[Cardiovascular prevention according to CEIPC: a critical appraisal]. / La prevención según el Comité Español Interdisciplinario para la Prevención Cardiovascular: una valoración crítica.

We present a critical appraisal of the adaptation to the 4th European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice carried out by The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention (CEIPC), which is based on: 1) the removal, by the CEIPC, of important restrictions on the start of drug therapy that are contained in the European guide 2) the existence of internal contradictions and differing recommendations regarding the goals of LDL in the several publications of the CEIP adaptation; and 3) and the almost total lack of necessary discussion about risk tables in Spain. Therefore, it makes a critical appraisal of some of the most important clinical recommendations shared by the CEIPC and the European guide that are not supported by clinical evidence, like the implicit proposal of using the estimated cardiovascular risk as a target for treatment, the criteria to begin the antihypertensive drug therapy and therapeutic goals for blood pressure, LDL-cholesterol and HbA1c. The public health administration and also the scientific society must ensure transparency and independence in the drafting of documents endorsed by them, including the management and declaration of potential conflicts of interest among editors and group members. The public health administration and also the scientific society must guarantee a framework of honesty and transparency in the documents endorsed by them, with a complete declaration of the authors conflict of interests.

[Blood pressure goals in diabetes. A critical appraisal]. / Objetivos del tratamiento antihipertensivo en la población diabética. Una revisión crítica.

In this article we review the evidence supporting the need to achieve a target blood pressure (BP) under 130-80 mm Hg in diabetic patients, as recent international guidelines recommend (JNC VII, ESH-ESC and ADA). We have analyzed the explicit arguments used in these guidelines, 3 clinical trials designed to determine which is the best BP in diabetics (HOT, UKPDS-38 and ABCD) as well as other potentially misleading clinical trials. In our opinion, neither these 3 specific clinical trials nor other trials quoted in the guidelines (due to results and methodology employed) can answer the question of the best goal of pharmacological treatment for hypertension in diabetics. On the other hand, international agreements are not sufficiently rigorous regarding both the sources mentioned and the direct interpretation of the data provided. We conclude that there is not enough evidence to support the goal pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes. We insist in the need of individualization of therapy in patients and consider that a under 140/85 mm Hg goal pressure in diabetics is perfectly supported by current evidence.