Milad Nazarzadeh

BACKGROUND: The effects of pharmacological blood pressure lowering at normal or high-normal blood pressure ranges in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease remains uncertain. We analysed individual participant data from randomised trials to investigate the effects of blood pressure lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised trials of pharmacological blood pressure lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment regimens, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively done with participants with heart failure or short-term interventions in participants with acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. Data from 51 studies published between 1972 and 2013 were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We pooled the data to investigate the stratified effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment in participants with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease (ie, any reports of stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic heart disease before randomisation), overall and across seven systolic blood pressure categories (ranging from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a major cardiovascular event (defined as a composite of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring admission to hospital), analysed as per intention to treat. FINDINGS: Data for 344 716 participants from 48 randomised clinical trials were available for this analysis. Pre-randomisation mean systolic/diastolic blood pressures were 146/84 mm Hg in participants with previous cardiovascular disease (n=157 728) and 157/89 mm Hg in participants without previous cardiovascular disease (n=186 988). There was substantial spread in participants' blood pressure at baseline, with 31 239 (19·8%) of participants with previous cardiovascular disease and 14 928 (8·0%) of individuals without previous cardiovascular disease having a systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg. The relative effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment were proportional to the intensity of systolic blood pressure reduction. After a median 4·15 years' follow-up (Q1-Q3 2·97-4·96), 42 324 participants (12·3%) had at least one major cardiovascular event. In participants without previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the incidence rate for developing a major cardiovascular event per 1000 person-years was 31·9 (95% CI 31·3-32·5) in the comparator group and 25·9 (25·4-26·4) in the intervention group. In participants with previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the corresponding rates were 39·7 (95% CI 39·0-40·5) and 36·0 (95% CI 35·3-36·7), in the comparator and intervention groups, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with a reduction of systolic blood pressure by 5 mm Hg for a major cardiovascular event were 0·91, 95% CI 0·89-0·94 for partipants without previous cardiovascular disease and 0·89, 0·86-0·92, for those with previous cardiovascular disease. In stratified analyses, there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects on major cardiovascular events by baseline cardiovascular disease status or systolic blood pressure categories. INTERPRETATION: In this large-scale analysis of randomised trials, a 5 mm Hg reduction of systolic blood pressure reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about 10%, irrespective of previous diagnoses of cardiovascular disease, and even at normal or high-normal blood pressure values. These findings suggest that a fixed degree of pharmacological blood pressure lowering is similarly effective for primary and secondary prevention of major cardiovascular disease, even at blood pressure levels currently not considered for treatment. Physicians communicating the indication for blood pressure lowering treatment to their patients should emphasise its importance on reducing cardiovascular risk rather than focusing on blood pressure reduction itself. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School.

BACKGROUND: The effects of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals aged 70 years and older, particularly when blood pressure is not substantially increased, is uncertain. We compared the effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events in groups of patients stratified by age and blood pressure at baseline. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis using individual participant-level data from randomised controlled trials of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering versus placebo or other classes of blood-pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment strategies, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each treatment group. Participants with previous history of heart failure were excluded. Data were obtained from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Triallists' Collaboration. We pooled the data and categorised participants into baseline age groups (<55 years, 55-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and ≥85 years) and blood pressure categories (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and from <70 mm Hg to ≥110 mm Hg diastolic). We used a fixed effects one-stage approach and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyse the data. The primary outcome was defined as either a composite of fatal or non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospital admission. FINDINGS: =0·024). We did not find evidence for any clinically meaningful heterogeneity of relative treatment effects across different baseline blood pressure categories in any age group. INTERPRETATION: Pharmacological blood pressure reduction is effective into old age, with no evidence that relative risk reductions for prevention of major cardiovascular events vary by systolic or diastolic blood pressure levels at randomisation, down to less than 120/70 mm Hg. Pharmacological blood pressure reduction should, therefore, be considered an important treatment option regardless of age, with the removal of age-related blood-pressure thresholds from international guidelines. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford Martin School.

Objective To systematically assess the association of circulating inflammation markers with the future risk of hypertension. Methods We did a systematic literature search of PubMed and Scopus, from database inception to July 10, 2018. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies evaluating the association of circulating C reactive protein (CRP), high-sensitive CRP (hs-CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6) and IL-1β to the risk of developing hypertension in the general population were included. The relative risks (RRs) for the top versus bottom tertiles of circulating biomarkers were calculated using a fixed-effects/random-effects model. A potential non-linear dose-response association was tested. Results Fourteen prospective cohort studies, two retrospective cohort studies and five nested case-control studies involving 142 640 participants and 20 676 cases were identified. The RR for the third versus first tertiles of circulating CRP was 1.23 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.35; I 2 =59%, n=12). The association remained unchanged after adjustment for body mass index. The RRs for other biomarkers were as follows: hs-CRP (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; I 2 =74%, n=7), IL-6 (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.71; I 2 =0%, n=5), and IL-1β (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.51; I 2 =0%, n=3). A non-linear dose-response meta-analysis demonstrated that the risk of hypertension increased linearly with increasing circulating inflammation markers, even within the low-risk and intermediate-risk categories. Conclusions Higher levels of circulating CRP, hs-CRP and IL-6, but not IL-1β, were associated with the risk of developing hypertension. The association persisted in subgroups of studies defined by major sources of heterogeneity.

AIMS: Aortic valve stenosis is commonly considered a degenerative disorder with no recommended preventive intervention, with only valve replacement surgery or catheter intervention as treatment options. We sought to assess the causal association between exposure to lipid levels and risk of aortic stenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Causality of association was assessed using two-sample Mendelian randomization framework through different statistical methods. We retrieved summary estimations of 157 genetic variants that have been shown to be associated with plasma lipid levels in the Global Lipids Genetics Consortium that included 188 577 participants, mostly European ancestry, and genetic association with aortic stenosis as the main outcome from a total of 432 173 participants in the UK Biobank. Secondary negative control outcomes included aortic regurgitation and mitral regurgitation. The odds ratio for developing aortic stenosis per unit increase in lipid parameter was 1.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22-1.90; per 0.98 mmol/L] for low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, 1.03 (95% CI 0.80-1.31; per 0.41 mmol/L) for high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, and 1.38 (95% CI 0.92-2.07; per 1 mmol/L) for triglycerides. There was no evidence of a causal association between any of the lipid parameters and aortic or mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSION: Lifelong exposure to high LDL-cholesterol increases the risk of symptomatic aortic stenosis, suggesting that LDL-lowering treatment may be effective in its prevention.