Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31353050›Full record

ArticleLancet (London, England)2019

Eligibility and subsequent burden of cardiovascular disease of four strategies for blood pressure-lowering treatment: a retrospective cohort study.

Emily Herrett, Sarah Gadd, Rod Jackson, Krishnan Bhaskaran, Elizabeth Williamson, Tjeerd van Staa, Reecha Sofat, Adam Timmis, Liam Smeeth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Strategies for prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults with hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Emily HerrettDepartment of Non-Communicable Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Electronic address: emily.herrett@lshtm.ac.uk.
Sarah GaddDepartment of Non-Communicable Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rod JacksonSection of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Krishnan BhaskaranDepartment of Non-Communicable Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Elizabeth WilliamsonDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Health Data Research UK, London, UK.
Tjeerd van StaaCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Reecha SofatInstitute of Health Informatics University College London, London, UK.
Adam TimmisBarts Heart Centre, Queen Mary University London, London, UK.
Liam SmeethDepartment of Non-Communicable Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Health Data Research UK, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorldwide treatment recommendations for lowering blood pressure continue to be guided predominantly by blood pressure thresholds, despite strong evidence that the benefits of blood pressure reduction are observed in patients across the blood pressure spectrum. In this study, we aimed to investigate the implications of alternative strategies for offering blood pressure treatment, using the UK as an illustrative example.

methodsWe did a retrospective cohort study in primary care patients aged 30-79 years without cardiovascular disease, using data from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics mortality. We assessed and compared four different strategies to determine eligibility for treatment: using 2011 UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline, or proposed 2019 NICE guideline, or blood pressure alone (threshold ≥140/90 mm Hg), or predicted 10-year cardiovascular risk alone (QRISK2 score ≥10%). Patients were followed up until the earliest occurrence of a cardiovascular disease diagnosis, death, or end of follow-up period (March 31, 2016). For each strategy, we estimated the proportion of patients eligible for treatment and number of cardiovascular events that could be prevented with treatment. We then estimated eligibility and number of events that would occur during 10 years in the UK general population.

findingsBetween Jan 1, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1 222 670 patients in the cohort were followed up for a median of 4·3 years (IQR 2·5-5·2). 271 963 (22·2%) patients were eligible for treatment under the 2011 NICE guideline, 327 429 (26·8%) under the proposed 2019 NICE guideline, 481 859 (39·4%) on the basis of a blood pressure threshold of 140/90 mm Hg or higher, and 357 840 (29·3%) on the basis of a QRISK2 threshold of 10% or higher. During follow-up, 32 183 patients were diagnosed with cardiovascular disease (overall rate 7·1 per 1000 person-years, 95% CI 7·0-7·2). Cardiovascular event rates in patients eligible for each strategy were 15·2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 15·0-15·5) under the 2011 NICE guideline, 14·9 (14·7-15·1) under the proposed 2019 NICE guideline, 11·4 (11·3-11·6) with blood pressure threshold alone, and 16·9 (16·7-17·1) with QRISK2 threshold alone. Scaled to the UK population, we estimated that 233 152 events would be avoided under the 2011 NICE guideline (28 patients needed to treat for 10 years to avoid one event), 270 233 under the 2019 NICE guideline (29 patients), 301 523 using a blood pressure threshold (38 patients), and 322 921 using QRISK2 threshold (27 patients).

interpretationA cardiovascular risk-based strategy (QRISK2 ≥10%) could prevent over a third more cardiovascular disease events than the 2011 NICE guideline and a fifth more than the 2019 NICE guideline, with similar efficiency regarding number treated per event avoided.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Indexed as

Blood PressurePractice Guidelines as TopicAdultAgedAntihypertensive AgentsBlood Pressure DeterminationCardiovascular DiseasesCost of IllnessDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansHypertensionLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID31353050
PMCPMC6717081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.