Benefits and risks of antihypertensive medications in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is highly prevalent in older age and accounts for a large proportion of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality worldwide. Isolated systolic hypertension is more common in the elderly than younger adults and associated with poor outcomes such as cerebrovascular disease and acute coronary events. International guidelines are inconsistent in providing recommendations on optimal blood pressure targets in hypertensive elderly patients as a result of the limited evidence in this population. Evidence from clinical trials supports the use of antihypertensive drugs in hypertensive elderly patients due to benefits in reducing CV disease and mortality. However, elderly participants in these trials may not be typical of elderly patients seen in routine clinical practice, and the potential risks associated with use of antihypertensive drugs in the elderly are not as well studied as younger participants. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to provide a comprehensive summary of the benefits and risks of the use of antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients (aged ≥65 years), highlighting landmark clinical trials and observational studies. We will focus on specific outcomes relating to the benefits and risks of these medications in hypertensive elderly patients, such as CV disease, cognitive decline, dementia, orthostatic hypotension, falls, fractures, cancer and diabetes, in order to provide an update of the most relevant and current evidence to help inform clinical decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".