Stephen P Juraschek, Jiun-Ruey Hu, Jennifer L Cluett, Carol Mita, Lewis A Lipsitz, Lawrence J Appel, Nigel S Beckett, Barry R Davis, Rury R Holman, Edgar R Miller, Kenneth J Mukamal, Ruth Peters, Jan A Staessen, Addison A Taylor, Jackson T Wright, William C Cushman
{"title":"Effects of intensive blood pressure treatment on orthostatic hypertension: individual level meta-analysis","authors":"Stephen P Juraschek, Jiun-Ruey Hu, Jennifer L Cluett, Carol Mita, Lewis A Lipsitz, Lawrence J Appel, Nigel S Beckett, Barry R Davis, Rury R Holman, Edgar R Miller, Kenneth J Mukamal, Ruth Peters, Jan A Staessen, Addison A Taylor, Jackson T Wright, William C Cushman","doi":"10.1136/bmj-2024-080507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To determine the effects of intensive blood pressure treatment on orthostatic hypertension. Design Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases through 13 November 2023. Inclusion criteria Population: ≥500 adults, age ≥18 years with hypertension or elevated blood pressure; intervention: randomized trials of more intensive antihypertensive drug treatment (lower blood pressure goal or active agent) with duration ≥6 months; control: less intensive antihypertensive drug treatment (higher blood pressure goal or placebo); outcome: measured standing blood pressure. Main outcomes Orthostatic hypertension, defined as an increase in systolic blood pressure ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥10 mm Hg after changing from sitting to standing. Data synthesis Two investigators independently abstracted articles. Individual participant data from nine trials identified during the systematic review were appended together as a single dataset. Results Of 31 124 participants with 315 497 standing blood pressure assessments, 9% had orthostatic hypotension (that is, a drop in blood pressure after standing of systolic ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic ≥10 mm Hg), 17% had orthostatic hypertension, and 3.2% had both a rise in systolic blood pressure and standing blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg at baseline. The effects of more intensive treatment were similar across trials with odds ratios for orthostatic hypertension ranging from 0.85 to 1.08 (I2=38.0%). During follow-up, 17% of patients assigned to more intensive treatment had orthostatic hypertension, whereas 19% of those assigned less intensive treatment had orthostatic hypertension. Compared with less intensive treatment, the risk of orthostatic hypertension was lower with more intensive blood pressure treatment (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.96). Effects were greater among non-black versus black adults (odds ratio 0.86 v 0.97; P for interaction=0.003) and adults without diabetes versus those with diabetes (0.88 v 0.96; P for interaction=0.05) but did not differ by age ≥75 years, sex, baseline seated blood pressure ≥130/≥80 mm Hg, obesity, stage 3 kidney disease, stroke, cardiovascular disease, standing systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, or pre-randomization orthostatic hypertension (P for interactions ≥0.05). Conclusions In this pooled cohort of adults with elevated blood pressure or hypertension, orthostatic hypertension was common and more intensive blood pressure treatment modestly reduced the occurrence of orthostatic hypertension. These findings suggest that approaches generally used for seated hypertension may also prevent hypertension on standing. Study registration Prospero CRD42020153753 (original proposal). The data associated with this paper were used with institutional agreements between the NHLBI BioLINCC repository of institutions that conducted the original trials. The data use agreements do not permit public sharing of trial data. However, most of the data used in these analyses may be obtained with data use agreements involving the NHLBI BioLINCC or by request to the corresponding authors of the original trials. A dummy dataset and corresponding analytic codes are available at <https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RHUF9F>.","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-080507","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective To determine the effects of intensive blood pressure treatment on orthostatic hypertension. Design Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases through 13 November 2023. Inclusion criteria Population: ≥500 adults, age ≥18 years with hypertension or elevated blood pressure; intervention: randomized trials of more intensive antihypertensive drug treatment (lower blood pressure goal or active agent) with duration ≥6 months; control: less intensive antihypertensive drug treatment (higher blood pressure goal or placebo); outcome: measured standing blood pressure. Main outcomes Orthostatic hypertension, defined as an increase in systolic blood pressure ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥10 mm Hg after changing from sitting to standing. Data synthesis Two investigators independently abstracted articles. Individual participant data from nine trials identified during the systematic review were appended together as a single dataset. Results Of 31 124 participants with 315 497 standing blood pressure assessments, 9% had orthostatic hypotension (that is, a drop in blood pressure after standing of systolic ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic ≥10 mm Hg), 17% had orthostatic hypertension, and 3.2% had both a rise in systolic blood pressure and standing blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg at baseline. The effects of more intensive treatment were similar across trials with odds ratios for orthostatic hypertension ranging from 0.85 to 1.08 (I2=38.0%). During follow-up, 17% of patients assigned to more intensive treatment had orthostatic hypertension, whereas 19% of those assigned less intensive treatment had orthostatic hypertension. Compared with less intensive treatment, the risk of orthostatic hypertension was lower with more intensive blood pressure treatment (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.96). Effects were greater among non-black versus black adults (odds ratio 0.86 v 0.97; P for interaction=0.003) and adults without diabetes versus those with diabetes (0.88 v 0.96; P for interaction=0.05) but did not differ by age ≥75 years, sex, baseline seated blood pressure ≥130/≥80 mm Hg, obesity, stage 3 kidney disease, stroke, cardiovascular disease, standing systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, or pre-randomization orthostatic hypertension (P for interactions ≥0.05). Conclusions In this pooled cohort of adults with elevated blood pressure or hypertension, orthostatic hypertension was common and more intensive blood pressure treatment modestly reduced the occurrence of orthostatic hypertension. These findings suggest that approaches generally used for seated hypertension may also prevent hypertension on standing. Study registration Prospero CRD42020153753 (original proposal). The data associated with this paper were used with institutional agreements between the NHLBI BioLINCC repository of institutions that conducted the original trials. The data use agreements do not permit public sharing of trial data. However, most of the data used in these analyses may be obtained with data use agreements involving the NHLBI BioLINCC or by request to the corresponding authors of the original trials. A dummy dataset and corresponding analytic codes are available at .
目的探讨强化降压治疗对直立性高血压的影响。设计系统评价和个体参与者数据荟萃分析。数据来源截至2023年11月13日的MEDLINE, Embase和Cochrane CENTRAL数据库。人群:≥500名成人,年龄≥18岁,伴有高血压或血压升高;干预:持续时间≥6个月的强化降压药物(降压目标或活性药物)的随机试验;对照组:低强度降压药治疗(血压升高目标或安慰剂);结果:测量站立血压。直立性高血压,定义为从坐姿改为站立后收缩压升高≥20 mm Hg或舒张压升高≥10 mm Hg。两位研究者独立地对文章进行了摘要。在系统评价中确定的9个试验的个体参与者数据被附加在一起作为一个单一的数据集。结果在31224名参与者中,315497名站立血压评估者中,9%患有直立性低血压(即收缩压≥20mm Hg或舒张压≥10mm Hg站立后血压下降),17%患有直立性高血压,3.2%在基线时收缩压和站立血压均升高≥140mm Hg。各试验中强化治疗的效果相似,直立性高血压的优势比为0.85 ~ 1.08 (I2=38.0%)。在随访期间,接受强化治疗的患者中有17%患有直立性高血压,而接受低强度治疗的患者中有19%患有直立性高血压。与强度较低的治疗相比,强度较高的血压治疗发生直立性高血压的风险较低(优势比0.93,95%可信区间0.90 ~ 0.96)。非黑人与黑人成人的影响更大(优势比0.86 v 0.97;相互作用P =0.003),无糖尿病成人vs糖尿病成人(0.88 vs 0.96;相互作用P =0.05),但年龄≥75岁、性别、基线坐位血压≥130/≥80 mm Hg、肥胖、3期肾病、中风、心血管疾病、站立收缩压≥140 mm Hg或随机化前的直立性高血压(相互作用P≥0.05)没有差异。结论:在这组血压升高或高血压的成人队列中,直立性高血压是常见的,更强化的血压治疗可以适度减少直立性高血压的发生。这些发现表明,通常用于坐姿高血压的方法也可以预防站立时的高血压。研究注册Prospero CRD42020153753(原始提案)。与本文相关的数据是根据NHLBI BioLINCC存储库与进行原始试验的机构之间的机构协议使用的。数据使用协议不允许公开共享试验数据。然而,这些分析中使用的大多数数据可以通过涉及NHLBI BioLINCC的数据使用协议或向原始试验的相应作者提出要求获得。虚拟数据集和相应的分析代码可在。