James P Sheppard1, Jenni Burt2, Mark Lown3, Eleanor Temple1, Rebecca Lowe1, Rosalyn Fraser1, Julie Allen1, Gary A Ford4, Carl Heneghan1, F D Richard Hobbs1, Sue Jowett5, Shahela Kodabuckus5, Paul Little6, Jonathan Mant7, Jill Mollison1, Rupert A Payne8, Marney Williams9, Ly-Mee Yu1, Richard J McManus1. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 2. The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 3. Primary Care Research Group, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. 4. Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom. 5. Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 6. Primary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. 7. Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 8. Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. 9. Patient and public involvement representative, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Importance: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity when the benefits of continued treatment may not outweigh the harms. Objective: This study aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible without significant changes in systolic blood pressure control or adverse events during 12-week follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites in England. Participants, whose primary care physician considered them appropriate for medication reduction, were aged 80 years and older, had systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg, and were receiving at least 2 antihypertensive medications were included. Participants enrolled between April 2017 and September 2018 and underwent follow-up until January 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a strategy of antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of 1 drug [intervention], n = 282) or usual care (control, n = 287), in which no medication changes were mandated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12-week follow-up. The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants maintaining medication reduction and differences in blood pressure, frailty, quality of life, adverse effects, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 569 patients randomized (mean age, 84.8 years; 276 [48.5%] women; median of 2 antihypertensive medications prescribed at baseline), 534 (93.8%) completed the trial. Overall, 229 (86.4%) patients in the intervention group and 236 (87.7%) patients in the control group had a systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks (adjusted RR, 0.98 [97.5% 1-sided CI, 0.92 to ∞]). Of 7 prespecified secondary end points, 5 showed no significant difference. Medication reduction was sustained in 187 (66.3%) participants at 12 weeks. Mean change in systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8 mm Hg) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. Twelve (4.3%) participants in the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event (adjusted RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.7 to 4.3]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients treated with multiple antihypertensive medications, a strategy of medication reduction, compared with usual care, was noninferior with regard to systolic blood pressure control at 12 weeks. The findings suggest antihypertensive medication reduction in some older patients with hypertension is not associated with substantial change in blood pressure control, although further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN identifier: 97503221.
Importance: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity when the benefits of continued treatment may not outweigh the harms. Objective: This study aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible without significant changes in systolic blood pressure control or adverse events during 12-week follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites in England. Participants, whose primary care physician considered them appropriate for medication reduction, were aged 80 years and older, had systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg, and were receiving at least 2 antihypertensive medications were included. Participants enrolled between April 2017 and September 2018 and underwent follow-up until January 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a strategy of antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of 1 drug [intervention], n = 282) or usual care (control, n = 287), in which no medication changes were mandated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12-week follow-up. The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants maintaining medication reduction and differences in blood pressure, frailty, quality of life, adverse effects, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 569 patients randomized (mean age, 84.8 years; 276 [48.5%] women; median of 2 antihypertensive medications prescribed at baseline), 534 (93.8%) completed the trial. Overall, 229 (86.4%) patients in the intervention group and 236 (87.7%) patients in the control group had a systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks (adjusted RR, 0.98 [97.5% 1-sided CI, 0.92 to ∞]). Of 7 prespecified secondary end points, 5 showed no significant difference. Medication reduction was sustained in 187 (66.3%) participants at 12 weeks. Mean change in systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8 mm Hg) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. Twelve (4.3%) participants in the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event (adjusted RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.7 to 4.3]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients treated with multiple antihypertensive medications, a strategy of medication reduction, compared with usual care, was noninferior with regard to systolic blood pressure control at 12 weeks. The findings suggest antihypertensive medication reduction in some older patients with hypertension is not associated with substantial change in blood pressure control, although further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN identifier: 97503221.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mary E Tinetti; Ling Han; David S H Lee; Gail J McAvay; Peter Peduzzi; Cary P Gross; Bingqing Zhou; Haiqun Lin Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ben van Hout; M F Janssen; You-Shan Feng; Thomas Kohlmann; Jan Busschbach; Dominik Golicki; Andrew Lloyd; Luciana Scalone; Paul Kind; A Simon Pickard Journal: Value Health Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Athanase Benetos; Christopher J Bulpitt; Mirko Petrovic; Andrea Ungar; Enrico Agabiti Rosei; Antonio Cherubini; Josep Redon; Tomasz Grodzicki; Anna Dominiczak; Timo Strandberg; Giuseppe Mancia Journal: Hypertension Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Floor J van Deudekom; Iris Postmus; Danielle J van der Ham; Alexander B Pothof; Karen Broekhuizen; Gerard J Blauw; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Boris Draznin; Vanita R Aroda; George Bakris; Gretchen Benson; Florence M Brown; RaShaye Freeman; Jennifer Green; Elbert Huang; Diana Isaacs; Scott Kahan; Jose Leon; Sarah K Lyons; Anne L Peters; Priya Prahalad; Jane E B Reusch; Deborah Young-Hyman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Stephen P Juraschek; Jennifer L Cluett; Matthew J Belanger; Timothy S Anderson; Anthony Ishak; Shivani Sahni; Courtney Millar; Lawrence J Appel; Edgar R Miller; Lewis A Lipsitz; Kenneth J Mukamal Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 3.080
Authors: Michelle C Odden; Sei J Lee; Michael A Steinman; Anna D Rubinsky; Laura Graham; Bocheng Jing; Kathy Fung; Zachary A Marcum; Carmen A Peralta Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Naila Ijaz; Brian Buta; Qian-Li Xue; Denise T Mohess; Archana Bushan; Henry Tran; Wayne Batchelor; Christopher R deFilippi; Jeremy D Walston; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Daniel E Forman; Jon R Resar; Christopher M O'Connor; Gary Gerstenblith; Abdulla A Damluji Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Karolina Kuberska; Fiona Scheibl; Carol Sinnott; James P Sheppard; Mark Lown; Marney Williams; Rupert A Payne; Jonathan Mant; Richard J McManus; Jenni Burt Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 6.302