Use of the table to estimate CHD risk > or = 15% over 10 years gave sensitivity 88%, specificity 90%, PPV 76% and NPV 95%. CONCLUSION: CHD risk appears acceptably accurate for targeting treatment in mild hypertension. The risk assessment table, which slightly overestimates CHD risk, was more sensitive in identifying patients with CVD risk > or = 20% over 10 years and may be preferable to using exact CHD risk. European guidelines which suggest targeting treatment for mild hypertension at CHD risk > or = 20% over 10 years are over-conservative compared with British guidelines.

Aspirin for primary prevention of coronary heart disease: safety and absolute benefit related to coronary risk derived from meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cardiovascular and coronary risk thresholds at which aspirin for primary prevention of coronary heart disease is safe and worthwhile. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of four randomised controlled trials of aspirin for primary prevention. The benefit and harm from aspirin treatment were examined to determine: (1) the cardiovascular and coronary risk threshold at which benefit in prevention of myocardial infarction exceeds harm from significant bleeding; and (2) the absolute benefit expressed as number needed to treat (NNT) for aspirin net of cerebral haemorrhage and other bleeding complications at different levels of coronary risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Benefit from aspirin, expressed as reduction in cardiovascular events, myocardial infarctions, strokes, and total mortality; harm caused by aspirin in relation to significant bleeds and major haemorrhages. RESULTS: Aspirin for primary prevention significantly reduced all cardiovascular events by 15% (95% confidence interval (CI) 6% to 22%) and myocardial infarctions by 30% (95% CI 21% to 38%), and non-significantly reduced all deaths by 6% (95% CI -4% to 15%). Aspirin non-significantly increased strokes by 6% (95% CI -24% to 9%) and significantly increased bleeding complications by 69% (95% CI 38% to 107%). The risk of major bleeding balanced the reduction in cardiovascular events when cardiovascular event risk was 0.22%/year. The upper 95% CI for this estimate suggests that harm from aspirin is unlikely to outweigh benefit provided the cardiovascular event risk is 0.8%/year, equivalent to a coronary risk of 0.6%/year. At coronary event risk 1.5%/year, the five year NNT was 44 to prevent a myocardial infarction, and 77 to prevent a myocardial infarction net of any important bleeding complication. At coronary event risk 1%/year the NNT was 67 to prevent a myocardial infarction, and 182 to prevent a myocardial infarction net of important bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin treatment for primary prevention is safe and worthwhile at coronary event risk >/= 1.5%/year; safe but of limited value at coronary risk 1%/year; and unsafe at coronary event risk 0.5%/year. Advice on aspirin for primary prevention requires formal accurate estimation of absolute coronary event risk.

Debate: at what level of coronary heart disease risk should a statin be prescribed?

3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) are effective treatments for the primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, but an outstanding issue is determining who should have such treatment. The benefit from treatment with statins appears to be proportional to the underlying risk of coronary heart disease and independent of the factors increasing risk. Most benefit will therefore be achieved by treating people at increased risk of coronary heart disease. Statins reduce coronary morbidity even when the risk of coronary heart disease is relatively low (6% over 10 years), but reduction in all-cause mortality, the true measure of safety has been shown only when the risk of a major coronary heart disease event is 15% over 10 years or greater. At this level of risk patients appear willing to take treatment to gain the benefit expected from statin treatment, and the cost effectiveness of statin treatment is within the range accepted for other treatments. The major impediments to the systematic introduction of statin treatment at this level of risk are the very high overall cost and the large workload in countries like Britain, where the population risk of coronary heart disease is high. For this reason, recent British guidelines correctly advise statin treatment for secondary prevention and primary prevention when the 10 year coronary heart disease risk is 30% or greater as the first priority, moving to a lower coronary heart disease threshold for primary prevention only when resources permit.

Coronary and cardiovascular risk estimation for primary prevention: validation of a new Sheffield table in the 1995 Scottish health survey population.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of a new version of the Sheffield table designed to aid decisions on lipids screening and detect thresholds for risk of coronary heart disease needed to implement current guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. DESIGN: Comparison of decisions made on the basis of the table with absolute risk of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease calculated by the Framingham risk function. The decisions related to statin treatment when coronary risk is >/=30% over 10 years; aspirin treatment when the risk is >/=15% over 10 years; and the treatment of mild hypertension when the cardiovascular risk is >/=20% over 10 years. SETTING: The table is designed for use in general practice. SUBJECTS: Random sample of 1000 people aged 35-64 years from the 1995 Scottish health survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the table. RESULTS: 13% of people had a coronary risk of >/=15%, and 2. 2% a risk of >/=30%, over 10 years. 22% had mild hypertension (systolic blood pressure 140-159 mm Hg). The table indicated lipids screening for everyone with a coronary risk of >/=15% over 10 years, for 95% of people with a ratio of total cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholesterol of >/=8.0, but for <50% with a coronary risk of <5% over 10 years. Sensitivity and specificity were 97% and 95% respectively for a coronary risk of >/=15% over 10 years; 82% and 99% for a coronary risk of >/=30% over 10 years; and 88% and 90% for a cardiovascular risk of >/=20% over 10 years in mild hypertension. CONCLUSION: The table identifies all high risk people for lipids screening, reduces screening of low risk people by more than half, and ensures that treatments are prescribed appropriately to those at high risk, while avoiding inappropriate treatment of people at low risk.

Implication of recent trials with b-hydroxy-b-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors for hypertension management.

BACKGROUND: There is broad agreement that statin treatment should be targeted at absolute coronary heart disease (CHD) risk but no consensus on the level of risk to target. We have examined the implications of adopting three different treatment policies for the management of hypertensive patients in the UK using data from treated hypertensives aged 35-69 years included in the Health Survey for England (1993). METHODS: We calculated the proportion of hypertensive patients with existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease requiring statin treatment for secondary prevention of CHD. For those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (primary prevention), we estimated CHD risk from the Framingham equation and examined the proportion with CHD risk exceeding thresholds of 4.5, 3 and 1.5% per year. RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of treated hypertensives would require statin treatment for secondary prevention of CHD. When the CHD event threshold for statin treatment was set at > or =4.5% per year [equivalent to a number needed to treat (NNT) in 5 years of 13] a further 0.6% of hypertensive patients were identified for treatment; at a threshold of 3.0% per year (NNT = 20) 5.5% of patients were identified for primary prevention; and at a threshold of 1.5% per year (NNT = 40) 28.5% of patients were identified for primary prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Those needing secondary prevention are first priority for statins and 21% of hypertensive patients will require treatment Formulation of guidelines for primary prevention should take into account the NNT; the proportion of patients targeted for treatment; the cost-effectiveness and the total cost of treatment. Current British guidance will entail treating an additional 5.5% of hypertensive patients for primary prevention and therefore 27% of hypertensive patients.

Enhanced cholesterol reduction by simvastatin in diltiazem-treated patients.

AIMS: To investigate whether an interaction between diltiazem and the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor simvastatin may enhance the cholesterol-lowering response to simvastatin in diltiazem-treated patients. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-five patients attending the Sheffield hypertension clinic who started consecutively on simvastatin for primary or secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) during the 2 years June, 1996-May 1998 were surveyed. From the clinic records we extracted and recorded absolute and percentage cholesterol responses to the starting dose of simvastatin and coprescription of diltiazem. RESULTS: The cholesterol reduction for the 19 patients on diltiazem was 33.3% compared with 24.7% in the remaining 116 patients (median difference 8.6%, 95% CI 1.1-12.2%, P<0.02). The interindividual variability of cholesterol response to simvastatin was greater for patients not taking diltiazem than for those patients taking diltiazem. The ratio of the variances in response for the nondiltiazem group relative to the diltiazem group was 1.34 at 10 mg simvastatin daily (not significant, 95% CI 0.16-4.11), and 3.42 at 20 mg daily (P<0.01, 95% CI 1.26-7.18). Concurrent diltiazem therapy (P<0.04), age (P=0.001) and starting dose of simvastatin (P=0.002) were found to be significant independent predictors of percentage cholesterol response. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who take both simvastatin and diltiazem may need lower doses of simvastatin to achieve the recommended reduction in cholesterol. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of this interaction need further study to confirm an enhanced effect on cholesterol reduction, and exclude an increased risk of adverse events.

Association of panic disorder and panic attacks with hypertension.

PURPOSE: Previous studies of the association between hypertension and panic disorder were uncontrolled or involved small numbers of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared the prevalence of panic disorder and panic attacks in 351 patients with documented hypertension who were randomly selected from all hypertensive patients registered in one primary care practice with age- and gender-matched normotensive patients from the same practice and with hypertensive patients attending a hospital clinic. All three groups completed questionnaires for panic disorder based on standard criteria, as well as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. RESULTS: The prevalence of current (previous 6 months) panic attacks was significantly greater in primary care patients with hypertension (17%, P <0.05) and hospital-based hypertensive patients (19%, P <0.01) than in normotensive patients (11%). Similar results were seen for lifetime panic attacks (35% versus 39% versus 22%; both P for comparisons with normotensive patients <0.001). The prevalence of panic disorder was significantly greater in primary care patients with hypertension (13%) than normotensive patients (8%, P <0.05). Anxiety scores were significantly higher in both hypertensive groups than in normotensive patients. Depression scores were significantly higher in hospital-based hypertensive patients than in the other two groups. The reported diagnosis of hypertension antedated the onset of panic attacks in a large majority of patients (P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians caring for patients with hypertension should be aware of the significantly greater prevalence of panic attacks in these patients.

Cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) treatment related to the risk of coronary heart disease and cost of drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost effectiveness of statin treatment in preventing coronary heart disease (CHD) and to examine the effect of the CHD risk level targeted and the cost of statins on the cost effectiveness of treatment. DESIGN: Cohort life table method using data from outcome trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The cost per life year gained for lifelong statin treatment at annual CHD event risks of 4.5% (secondary prevention) and 3.0%, 2.0%, and 1.5% (all primary prevention), with the cost of statins varied from pound 100 to pound 800 per year. RESULTS: The costs per life year gained according to annual CHD event risk were: for 4.5%, pound 5100; 3.0%, pound 8200; 2.0%, pound 10 700; and 1.5%, pound 12 500. Reducing the cost of statins increases cost effectiveness, and narrows the difference in cost effectiveness across the range of CHD event risks. CONCLUSIONS: At current prices statin treatment for secondary prevention, and for primary prevention at a CHD event risk 3.0% per year, is as cost effective as many treatments in wide use. Primary prevention at lower CHD event risks (< 3.0% per year) is less cost effective and unlikely to be affordable at current prices and levels of health service funding. As the cost of statins falls, primary prevention at lower risk levels becomes more cost effective. However, the large volume of treatment needed will remain a major problem.

Thiazide diuretics in hypertension.

Thiazide diuretics have antihypertensive efficacy equivalent to that of the other major classes of antihypertensive drug, and are at least as well tolerated as judged by discontinuation rates and measures of quality of life. They are effective when given once daily, require no dose titration, have few contraindications, and have additive effects when combined with drugs of other classes. The dose-response relation for blood pressure is flat, whereas the subjective and biochemical side-effects are dose-dependent. They should be prescribed only at low dosage. Treatment regimens based on low-dose thiazide prevent stroke, coronary events, heart failure and renal failure in hypertension, and have proven safety. Thiazides are inexpensive. Low-dose thiazides should be preferred for routine first-line treatment of hypertension unless they are contraindicated or there is a compelling indication for an alternative class of drug.