fri blumenthal 125 - baptist health south...
Post on 16-Mar-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2/9/2017
1
Achieving Harmony in Blood Pressure
Guidelines Around the Globe
Roger S. Blumenthal, MD
The Kenneth Jay Pollin Professor of Cardiology
Director, The Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention
Of Heart Disease
Disclosures: None
Financial Disclosures/Unapproved Use
• I have no financial relationships with a commercial entity
that is relevant to the content of this presentation.
• I will/will not reference unlabeled or unapproved uses of
drugs or other products.
Objectives
1. Review our understanding of “normal” blood pressure and our definition of hypertension
2. Discuss major trials that have shaped our approach to hypertension Rx, with a focus on recent data (SPRINT, HOPE-3, ACCORD)
3. Introduce the concept of using CVD risk to personalize the treatment of hypertension
4. Summarize novel research in the field
3
2/9/2017
2
What is the optimal SBP goal in this patient?
� <150
� <140
� <130
� <120
65 year-old man with HTN, obesity (BMI 31), OSA, prediabetes who is self-referred for CV evaluation. His mean BP in the office on HCTZ 25mg daily is 155/76.
The Changing of Hypertension
JNC-7 2003 (JAMA 2003;289(19):2560
5
2014 Guidelines
JAMA. 2014;311(5):507-20
2/9/2017
3
Major Points from JNC 8:
�General population, age ≥60 years – Treat if
SBP ≥150 mmHg for goal SBP <150 mmHg (strong recommendation, grade A)
�DM, age ≥18 years – Treat if SBP is ≥140 for goal <140/90 (expert opinion, grade E)
The latest on BP guidelines: 2017
Ann Intern Med. [Epub ahead of print 17 January 2017] doi: 10.7326/M16-1785
ACP/AAFP Guideline Recommendations
� 1. Initiate treatment in adults ≥60 years:
� if SBP >150 to achieve a target SBP<150 (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)
� 2. In adults ≥60 years with prior history of TIA or CVA:
� Target SBP<140 (Grade: Weak recommendation,
moderate-quality evidence)
� 3. In adults ≥60 years with high cardiovascular risk
� Target SBP<140 (Grade: weak, low-quality evidence)
2/9/2017
4
More Recent BP Trials Have Stirred Debate
10
Yusuf and Lonn: doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.2169
But isn’t a lower target even better?
The SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med 2015
Nov 9;
SPRINT: Is more intensive BP control better? (NEJM 2015
Nov 9)
� N: 9361
� Multicenter RCT:
� SBP<120 vs SBP<140
� Inclusion Criteria:
� SBP 130-180 (treated or untreated)
� Age >50 years
� Increased risk of CVD:
� Clinical or subclinical CVD (excluding stroke)
� CKD (eGFR 20 to less than 60)
� Framingham Global CVD Risk 10- year score of ≥15%
� Age ≥75 years
� Exclusion Criteria:
� Diabetes
� Prior stroke
2/9/2017
5
Baseline Characteristics (NEJM 2015 Nov 9)
Intensive Rx vs Standard Rx in SPRINT (NEJM Nov 9 2015)
121.5 mmHg
136.2 mmHg
SPRINT: Primary & Secondary Outcomes (NEJM Nov 9, 2015)
� Primary Outcomes: MI, non-MI ACS, stroke, heart failure, death from
cardiovascular cause
2/9/2017
6
SPRINT: Adverse Events (NEJM Nov 9, 2015)
SPRINT- Cost Effectiveness
17
• Intensive BP management cost $23,777 per QALY gained
• Serious AEs would need to occur at 3 times the rate observed in SPRINT to prefer standard Mx
JAMA Cardiol. Published online September 14, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.3517
Recent Landmark Trials:
Risk (re) takes Center Stage
• What explains the difference in treatment effect between SPRINT and HOPE-3?
• “The most plausible possibility is that they asked fundamentally different questions. SPRINT examined an intensive treatment strategy in a population with elevated BP and at high risk for CVD. The HOPE-3 BP trial examined the value of a fixed-dose BP lowering combination pill, without a specific BP treatment target, in a population where risk for CVD was much lower.”
18
PK Whelton et al. Published Online: September 7, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.2051.
2/9/2017
7
Recent Landmark Trials:
BP reduction put into Context
19
Jan Staessen Lancet 2001; 358: 1305–15
Alberto Zanchetti Circ Res. 2015;116:1058-1073
HOPE 3
SPRINT
ACCORD: SBP<120 vs SBP<140 in DM2 patients
The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010. 362(17) 1575-1585.
ACCORD:
Is more intensive BP control in DM2 patients better?
� N: 4773
� Multicenter RCT:
� SBP<120 vs SBP<140
� Inclusion Criteria:� Type 2 DM - Hemoglobin A1C ≥7.5%
� Age ≥40 yrs with CVD
� Age ≥55 yrs with any of the following:
� Atherosclerosis
� Albuminuria
� LVH
� ≥2 CV risk factors (dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, or obesity)
� Exclusion Criteria:� BMI >45 kg/m2
� Creatinine >1.5mg/dL (132.6 umol/L)
� Other serious illness
2/9/2017
8
Baseline Characteristics in ACCORD (NEJM 2010)
Intensive Rx vs Standard Rx in ACCORD (NEJM 2010)
133.5 mmHg
119 mmHg
ACCORD: Primary and Secondary Outcomes
� Primary Outcome: Composite of non fatal MI, non fatal CV, CVD death
2/9/2017
9
ACCORD vs SPRINT
� ACCORD was Underpowered:
� Almost ½ of expected event rate
� Sample size almost ½ of SPRINT
� Young patient population (62 yrs vs. 68 yrs)
� ?Lower Risk with dyslipidemia arm
� Excluded patients with creatinine >1.5
However…
� Trend towards reduction in primary outcome
Making sense of ACP/AAFP Recommendations
Weiss J, Freeman M, Low A, Fu R, Kerfoot A, Paynter R, et al. Benefits and Harms of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment in Adults Aged 60 Years or Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. [Epub ahead of print 17 January 2017] doi: 10.7326/M16-1754
Rec 1: Initiate treatment in adults ≥60 years:
if SBP >150 to achieve a target SBP<150
(Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence)
Making sense of ACP/AAFP Recommendations
�REC 2. Target SBP<140 with prior history
of TIA or CVA (Grade: Weak
recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)
2/9/2017
10
Making sense of ACP/AAFP Recommendations
� REC 3. Target SBP<140 if there is high CV risk (Grade: weak, low-
quality evidence)
Study (Year) BP Goal N F/u
ACCORD (2010) <120 vs <140 4733 4.7 yrs
Cardio-Sis (2009) <130 vs <140 1110 2.0 yrs
JATOS (2008) <140 vs <160 4418 2.0 yrs
SPRINT (2015) <120 vs <140 9361 3.3 yrs
VALISH (2010) <140 vs <150 3079 3.0 yrs
Weiss J, Freeman M, Low A, Fu R, Kerfoot A, Paynter R, et al. Benefits and Harms of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment in Adults Aged 60 Years or Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. [Epub ahead of print 17 January 2017] doi: 10.7326/M16-1754
Making sense of ACP/AAFP Recommendations
� REC 3. Target SBP<140 if there is high cardiovascular risk (Grade:
weak, low-quality evidence)
� Meta-analysis of 6 trials: N: 41491
� All-cause mortality: RR 0.86, (95% CI 0.69-1.06)
� Reduction in cardiac events RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.64 -1.00)
“evidence for mortality & cardiac events should be considered low-strength because the results have important inconsistencies & because
the CIs are relatively wide, encompassing possibility of both marked benefit & no effect.”Weiss J, Freeman M, Low A, Fu R, Kerfoot A, Paynter R, et al. Benefits and Harms of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment in Adults Aged 60 Years or Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. [Epub ahead of print 17 January 2017] doi: 10.7326/M16-1754
Canadian BP Guidelines: 2016
Canadian Journal of Cardiology 32.5 (2016): 569-588.
2/9/2017
11
Canadian Guidelines: Recommended Treatment
Targets
Adapted from CHEP Taskforce
European Society of Hypertension Guidelines: 2013
European Society of Hypertension Guidelines
2/9/2017
12
WHO/International Society of Hypertension Guidelines :
Target BP
World Health Organization, International Society of Hypertension Writing Group. 2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension. J Hypertens. 2003;21:1983-1992.
• HTN at low & medium risk: Target SBP <140� HTN at high risk: “Reasonable” to target SBP<130
Using CV Risk to guide BP (and other
preventive meds) is not a new idea….
• That which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.
• Ecclesiastes 1:9
35
• “Because the goal of antihypertensive therapy is to prevent CVD events,& the likelihood of such events is determined by absolute risk assessment, risk, rather than level of BP, should determine the need for therapy.”
36
2/9/2017
13
37
Our Research
Specifically within the context of a ‘risk-based’ BP Rx paradigm…
1. Can non-contrast CT imaging for CAC provide additional risk information to guide BP Rx decision making?
2. Can blood-based biomarkers be used to monitor impact of blood pressure on individual risk for clinical outcomes?
38
<1 mSv
Research Focus No. 1- CAC
The King of the “Risk” Jungle
2/9/2017
14
CAC- MESA + Heinz-Nixdorf
N Engl J Med 2008; 358:1336-1345
40
J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:1397–406
CAC informs NNT for statins
41
Blaha et al. Lancet 2011; 378: 684–92 Nasir et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:1657–68
42
2/9/2017
15
Can CAC inform NNT for BP Rx intensity?
43
JW McEvoy et al. Circ 2017 Jan 10; 135:153-65
Poor BP Control is associated with hs-cTnT
elevation and temporal change in hs-cTnT
44
JW McEvoy et al.
Int J Cardiol. 2015;187:651-7.
45
JW McEvoy et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(5):519-528.
2/9/2017
16
Hs-Troponin may identify adults with
abnormal BP who will develop a Dx of HTN
46
Fully adjusted Cox*
Visit 2hs-cTnT HR
(95% CI) p-valueCategorical
<5 ng/L 1.00 (ref.)
5-8 ng/L
1.16 (1.08-1.25) <0.001
9-13 ng/L
1.29 (1.14-1.47) <0.001
≥14 ng/L
1.31 (1.07-1.61) 0.010
Continuous
Log(hs-cTnT)
1.14 (1.09-1.19) <0.001
JW McEvoy et al.
Circulation. 2015;132:825-833
47
JW McEvoy et al.
Circulation. 2015;132:825-833
Troponin to gauge on-treatment risk?
• SPRINT suggests that SBP targets should be between 120-130 mmHg, particularly when CV risk is higher
• What are the implications for dropping Diastolic BP too low?
• Observational DBP “J Curve”
48
CLARIFY registry- 22,672 CAD ptsVidal-Petiot et al. Lancet 2016
2/9/2017
17
Restricted cubic spline for the association of Diastolic BP with
hs-cTnT ≥14 ng/L
49
JW McEvoy et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Oct 18;68(16):1713-1722
Take Home Messages
1. We have come along way in Rx of elevated BP
2. Now pushing the boundaries of how low we can go
3. Estimated CV risk becomes important additional parameter to consider, over & above actual BP level
4. Shared decision making and risk discussion increasingly important (Martin SS, J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Apr 7;65(13):1361-8)
5. Subclinical imaging and biomarkers have the potential to help personalize risk based decision making for BP Rx
50
Conclusion:
�Limitations of meta-analysis data led to surprising new ACP/AAFP guidelines
�Discordance in treatment target in different guidelines but lifestyle improvements are always welcome to lower BP
�Stay Tuned: ACC/AHA guidelines in late 2017
2/9/2017
18
What is the optimal SBP goal in this patient?
� <150
� <140
� <130
� <120
65 year-old man with HTN, obesity(BMI 31), OSA, prediabetes self-referred for CV evaluation. His mean BP in the office on HCTZ 25mg daily is 153/76.
The ABCDE Approach
A
B
D
C
E
AssessmentAspirin
Blood pressure
Cholesterol
Diabetes PreventionDiet
Exercise
Proposal for an ABCDE Approach
top related