MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4414994746 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000028.pub4

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults 60 years or older

2025· review· en· W4414994746 sur OpenAlexaff
Vijaya M Musini, Aaron M Tejani, Kenneth Bassett, Lorri Puil, Wade Thompson, James M Wright

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPharmacotherapyMeta-analysisMEDLINESystematic reviewCochrane collaboration

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

RATIONALE: This is the third update of a review that was originally published in 1998 and updated in 2009 and 2019. Hypertension increases with age, most rapidly over age 60. It is important to know the benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment for hypertension in this age group, as well as separately for people 60 to 79 years old and for people 80 years or older. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective • To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality for people 60 years and older with hypertension defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > 90 mmHg, or both. Secondary objectives • To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular-specific morbidity and mortality in people 60 years and older with hypertension defined as SBP > 140 mmHg or DBP > 90 mmHg, or both. • To assess the rate of withdrawal due to adverse effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment in people 60 years and older with hypertension defined as SBP > 140 mmHg or DBP > 90 mmHg, or both. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to June 2024: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs of at least one year's duration comparing antihypertensive drug therapy versus placebo or no treatment and providing morbidity and mortality data for people 60 years and older with hypertension defined as blood pressure greater than 140/90 mmHg. OUTCOMES: Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality, coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality, and withdrawal due to adverse effects. RISK OF BIAS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used RevMan for data synthesis and analyses. We based quantitative analyses of outcomes on intention-to-treat results. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to combine outcomes across trials using a fixed-effect model. INCLUDED STUDIES: This update identified no new trials and no ongoing trials. Overall, 16 trials (N = 26,795) in healthy ambulatory adults 60 years or older (mean age 73.8 years) with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension (average 182/95 mmHg) met the inclusion criteria. Most of these trials evaluated first-line thiazide diuretic therapy for a mean treatment duration of 3.8 years. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Antihypertensive drug treatment reduced all-cause mortality (10% with treatment versus 11% with control; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97; 13 studies, 25,932 participants; high-certainty evidence); probably reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (10% with treatment versus 14% with control; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.77; 15 studies, 26,747 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); probably reduced cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (3.4% with treatment versus 5.2% with control; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74; 13 studies, 26,042 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably reduced coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity (3.7% with treatment versus 4.8% with control; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.88; 11 studies, 24,559 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Withdrawals due to adverse effects may have increased with treatment (16% with treatment versus 5.4% with control; RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.56 to 3.30; 4 studies, 11,310 participants; low-certainty evidence). In a sensitivity analysis of the three trials restricted to people with isolated systolic hypertension, reported benefits were similar. We cannot rule out that the observed reduction in all-cause mortality was due mostly to a reduction in the 60- to 79-year-old participant subgroup compared with those 80 years or older. The RR for all-cause mortality in those 60 to 79 years old was 0.86 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 9 studies, 19,017 participants) compared with 0.97 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.10; 8 studies, 6701 participants) in the 80 years or older subgroup, though the test for subgroup difference showed no evidence of a difference. The reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was due in large part to a reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity. The most common reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was risk of bias, in particular incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treating healthy adults 60 years or older with moderate to severe systolic or diastolic hypertension, or both, with antihypertensive drug therapy reduced all-cause mortality and probably reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity, and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity. Most of the evidence pertains to a primary prevention population using a thiazide as first-line treatment. Given that no new or ongoing trials were identified in this update, the certainty of existing evidence is moderate or high, and we do not expect new trials in the future, this review is considered stable and will no longer be updated. FUNDING: Internal sources. Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia. Office space. External sources. BC Ministry of Health grant to the Therapeutics Initiative. Infrastructure. REGISTRATION: Original review (1998): Mulrow CD, Lau J, Cornell J, Brand M. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 2. First update (2009): https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000028/full Second update (2019): https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000028.pub3/full.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,080

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,028
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0050,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0240,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,146
Tête enseignante GPT0,416
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesTravaux en français237 207