Skip to main content

Controversial new blood pressure guidelines

When should 'high' blood pressure be regarded as 'hypertension'? When should we be looking at some kind of medication?

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) think the current thresholds are too high, and they released new guideline recommendations for hypertension with lower blood pressure values defining elevated blood pressure, and lower treatment thresholds, than those recommended in current guidelines.

So, how many people would this affect, and at what cost?

Millions would be affected

A new study published by the BMJ today shows that adopting the new guidelines would dramatically increase the number of people labeled as having the condition and being recommended for drug treatment.  Millions more would be classified as having hypertension.

The findings show that, if the guidelines were introduced in the US and China, more than half of those aged 45-75 years in both countries would be considered hypertensive.

So, let's put that in perspective.  It would mean that the majority of people in that age range would be hypertensive!

Now, that is a lot of people! And it begs the question of what 'normal' pressures should be.  The impact of these new guidelines for health care would be huge.

Impact worldwide

While the impact of changes in guideline recommendations has been evaluated in the US, less is known about how they translate to other populations. China, in particular, has high levels of hypertension and the world’s largest population, so it is important to understand the impact of adopting these standards in China.

So, what would be the impact of the change in guidelines?

The team of researchers, led by Professor Harlan Krumholz at Yale School of Medicine,  set out to examine the effect of the guidelines on the prevalence of hypertension and eligibility for new and more intensive treatment in the US and China.

They analysed  representative data for adults aged 45 to 75 years from the US and China who would have a diagnosis of hypertension and be candidates for treatment under the proposed new guidelines, compared with current guidelines.

The results show that adoption of the  guidelines would dramatically increase the number of people with hypertension and those recommended for treatment.

In the US, the new guidelines would classify 70 million people in the 45-75 year age group as having hypertension.  That represents 63% of the population in this age group!  Is it really the case that such a large majority of people in the USA between those ages need treatment for hypertension?  

In China  it would lead to the classification of 267 million (55%) people in the same group as having hypertension.

This would represent a relative increase of 27% in the US and 45% in China compared with current recommendations.

Furthermore, they calculate that 7.5 million people in the US and 55 million people in China would be advised to start drug treatment, while 14 million in the US and 30 million in China would be advised to receive more intensive drug treatment.  Good for drug companies, but would it be good for patients?

Based on treatment patterns and current guidelines, 8 million Americans with hypertension are untreated, which would be expected to increase to almost 16 million after the implementation of the new guidelines.

In China, based on current treatment patterns, 75 million patients with hypertension are untreated, and this is likely to increase to 130 million under the new guidelines.

The researchers point out that the study focused only on those aged 45-75 years. Therefore, additional people aged under 45 and over 75 years of age in both the US and China may have hypertension and be candidates for treatment.

Good for patients?

The authors of the study point to several important public health implications, such as the psychological effects of a disease label, the potential harms of unnecessary treatment, and the extra infrastructure needed to manage the substantial increase in patient numbers.

They conclude: “If adopted, the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines will markedly increase the number of people labeled as having hypertension and treated with drugs in both the US and China, leading to more than half of those aged 45-75 years in both countries being considered hypertensive.”

Controversy

Needless to say, not everyone agrees that the new guidelines should be adopted, including the AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians).  They will not be adopting the new guidelines saying
The guidelines should be informed by an independent systematic review of the evidence, an assessment of the benefits and harms, and should follow a sound, transparent methodology with limited potential for financial and intellectual bias.
However, the problem remains that many cases of hypertension go undiagnosed and untreated.  

If you like this article, please help us by subscribing and getting the latest updates.


Subscribe to The Thin End

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,