Explore the vast range of titles available.

The efficacy of new antihypertensive drugs has been questioned. We compared the effects of conventional and newer antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in elderly patients. We did a prospective, randomised trial in 6614 patients aged 70–84 years with hypertension (blood pressure ≥180 mm Hg systolic, ≥105 mm Hg diastolic, or both). Patients were randomly assigned conventional antihypertensive drugs (atenolol 50 mg, metoprolol 100 mg, pindolol 5 mg, or hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg plus amiloride 2·5 mg daily) or newer drugs (enalapril 10 mg or lisinopril 10 mg, or felodipine 2·5 mg or isradipine 2–5 mg daily). We assessed fatal stroke, fatal myocardial infarction, and other fatal cardiovascular disease. Analysis was by intention to treat. Blood pressure was decreased similarly in all treatment groups. The primary combined endpoint of fatal stroke, fatal myocardial infarction, and other fatal cardiovascular disease occurred in 221 of 2213 patients in the conventional drugs group (19·8 events per 1000 patientyears) and in 438 of 4401 in the newer drugs group (19·8 per 1000; relative risk 0·99 [95% Cl 0·84–1·16], p=0·89). The combined endpoint of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular mortality occurred in 460 patients taking conventional drugs and in 887 taking newer drugs (0·96 [0·86–1·08], p=0·49). Old and new antihypertensive drugs were similar in prevention of cardiovascular mortality or major events. Decrease in blood pressure was of major importance for the prevention of cardiovascular events.

Beneficial clinical effects of treatment with antihypertensive drugs have been shown in middle-aged patients and in those hypertensive patients over 60 years old, but whether treatment is beneficial in patients over 80 years old is not known. We collected data from all participants aged 80 years and over in randomised controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs through direct contact with study investigators. Our primary outcome was fatal and non-fatal stroke. Secondary outcomes were death from all causes, cardiovascular death, fatal and non-fatal major coronary and cardiovascular events, and heart failure. There were 57 strokes and 34 deaths among 874 actively treated patients, compared with 77 strokes and 28 stroke deaths among 796 controls, representing 1 non-fatal stroke prevented for about 100 patients treated each year. The meta-analysis of data from 1670 participants aged 80 years or older suggested that treatment prevented 34% (95% CI 8–52) of strokes. Rates of major cardiovascular events and heart failure were significantly decreased, by 22% and 39%, respectively. However, there was no treatment benefit for cardiovascular death, and a non-significant 6% (-5 to 18) relative excess of death from all causes. The inconclusive findings for mortality contrast with the benefit of treatment for non-fatal events. Results of a large-scale specific trial are needed for definite conclusion that antihypertensive treatment is beneficial in very elderly hypertensive patients. Meanwhile, an age threshold beyond which hypertension should not be treated cannot be justified.

Is cancer related to hypertension and blood pressure? Do antihypertensive drugs promote cancer? Do antihypertensive drugs protect against cancer? We previously analysed the frequency of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in elderly people who participated in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension 2 (STOP-Hypertension-2). We have also looked at the frequency of cancer in these patients. We randomly assigned 6614 elderly patients with hypertension (mean age 76 years, median time of follow-up 5.3 years) to one of three treatment strategies: conventional drugs (diuretics or b-blockers), calcium antagonists, or ACE inhibitors. We matched the patients to the Swedish Cancer Registry and compared our findings with expected values based on age, sex, and calendar-year-specific reference frequencies for the general Swedish population. We also compared the number of cancers between the three treatment groups. At baseline, 607 (9%) patients had previous malignant disease. Diagnoses were closely similar to the distribution of cancer types that might be seen in elderly patients. During follow-up, there were 625 new cases of cancer in 590 patients. The frequency of cancer did not differ significantly between the treatment strategies, including all cancers and those at individual sites. The standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) for all cancers were also close to unity: 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-1.06) for conventional drugs, 0.96 (0.83-1.10) for calcium antagonists, and 0.99 (0.86-1.13) for ACE inhibitors. No difference in cancer risk was seen between patients randomly assigned to conventional drugs, calcium antagonists, or ACE inhibitors. Thus, the general message to the practising physician is that more attention should be given to getting the blood pressure down than to the risk of cancer.

To review the effectiveness of diuretic or beta-blocker-based treatment of hypertension in diabetic patients. A meta-analysis on individual patient data was performed on four trials of the treatment of hypertension in which diabetic patients were included and treated with first-line diuretics or beta-blockers. The main outcomes were the relative risk of death, fatal or nonfatal stroke, fatal or nonfatal coronary events, and major cardiovascular events. There were 92 diabetic patients who received first-line beta-blockers and 1,008 who received diuretics. In the control groups, diabetic patients had nearly twice the risk of any outcome when compared with nondiabetic patients. The same blood pressure reduction was achieved under treatment in the diabetic and nondiabetic patients, except for systolic pressure, which decreased more in the nondiabetic patients at 1 year. In the 15,843 nondiabetic patients, the risk of all four outcomes was reduced significantly in the treated group. In the 2,254 diabetic patients, the risk reduction was significant only for fatal and nonfatal stroke (36%, P = 0.011) and major cardiovascular events (20%, P = 0.032), but not for death (5%, P = 0.65) and fatal or nonfatal coronary events (15%, P = 0.23). However, no heterogeneity was detected between diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients for any outcome. The numbers of outcomes avoided for 1,000 patients treated for 5 years were higher in diabetic patients (e.g., 38 major cardiovascular events) than with nondiabetic patients (e.g., 28 major cardiovascular events). These results show that hypertensive diabetic patients benefit from first-line treatment with diuretics. No conclusion can be drawn for beta-blockers, owing to the small sample size.

Hansson et al compared the effects of conventional and new antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in elderly patients. Old and new drugs were similar in prevention of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.

Is cancer related to hypertension and blood pressure? Do antihypertensive drugs promote cancer? Do antihypertensive drugs protect against cancer? We previously analysed the frequency of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in elderly people who participated in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension 2 (STOP-Hypertension-2). We have also looked at the frequency of cancer in these patients. We randomly assigned 6614 elderly patients with hypertension (mean age 76 years, median time of follow-up 5·3 years) to one of three treatment strategies: conventional drugs (diuretics or β-blockers), calcium antagonists, or ACE inhibitors. We matched the patients to the Swedish Cancer Registry and compared our findings with expected values based on age, sex, and calendar-year-specific reference frequencies for the general Swedish population. We also compared the number of cancers between the three treatment groups. At baseline, 607 (9%) patients had previous malignant disease. Diagnoses were closely similar to the distribution of cancer types that might be seen in elderly patients. During follow-up, there were 625 new cases of cancer in 590 patients. The frequency of cancer did not differ significantly between the treatment strategies, including all cancers and those at individual sites. The standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) for all cancers were also close to unity: 0·92 (95% Cl 0·80–1·06) for conventional drugs, 0·96 (0·83–1·10) for calcium antagonists, and 0·99 (0·86–1·13) for ACE inhibitors. No difference in cancer risk was seen between patients randomly assigned to conventional drugs, calcium antagonists, or ACE inhibitors. Thus, the general message to the practising physician is that more attention should be given to getting the blood pressure down than to the risk of cancer.

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the additional benefit of “intensive” health care advice through six group sessions, compared with the advice usually offered to subjects with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Design: Prospective, randomised controlled clinical study lasting 18 months. Setting: 681 subjects aged 30-59 years, with at least two cardiovascular risk factors in addition to moderately high lipid concentrations: total cholesterol >/=6.5 mmol/l on three occasions, triglycerides <4.0 mmol/l, and ratio of low density lipoprotein cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholesterol >4.0. Most (577) of the subjects were men. Main outcome measure: Percentage reduction in total cholesterol concentration (target 15%); quantification of the differences between the two types of health care advice (intensive v usual) for the Framingham cardiovascular risk and for individual risk factors. Results: In the group receiving intensive health care advice total cholesterol concentration decreased by 0.15 mmol/l more (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.26) than in the group receiving usual advice. The overall Framingham risk dropped by 0.068 more (0.014 to 0.095) in the group receiving intensive advice, and most of the risk factors showed a greater change in a favourable direction in this group than in the group receiving usual advice, but the differences were seldom significant. The results from questionnaires completed at the group sessions showed that the subjects improved their lifestyle and diet. Conclusion: Limited additional benefit was gained from being in the group receiving the intensive health care advice. It is difficult to make an important impact on cardiovascular risk in primary care by using only the practice staff. Better methods of communicating the messages need to be devised. Key messages Key messages This multicentre study examined the effects of “usual” or “intensive” health care advice on 681 subjects aged 30-59 years with a moderately high cholesterol concentration and two or more other cardiovascular risk factors The intensive advice programme was based mainly on group sessions led by doctors and nurses from health centres The study found that after 18 months of intervention limited additional benefit was derived from the intensive health care advice Messages and the means of delivering them to individuals in need should be customised for each person