Carole E Aubert1, Jeremy B Sussman2, Timothy P Hofer2, William C Cushman3, Jin-Kyung Ha4, Lillian Min5. 1. Center for Clinical Management Research at Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland (C.E.A.). 2. Center for Clinical Management Research at Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (J.B.S., T.P.H.). 3. University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee (W.C.C.). 4. Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Medical Center Veterans Affairs Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Ann Arbor, Michigan (J.H.). 5. Center for Clinical Management Research, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, and Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Medical Center Veterans Affairs Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Ann Arbor, Michigan (L.M.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are 2 approaches to intensifying antihypertensive treatment when target blood pressure is not reached, adding a new medication and maximizing dose. Which strategy is better is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of intensification by adding a new medication versus maximizing dose, as well as the association of each method with intensification sustainability and follow-up systolic blood pressure (SBP). DESIGN: Large-scale, population-based, retrospective cohort study. Observational data were used to emulate a target trial with 2 groups, new medication and maximizing dose, who underwent intensification of their drug regimen. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration (2011 to 2013). PATIENTS: Veterans aged 65 years or older with hypertension, an SBP of 130 mm Hg or higher, and at least 1 antihypertensive medication at less than the maximum dose. MEASUREMENTS: The following 2 intensification approaches were emulated: adding a new medication, defined as a total dose increase with new medication, and maximizing dose, defined as a total dose increase without new medication. Inverse probability weighting was used to assess the observational effectiveness of the intensification approach on sustainability of intensified treatment and follow-up SBP at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Among 178 562 patients, 45 575 (25.5%) had intensification by adding a new medication and 132 987 (74.5%) by maximizing dose. Compared with maximizing dose, adding a new medication was associated with less intensification sustainability (average treatment effect, -15.2% [95% CI, -15.7% to -14.6%] at 3 months and -15.1% [CI, -15.6% to -14.5%] at 12 months) but a slightly larger reduction in mean SBP (-0.8 mm Hg [CI, -1.2 to -0.4 mm Hg] at 3 months and -1.1 mm Hg [CI, -1.6 to -0.6 mm Hg] at 12 months). LIMITATION: Observational data; largely male population. CONCLUSION: Adding a new antihypertensive medication was less frequent and was associated with less intensification sustainability but slightly larger reductions in SBP. Trials would provide the most definitive support for our findings. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging and Veterans Health Administration.
BACKGROUND: There are 2 approaches to intensifying antihypertensive treatment when target blood pressure is not reached, adding a new medication and maximizing dose. Which strategy is better is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of intensification by adding a new medication versus maximizing dose, as well as the association of each method with intensification sustainability and follow-up systolic blood pressure (SBP). DESIGN: Large-scale, population-based, retrospective cohort study. Observational data were used to emulate a target trial with 2 groups, new medication and maximizing dose, who underwent intensification of their drug regimen. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration (2011 to 2013). PATIENTS: Veterans aged 65 years or older with hypertension, an SBP of 130 mm Hg or higher, and at least 1 antihypertensive medication at less than the maximum dose. MEASUREMENTS: The following 2 intensification approaches were emulated: adding a new medication, defined as a total dose increase with new medication, and maximizing dose, defined as a total dose increase without new medication. Inverse probability weighting was used to assess the observational effectiveness of the intensification approach on sustainability of intensified treatment and follow-up SBP at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Among 178 562 patients, 45 575 (25.5%) had intensification by adding a new medication and 132 987 (74.5%) by maximizing dose. Compared with maximizing dose, adding a new medication was associated with less intensification sustainability (average treatment effect, -15.2% [95% CI, -15.7% to -14.6%] at 3 months and -15.1% [CI, -15.6% to -14.5%] at 12 months) but a slightly larger reduction in mean SBP (-0.8 mm Hg [CI, -1.2 to -0.4 mm Hg] at 3 months and -1.1 mm Hg [CI, -1.6 to -0.6 mm Hg] at 12 months). LIMITATION: Observational data; largely male population. CONCLUSION: Adding a new antihypertensive medication was less frequent and was associated with less intensification sustainability but slightly larger reductions in SBP. Trials would provide the most definitive support for our findings. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging and Veterans Health Administration.
Authors: Bryan Williams; Giuseppe Mancia; Wilko Spiering; Enrico Agabiti Rosei; Michel Azizi; Michel Burnier; Denis L Clement; Antonio Coca; Giovanni de Simone; Anna Dominiczak; Thomas Kahan; Felix Mahfoud; Josep Redon; Luis Ruilope; Alberto Zanchetti; Mary Kerins; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Reinhold Kreutz; Stephane Laurent; Gregory Y H Lip; Richard McManus; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Frank Ruschitzka; Roland E Schmieder; Evgeny Shlyakhto; Costas Tsioufis; Victor Aboyans; Ileana Desormais Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Alexander A Leung; Stella S Daskalopoulou; Kaberi Dasgupta; Kerry McBrien; Sonia Butalia; Kelly B Zarnke; Kara Nerenberg; Kevin C Harris; Meranda Nakhla; Lyne Cloutier; Mark Gelfer; Maxime Lamarre-Cliche; Alain Milot; Peter Bolli; Guy Tremblay; Donna McLean; Karen C Tran; Sheldon W Tobe; Marcel Ruzicka; Kevin D Burns; Michel Vallée; G V Ramesh Prasad; Steven E Gryn; Ross D Feldman; Peter Selby; Andrew Pipe; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Philip A McFarlane; Paul Oh; Robert A Hegele; Milan Khara; Thomas W Wilson; S Brian Penner; Ellen Burgess; Praveena Sivapalan; Robert J Herman; Simon L Bacon; Simon W Rabkin; Richard E Gilbert; Tavis S Campbell; Steven Grover; George Honos; Patrice Lindsay; Michael D Hill; Shelagh B Coutts; Gord Gubitz; Norman R C Campbell; Gordon W Moe; Jonathan G Howlett; Jean-Martin Boulanger; Ally Prebtani; Gregory Kline; Lawrence A Leiter; Charlotte Jones; Anne-Marie Côté; Vincent Woo; Janusz Kaczorowski; Luc Trudeau; Ross T Tsuyuki; Swapnil Hiremath; Denis Drouin; Kim L Lavoie; Pavel Hamet; Jean C Grégoire; Richard Lewanczuk; George K Dresser; Mukul Sharma; Debra Reid; Scott A Lear; Gregory Moullec; Milan Gupta; Laura A Magee; Alexander G Logan; Janis Dionne; Anne Fournier; Geneviève Benoit; Janusz Feber; Luc Poirier; Raj S Padwal; Doreen M Rabi Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Paul K Whelton; Robert M Carey; Wilbert S Aronow; Donald E Casey; Karen J Collins; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Sondra M DePalma; Samuel Gidding; Kenneth A Jamerson; Daniel W Jones; Eric J MacLaughlin; Paul Muntner; Bruce Ovbiagele; Sidney C Smith; Crystal C Spencer; Randall S Stafford; Sandra J Taler; Randal J Thomas; Kim A Williams; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nigel S Beckett; Ruth Peters; Astrid E Fletcher; Jan A Staessen; Lisheng Liu; Dan Dumitrascu; Vassil Stoyanovsky; Riitta L Antikainen; Yuri Nikitin; Craig Anderson; Alli Belhani; Françoise Forette; Chakravarthi Rajkumar; Lutgarde Thijs; Winston Banya; Christopher J Bulpitt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas Unger; Claudio Borghi; Fadi Charchar; Nadia A Khan; Neil R Poulter; Dorairaj Prabhakaran; Agustin Ramirez; Markus Schlaich; George S Stergiou; Maciej Tomaszewski; Richard D Wainford; Bryan Williams; Aletta E Schutte Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 10.190