Jeremy Sussman1, Sandeep Vijan, Rod Hayward. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan (J.S., S.V., R.H.), and the Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI (J.S., S.V., R.H.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for prescribing antihypertensive medications focus on reaching specific blood pressure targets. We sought to determine whether antihypertensive medications could be used more effectively by a treatment strategy based on tailored estimates of cardiovascular disease events prevented. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a nationally representative sample of American adults aged 30 to 85 years with no history of myocardial infarction, stroke, or severe congestive heart failure using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. We then created a simulation model to estimate the effects of 5 years of treatment with treat-to-target (treatment to specific blood pressure goals) and benefit-based tailored treatment (treatment based on estimated cardiovascular disease event reduction) approaches to antihypertensive medication management. All effect size estimates were derived directly from meta-analyses of randomized trials. We found that 55% of the overall population of 176 million Americans would be treated identically under the 2 treatment approaches. Benefit-based tailored treatment would prevent 900 000 more cardiovascular disease events and save 2.8 million more quality-adjusted life-years, despite using 6% fewer medications over 5 years. In the 45% of the population treated differently by the strategies, benefit-based tailored treatment would save 159 quality-adjusted life-years per 1000 treated versus 74 quality-adjusted life-years per 1000 treated by the treat-to-target approach. The findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We found that benefit-based tailored treatment was both more effective and required less antihypertensive medication than current guidelines based on treating to specific blood pressure goals.
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for prescribing antihypertensive medications focus on reaching specific blood pressure targets. We sought to determine whether antihypertensive medications could be used more effectively by a treatment strategy based on tailored estimates of cardiovascular disease events prevented. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a nationally representative sample of American adults aged 30 to 85 years with no history of myocardial infarction, stroke, or severe congestive heart failure using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. We then created a simulation model to estimate the effects of 5 years of treatment with treat-to-target (treatment to specific blood pressure goals) and benefit-based tailored treatment (treatment based on estimated cardiovascular disease event reduction) approaches to antihypertensive medication management. All effect size estimates were derived directly from meta-analyses of randomized trials. We found that 55% of the overall population of 176 million Americans would be treated identically under the 2 treatment approaches. Benefit-based tailored treatment would prevent 900 000 more cardiovascular disease events and save 2.8 million more quality-adjusted life-years, despite using 6% fewer medications over 5 years. In the 45% of the population treated differently by the strategies, benefit-based tailored treatment would save 159 quality-adjusted life-years per 1000 treated versus 74 quality-adjusted life-years per 1000 treated by the treat-to-target approach. The findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We found that benefit-based tailored treatment was both more effective and required less antihypertensive medication than current guidelines based on treating to specific blood pressure goals.
Authors: Ashley J Beard; Timothy P Hofer; John R Downs; Michelle Lucatorto; Mandi L Klamerus; Rob Holleman; Eve A Kerr Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2012-12-11
Authors: David M Eddy; Joshua Adler; Bradley Patterson; Don Lucas; Kurt A Smith; Macdonald Morris Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Rodney A Hayward; Harlan M Krumholz; Donna M Zulman; Justin W Timbie; Sandeep Vijan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David M Kent; Rodney A Hayward; John L Griffith; Sandeep Vijan; Joni R Beshansky; Robert M Califf; Harry P Selker Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Colin Baigent; Lisa Blackwell; Rory Collins; Jonathan Emberson; Jon Godwin; Richard Peto; Julie Buring; Charles Hennekens; Patricia Kearney; Tom Meade; Carlo Patrono; Maria Carla Roncaglioni; Alberto Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paul Muntner; Robert M Carey; Samuel Gidding; Daniel W Jones; Sandra J Taler; Jackson T Wright; Paul K Whelton Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paul Muntner; Robert M Carey; Samuel Gidding; Daniel W Jones; Sandra J Taler; Jackson T Wright; Paul K Whelton Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andrew E Moran; Michelle C Odden; Anusorn Thanataveerat; Keane Y Tzong; Petra W Rasmussen; David Guzman; Lawrence Williams; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Pamela G Coxson; Lee Goldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brandon K Bellows; Natalia Ruiz-Negrón; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Jordan B King; Mark J Pletcher; Andrew E Moran; Valy Fontil Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-06-05
Authors: Jeff D Williamson; Mark A Supiano; William B Applegate; Dan R Berlowitz; Ruth C Campbell; Glenn M Chertow; Larry J Fine; William E Haley; Amret T Hawfield; Joachim H Ix; Dalane W Kitzman; John B Kostis; Marie A Krousel-Wood; Lenore J Launer; Suzanne Oparil; Carlos J Rodriguez; Christianne L Roumie; Ronald I Shorr; Kaycee M Sink; Virginia G Wadley; Paul K Whelton; Jeffrey Whittle; Nancy F Woolard; Jackson T Wright; Nicholas M Pajewski Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Mark D Huffman; Kunal N Karmali; Darshak M Sanghavi; Janet S Wright; Colleen Pelser; Martha Gulati; Frederick A Masoudi; David C Goff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 24.094