Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27604060›Full record

ArticleJAMA cardiology2016

Assessing Cardiovascular Risk to Guide Hypertension Diagnosis and Treatment.

Ann Marie Navar, Michael J Pencina, Eric D Peterson

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Managing Hypertension in the elderly: What's new?American journal of preventive cardiology · 2020
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Initiation of antihypertensive therapy.Annals of translational medicine · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Hypertension highlights during 2016.Annals of translational medicine · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. De-risking primary prevention: role of imaging.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ann Marie NavarThe Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Michael J PencinaThe Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Eric D PetersonThe Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Clinical Research Institute · USDuke Medical Center · US

Funding

Preventing Cardiovascular Disease through Improved Risk Prediction and CommunicationK01HL133416 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI NAVAR, ANN MARIE · 2016 to 2020
$707k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL133416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated the benefit of lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) to 120 mm Hg, yet other trials, such as Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3), did not find consistent benefit. How to incorporate these results into the treatment of those with elevated SBP in the general population is not clear. Objectives: To assess the representativeness of SPRINT and HOPE-3 relative to patients in the United States and to explore the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk profiles of various populations with elevated SBP. Design, Setting, and Participants: The study examined data from nonpregnant adults aged 20 to 79 years participating in the 2007-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) who had complete data available (n = 14 142), representing 206.9 million US adults. The study was performed from October 1, 2015, to August 2, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study estimated the number and characteristics of adults with SBP of 120 mm Hg or higher, including SPRINT and HOPE-3 eligibility, and estimated who may have newly required treatment initiation or intensification if various trial or risk-based criteria were applied. Results: NHANES included completed clinical evaluations from mobile examination centers on 15 974 adults aged 20 to 79 years (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [15.5] years). The study excluded 182 pregnant women and 1650 adults in whom CVD risk data were unavailable, leaving a final study population of 14 142 (50.5% women [95% CI, 49.6%-51.3%] and 49.5% men [95% CI, 48.6%-50.4%]). An estimated 53.3 million untreated and 19.8 million treated US adults have an SBP in the diagnostic and treatment gray zone (120-139 mm Hg), a small proportion of whom would have been eligible for SPRINT (5.4% untreated, 13.9% treated) or HOPE-3 (13.9% treated, 1.7% untreated). Even among those with prior CVD or high risk of CVD and elevated SBP (120-139 mm Hg), only a few would have qualified for SPRINT (27.0% and 21.9% of untreated and treated patients, respectively) or HOPE-3 (10.6% and 2.1% of untreated and treated, respectively). If blood pressure treatment recommendations were extended to adults with an SBP between 120 and 139 mm Hg, as well as prior CVD or CVD risk of 15% or higher, then 5.8 million untreated adults would be reclassified as treatment eligible; furthermore, 8.5 million treated patients would require medication intensification. Conclusions and Relevance: Millions of US adults have elevated SBP and high CVD risk, most of whom would not have been eligible for SPRINT. Until more definitive evidence becomes available, clinicians should consider a management paradigm based on CVD risk in addition to blood pressure measurements.

Indexed as

HypertensionAdultAgedAntihypertensive AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysRisk FactorsYoung AdultAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID27604060
PMCPMC5549553
OpenAlexW2509173468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.