Estimation of metabolic syndrome heritability in three large populations including full pedigree and genomic information.

Metabolic syndrome is a complex human disorder characterized by a cluster of conditions (increased blood pressure, hyperglycemia, excessive body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol or triglyceride levels). Any of these conditions increases the risk of serious disorders such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Currently, the degree of genetic regulation of this syndrome is under debate and partially unknown. The principal aim of this study was to estimate the genetic component and the common environmental effects in different populations using full pedigree and genomic information. We used three large populations (Gubbio, ARIC, and Ogliastra cohorts) to estimate the heritability of metabolic syndrome. Due to both pedigree and genotyped data, different approaches were applied to summarize relatedness conditions. Linear mixed models (LLM) using average information restricted maximum likelihood (AIREML) algorithm were applied to partition the variances and estimate heritability (h2) and common sib-household effect (c2). Globally, results obtained from pedigree information showed a significant heritability (h2: 0.286 and 0.271 in Gubbio and Ogliastra, respectively), whereas a lower, but still significant heritability was found using SNPs data ([Formula: see text]: 0.167 and 0.254 in ARIC and Ogliastra). The remaining heritability between h2 and [Formula: see text] ranged between 0.031 and 0.237. Finally, the common environmental c2 in Gubbio and Ogliastra were also significant accounting for about 11% of the phenotypic variance. Availability of different kinds of populations and data helped us to better understand what happened when heritability of metabolic syndrome is estimated and account for different possible confounding. Furthermore, the opportunity of comparing different results provided more precise and less biased estimation of heritability.

Latin American Consensus on the management of hypertension in the patient with diabetes and the metabolic syndrome.

: The prevalence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) and the metabolic syndrome continues to increase in Latin America, while the rates of diagnosis, treatment and control of these disorders remain low. The frequency of the risk factors that constitute the metabolic syndrome and are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease has not diminished since the publication of the previous consensus. This document discusses the socioeconomic, demographic, environmental and cultural characteristics of most associated Latin American countries and partially explains the lack of better results in improving clinical and public health actions that allow high morbidity and mortality rates caused by cardiovascular diseases and DM2 to be reduced through programs aligned with the so-called precision medicine, which should be predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory. The Consensus ratifies the diagnostic criteria expressed in the previous consensus to define hypertension and DM2 but, for the metabolic syndrome, and in the absence of evidence, the recommendation is to implement a cohort study that determines the abdominal perimeter value associated with hard outcomes, such as DM2 and CVD. Meanwhile, we recommend modifying the criterion to more than 94 cm in men and more than 84 cm in women according to WHO recommendations. We also recommend the carrying out of a study that identifies the situation of hypertension and DM2 in people of African ancestry who, in Latin America, exceed 75 million and whose epidemiology does not include solid studies. With respect to the proposed therapeutic targets, we recommended maintaining those defined in the previous consensus, but insisting that early pharmacological management of prediabetes with metformin should be introduced, as should the treatment of diabetic hypertensive patients with a combination therapy of two fixed-dose antihypertensive drugs and management with statins. To increase adherence, the use of different drugs combined in a single pill (polypill) is recommended. The simplification of the therapeutic regimen is accompanied by greater control of cardiovascular risk factors, both in primary and secondary prevention, and has been shown to be cost-effective. The consensus recommends the use of the currently available polypill combining an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a statin and aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention and in patients with a high cardiovascular risk, such as hypertension patients with DM2.

Different effects of antihypertensive treatment on office and ambulatory blood pressure: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements are the main techniques to detect the effects of antihypertensive treatments in clinical trials, but the treatment-induced changes in these BP values can differ markedly. We performed a meta-analysis of clinical trials to quantify these differences and identified some of the associated factors. METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hypertensive patients treated with at least one antihypertensive drug that reported changes in both office and 24-h BP. Random-effects models were fitted to estimate the summary of the difference between the changes as quantified by either technique. The I and Cochrane's Q statistics were calculated to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies. RESULTS: A total of 52 studies were included in our meta-analysis with about 9500 patients. The summary estimate Δ of SBP and DBP was -6.5 (95% confidence interval: -7.5 to -5.6) and -3.3 (95% confidence interval, -3.9 to -2.7), respectively. The difference was independent on the treatment duration and use of mono or combination treatment but for SBP it varied with the different treatment types in monotherapy, and it was greater in relation to baseline office BP and age. Allowing for the placebo effect also reduced the difference. Absolute on treatment BP values were at target for either pressure and the rate of controlled hypertensive individuals was similar (around one-third) for either measuring approach. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis confirms that overall treatment-induced reduction is markedly greater for office BP than for 24-h BP, but it also shows that the quantitative relationship between these two measuring approaches varies with demographic, clinical and therapeutic conditions as well as in relation to placebo correction.

MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on office BP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) carries an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications and can be identified through combined use of office (O) and ambulatory (A) blood pressure (BP) monitoring (M) in treated patients. However, it is still debated whether the information carried by ABPM should be considered for MUCH management. Aim of the MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on OBP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study is to assess the impact on outcome of MUCH management based on OBPM or ABPM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MASTER is a 4-year prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint investigation. A total of 1240 treated hypertensive patients from about 40 secondary care clinical centres worldwide will be included -upon confirming presence of MUCH (repeated on treatment OBP <140/90 mm Hg, and at least one of the following: daytime ABP ≥135/85 mm Hg; night-time ABP ≥120/70 mm Hg; 24 hour ABP ≥130/80 mm Hg), and will be randomised to a management strategy based on OBPM (group 1) or on ABPM (group 2). Patients in group 1 will have OBP measured at 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months and taken as a guide for treatment; ABPM will be performed at randomisation and at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months but will not be used to take treatment decisions. Patients randomised to group 2 will have ABPM performed at randomisation and all scheduled visits as a guide to antihypertensive treatment. The effects of MUCH management strategy based on ABPM or on OBPM on CV and renal intermediate outcomes (changing left ventricular mass and microalbuminuria, coprimary outcomes) at 1 year and on CV events at 4 years and on changes in BP-related variables will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: MASTER study protocol has received approval by the ethical review board of Istituto Auxologico Italiano. The procedures set out in this protocol are in accordance with principles of Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Results will be published in accordance with the CONSORT statement in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02804074; Pre-results.

2018 Practice Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension.

These practice guidelines on the management of arterial hypertension are a concise summary of the more extensive ones prepared by the Task Force jointly appointed by the European Society of Hypertension and the European Society of Cardiology. These guidelines have been prepared on the basis of the best available evidence on all issues deserving recommendations; their role must be educational and not prescriptive or coercive for the management of individual subjects who may differ widely in their personal, medical and cultural characteristics. The members of the Task Force have participated independently in the preparation of these guidelines, drawing on their academic and clinical experience and by objective examination and interpretation of all available literature. A disclosure of their potential conflict of interest is reported on the websites of the ESH and the ESC.

2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension.

: Document reviewers: Guy De Backer (ESC Review Co-ordinator) (Belgium), Anthony M. Heagerty (ESH Review Co-ordinator) (UK), Stefan Agewall (Norway), Murielle Bochud (Switzerland), Claudio Borghi (Italy), Pierre Boutouyrie (France), Jana Brguljan (Slovenia), Héctor Bueno (Spain), Enrico G. Caiani (Italy), Bo Carlberg (Sweden), Neil Chapman (UK), Renata Cifkova (Czech Republic), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Jean-Philippe Collet (France), Ioan Mircea Coman (Romania), Peter W. de Leeuw (The Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (The Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Hans-Christoph Diener (Germany), Maria Dorobantu (Romania), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Csaba Farsang (Hungary), Marc Ferrini (France), Ian M. Graham (Ireland), Guido Grassi (Italy), Hermann Haller (Germany), F. D. Richard Hobbs (UK), Bojan Jelakovic (Croatia), Catriona Jennings (UK), Hugo A. Katus (Germany), Abraham A. Kroon (The Netherlands), Christophe Leclercq (France), Dragan Lovic (Serbia), Empar Lurbe (Spain), Athanasios J. Manolis (Greece), Theresa A. McDonagh (UK), Franz Messerli (Switzerland), Maria Lorenza Muiesan (Italy), Uwe Nixdorff (Germany), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Gianfranco Parati (Italy), Joep Perk (Sweden), Massimo Francesco Piepoli (Italy), Jorge Polonia (Portugal), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Stefano F. Rimoldi (Switzerland), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Naveed Sattar (UK), Petar M. Seferovic (Serbia), Iain A. Simpson (UK), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Alice V. Stanton (Ireland), Philippe van de Borne (Belgium), Panos Vardas (Greece), Massimo Volpe (Italy), Sven Wassmann (Germany), Stephan Windecker (Switzerland), Jose Luis Zamorano (Spain).The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these Guidelines are available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality: 13 - benefits and adverse events in older and younger patients with hypertension: overview, meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: There is overwhelming evidence that blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment can reduce cardiovascular outcomes also in the elderly, but some important aspects influencing medical practice are controversial as sufficient evidence has not been provided by single randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas evidence may result from a systematic search and meta-analysis of all available data. OBJECTIVES: The following clinically relevant issues concerning the effects of BP lowering in older and younger individuals have been investigated: differences in benefits; the oldest and the youngest age range for which evidence of BP-lowering effects is available; the SBP level at which BP-lowering treatment should be initiated; the SBP and DBP levels treatment should be aimed at; differences in treatment burdens and harms. METHODS: A database we previously identified of 72 BP-lowering RCTs in 260 210 patients was searched for separately reported data on older and younger individuals [cutoffs of 65 (primary analyses), 70, 75, 80, 60 and 55 years). The data were further stratified according to the levels of baseline (untreated) BP, and of on-treatment achieved SBP or DBP. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were considered for benefits. Burdens and harms were investigated as permanent treatment discontinuations for adverse events, and hypotension/syncope. Risk ratios and absolute risk changes were calculated by a random effects model. Effects at older and younger ages were compared by heterogeneity test. RESULTS: Thirty-two RCTs provided data on 96 549 patients older than 65 years, and 31 RCTs on 114 009 patients younger than 65 years. All cardiovascular outcomes were significantly reduced by treatment both in older and younger individuals, without significant age-dependent differences in relative risk reduction but with significantly higher absolute risk reductions in older individuals. The extreme age ranges for which evidence of significant benefits of treatment were available was greater than 80 and less than 55 years. Only one RCT provided data on benefits of BP-lowering at age greater than 65 when treatment was initiated at SBP values in the grade 1 range, but more consistent evidence was provided when age was greater than 60 years. Both in patients older and younger than 65 years, significant reductions of cardiovascular outcomes were found at on-treatment SBP less than 140 mmHg and DBP less than 80 mmHg. There was no evidence that treatment discontinuations for adverse events or hypotension/syncope were more frequent at age greater than 65. CONCLUSION: Antihypertensive treatment should be recommended to all individuals with elevated BP, independent of age. The prudent recommendation to initiate treatment at SBP values 140-159 mmHg is supported at older age defined as greater than 60 years. SBP and DBP values lower than 140 mmHg and, respectively, 80 mmHg can be aimed at with incremental benefits without disproportionate burdens until age 80 years, above which available evidence is for benefits at on-treatment SBP 140-149 mmHg.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality: 14 - effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in older and younger patients: overview and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The five major classes of blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs have all been shown to significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events when compared with placebo, and when directly (head-to-head) compared, no significant differences in their overall effectiveness have been detected, except for minor differences in cause-specific events. It is unknown, however, whether age-related differences exist and if some classes of drugs are differently effective in older or younger individuals. This clinically relevant question has been the object of a systematic search and meta-analysis of all available data. METHODS: Two databases we had previously identified [72 placebo-controlled BP-lowering randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in 260 210 individuals and 50 RCTs head-to-head comparing treatments with BP-lowering drugs of different classes in 247 006 individuals) were searched for separately reported data on patients older or younger than 65 years, and the data were further stratified according to the class of drug [diuretics, beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers] compared with placebo or with other drug classes. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were considered for benefits. Adverse events were investigated as permanent treatment discontinuations for adverse events. Risk ratios and absolute risk changes were calculated by a random effects model. Effects at older and younger ages were compared by heterogeneity test. RESULTS: We identified 20 placebo-controlled RCTs on 55 645 older individuals and 21 on 99 621 younger individuals, and 21 head-to-head drug comparison RCTs on 94 228 older individuals and 27 on 100 232 younger individuals (for a total of 349 726 individuals). When compared with placebo, all five classes of BP-lowering drugs significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events or stroke, with no significant difference between older and younger patients. However, in head-to-head comparisons, no significant difference was found between older and younger patients in the effects of diuretics, calcium antagonists, ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on all cardiovascular outcomes, whereas beta-blockers revealed an age-dependent effectiveness, being equally effective as the other agents at an age below 65 years, but less effective at an older age. CONCLUSION: Most BP-lowering classes are equally effective in preventing risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events both in older and younger patients, whereas beta-blockers, though being equally effective as the other agents in patients younger than 65, loose some of their effectiveness at an older age.

Isolated systolic hypertension in the young: a position paper endorsed by the European Society of Hypertension.

: Whether isolated systolic hypertension in the young (ISHY) implies a worse outcome and needs antihypertensive treatment is still a matter for dispute. ISHY is thought to have different mechanisms than systolic hypertension in the elderly. However, findings from previous studies have provided inconsistent results. From the analysis of the literature, two main lines of research and conceptualization have emerged. Simultaneous assessment of peripheral and central blood pressure led to the identification of a condition called pseudo or spurious hypertension, which was considered an innocent condition. However, an increase in pulse wave velocity has been found by some authors in about 20% of the individuals with ISHY. In addition, obesity and metabolic disturbances have often been documented to be associated with ISHY both in children and young adults. The first aspect to consider whenever evaluating a person with ISHY is the possible presence of white-coat hypertension, which has been frequently found in this condition. In addition, assessment of central blood pressure is useful for identifying ISHY patients whose central blood pressure is normal. ISHY is infrequently mentioned in the guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. According to the 2013 European Guidelines on the management of hypertension, people with ISHY should be followed carefully, modifying risk factors by lifestyle changes and avoiding antihypertensive drugs. Only future clinical trials will elucidate if a benefit can be achieved with pharmacological treatment in some subgroups of ISHY patients with associated risk factors and/or high central blood pressure.

Blood pressure-lowering treatment strategies based on cardiovascular risk versus blood pressure: A meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines have traditionally recommended blood pressure treatment based primarily on blood pressure thresholds. In contrast, using predicted cardiovascular risk has been advocated as a more effective strategy to guide treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to compare outcomes from a blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk with one based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) level. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used individual participant data from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) from 1995 to 2013. Trials randomly assigned participants to either blood pressure-lowering drugs versus placebo or more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering regimens. We estimated 5-y risk of CVD events using a multivariable Weibull model previously developed in this dataset. We compared the two strategies at specific SBP thresholds and across the spectrum of risk and blood pressure levels studied in BPLTTC trials. The primary outcome was number of CVD events avoided per persons treated. We included data from 11 trials (47,872 participants). During a median of 4.0 y of follow-up, 3,566 participants (7.5%) experienced a major cardiovascular event. Areas under the curve comparing the two treatment strategies throughout the range of possible thresholds for CVD risk and SBP demonstrated that, on average, a greater number of CVD events would be avoided for a given number of persons treated with the CVD risk strategy compared with the SBP strategy (area under the curve 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] for the CVD risk strategy versus 0.54 [95% CI 0.53-0.55] for the SBP strategy). Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 150 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 29% (95% CI 26%-31%) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 16% (95% CI 14%-18%) more events for the same number of persons treated. Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 3.8% (95% CI 12.5% fewer to 7.2% more) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 3.1% (95% CI 1.5%-5.0%) more events for the same number of persons treated, although the former estimate was not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, the CVD risk strategy did not appear to be more beneficial than the SBP strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus or established CVD. CONCLUSIONS: A blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk is more effective than one based on blood pressure levels alone across a range of thresholds. These results support using cardiovascular risk assessment to guide blood pressure treatment decision-making in moderate- to high-risk individuals, particularly for primary prevention.