Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Hypertension, diabetes and blood pressure targets: ongoing challenges

Touyz, Rhian M.

Cardiovascular Endocrinology & Metabolism: December 2016 - Volume 5 - Issue 4 - p 120–121
doi: 10.1097/XCE.0000000000000107
Editorials
Free

BHF Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Correspondence to Rhian M. Touyz, MD, PhD, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, 126 University Place, Glasgow G12 8TA, UK Tel: +44 141 330 7775/+44 141 330 7774; fax:+44 141 330 3360; e-mail: rhian.touyz@glasgow.ac.uk

Received October 10, 2016

Accepted October 10, 2016

Blood pressure is a variable and quantitative trait, with a normal blood pressure defined as lower than 120/80 mmHg and hypertension defined when systolic blood pressure is higher than 140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure is higher than 90 mmHg. These definitions are based in large part on blood pressure distribution and in the population and levels above which blood pressure-related cardiovascular and renal complications develop. Accordingly, major hypertension guidelines suggest that treatment targets should be lower than 140/90 mmHg 1–3.

However, the question arises whether 140/90 mmHg is in fact the optimal blood pressure to target because death from cardiovascular disease actually increases progressively and linearly as blood pressure increases above 115/75 mmHg. For every 20 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure or 10 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure, there is a doubling of mortality from ischaemic heart disease and stroke in both men and women across age groups (40–89 years) 4. Thus, individuals with ‘high normal’ blood pressure are already at increased cardiovascular risk. Therefore, what blood pressure targets should we be striving for to reduce risk and to prevent cardiovascular disease in patients with hypertension? This question has recently been discussed and fiercely debated following the recent publication of a new trial, The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), a multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label trial, which tested the hypothesis that treating to a lower systolic blood pressure target (<120 mmHg) would reduce cardiovascular events more than treating to the standard target (140 mmHg) 5. Results showed that intensive treatment to lower than 120 mmHg was associated with a 25% reduction in primary composite outcomes and a 27% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with standard treatment, which achieved a systolic blood pressure of 136 mmHg. Supporting these results are data from large meta-analyses that also showed cardiovascular benefit when systolic blood pressure was targeted to levels lower than 130 mmHg 6–8. Hence, there is now compelling evidence that if systolic blood pressure is maintained at 120–130 mmHg rather than at the currently accepted level of lower than 140 mmHg, patients with hypertension will have less cardiovascular events and reduced morbidity and mortality 9,10.

Unfortunately, patients with diabetes, previous stroke or polycystic kidney disease were excluded from SPRINT and thus it remains unclear whether the pronounced beneficial effects observed in the intensively treated hypertensive cohort would have held true if patients with these conditions had also been included. As such, some caution should be exercised because SPRINT findings cannot be generalized and need to be considered in the context of the patient profile included in the trial.

Lowering the recommended treatment targets brings with it many practical issues, such as increased economic burden on already stressed healthcare systems and more intensive healthcare provision. In addition, there is the real challenge of actually achieving optimal targets. Let us consider the current status. On the basis of targets of 140/90 mmHg, ∼30% of the adult population has high blood pressure warranting treatment. Despite the availability of many classes of excellent antihypertensive drugs, control is suboptimal, with fewer than 30% of hypertensive patients receiving therapy and, of these, only about 15–20% are treated to target 11–13. This is a global phenomenon and in some regions, control rates are as low as 10%. The reasons for these poor statistics are complex and include multiple factors, such as poor compliance and adherence, lack of access to drugs, inappropriate therapies and lack of awareness among others 12,13. Now let us consider the situation if blood pressure targets are set at 120 or 130 mmHg; it is likely that more than 60% of the adult population globally would require treatment. On the basis of our current poor record of attaining an optimal target of 140 mmHg, the likelihood of achieving lower targets in the majority of our patients with hypertension is slim.

Hypertension is often associated with multiple comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus. Data from prospective cohort studies indicate that development of type 2 diabetes is almost 2.5 times higher in patients with hypertension compared with normotensive individuals 14 and that new-onset diabetes in patients with hypertension have a three times higher risk of cardiovascular disease 15. Much of the excess cardiovascular risk in diabetes is because of coexisting hypertension and, as such, hypertensive patients with coexisting diabetes have been classified as being at very high cardiovascular risk. Accordingly, many guidelines have suggested lower blood pressure targets than 140/90 mmHg in patients with diabetes and hypertension, with some recommending targets of 130–135/80–85 1–3,16–19. Interestingly, these recommendations have been made despite little evidence supporting this. In fact, the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes study 20 did not find a significant reduction in cardiovascular events when systolic blood pressure was lowered to levels lower than 120 mmHg compared with targets of 133 mmHg. Similar conclusions were drawn from other large studies that examined blood pressure lowering in patients with diabetes. In an analysis of 49 trials comprising over 74 000 individuals, there was an improvement in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity when baseline systolic blood pressure was higher than 140 mmHg 21. However, for baseline blood pressure below 140 mmHg, additional antihypertensive treatment increased cardiovascular mortality, suggesting a J-type phenomenon of blood pressure lowering in patients with diabetes mellitus 22. Taken together, it seems that unlike nondiabetic hypertensive ‘SPRINT’ patients who benefit from blood pressure lowering to lower than 130 mmHg, hypertensive patients with diabetes gain cardiovascular benefits when systolic blood pressure is higher than 140 mmHg. Unravelling the reasons and mechanisms for these apparent divergent outcomes will require intensive research.

The current issue of the journal focuses on hypertension in type 2 diabetes, with an emphasis on optimal management. Some new insights related to vascular phenotypes (premature vascular ageing) in diabetes and hypertension are discussed, antihypertensive effects of antidiabetic drugs are introduced and the controversy on blood pressure targets in patients with diabetes and hypertension is debated. This comprehensive issue provides a compendium of important topics that underpin the link between diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, common comorbidities that are often challenging to manage in the clinic.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, Cushman WC, Dennison-Himmelfarb C, Handler J, et al.. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2014; 311:507–520.
2. Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redon J, Zanchetti A, Böhm M, et al.. Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension and the European Society of Cardiology. 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2013; 31:1281–1357.
3. Weber MA, Schiffrin EL, Mann S, Lindholm LH, Kenerson JG, Flack JM, et al.. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community: a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens 2014; 32:3–15.
4. Lewington S, Clarke R, Quizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta analysis of individual data for 1 million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 2002; 360:1903–1913.
5. The SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood pressure control. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2103–2116.
6. Xie X, Atkins E, Lv J, Bennett A, Neal B, Ninomiya T, et al.. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2016; 387:435–443.
7. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, Anderson SG, Callender T, Emberson J, et al.. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2016; 387:957–967.
8. Thomopoulos C, Parati G, Zanchetti A. Effects of blood pressure lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension: 7. Effects of more vs. less intensive blood pressure lowering and different achieved blood pressure levels – updated overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Hypertens 2016; 34:613–622.
9. Weber MA, Lackland DT. Cardiovascular benefits of lowering blood pressure. Nat Rev Nephrol 2016; 12:202–204.
10. Touyz RM, Dominiczak AF. Hypertension guidelines: is it time to reappraise blood pressure thresholds and targets? Hypertension 2016; 67:688–689.
11. Cohen DL, Townsend RR, Angell SY, DiPette DJ. The World Health Organization recognizes noncommunicable diseases and raised blood pressure as global health priority for 2025. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2014; 16:624–628.
12. Whelton PK. The elusiveness of population-wide high blood pressure control. Annu Rev Public Health 2015; 36:109–130.
13. Chobanian AV. Shattuck lecture. The hypertension paradox – more uncontrolled disease despite improved therapy. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:878–887.
14. Verdecchia P, Reboldi G, Angeli F, Borgioni C, Gattobigio R, Filippucci L, et al.. Adverse prognostic significance of newdiabetes in treated hypertensive subjects. Hypertension 2004; 43:963–969.
15. Chen G, McAlister FA, Walker RL, Hemmelgarn BR, Campbell NR. Cardiovascular outcomes in Framingham participants with diabetes: the importance of blood pressure. Hypertension 2011; 57:891–897.
16. Horr S, Nissen S. Managing hypertension in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016; 30:445–454.
17. Weber MA, Block M, Bakris GL, Weir M. Cardiovascular outcomes according to systolic blood pressure in patients with and without diabetes: an ACCOMPLISH substudy. J Clin Hypert 2016; 18:299–307.
18. Grassi G, Mancia G, Nilsson PM. Specific blood pressure targets for patients with diabetic nephropathy? Diabetes Care 2016; 39:S228–S233.
19. Leung AA, Nerenberg K, Daskalopoulou SS, McBrien K, Zarnke KB, Dasgupta K, et al.. CHEP Guidelines Task Force. Hypertension Canada’s 2016 Canadian Hypertension Education Program Guidelines for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, prevention, and treatment of hypertension. Can J Cardiol 2016; 32:569–588.
20. ACCORD Study Group, Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, Goff DC Jr, Grimm RH Jr, Cutler JA, et al.. Effects of intensive blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1575–1585.
21. Brunstrom M, Carlberg B. Effect of antihypertensive treatment at different blood pressure levels in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ 2016; 352:i717.
22. Fuchs FD, Fuchs SC. Blood pressure targets in the treatment of high blood pressure: a reappraisal of the J-shaped phenomenon. J Hum Hypertens 2014; 28:80–84.
Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.