Using Predicted Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Conjunction With Blood Pressure to Guide Antihypertensive Medication Treatment

Abstract

Using cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk instead of, or in addition to, blood pressure (BP) to guide antihypertensive treatment is an active area of research. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of studies that may inform this treatment paradigm. We review data from randomized trials on relative and absolute CVD risk reduction that may occur when antihypertensive treatment is guided by CVD risk. We review population-level data on using CVD risk in conjunction with BP for guiding antihypertensive treatment, the broad distribution in CVD risk for people with similar BP levels, and the use of CVD risk for guiding antihypertensive treatment among sub-groups including older adults, young adults and those with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Also, we review potential challenges in implementing antihypertensive treatment recommendations that incorporate CVD risk. In closing, we provide recommendations for using CVD risk in combination with BP to guide antihypertensive treatment.

Multiplex proteomics for prediction of major cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes

“…Identification of high-risk individuals in whom the benefits of aggressive prevention outweigh the costs and side effects is therefore crucial. Clinical decision-making based on overall cardiovascular risk in addition to individual risk factors can improve outcomes, as demonstrated for antihypertensive treatment [12]. Available risk models for MACE in type 2 diabetes are, however, only moderately accurate [13, 14], and there is a need for better prediction tools to guide healthcare.…”

Cardiovascular care of patients with stroke and high risk of stroke: The need for interdisciplinary action: A consensus report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table

“…11 Recent evidence, however, may challenge such global blood pressure targets as the risk associated with hypertension may depend on a wider range of interrelated factors including not only age but also type of stroke, comorbidities and cardiovascular risk profile. 12 Further uncertainty exists on the blood pressure variables that need most attention, i.e. absolute blood pressure, pulse pressure, as well as isolated systolic or diastolic blood pressure elevations or diurnal trends.…”

Michel Accad. (2017). Moving Mountains: A Socratic Challenge to the Theory and Practice of Population Medicine. Huntsville, TX: Green Publishing House. ISBN 978-1-63432-030-6. A Dichotomization of Health?

“…The magnitude of benefit for those receiving active treatment was about half of a percent lower likelihood of an important cardiovascular outcome per year. The benefit for individuals lacking such risk factors would be only 3% over a 10 year period [15,16]. This means that, on average, 33 low risk people would have to be treated, pharmacologically or otherwise, for 10 years for a single person to avoid an event.…”

“…It would seem that the consequences of trends in recommendations for defining and managing hypertension well illustrate the principles elaborated by Rose [8]. That is, the lower the threshold for defining individual "disease", the greater the shift from individual to population level benefit [15,16]. When the threshold is lowered, more cardiovascular events are avoided at the expense of greater numbers of individuals being defined as "diseased" and being treated with minimal individual health benefit and despite the same risk of adverse events from treatment.…”