MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Higher blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults

2024· review· en· W4405505022 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie Falk, Liesbeth Froentjes, Jessica Kirkwood, Balraj S Heran, Michael R. Kolber, G. Michael Allan, Christina Korownyk, Scott Garrison

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureObservational studyStroke (engine)PharmacotherapyAdverse effectClinical trialAntihypertensive drugInternal medicineOlder peopleCardiologyIntensive care medicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane review, published in 2017. Eight out of 10 major antihypertensive trials in adults, 65 years of age or older, attempted to achieve a target systolic blood pressure (BP) of < 160 mmHg. Collectively, these trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefit for treatment, compared to no treatment, for older adults with BP > 160 mmHg. However, an even lower BP target of < 140 mmHg is commonly applied to all age groups. Yet the risk and benefit of antihypertensive therapy can be expected to vary across populations, and some observational evidence suggests that older adults who are frail might have better health outcomes with less aggressive BP lowering. Current clinical practice guidelines are inconsistent in target BP recommendations for older adults, with systolic BP targets ranging from < 130 mmHg to < 150 mmHg. The 2017 review did not find compelling evidence of a reduction in any of the primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, or total serious cardiovascular adverse events, comparing a lower BP target to a higher BP target in older adults with hypertension. It is important to update this review to explore if new evidence exists to determine whether older adults might do just as well, better, or worse with less aggressive pharmacotherapy for hypertension. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a less aggressive blood pressure target (in the range of < 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg), compared to a conventional or more aggressive BP target (of < 140/90 mmHg or lower) in hypertensive adults, 65 years of age or older. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to June 2024: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid, and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also contacted authors of relevant papers requesting information on further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of hypertensive older adults (≥ 65 years) that spanned at least one year, and reported the effect on mortality and morbidity of a higher or lower systolic or diastolic BP treatment target. Higher BP targets ranged from systolic BP < 150 to 160 mmHg or diastolic BP < 95 to 105 mmHg; lower BP targets were 140/90 mmHg or lower, measured in an ambulatory, home, or office setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, and extracted data. We combined data for dichotomous outcomes using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, institutionalisation, and serious cardio-renal vascular adverse events. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, unplanned hospitalisation, each component of cardiovascular serious adverse events separately (including cerebrovascular disease, cardiac disease, vascular disease, and renal failure), total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse effects, systolic BP achieved, and diastolic BP achieved. MAIN RESULTS: With the addition of one new trial, we included four trials in this updated review (16,732 older adults with a mean age of 70.3 years). Of these, one trial used a combined systolic and diastolic BP target and compared a higher target of < 150/90 mmHg to a lower target of < 140/90 mmHg, and two trials utilised a purely systolic BP target, and compared a systolic BP < 150 mmHg (1 trial) and a systolic BP < 160 mmHg (1 trial), to a systolic BP < 140 mmHg. The fourth and newest trial also utilised a systolic BP target, but also introduced a lower limit for systolic BP. It compared systolic BP in the target range of 130 to 150 mmHg to a lower target range of 110 to 130 mmHg. The evidence shows that treatment to the lower BP target over two to four years may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.37; 4 studies, 16,732 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the lower BP target does reduce stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67; 4 studies, 16,732 participants; high-certainty evidence), and likely reduces total serious cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45; 4 studies, 16,732 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were not available from all trials, but the lower BP target likely does not increase withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.33; 3 studies, 16,008 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When comparing a higher BP target, in the range of < 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg, to a lower BP target of 140/90 or lower, over two to four years of follow-up, there is high-certainty evidence that the lower BP target reduces stroke, and moderate-certainty evidence that the lower BP target likely reduces serious cardiovascular events. The effect on all-cause mortality is unclear (low-certainty evidence), and the lower BP target likely does not increase withdrawals due to adverse effects (moderate-certainty evidence). Although additional research is warranted in those who are 80 years of age and older, and those who are frail (in whom risks and benefits may differ), conventional BP targets may be appropriate for the majority of older adults.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207