Ho Chau Le Bao, Breslin Monique, Doust Jenny, Reid Christopher M, Nelson Mark R
Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 19;8(3):e017723. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017723.
In many current guidelines, blood pressure (BP)-lowering drug treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is based on absolute risk. However, in clinical practice, therapeutic decisions are often based on BP levels alone. We sought to investigate which approach was superior by conducting a post hoc analysis of the Australian National Blood Pressure (ANBP) cohort, a seminal study establishing the efficacy of BP lowering in 'mild hypertensive' persons.
A post hoc subgroup analysis of the ANBP trial results by baseline absolute risk tertile.
3244 participants aged 35-69 years in a community-based randomised placebo controlled trial of blood pressure-lowering medication.
Chlorothiazide500 mg versus placebo.
All-cause mortality and non-fatal events (non-fatal CVD, congestive cardiac failure, renal failure, hypertensive retinopathy or encephalopathy).
Treatment effects were assessed by HR, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. Participants had an average 5-year CVD risk in the intermediate range (10.5±6.5) with moderately elevated BP (mean 159/103 mmHg) and were middle aged (52±8 years). In a subgroup analysis, the relative effects (HR) and absolute effects (absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat) did not statistically differ across the three risk groups except for the absolute benefit in all-cause mortality (p for heterogeneity=0.04). With respect to absolute benefit, drug treatment significantly reduced the number of events in the high-risk group regarding any event with a number needed to treat of 18 (10 to 64), death from any cause with 45 (25 to 196) and major CVD events with 23 (12 to 193).
Our analysis confirms that the benefit of treatment was substantial only in the high-risk tertile, reaffirming the rationale of treating elevated blood pressure in the setting of all risk factors rather than in isolation.
在许多现行指南中,用于心血管疾病(CVD)一级预防的降压药物治疗是基于绝对风险。然而,在临床实践中,治疗决策往往仅基于血压水平。我们通过对澳大利亚国家血压(ANBP)队列进行事后分析,来探究哪种方法更具优势,该队列研究是一项确立了降压对“轻度高血压”患者有效性的开创性研究。
根据基线绝对风险三分位数对ANBP试验结果进行事后亚组分析。
3244名年龄在35 - 69岁的参与者,参与一项基于社区的降压药物随机安慰剂对照试验。
氯噻嗪500毫克与安慰剂对比。
全因死亡率和非致死性事件(非致死性CVD、充血性心力衰竭、肾衰竭、高血压性视网膜病变或脑病)。
通过风险比(HR)、绝对风险降低率和需治疗人数来评估治疗效果。参与者的平均5年CVD风险处于中等范围(10.5±6.5),血压中度升高(平均159/103毫米汞柱),且为中年(52±8岁)。在亚组分析中,除全因死亡率的绝对获益外(异质性p值 = 0.04),三个风险组的相对效应(HR)和绝对效应(绝对风险降低率和需治疗人数)在统计学上无差异。就绝对获益而言,药物治疗显著降低了高风险组中任何事件的发生数量,需治疗人数为18(10至64),任何原因导致的死亡需治疗人数为45(25至196),主要CVD事件需治疗人数为23(12至193)。
我们的分析证实,仅在高风险三分位数组中治疗获益显著,重申了在综合所有风险因素而非孤立地看待血压升高时进行治疗的合理性。