Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35028631›Full record

ArticleThe lancet. Healthy longevity2022

The importance of blood pressure thresholds versus predicted cardiovascular risk on subsequent rates of cardiovascular disease: a cohort study in English primary care.

Emily Herrett, Helen Strongman, Sarah Gadd, Laurie Tomlinson, Dorothea Nitsch, Krishnan Bhaskaran, Elizabeth Williamson, Tjeerd van Staa, Reecha Sofat, Adam Timmis and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The lancet. Healthy longevity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Emily HerrettDepartment of Non-Communicable Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Helen StrongmanDepartment of Non-Communicable Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sarah GaddDepartment of Non-Communicable Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Laurie TomlinsonDepartment of Non-Communicable Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Dorothea NitschDepartment of Non-Communicable Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
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.
Tjeerd van StaaCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging, and Data Science, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Reecha SofatInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Adam TimmisQueen Mary University London, London, UK.
Susan WellsSection of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Liam SmeethDepartment 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.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Auckland · NZHealth Data Research UK · GBPharmo Institute · NLQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research CouncilWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 107731/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust 220283/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor five decades, blood pressure lowering treatment has been recommended for patients with hypertension (currently defined as blood pressure of ≥140/90 mm Hg). In the past 20 years, guidelines for treatment began incorporating predicted absolute cardiovascular disease risk (predicted risk) and reducing blood pressure thresholds. The blood pressure threshold at which to start treatment has become a secondary consideration in some countries. We aimed to provide descriptive data to assess the relative importance of blood pressure thresholds versus predicted risk on the subsequent rate of cardiovascular disease to inform treatment decisions.

methodsIn this English population-based cohort study, we used linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, and the Office for National Statistics mortality data, and area-based deprivation indices (Townsend scores). Eligible patients were aged 30-79 years on Jan 1, 2011 (cohort entry date) and could be linked to hospital, mortality, and deprivation data. Patients were followed up until death, end of CPRD follow-up, or Nov 31, 2018. We examined three outcomes: cardiovascular disease, markers of potential target organ damage, and incident dementia without a known cause. The rate of each outcome was estimated and stratified by systolic blood pressure and predicted 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (QRISK2 algorithm).

findingsBetween Jan 1, 2011, and Nov 31, 2018, 1 098 991 patients were included in the cohort and followed up for a median of 4·3 years (IQR 2·6-6·0; total follow-up of 4·6 million person-years). Median age at entry was 52 years (IQR 42-62) and 629 711 (57·3%) patients were female. There were 51 996 cardiovascular disease events and the overall rate of cardiovascular disease was 11·2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 11·1-11·3). Median QRISK2 10-year predicted risk was 4·6% (IQR 1·4-12·0) and mean systolic blood pressure before cohort entry was 129·1 mm Hg (SD 15·7). Within strata of predicted risk, the effect of increasing systolic blood pressure on outcomes was small. For example, in the group with 10·0-19·9% predicted risk, rates of all cardiovascular disease rose from 20·1 to 23·6 per 1000 person-years between systolic blood pressures less than 110 mm Hg and 180 and higher mm Hg. But among patients with systolic blood pressure 140·0-149·9 mm Hg, rates rose from 6·9 to 52·3 per 1000 person-years between those with less than 10·0% risk and those with 30·0% or higher predicted risk.

interpretationFor a wide range of blood pressures, the rate of cardiovascular disease and effectiveness of blood pressure drug treatment was mainly determined by predicted risk, with blood pressure thresholds 140/90 mm Hg or 160/100 mm Hg-ubiquitous in most countries-adding little useful information. When medium-term predicted risk is low, there is no urgency to initiate drug treatment, allowing time to attempt non-pharmacological blood pressure reduction.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesHypotensionBlood PressureCohort StudiesFemaleHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansMalePrimary Health CareRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID35028631
PMCPMC8732286
OpenAlexW4206530749

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.