Evidence Supporting a Systolic Blood Pressure Goal of Less Than 150 mm Hg in Patients Aged 60 Years or Older: The Minority View The 2001 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part two--Therapy. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). Systolic Blood Pressure Goals to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Among Older Adults The 2007 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: part 2 - therapy. Dietary Patterns and Cognitive Health in Older Adults: A Systematic Review. The detection, treatment and control of high blood pressure in older British adults: cross-sectional findings from the British Women's Heart and Health Study and the British Regional Heart Study Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Adults: Recommendations and Rationale Olmesartan vs ramipril in the treatment of hypertension and associated clinical conditions in the elderly: a reanalysis of two large double-blind, randomized studies at the light of the most recent blood pressure targets recommended by guidelines Results of the Ontario Survey on the Prevalence and Control of Hypertension South African hypertension guideline 2011. Is a systolic blood pressure target <140 mmHg indicated in all hypertensives? Subgroup analyses of findings from the randomized FEVER trial. Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Adults: Synopsis of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Guideline Rational Prescribing in Primary Care (RaPP): A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Tailored Intervention Cost-Effectiveness and Population Impact of Statins for Primary Prevention in Adults Aged 75 Years or Older in the United States 2015 guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology and the Taiwan Hypertension Society for the management of hypertension. Detection and treatment of hypertension in older individuals. Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report Blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol targets for prevention of recurrent strokes and cognitive decline in the hypertensive patient: design of the European Society of Hypertension-Chinese Hypertension League Stroke in Hypertension Optimal Treatment randomized trial. Benefits and risks of more intensive blood pressure lowering in hypertensive patients of the HOT study with different risk profiles: does a J-shaped curve exist in smokers? A score for the prediction of cardiovascular events in the hypertensive aged. Hemoglobin A1c Targets for Glycemic Control With Pharmacologic Therapy for Nonpregnant Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Guidance Statement Update From the American College of Physicians The risk of myocardial infarction associated with antihypertensive drug therapies. Current Guidelines for Using Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin IIReceptor Antagonists in Chronic Kidney Disease: Is the Evidence Base Relevant to Older Adults? Management of hypertension and the core services guidelines: results from interviews with 100 Auckland general practitioners. Morbidity, mortality, and antihypertensive treatment effects by extent of atherosclerosis in older adults with isolated systolic hypertension.
The 2014 Evidence -Based Guideline for the Management of  High Blood Pressure In Adults : Report From the Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee ( JNC 8) recommends several major changes from the JNC 7 report ( 1 , 2 ) . The 2014 guideline is based on a systematic review of r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) by a multidisciplinary panel using a process informed by Institute of Medicine recommendations for guideline development ( 3 ) . Although there was almost unanimous agreement on nearly all recommendations , a minority of the panel ( the authors of this commentary ) disagreed with the recommendation to increase the target systolic blood pressure ( SBP ) from 140 to 150 mm Hg in persons aged 60 years or older without diabetes mellitus ( DM ) or chronic kidney disease ( CKD ) . This target guides both the initiation of therapy and treatment goals . Although this issue has major clinical and public health implication s , the guideline only briefly summarized the concerns underlying the minority opinion to maintain the target of less than 140 mm Hg . The Institute of Medicine recommendation for guideline development encourages guidelines to provide a description and explanation of any differences of opinion regarding the recommendation ( 3 ) . This summarizes the evidence and rationale underlying the minority opinion to maintain the SBP target of 140 mm Hg or lower in persons aged 60 years or older until there is greater certainty of the risks and benefits of a higher target . First , increasing the target will probably reduce the intensity of antihypertensive treatment in a large population at high risk for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) ( Table 1 ) . The higher SBP goal would apply to some of the groups at highest cardiovascular risk , such as African Americans , hypertensive patients with multiple CVD risk factors other than DM or CKD , and those with clinical CVD . Second , the evidence supporting increasing the SBP target from 140 to 150 mm Hg in persons aged 60 years or older was insufficient and inconsistent with the evidence supporting the panel 's recommendations for an SBP target of less than 140 mm Hg in persons younger than 60 years and those aged 60 years or older with DM or CKD . Third , the higher SBP goal in individuals aged 60 years or older may reverse the decades-long decline in CVD , especially stroke mortality ( 4 ) . In the absence of definitive evidence defining the optimum SBP target , observational studies and RCT data that the panel did not systematic ally review more strongly support the SBP goal of less than 140 mm Hg , especially in high-risk individuals . Other recent guideline groups review ing similar evidence have recommended a goal of less than 140 mm Hg , particularly in persons aged 80 years or younger ( 59 ) . Table 1 . U.S. Cardiovascular Disease Death Rates for Persons Younger and Older Than 65 y Persons Aged 60 Years or Older With Hypertension and SBP Controlled to 140 mm Hg or Lower More than half of the 72 million persons with hypertension in the United States are aged 60 years or older ( 10 , 11 ) . Among these individuals , the 2014 guideline recommends the SBP goal of 140 mm Hg or lower only for those with DM and those younger than 70 years with CKD ( 2 ) . Although the prevalence of hypertension in this age group ( 65 % to 67 % ) did not change between 1999 and 2010 , the percentage with adequate blood pressure control increased from 27.4 % ( 19992000 ) to 50.5 % ( 20112012 ) , with 82.2 % now receiving antihypertensive medications ( 10 , 12 ) . Data from NHANES ( National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey ) from 2001 to 2008 show that among treated and untreated hypertensive adults aged 60 years or older , median SBPs were 136 mm Hg and 152 mm Hg , respectively ( 13 ) , and SBPs have been decreasing in this age group over the past 5 decades ( Figure ) ( 4 ) . Thus , a target of less than 150 mm Hg would likely increase blood pressures in the treated hypertensive population and would suggest that nearly half of the untreated hypertensive patients in this age range should remain untreated . The large population at high risk for CVD , with most currently at an SBP of 140 mm Hg or lower , creates concern that a higher SBP target will adversely affect public health . Figure . Smoothed weighted frequency distribution , median , and 90th percentile of systolic blood pressure for persons aged 60 to 74 y : United States , 19592010 . Reproduced from Lackl and and colleagues ( 4 ) . NHANES = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey ; NHES = National Health Examination Survey . High Risk in Persons With the Higher Goal Age substantially increases risk for cardiovascular events ( Table 1 ) , so differences in cardiovascular risk do not justify different targets for patients older and younger than 60 years . The risk range for white and African American men aged 60 years is 9 % to 30 % , depending on risk factor profile . For men of both ethnicities who are aged 70 years or older and have SBP controlled to 140 mm Hg , even without clinical CVD or DM , the 10-year risk exceeds 20 % ( 14 ) . Thus , on the basis of absolute risk , using an age threshold of 60 years to define eligibility for less aggressive treatment lacks consistency . Persons aged 60 to 79 years are at higher risk than those who are younger , even if the younger persons have DM . Insufficient Evidence for Differential Hypertension Treatment Benefit for Patients Older and Younger Than 60 Years The 2014 guideline panel failed to identify evidence of differential benefits or harms of treatment using an SBP goal of 140 mm Hg with an age threshold of 60 years . There is little RCT evidence of risk or benefit in treating persons younger than 60 years to this target , except in those with diastolic hypertension . The guideline indicates that no qualifying evidence was found comparing an SBP less than 140 mm Hg to any other SBP goal for persons younger than 60 years ( 2 ) . However , in persons aged 60 years or older , the SHEP ( Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program ) trial showed benefit of treating hypertension to an SBP goal between 140 and 145 mm Hg ( Table 2 ) ( 15 ) . HYVET ( Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial ) found a benefit of an SBP target of less than 150 mm Hg on health outcomes , including mortality in persons aged 80 years or older ( 16 ) . Patients in the HYVET treatment group achieved an SBP of 144 mm Hg at 2 years compared with 159 mm Hg in the control group , and blood pressures continued to decrease in both groups until the end of the trial . Therefore , HYVET and the SHEP trial provide evidence that reducing SBP to around 140 mm Hg has substantial benefit without major harm in older persons . Thus , the best evidence available for an SBP target around 140 mm Hg , which meets the guideline RCT criteria , is in persons older than 60 years . The lack of benefit seen in 2 Japanese trials in older individuals ( JATOS [ Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Patients ] [ 17 ] and the VALISH [ Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension ] trial [ 18 ] ) was cited by some to rationalize the higher SBP target , but these trials were underpowered ( Table 2 ) . The SHEP trial and HYVET together reported 365 strokes and more than 285 coronary heart disease events , whereas JATOS and the VALISH trial only had a combined total of 125 strokes and 67 coronary heart disease events . In addition , the much larger FEVER ( Felodipine Event Reduction ) trial ( 19 ) did not meet criteria for inclusion in the panel 's deliberation ( Table 2 ) . This trial , which was conducted in a Chinese population ( age range , 50 to 79 years ; mean age , 62 years ) , reported a significant 27 % reduction in its primary outcome , as well as significant reductions in all CVD , total mortality , coronary heart disease , and heart failure in patients treated to an SBP of 137 mm Hg with a thiazide diureticcalcium-channel blocker combination versus 143 mm Hg with a thiazide diuretic plus placebo ( 19 ) . Table 2 . Trials Comparing Different Systolic Blood Pressure Thresholds In addition , generalizability of the Japanese trials to other population s of patients older than 60 years , such as African Americans , is uncertain . African Americans are at highest risk for all complications of hypertension and are historically undertreated . Thus , we believe that recommending less aggressive targets in this or other high-risk population s requires stronger justification than the guideline cites . Three recent guidelines from other countries have concluded that the appropriate cut point for an age-related differential SBP goal is 80 years or older ( 57 ) . We agree that this higher treatment target in frail hypertensive patients aged 80 years or older better reflects existing evidence . Safety and Adverse Event Risk in Hypertensive Patients Aged 60 Years or Older Despite the limited number of end points in JATOS and the VALISH trial , their size and duration provide evidence of safety of the SBP target of less than 140 mm Hg . The VALISH investigators concluded that this target was safe in relatively healthy patients aged 70 years or older with isolated systolic hypertension ( 18 ) . In JATOS , adverse events requiring treatment discontinuation were reported in only 36 patients , with no differences in discontinuation rate between groups ( 17 ) . This evidence and the favorable results at slightly higher blood pressures in the SHEP trial and HYVET provide reassurance of the safety of an SBP goal of less than 140 mm Hg in older , nonfrail persons . Other Trial Evidence of Benefit of Treatment at an SBP of 140 mm Hg or Lower Results of the SPS3 ( Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes ) trial indicated that an SBP target of less than 130 mm Hg versus 144 mm Hg in 3020 patients ( mean age , 63 years ) reduced subsequent strokes by 19 % ( P= 0.08 ) and hemorrhagic strokes by nearly 50 % ( P < 0.01 ) ( 20 ) . Of note , the FEVER trial reported a 44 % ( P < 0.001 ) reduction in all strokes in a subgroup analysis of patients older than 65 years ( 17 ) . Finally , 2 meta-analyses OBJECTIVE To provide up date d , evidence -based recommendations for the therapy of hypertension in adults . OPTIONS For patients with hypertension , a number of antihypertensive agents may control blood pressure . R and omized trials evaluating first-line therapy with thiazides , beta-adrenergic antagonists , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors , calcium channel blockers , alpha-blockers , central ly acting agents or angiotensin II receptor antagonists were review ed . OUTCOMES The health outcomes that were considered were changes in blood pressure , cardiovascular morbidity , and cardiovascular and /or all-cause mortality rates . Economic outcomes were not considered due to insufficient evidence . EVIDENCE MEDLINE was search ed for the period March 1999 to October 2001 to identify studies not included in the 2000 revision of the Canadian Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension . Reference lists were scanned , experts were polled , and the personal files of the subgroup members and authors were used to identify other published studies . All relevant articles were review ed and appraised , using prespecified levels of evidence , by content experts and method ological experts . VALUES A high value was placed on the avoidance of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality . BENEFITS , HARMS AND COSTS Various antihypertensive agents reduce the blood pressure of patients with sustained hypertension . In certain setting s , and for specific classes of drugs , blood-pressure lowering has been associated with reduced cardiovascular morbidity and /or mortality . RECOMMENDATIONS The present document contains detailed recommendations pertaining to treatment thresholds , target blood pressures , and choice of agents in various setting s in patients with hypertension . The main changes from the 2000 Recommendations are the addition of a section on the treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus , the amalgamation of the previous sections on treatment of hypertension in the young and old into one section , increased emphasis on the role of combination therapies over repeated trials of single agents and expansion of the section on the treatment of hypertension after stroke . Implicit in the recommendations for therapy is the principle that treatment for an individual patient should take into consideration global cardiovascular risk , the presence and /or absence of target organ damage , and comorbidities . VALIDATION All recommendations were grade d according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the Canadian Hypertension Recommendations Working Group . Individuals with potential conflicts of interest relative to any specific recommendation were excluded from voting on that recommendation . Only those recommendations achieving high levels of consensus are reported here . These guidelines will continue to be up date d annually Hypertension is the most common condition seen in primary care and leads to myocardial infa rct ion , stroke , renal failure , and death if not detected early and treated appropriately . Patients want to be assured that blood pressure ( BP ) treatment will reduce their disease burden , while clinicians want guidance on hypertension management using the best scientific evidence . This report takes a rigorous , evidence -based approach to recommend treatment thresholds , goals , and medications in the management of hypertension in adults . Evidence was drawn from r and omized controlled trials , which represent the gold st and ard for determining efficacy and effectiveness . Evidence quality and recommendations were grade d based on their effect on important outcomes . There is strong evidence to support treating hypertensive persons aged 60 years or older to a  BP goal  of less than 150/90 mm Hg and hypertensive persons 30 through 59 years of age to a diastolic goal of less than 90 mm Hg ; however , there is insufficient evidence in hypertensive persons younger than 60 years for a systolic goal , or in those younger than 30 years for a diastolic goal , so the panel recommends a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg for those groups based on expert opinion . The same thresholds and goals are recommended for hypertensive adults with diabetes or nondiabetic chronic kidney disease ( CKD ) as for the general hypertensive population younger than 60 years . There is moderate evidence to support initiating drug treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor , angiotensin receptor blocker , calcium channel blocker , or thiazide-type diuretic in the nonblack hypertensive population , including those with diabetes . In the black hypertensive population , including those with diabetes , a calcium channel blocker or thiazide-type diuretic is recommended as initial therapy . There is moderate evidence to support initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in persons with CKD to improve kidney outcomes . Although this guideline provides evidence -based recommendations for the management of high BP and should meet the clinical needs of most patients , these recommendations are not a substitute for clinical judgment , and decisions about care must carefully consider and incorporate the clinical characteristics and circumstances of each individual patient Abstract : The 2014 Evidence -Based Guideline for the Management of  High Blood Pressure in Adults Report From the Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee ( JNC 8) was recently published . This guideline recommended that older adults ( ≥60 years ) without diabetes or chronic kidney disease with systolic blood pressure ( SBP ) ≥150 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ( DBP ) ≥90 mm Hg be initiated on antihypertensive medication with a treatment goal SBP/DBP < 150/90 mm Hg . In contrast , the previous 3 JNC guidelines recommended treatment for these individuals be initiated at SBP/DBP ≥140/90 mm Hg with goal SBP/DBP < 140/90 mm Hg . In this article , we review r and omized trials of antihypertensive medication and observational data on SBP and DBP with cardiovascular outcomes among older adults , possible explanations underlying the different findings from these r and omized trials and observational studies , and contemporary antihypertensive treatment patterns among older U.S. adults . In closing , we highlight future research needs related to hypertension and outcomes among older adults OBJECTIVE To provide up date d , evidence -based recommendations for the prevention and management of hypertension in adults . OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES For lifestyle and pharmacological interventions , evidence was review ed from r and omized controlled trials and systematic review s of trials . Changes in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality were the primary outcomes of interest . However , for lifestyle interventions , blood pressure lowering was accepted as a primary outcome given the lack of long-term morbidity and mortality data in this field . For treatment of patients with kidney disease , the progression of kidney dysfunction was also accepted as a clinical ly relevant primary outcome . EVIDENCE A Cochrane collaboration librarian conducted an independent MEDLINE search from 2005 to August 2006 to up date the 2006 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations . In addition , reference lists were scanned and experts were contacted to identify additional published studies . All relevant articles were review ed and appraised independently by both content and method ological experts using prespecified levels of evidence . RECOMMENDATIONS Dietary lifestyle modifications for prevention of hypertension , in addition to a well-balanced diet , include a dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol/day . In hypertensive patients , the dietary sodium intake should be limited to 65 mmol/day to 100 mmol/day . Other lifestyle modifications for both normotensive and hypertensive patients include : performing 30 min to 60 min of aerobic exercise four to seven days per week ; maintaining a healthy body weight ( body mass index of 18.5 kg/m2 to 24.9 kg/m2 ) and waist circumference ( less than 102 cm in men and less than 88 cm in women ) ; limiting alcohol consumption to no more than 14 units per week in men or nine units per week in women ; following a diet reduced in saturated fat and cholesterol , and one that emphasizes fruits , vegetables and low-fat dairy products , dietary and soluble fibre , whole grains and protein from plant sources ; and considering stress management in selected individuals with hypertension . For the pharmacological management of hypertension , treatment thresholds and targets should take into account each individual 's global atherosclerotic risk , target organ damage and any comorbid conditions : blood pressure should be lowered to lower than 140/90 mmHg in all patients and lower than 130/80 mmHg in those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease . Most patients require more than one agent to achieve these blood pressure targets . In adults without compelling indications for other agents , initial therapy should include thiazide diuretics ; other agents appropriate for first-line therapy for diastolic and /or systolic hypertension include angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors ( except in black patients ) , long-acting calcium channel blockers ( CCBs ) , angiotensin receptor blockers ( ARBs ) or beta-blockers ( in those younger than 60 years of age ) . First-line therapy for isolated systolic hypertension includes long-acting dihydropyridine CCBs or ARBs . Certain comorbid conditions provide compelling indications for first-line use of other agents : in patients with angina , recent myocardial infa rct ion , or heart failure , beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy ; in patients with cerebrovascular disease , an ACE inhibitor plus diuretic combination is preferred ; in patients with nondiabetic chronic kidney disease , ACE inhibitors are recommended ; and in patients with diabetes mellitus , ACE inhibitors or ARBs ( or , in patients without albuminuria , thiazides or dihydropyridine CCBs ) are appropriate first-line therapies . All hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia should be treated using the thresholds , targets and agents outlined in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement ( recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease ) . Selected high-risk patients with hypertension who do not achieve thresholds for statin therapy according to the position paper should nonetheless receive statin therapy . Once blood pressure is controlled , acetylsalicylic acid therapy should be considered . VALIDATION All recommendations were grade d according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the 57 members of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program Evidence -Based Recommendations Task Force . All recommendations reported here achieved at least 95 % consensus . These guidelines will continue to be up date d annually While the role of diet and nutrition in cognitive health and prevention of dementia  in older adults has attracted much attention , the efficacy of different dietary patterns remains uncertain . Previous review s have mainly focused on the Mediterranean diet , but either omitted other dietary patterns , lacked more recent studies , were based on cross-sectional studies , or combined older and younger population s. We followed PRISMA guidelines , and examined the efficacy of current research from r and omized controlled trials and cohort studies on the effects of different dietary patterns . We review ed the Mediterranean diet , Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension ( DASH ) diet , the Mediterranean-DASH diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay ( MIND ) diet , Anti-inflammatory diet , Healthy diet recommended by guidelines via dietary index , or Prudent healthy diets generated via statistical approaches , and their impact on cognitive health among older adults . Of 38 studies , the Mediterranean diet was the most investigated with evidence supporting protection against cognitive decline among older adults . Evidence from other dietary patterns such as the MIND , DASH , Anti-inflammatory , and Prudent healthy diets was more limited but showed promising results , especially for those at risk of cardiovascular disease . Overall , this review found positive effects of dietary patterns including the Mediterranean , DASH , MIND , and Anti-inflammatory diets on cognitive health outcomes in older adults . These dietary patterns are plant-based , rich in poly- and mono-unsaturated fatty acids with lower consumption of processed foods . Better underst and ing of the underlying mechanisms and effectiveness is needed to develop comprehensive and practical dietary recommendations against age-related cognitive decline among older adult Among older people , the detection and control of hypertension is particularly important to reduce cardiovascular disease risk . This cross-sectional survey aim ed to describe the detection , treatment and control of hypertension in older British adults . A total of 3059 women and 3007 men aged 60–79 years were r and omly selected from general practice age/sex registers in 24 British towns and examined from 1998 to 2001 . Of these , 52.6 % women and 47.9 % men had at least one indicator of hypertension ( high blood pressure on examination , or taking antihypertensive medication or recalled a doctor diagnosis of high blood pressure ) . Among women , 50 % of those with any indication of hypertension were on treatment and 29 % were well controlled , and among men 45 % were on treatment and 16 % were well controlled . With the exception of alcohol use in men ( adjusted odds ratio 0.67 ( 0.46 , 0.98 ) ) , socioeconomic factors , area of residence and behavioural risk factors were not associated with good control among those with hypertension in either sex . Of those on treatment , 20.7 % of women and 28 % of men were on two classes of antihypertensive medication and 3.5 and 4.9 % , respectively , were on three or more classes of antihypertensive medication . Among those with a doctor diagnosis of hypertension and taking antihypertensive medication , the proportion with well controlled blood pressure did not differ between those on more than one antihypertensive and those on just one in either sex . We conclude that targets of good control are rarely met in older individuals , who would benefit from the associated reduction in cardiovascular disease risk Summary of the Recommendations The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force ( USPSTF ) concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely screening asymptomatic adults for type 2 diabetes , impaired glucose tolerance , or impaired fasting glucose . This is a grade I recommendation . ( See Appendix Table 1 for a description of the USPSTF classification of recommendations . ) The USPSTF found good evidence that available screening tests can accurately detect type 2 diabetes during an early , asymptomatic phase . ( See Appendix Table 2 for a description of the USPSTF classification of levels of evidence . ) The USPSTF also found good evidence that intensive glycemic control in patients with clinical ly detected ( not screening detected ) diabetes can reduce the progression of microvascular disease . However , the benefits of tight glycemic control on microvascular clinical outcomes take years to become apparent . It has not been demonstrated that beginning diabetes control early as a result of screening provides an incremental benefit compared with initiating treatment after clinical diagnosis . Existing studies have not shown that tight glycemic control significantly reduces macrovascular complications , including myocardial infa rct ion and stroke . The USPSTF found poor evidence to assess possible harms of screening . As a result , the USPSTF could not determine the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for type 2 diabetes . The USPSTF recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adults with hypertension or hyperlipidemia . This is a grade B recommendation . The USPSTF found good evidence that , in adults who have hypertension and clinical ly detected diabetes , lowering blood pressure below conventional target blood pressure values reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality ; this evidence is considered fair when extrapolated to cases of diabetes detected by screening . Among patients with hyperlipidemia , there is good evidence that detecting diabetes substantially improves estimates of individual risk for coronary heart disease , which is an integral part of decisions about lipid-lowering therapy . Clinical Considerations In the absence of evidence of direct benefits of routine screening for type 2 diabetes , the decision to screen individual patients is a matter of clinical judgment . Patients at increased risk for cardiovascular disease may benefit most from screening for type 2 diabetes , since management of cardiovascular risk factors leads to reductions in major cardiovascular events . Clinicians should assist patients in making that choice . In addition , clinicians should be alert to symptoms suggestive of diabetes ( for example , polydipsia and polyuria ) and test anyone with these symptoms . Screening for diabetes in patients with hypertension or hyperlipidemia should be part of an integrated approach to reduce cardiovascular risk . Lower targets for blood pressure ( that is , diastolic blood pressure 80 mm Hg ) are beneficial for patients with diabetes and high blood pressure . The third report of the Adult Treatment Panel III of the National Cholesterol Education Program recommends lower targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol for patients with diabetes . Attention to other risk factors , such as physical inactivity , diet , and overweight , is also important , both to decrease risk for heart disease and to improve glucose control . Three tests have been used to screen for diabetes : fasting plasma glucose ( FPG ) , 2-hour postload plasma glucose , and hemoglobin A1c .  The American Diabetes Association ( ADA ) has recommended the FPG test for screening ( values 6.99 mmol/L [ 126 mg/dL ] indicate diabetes ) because it is easier and faster to perform , more convenient and acceptable to patients , and less expensive than other screening tests . The FPG test is more reproducible than the 2-hour plasma glucose test , has less intraindividual variation , and has similar predictive value for development of microvascular complications of diabetes . Compared with the FPG test , the 2-hour plasma glucose test may lead to more individuals being diagnosed as diabetic . Hemoglobin A1c is more closely related to FPG than to 2-hour plasma glucose , but at the usual cut-points it is less sensitive in detecting lower levels of hyperglycemia . The r and om  capillary blood glucose test has been shown to have reasonable sensitivity ( 75 % at a cut-point of 6.66 mmol/L [ 120 mg/dL ] ) in detecting persons who have an FPG level greater than or equal to 6.99 mmol/L ( 126 mg/dL ) or a 2-hour plasma glucose level greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/L ( 200 mg/dL ) , if results are interpreted according to age and time since last meal ; however , the r and om blood glucose test is less well st and ardized for screening for diabetes . The ADA recommends confirmation of a diagnosis of diabetes with a repeated FPG test on a separate day , especially for patients with borderline FPG results and patients with normal FPG levels for whom suspicion of diabetes is high . The optimal screening interval is not known . The ADA , on the basis of expert opinion , recommends an interval of every 3 years but shorter intervals in high-risk persons . Regardless of whether the clinician and patient decide to screen for diabetes , patients should be encouraged to exercise , eat a healthy diet , and maintain a healthy weight , choices that may prevent or forestall the development of type 2 diabetes . More aggressive interventions to establish and maintain these behaviors should be considered for patients at increased risk for diabetes , such as those who are overweight , have a family history of diabetes , or have a racial or ethnic background associated with an increased risk ( for example , Native American persons ) .  Intensive programs of lifestyle modification ( diet , exercise , and behavior ) should also be considered for patients who have impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance , since several large trials have demonstrated that these programs can significantly reduce the incidence of diabetes in these patients . Evidence and recommendations regarding counseling about diet , physical activity , and obesity are provided in the USPSTF evidence summaries Counseling to Promote a Healthy Diet , Counseling to Promote Physical Activity , and Screening and Treatment for Obesity in Adults , available on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site at www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov . The brief review of the evidence that is normally included in USPSTF recommendation statements is available in the complete recommendation and rationale statement on the USPSTF Web site ( www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov ) . Recommendations of Others The ADA acknowledged that data from prospect i ve studies were insufficient to determine the benefits of diabetes screening and thus concluded that the decision to test for diabetes should be based on clinical judgment and patient preference ( 1 ) . On the basis of expert consensus , the ADA recommends clinicians consider screening for diabetes with the FPG test beginning at age 45 years and at a younger age for individuals with such risk factors as family history , overweight , and hypertension , among others . The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorses the ADA recommendations ( 2 ) . The American Heart Association recommends measuring fasting blood glucose in persons 20 years of age and older according to risk for diabetes , as part of overall risk assessment for cardiovascular disease ( 3 ) . The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is currently updating its recommendations on diabetes screening In this paper , we present the results of a re analysis of the data of two large r and omized , double-blind , parallel group studies with a similar design , comparing the efficacy of an angiotensin-receptor blocker ( olmesartan medoxomil ) with that of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ( ramipril ) , by applying two different blood pressure targets recently recommended by hypertension guidelines for all patients , irrespective of the presence of diabetes ( < 140/90 mmHg ) , and for elderly hypertensive patients ( < 150/90 mmHg ) . The efficacy of olmesartan was not negatively affected by age , sex , hypertension type , diabetes status or other concomitant clinical conditions , or cardiovascular risk factors . In most cases , olmesartan provided better blood pressure control than ramipril . Olmesartan was significantly more effective than ramipril in male patients , in younger patients ( aged 65–69 years ) , in those with metabolic syndrome , obesity , dyslipidemia , preserved renal function , diastolic ± systolic hypertension , and , in general , in patients with a high or very high cardiovascular risk . Interestingly , patients previously untreated or treated with two or more antihypertensive drugs showed a significantly larger response with olmesartan than with ramipril . Thus , our results confirm the good efficacy of olmesartan in elderly hypertensives even when new blood pressure targets for antihypertensive treatment are considered . Such results may be relevant for the clinical practice , providing some hint on the possible different response of elderly hypertensive patients to two different drugs acting on the renin – angiotensin system , when patients are targeted according to the blood pressure levels recommended by recent hypertension guidelines Background : Available information on the prevalence and management of hypertension in the Canadian population date s back to 1986–1992 and probably does not reflect the current status of this major risk factor for cardiovascular disease . We sought to evaluate the current prevalence and management of hypertension among adults in the province of Ontario . Methods : Potential respondents from r and omly selected dwellings within target neighbourhoods in 16 municipalities were contacted at their homes to request participation in the study . For potential respondents who agreed to participate ,  blood pressure  was measured with an automated device . Estimation weights were used to obtain representative estimates of population parameters . Responses were weighted to the total adult population in Ontario of 7 996 653 . Results : From 6436 eligible dwellings , contact was made with 4559 potential participants , of whom 2992 agreed to participate .  Blood pressure measurements were obtained for 2551 of these respondents ( age 20–79 years ) .  Hypertension , defined as systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or more , diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or more , or treatment with an antihypertensive medication , was identified in 21.3 % of the population overall ( 23.8 % of men and 19.0 % of women ) . Prevalence increased with age , from 3.4 % among participants 20–39 years of age to 51.6 % among those 60–79 years of age . Hypertension was more common among black people and people of South Asian background than among white people ; hypertension was also associated with higher body mass index . Among participants with hypertension , 65.7 % were undergoing treatment with control of hypertension , 14.7 % were undergoing treatment but the hypertension was not controlled , and 19.5 % were not receiving any treatment ( including 13.7 % who were unaware of their hypertension ) . The extent of control of hypertension did not differ significantly by age , sex , ethnic background or comorbidities . Interpretation : In Ontario , the overall prevalence of hypertension is high in the older population but appears not to have increased in recent decades . Hypertension management has improved markedly among all age groups and for both sexes OUTCOMES Extensive data from r and omised controlled trials have shown the benefit of treating hypertension . The target blood pressure ( BP ) for antihypertensive management is systolic < 140 mmHg and diastolic < 90 mmHg with minimal or no drug side-effects ; however , stricter BP control is required for patients with end-organ damage , co-existing risk factors and co-morbidity , e.g. diabetes mellitus . The reduction of BP in the elderly and in those with severe hypertension should be achieved gradually over 1 month . Co-existent risk factors should also be controlled . BENEFITS Benefits of management include reduced risks of stroke , cardiac failure , chronic kidney disease and coronary heart disease . RECOMMENDATIONS The correct BP measurement procedure is described , and evaluation of cardiovascular risk factors and recommendations for antihypertensive therapy are stipulated . The total cardiovascular disease risk profile should be determined for all patients to inform management strategies . Lifestyle modification and patient education are cornerstones in the management of every patient . Major indications , pre caution s and contra-indications to each recommended antihypertensive drug are listed . Combination therapy should be considered ab initio if the BP is ≥ 20/10 mmHg . First-line drug therapy for uncomplicated hypertension includes low-dose thiazide-like diuretics , calcium channel blockers ( CCBs ) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors ( ACE-Is ) ( or ARBs - angiotensin II receptor blockers ) . If the target BP is not obtained , a second antihypertensive should be added from the aforementioned list . If the target BP is still not met , the third remaining antihypertensive agent should be used . In black patients  either thiazide-like diuretics or CCBs can be used initially , because response rates are better than with ACE-Is or β-blockers . In treating resistant hypertension , a central ly acting drug , vasodilator , α-blocker , spironolactone or β-locker should be added . This guideline includes management of specific situations , i.e. hypertensive emergency and urgency , severe hypertension with target organ damage , hypertension in diabetes mellitus , resistant hypertension , fixed drug combinations , new trials in hypertension , and interactions of antihypertensive agents with other drugs . VALIDITY The guideline was developed by the Southern African Hypertension Society AIMS Major guidelines recommend lowering systolic blood pressure ( SBP ) to < 140 mmHg in all hypertensives , but evidence is missing whether this is beneficial in ( i ) uncomplicated hypertensives , ( ii ) grade 1 hypertensives , and ( iii ) elderly hypertensives . Providing this missing evidence is important to justify efforts and costs of aggressive therapy in all hypertensives . METHODS AND RESULTS Felodipine Event Reduction ( FEVER ) was a double-blind , r and omized trial on 9711 Chinese hypertensives , in whom cardiovascular outcomes  were significantly reduced by more intense therapy ( low-dose hydrochlorothiazide and low-dose felodipine ) achieving a mean of 138 mmHg SBP compared with less-intense therapy ( low-dose hydrochlorothiazide and placebo ) achieving a mean of 142 mmHg . FEVER included older and younger patients , and patients with and without diabetes or cardiovascular disease . In the analyses here reported , Cox regression models assessed outcome differences between more and less-intense treatments in groups of patients with different baseline characteristics . Significant reductions in stroke were found in uncomplicated hypertensives ( -39 % , P = 0.002 ) , in hypertensives with r and omization SBP < 153 mmHg ( -29 % , P = 0.03 ) , and in elderly hypertensives ( -44 % , P < 0.001 ) , when their SBP was lowered by more intense treatment . Significant reductions ( between -29 and -47 % , P = 0.02 to < 0.001 ) were also found in all cardiovascular events and all deaths . Achieving mean SBP values < 140 mmHg by adding a small dose of a generic drug prevented 2.1 ( uncomplicated hypertensives ) and 5.2 ( elderly ) cardiovascular events every 100 patients treated for 3.3 years . CONCLUSIONS These analyses provide strong support , missing so far , to guidelines recommending goal SBP < 140 mmHg in uncomplicated hypertensives , individuals with moderately elevated BP and elderly hypertensives Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ( ASCVD ) is the leading cause of death , decreased quality of life , and medical costs in the United States . Nearly 1 in 3 Americans die of heart disease and stroke ( 1 ) . Most ASCVD is preventable through a healthy lifestyle and effective treatment of cholesterol and blood pressure . The 2013 Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association ( ACC/AHA ) provides an evidence -based approach to reducing ASCVD risk ( 2 ) . Guideline Development Process In 2008 , the National Heart , Lung , and Blood Institute ( NHLBI ) convened the Adult Treatment Panel ( ATP ) IV to up date the 2001 ATP-III cholesterol guidelines using a rigorous systematic process to identify and review r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) with cardiovascular outcomes and meta-analyses of these RCTs . The panel comprised experts and clinicians from the fields of cardiology , epidemiology , primary care , and endocrinology ( 2 ) and received support from the Lifestyle Management and Risk Assessment Work Groups ( 3 , 4 ) . Systematic evidence review s conducted according to principles recommended by the Institute of Medicine ( 5 ) were performed to answer 3 questions relevant to clinical care . Two questions focused on the evidence supporting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL-C ) and nonhigh-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( HDL-C ) levels as targets of treatment . One question examined the reduction in ASCVD events and adverse effects for each cholesterol-lowering drug class . The panel synthesized the evidence from these 3 review s as well as from Lifestyle Management and Risk Assessment Work Groups review s ( 3 , 4 ) that addressed 5 additional critical questions . Systematic electronic search es of relevant data bases of the peer- review ed English- language literature published from 1 January 1995 through 1 December 2009 for each critical question were conducted by an NHLBI-selected independent contractor and focused on RCTs and systematic review s and meta-analyses of RCTs assessed as fair to good quality . In addition , RCTs with ASCVD outcomes that included coronary heart disease , stroke , and cardiovascular deaths published after that date were eligible for consideration through July 2013 . Evidence tables were constructed , and the strength of evidence was rated according to the NHLBI ( Table 1 of the Supplement ) . Recommendations were grade d according to criteria from the NHLBI ( Table 2 of the Supplement ) and ACC/AHA ( Table 3 of the Supplement ) . Because of the inherent differences in grading systems and the clinical questions driving the recommendations , alignment between the NHLBI and ACC/AHA formats was imperfect . A complete description of the methods used and results of the evidence review are provided in the guideline ( 2 ) and the NHLBI evidence report ( www.nhlbi.nih.gov/ guidelines /cholesterol/ser/index.htm ) . Supplement . NHLBI and ACC/AHA Criteria for Rating Strength of Evidence To help clinicians estimate ASCVD risk , the risk assessment working group developed the Pooled Cohort Equations using data from 5 NHLBI-sponsored longitudinal , population -based cohorts of African American and non-Hispanic white men and women to estimate risk for a first myocardial infa rct ion , coronary heart disease death , or fatal or nonfatal stroke on the basis of age , sex , race , smoking status , total cholesterol level , HDL-C level , systolic blood pressure , antihypertensive therapy , and diabetes ( 4 , 6 ) . These equations significantly advance ASCVD risk estimation by providing sex- and race-specific estimates and including stroke as an outcome . The earlier Framingham equations calculated only coronary heart disease risk for non-Hispanic whites . The draft recommendations were review ed by 23 experts and representatives of federal agencies identified by the NHLBI . In September 2013 , the recommendations developed by the panel were transitioned to the ACC/AHA and had additional review by 4 experts nominated by the ACC Foundation and the AHA . The governing bodies of the ACC and AHA approved the guideline , which also received endorsement from the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation , American Pharmacists Association , American Society for Preventive Cardiology , Association of Black Cardiologists , Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association , and WomenHeart : The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease . Recommendations The guideline focuses on treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce ASCVD risk in adults . Major recommendations are summarized here and in Table 1 . The guideline report provides a complete listing of recommendations and supporting evidence behind each recommendation ( 2 ) . Table 1 . Major Recommendations for the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce ASCVD Risk in Adults * 1 . Encourage Adherence to a Healthy Lifestyle A healthy lifestyle is the foundation for cardiovascular health . The panel endorsed the 2013 ACC/AHA Lifestyle Management Guideline ( 3 ) for a diet that is low in saturated fat , trans fat , and sodium ; emphasizes vegetables , fruits , whole grains , low-fat dairy products , poultry , fish , legumes , nontropical vegetable oils , and nuts ; and limits sweets , sugar-sweetened beverages , and red meats and engage in regular aerobic physical activity . Adults also should maintain a healthy body weight , avoid smoking , and control hypertension and diabetes when present . 2 . Statin Therapy Is Recommended for Adults in Groups Demonstrated to Benefit Strong RCT evidence shows that reduction in ASCVD events from statin therapy exceeds adverse events for 4 patient groups : those with clinical ASCVD ( acute coronary syndromes , myocardial infa rct ion , stable angina , coronary or other arterial revascularization , stroke , transient ischemic attack , or peripheral arterial disease of atherosclerotic origin ) when  statins are used for secondary prevention , and those with LDL-C levels 190 mg/dL ; those aged 40 to 75 years with diabetes and LDL-C levels 70 to 189 mg/dL ; and those aged 40 to 75 years without diabetes and with a 10-year ASCVD risk 7.5 % when statins are used for primary prevention . Moderate evidence supports consideration of statin therapy for primary prevention in individuals with a 10-year ASCVD risk of 5 % to < 7.5 % . Routine initiation of statin therapy is not recommended in adults with New York Heart Association heart failure class II to IV or those receiving maintenance hemodialysis . R and omized , controlled trials in these groups showed no reduction in ASCVD . 3 . Statins have an Acceptable Margin of Safety When Used in Properly Selected Individuals and Appropriately Monitored Strong RCT evidence supports safety of statins when they are used as directed in conjunction with regular follow-up assessment s in properly selected patients . Adjustment of statin intensity is recommended in individuals older than 75 years with a history of statin intolerance or other characteristics ( 2 ) or those receiving drug therapy that may increase statin adverse events . Routine monitoring of hepatic aminotransferase level or creatine kinase level is not recommended unless clinical ly indicated by symptoms suggesting hepatotoxicity or myopathy . Given the potential for decreasing ASCVD events and death , the relationship of muscle and other symptoms to statin treatment must be confirmed . Therefore , eliciting a history of muscle symptoms before statin initiation and carefully monitoring symptoms during statin discontinuation and rechallenge is recommended . Severe myopathy , rhabdomyolysis , and possibly hemorrhagic stroke are rare complications of statin therapy . Although statin therapy modestly increases the risk for type 2 diabetes , ASCVD risk reduction outweighs the excess risk for diabetes for high-intensity statins in secondary prevention or for 10-year ASCVD risk 7.5 % . Similarly , ASCVD risk reduction outweighs the excess risk for diabetes for moderate-intensity statin therapy in adults with a 10-year ASCVD risk 5 % . 4 . Engage in a ClinicianPatient Discussion Before Initiating Statin Therapy , Especially for Primary Prevention in Patients With Lower ASCVD Risk Decisions to initiate statin therapy in primary prevention should be based on clinical judgment and preferences of informed patients . In adults without clinical ASCVD or diabetes whose LDL-C level is < 190 mg/dL , calculating the estimated 10-year ASCVD risk should be the start of the clinicianpatient discussion and should not automatically lead to statin initiation . As the absolute risk for ASCVD events decreases , so does the net benefit of the intervention . Therefore , discussion of the potential for ASCVD event reduction , adverse effects , drugdrug interactions , and patient preferences is especially important for lower-risk primary prevention . The discussion provides the opportunity to encourage healthy lifestyle habits and control other risk factors . Additional factors may be considered when a risk-based decision is uncertain , including LDL-C levels 160 mg/dL , family history of premature ASCVD , elevated  lifetime ASCVD risk  , high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level 2.0 mg/L ,  coronary artery calcification score  > 300 Agatston units , and anklebrachial index < 0.9 . After age 75 years , comorbid conditions , anticipated longevity , safety considerations , and patient preferences should play a large role in decision making . 5 . Use the Newly Developed Pooled Cohort Equations for Estimating 10-Year ASCVD Risk The Pooled Cohort Equations are currently the best available method for estimating 10-year ASCVD risk to guide statin initiation ( 4 , 6 ) . Application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria from RCTs is cumbersome and results in underidentifying high-risk and overidentifying low-risk individuals for statin treatment . The Pooled Cohort Equations were developed using recent data from 5 NHLBI-sponsored , longitudinal , population -based cohorts of African American and white men and women ( ARIC [ Background A gap exists between evidence and practice regarding the management of cardiovascular risk factors . This gap could be narrowed if systematic ally developed clinical practice guidelines were effectively implemented in clinical practice . We evaluated the effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of systematic ally developed guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease . Methods and Findings We conducted a cluster-r and omized trial comparing a tailored intervention to passive dissemination of guidelines in 146 general practice s in two geographical areas in Norway . Each practice was r and omized to either the tailored intervention ( 70 practice s ; 257 physicians ) or control group ( 69 practice s ; 244 physicians ) . Patients started on medication for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia during the study period and all patients already on treatment that consulted their physician during the trial were included . A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change . Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback , and computerized reminders linked to the medical record system . Pharmacists conducted the visits . Outcomes were measured for all eligible patients seen in the participating practice s during 1 y before and after the intervention . The main outcomes were the proportions of ( 1 ) first-time prescriptions for hypertension where thiazides were prescribed , ( 2 ) patients assessed for cardiovascular risk before prescribing antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering drugs , and ( 3 ) patients treated for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia for 3 mo or more who had achieved recommended treatment goals . The intervention led to an increase in adherence to guideline recommendations on choice of antihypertensive drug . Thiazides were prescribed to 17 % of patients in the intervention group versus 11 % in the control group ( relative risk 1.94 ; 95 % confidence interval 1.49–2.49 , adjusted for baseline differences and clustering effect ) . Little or no differences were found for risk assessment prior to prescribing and for achievement of treatment goals . Conclusions Our tailored intervention had a significant impact on prescribing of antihypertensive drugs , but was ineffective in improving the quality of other aspects of managing hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in primary care Editors ' Notes Context Clinical guidelines provide conflicting recommendations about whether to prescribe statins in persons aged 75 years or older for primary prevention of unwanted cardiovascular outcomes . Contribution This study used information from clinical trials to model the tradeoffs between benefits and harms and found that using  statins  in all persons aged 75 to 94 years would prevent new myocardial infa rct ions and deaths from coronary heart disease at an acceptable cost . Caution Small increases in the frequency or severity of harms would negate the benefits . Implication Additional research is warranted to better underst and the tradeoffs between benefits and harms in this age group . Statins are commonly used in adults aged 75 years or older ( 1 ) . Despite their widespread use , evidence for their effectiveness for primary prevention in elderly adults is unclear , and guidelines for their use in this population are inconsistent . The recently published American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ( ACC/AHA ) Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults gave limited recommendations for statin use for primary prevention in adults aged 75 years or older ( 2 ) , noting that few data were available to indicate an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event reduction benefit in primary prevention among individuals > 75 years of age who do not have clinical year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease , and suggesting that comorbid conditions , safety , and priorities of care are recommended for joint provider and patient decision making . The American Medical Directors Association , a professional group of long-term care providers , recommended that statins not be routinely prescribed in adults aged 70 years or older as part of the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely campaign ( 3 ) . This recommendation was based on the lack of an association between high cholesterol levels and outcomes in older adults as well as the potential for an increased risk for statin-related adverse events , including cognitive impairment , falls , neuropathy , and muscle damage ( 3 ) . The variation in these treatment recommendations reflects uncertainty about the balance between the benefits and risks of statin use in older adults compared with younger adults as well as the more limited evidence base in this population . Adults aged 75 years or older have been underrepresented in trials of statins for primary prevention , so the effectiveness of statins is less clear in this population . Results from observational studies suggest that the associations between low-density lipoprotein ( LDL ) cholesterol levels and outcomes are attenuated in older adults ( 47 ) . Although the baseline risk for cardiovascular disease is increased in older adults , their life expectancy is shorter and their risks for competing mortality are greater . Finally , there has been concern about geriatric-specific adverse effects , especially functional limitation due to muscle pain , weakness , and mild cognitive impairment ( 816 ) . In the presence of uncertainty about the riskbenefit tradeoff , computer simulations can provide estimates of the potential benefits of various treatment strategies as well as the costs and potential risk for harms . We evaluated the population benefit and cost-effectiveness of statins in persons aged 75 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease in the United States . This investigation was conducted using the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model ( CVDPM ) , a Markov model of the U.S. population ( 17 ) . We simulated the impact of statins for primary prevention based on treatment of the high-risk groups identified by the ACC/AHA guidelines , the associated costs , and potential harms that could offset the potential cardiovascular benefits in the U.S. population of adults aged 75 to 94 years over the next 10 years . Methods The Model The CVDPM is an established state-transition ( Markov ) model of the incidence , prevalence , mortality , and cost of CHD and stroke in U.S. residents aged 35 to 94 years ( 17 ) . The present study was limited to adults aged 75 to 94 years . The model comprises 3 components . First , the demographic-epidemiologic submodel estimates the incidence of coronary heart disease ( CHD ) ( cardiac arrest , myocardial infa rct ion [ MI ] , angina , or CHD death ) , ischemic stroke , and death from other causes on the basis of age , sex , systolic blood pressure , smoking , high-density lipoprotein and LDL cholesterol levels , diabetes , body mass index , and statin use . Second , the bridge submodel characterizes the initial CHD or stroke event and related events in the subsequent 30 days . Third , the disease-history submodel predicts the number of subsequent CHD and stroke events , revascularization procedures , and deaths among patients with cardiovascular disease , stratified according to age , sex , and history of cardiovascular disease events . In addition , persons may exit the model at any stage through a non-CHD , nonstroke mortality function , allowing for competing risk . Modifiable components of the model include population distributions , risk factor levels , risk factor coefficients , event rates , case-fatality rates , costs , and disability adjustments ( 17 ) . Costs for stroke requiring hospitalization , CHD , and acute stroke rehabilitation were estimated using California hospital data ( 18 ) and were deflated using costcharge ratios and the ratio of the U.S. national average costs to the California average ( 19 , 20 ) . Age- and sex-specific background health care costs were estimated using national data ( 21 ) . All model costs were inflated to 2014 costs by using the medical component of the Consumer Price Index ( 22 ) . All disability weights associated with the CHD and stroke event states were based on the Global Burden of Disease Study ( 23 , 24 ) . Additional details are provided in the Appendix . Simulation Inputs We modeled the effect of statins on LDL cholesterol level based on PROSPER ( Prospect i ve Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk of Vascular Disease ) , a r and omized , placebo-controlled trial of 5804 men and women aged 70 to 82 years ( 25 ) . In that trial , the mean reduction in LDL cholesterol level was 34 % for participants with an average initial level of 147 mg/dL , consistent with the estimated effect of a moderate-dose statin in the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline ( 2 ) . We included 3 estimates for the effectiveness of a decrease in LDL cholesterol level on events . The primary estimates were derived by extrapolating the age-stratified effect sizes of a 1.0-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol level from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists ' meta- analysis ( 26 ) . We fit a regression line to the 3 age strata reported in that analysis ( 60 years , > 60 to 70 years , and > 70 years ) to estimate the effect sizes at ages 80 and 90 years . In a sensitivity analysis , we used a high estimate based on the age-pooled estimate of effect of a 1.0-mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol level on major coronary events in the meta- analysis . We used a low estimate based on the effect size from PROSPER for primary prevention ( 25 ) . Statin costs were derived from the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost ( NADAC ) data base ( 27 ) . Our primary cost estimate ( $ 5.59 for a 30-day supply ) was the average of the NADAC costs for the 4 moderate-dose statins that are available in generic form : atorvastatin , 10 mg ; simvastatin , 20 mg ; pravastatin , 40 mg ; and lovastatin , 40 mg . This cost estimate was $ 5.00 when indexed to 2010 dollars based on the medical component of the Consumer Price Index ( 22 ) . In addition , we used a low cost estimate of $ 4 per month , based on the price of generic statins from multiple discount retailers ( such as Walmart , Target , and Walgreens ) . For a high cost estimate , we used $ 30 for a 30-day supply ; the low and high cost estimates have been used similarly in other contemporary cost-effectiveness analyses ( 28 , 29 ) . Adults aged 65 years or older use a median of 4 medications ; therefore , we estimated the cost of an additional 0.25 physician visit per year for statin use , assuming that medication management could be covered in 1 visit ( 30 , 31 ) . We estimated 1 lipid panel per year for monitoring ( 32 ) . Event rates for myopathy and hemorrhagic stroke were estimated as 0.001 per statin-year of use , based on the ACC/AHA guideline statement ( 2 ) . Although many major and minor adverse effects have been reported to be associated with statin use , we focused on 2 that are important to geriatric population s and that have generated concern in the scientific literature : functional limitation due to muscle pain and weakness , and mild cognitive impairment ( 816 ) . Both are prevalent in older adults and can have a substantial effect on quality of life and the ability to live independently . A recent review of late-life activity limitations in the United States reported data on participants in 5 nationally representative surveys . The prevalence of limitations in activities of daily living was 27 % in adults aged 75 to 84 years and 45 % in those aged 85 years or older ( 33 ) . The population -weighted average of these estimates is 32 % for adults aged 75 to 94 years . Widely varying prevalence estimates for mild cognitive impairment have been reported due to the differential measures of this condition and the differences between population s. A recent review reported prevalence of mild cognitive impairment of 19 % to 28 % in studies of older U.S. adults ; we used the average of the 4 U.S. studies , which was 25 % ( 34 ) . Disability-adjusted life-years for the corresponding states were calculated as 1 minus the disability weights reported in the Global Burden of Disease Study ( 24 ) . Because the statin-associated relative risk for these adverse effects is uncertain , we assumed no elevated risk for these adverse effects in our base-case scenario . The goal of this investigation was not to evaluate the strength of the literature regarding the presence of these adverse It has been almost 5 years since the publication of the 2010 hypertension guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology ( TSOC ) . There is new evidence regarding the management of hypertension , including r and omized controlled trials , non-r and omized trials , post-hoc analyses , subgroup analyses , retrospective studies , cohort studies , and registries . More recently , the European Society of Hypertension ( ESH ) and the European Society of Cardiology ( ESC ) published joint hypertension guidelines in 2013 . The panel members who were appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee ( JNC ) also published the 2014 JNC report . Blood pressure ( BP ) targets have been changed ; in particular , such targets have been loosened in high risk patients . The Executive Board members of TSOC and the Taiwan Hypertension Society ( THS ) aim ed to review up date d information about the management of hypertension to publish an up date d hypertension guideline in Taiwan . We recognized that hypertension is the most important risk factor for global disease burden . Management of hypertension is especially important in Asia where the prevalence rate grows faster than other parts of the world . In most countries in East Asia , stroke surpassed coronary heart disease ( CHD ) in causing premature death . A diagnostic algorithm was proposed , emphasizing the importance of home BP monitoring  and ambulatory BP monitoring  for better detection of night time hypertension , early morning hypertension , white-coat hypertension , and masked hypertension . We disagreed with the ESH/ESH joint hypertension guidelines suggestion to loosen BP targets to < 140/90 mmHg for all patients . We strongly disagree with the suggestion by the 2014 JNC report to raise the BP target to < 150/90 mmHg for patients between 60 - 80 years of age . For patients with diabetes , CHD , chronic kidney disease who have proteinuria , and those who are receiving antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention , we propose BP targets of < 130/80 mmHg in our guidelines . BP targets are < 140/90 mmHg for all other patient groups , except for patients ≥80 years of age in whom a BP target of < 150/90 mmHg would be optimal . For the management of hypertension , we proposed a treatment algorithm , starting with life style modification ( LSM ) including S-ABCDE ( Sodium restriction , Alcohol limitation , Body weight reduction , Cigarette smoke cessation , Diet adaptation , and Exercise adoption ) . We emphasized a low-salt strategy instead of a no-salt strategy , and that excessively aggressive sodium restriction to < 2.0 gram/day may be harmful . When drug therapy is considered , a strategy called " PROCEED " was suggested ( Previous experience , Risk factors , Organ damage , Contraindications or unfavorable conditions , Expert 's or doctor 's judgment , Expenses or cost , and Delivery and compliance issue ) . To predict drug effects in lowering BP , we proposed the " Rule of 10 " and " Rule of 5 " . With a st and ard dose of any one of the 5 major classes of anti-hypertensive agents , one can anticipate approximately a 10-mmHg decrease in systolic BP ( SBP ) ( Rule of 10 ) and a 5-mmHg decrease in diastolic BP ( DBP ) ( Rule of 5 ) . When doses of the same drug are doubled , there is only a 2-mmHg incremental decrease in SBP and a 1-mmHg incremental decrease in DBP . Preferably , when 2 drugs with different mechanisms are to be taken together , the decrease in BP is the sum of the decrease of the individual agents ( approximately 20 mmHg in SBP and 10 mmHg in DBP ) . Early combination therapy , especially single-pill combination ( SPC ) , is recommended . When patient 's initial treatment can not get BP to targeted goals , we have proposed an adjustment algorithm , " AT GOALs " ( Adherence , Timing of administration , Greater doses , Other classes of drugs , Alternative combination or SPC , and LSM + Laboratory tests ) . Treatment of hypertension in special conditions , including treatment of resistant hypertension , hypertension in women , and perioperative management of hypertension , were also mentioned . The TSOC/THS hypertension guidelines provide the most up date d information available in the management of hypertension . The guidelines are not m and atory , and members of the task force fully realize that treatment of hypertension should be individualized to address each patient 's circumstances . Ultimately , the decision of the physician decision remains of the utmost importance in hypertension management The Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program screened 34,012 individuals aged 60 - 69 years old in their homes in 14 communities around the United States during 1972 and 1973 . The prevalence of hypertension , defined as diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 90 mmHg or on antihypertensive medication , was 42.1 % . After a second clinic screen , 2,376 hypertensives were identified and r and omized into Stepped Care , a special intensive treatment group , or Referred Care , a group referred to their usual medical care sources . These individuals were followed for five years ( until they reached the ages of 65 - 74 years ) . Over the five years , 79.4 % of older individuals remained under active care and 81.4 % of those were at their goal diastolic blood pressure . Side-effects tended to be less frequent in older individuals than in younger ones . Older Stepped Care participants with mild hypertension ( diastolic blood pressure 90 - 104 mmHg ) had a 17.2 % reduction in all-cause mortality over five years compared to Referred Care , which was primarily due to a reduction in deaths attributed to cardiovascular causes . Thus , antihypertensive treatment can be safely and beneficially administered to individuals in this age range with diastolic hypertension , including those with mild hypertension Background The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions . Methods The conclusions are based on the results of systematic review s of r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) , widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence -based clinical guidelines , plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories . The strength/ quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs . Results By September 2009 , 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy :  13 musculoskeletal conditions , four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions . We identified 49 recent relevant systematic review s and 16 evidence -based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic review s and guidelines .Additionally , brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological , non-invasive physical treatments . Conclusions Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for : acute , subacute , and chronic low back pain ; migraine and cervicogenic headache ; cervicogenic dizziness ;  manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions ; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain . The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration , and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain , sciatica , tension-type headache , coccydynia , temporom and ibular joint disorders , fibromyalgia , premenstrual syndrome , and pneumonia in older adults . Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation , or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet . In children , the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis , and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation . Massage is effective in adults for  chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain . The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis , fibromyalgia , myofascial pain syndrome , migraine headache , and premenstrual syndrome . In children , the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The SBP values to be achieved by antihypertensive therapy in order to maximize reduction of cardiovascular outcomes are unknown ; neither is it clear whether in patients with a previous cardiovascular event , the optimal values are lower than in the low-to-moderate risk hypertensive patients , or a more cautious blood pressure ( BP ) reduction should be obtained . Because of the uncertainty whether ' the lower the better ' or the ' J-curve ' hypothesis is correct , the European Society of Hypertension and the Chinese Hypertension League have promoted a r and omized trial comparing antihypertensive treatment strategies aim ing at three different SBP targets in hypertensive patients with a recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack . As the optimal level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL-C ) level is also unknown in these patients , LDL-C-lowering has been included in the design . PROTOCOL DESIGN The European Society of Hypertension-Chinese Hypertension League Stroke in Hypertension Optimal Treatment trial is a prospect i ve multinational , r and omized trial with a 3 × 2 factorial design comparing : three different SBP targets ( 1 , < 145 - 135 ; 2 , < 135 - 125 ; 3 , < 125 mmHg ) ; two different LDL-C targets ( target A , 2.8 - 1.8 ; target B , < 1.8 mmol/l ) . The trial is to be conducted on 7500 patients aged at least 65 years ( 2500 in Europe , 5000 in China ) with hypertension and a stroke or transient ischaemic attack 1 - 6 months before r and omization .  Antihypertensive and statin treatments will be initiated or modified using suitable registered agents chosen by the investigators , in order to maintain patients within the r and omized SBP and LDL-C windows . All patients will be followed up every 3 months for BP and every 6 months for LDL-C. Ambulatory BP will be measured yearly . OUTCOMES Primary outcome is time to stroke ( fatal and non-fatal ) . Important secondary outcomes are : time to first major cardiovascular event ; cognitive decline ( Montreal Cognitive Assessment ) and dementia . All major outcomes will be adjudicated by committees blind to r and omized allocation . A Data and Safety Monitoring Board has open access to data and can recommend trial interruption for safety . SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION It has been calculated that 925 patients would reach the primary outcome after a mean 4-year follow-up , and this should provide at least 80 % power to detect a 25 % stroke difference between SBP targets and a 20 % difference between LDL-C targets Background The Hypertension Optimal Treatment ( HOT ) Study investigated 18 790 hypertensives r and omized to three diastolic blood pressure ( DBP ) targets ( ⩽ 90 , ⩽ 85 , ⩽ 80 mmHg ) for 3.8 years and found marked , significant reductions in cardiovascular events and mortality the lower the target DBP in the subset of diabetics . We investigated whether the benefits of intensive DBP lowering could be extended to other subgroups , and whether there are hypertensives in whom the risk of aggressive DBP lowering may outnumber the benefits . Methods and results The 18 790 patients were stratified as : medium/high – very high global cardiovascular risk ; men/women ; older/younger ; current smokers/non-smokers ; higher/lower serum cholesterol ; higher/lower serum creatinine ; with/without diabetes ; with/without ischaemic heart disease ( IHD ) . Comparisons were made between the less aggressive target group ( DBP < 90 mmHg ) and the two more aggressive target groups together ( ⩽ 85 and ⩽ 80 mmHg ) . A Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate treatment – subgroup interactions and relative risks ( RR ) with 95 % confidence intervals . Benefits were greatest in diabetics ( RR 0.53 for cardiovascular events , and 0.67 for cardiovascular death ) , whereas in smokers more intensive DBP lowering was associated with increased risk of all types of cardiovascular event ( RR 1.71–2.67 ; P = 0.01–0.001 ) , except myocardial infa rct ion . After excluding smokers , intensive  DBP lowering was associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular events in diabetics ( −49 % ) , high – very high risk patients ( −23 % ) , IHD patients ( −32 % ) , patients with lower creatinine ( −18 % ) , women ( −33 % ) and older patients ( −23 % ) . Conclusions Although subanalyses have only a descriptive value , it appears reasonable to recommend intensive antihypertensive treatment to hypertensives with diabetes , IHD and high global cardiovascular risk . In smokers , treatment intensification should be associated with the greatest efforts to induce smoking cessation BACKGROUND With few exceptions , tools used to estimate cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) risk in those without prior events are based mainly on data from middle-aged subjects . Given the ever increasing number of older people , many with hypertension , a risk score relevant to this group is warranted . Our aim was to develop a cardiovascular risk equation suitable for risk prediction in elderly , hypertensive population s. METHODS We utilized  cardiovascular end point data from 4.1 years median follow-up in 5,426 hypertensive subjects without previous CVD from the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study ( ANBP2 ) . Our risk model , based on Cox regression , was developed using 75 % of subjects without evident CVD ( n = 4,072 ) , r and omly selected and stratified by age and gender , and internally vali date d using the remaining 25 % . The model was also externally vali date d against the Dubbo Study data set . RESULTS The final model included sex , age , physical activity in the 2 weeks prior to entry into study , family history , use of anticoagulants , central ly acting antihypertensive agents or diabetes medication , and an interaction term for sex and diabetes medication . The C-statistic was 0.65 ( 0.62 - 0.67 ) for our predictive model on the model development data set and 0.62 ( 0.57 - 0.67 ) on the internal validation data set . The Dubbo Data C-statistic for CVD was 0.68 ( 95 % CI 0.65 - 0.71 ) . CONCLUSIONS All models performed similarly . Because of greater ease of implementation , we recommend that existing algorithms be extended into older age groups Diabetes mellitus is a leading cause of death in the United States and is associated with microvascular and macrovascular complications . Approximately 29.1 million persons , or 9.3 % of the U.S. population , have type 2 diabetes ( 1 ) . In 2012 , the total direct and indirect costs associated with diabetes in the United States were $ 245 billion ( 1 ) . Markedly elevated glucose levels can result in subacute symptoms , such as polyuria , polydipsia , weight loss , and dehydration . Over time , the metabolic derangements associated with diabetes may lead to vision loss , painful neuropathy or sensory loss , foot ulcers , amputations , myocardial infa rct ions , strokes , and end-stage renal disease . Lowering blood glucose may decrease risk for complications , but lowering strategies come with harms , patient burden , and costs . Blood glucose can be measured in various ways , including the hemoglobin A1c ( HbA1c ; also called glycosylated or glycated hemoglobin ) level , which approximates average blood glucose control over about 3 months . As with all laboratory tests , HbA1c measurements are associated with variability ( 2 ) and can vary further with race and ethnicity ( 35 ) . Guidelines have historically recommended initiation or intensification of pharmacologic therapy to achieve specific HbA1c targets , depending on the population in question . The ideal target that optimally balances benefits and harms remains uncertain . Guidance Statement Focus and Target Population The purpose of this American College of Physicians ( ACP ) guidance statement is to critically review the available guidelines from various organizations and the evidence included therein to assist clinicians in making decisions about targets when using pharmacologic therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes . Recent data suggesting that newer agents reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes have prompted calls for a fundamental shift in diabetes management . Some anticipate that treatment decisions will eventually be based more on cardiovascular risk than achievement of specific HbA1c targets , analogous to recent changes in lipid management . However , for the foreseeable future , glycemic targets will continue to influence management decisions by front-line clinicians ( 6 ) . This statement focuses on the benefits and harms of targeting lower versus higher HbA1c levels and does not cover use of specific medications outside of their use to achieve HbA1c targets . The intended audience is all clinicians , and the target population is nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes . Methods The Clinical Guidelines Committee ( CGC ) of ACP develops guidance statements on topics where several conflicting guidelines are available . We provide clinicians with a rigorous review of the guidelines and the evidence they include . We then adopt the clinical recommendations if we agree with their evaluation of benefits and harms or adapt them if changes are needed based on our assessment of the recommendations and evidence . Data Sources and Guideline Selection We search ed the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the Guidelines International Network library ( May 2017 ) for guidelines on recommended HbA1c targets in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in nonpregnant outpatient adults . We included guidelines that were developed by national organizations , were published in English , and targeted the correct population . We review ed titles and abstract s and excluded guidelines that were modified or adapted from other organizations or addressed specific population s ( such as pregnant women or patients with kidney disease ) . Our search yielded guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ( NICE ) ( 7 ) and the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement ( ICSI ) ( 8) . On the basis of the knowledge and expertise of ACP CGC members , we also selected the following 4 guidelines not identified in either data base at the time of the search but commonly used in clinical practice : the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology ( AACE/ACE ) guideline ( 9 ) , the American Diabetes Association ( ADA ) guideline ( 10 ) , the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network ( SIGN ) guideline ( 11 ) , and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense ( VA/DoD ) guideline ( 12 ) . Quality Assessment Six co authors independently review ed and assessed each guideline using the AGREE II ( Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II ) instrument ( 13 ) . This instrument asks 23 questions in the following 6 domains : scope and purpose , stakeholder involvement , rigor of development , clarity of presentation , applicability , and editorial independence . The authors scored each guideline independently , and the scores were compared ( Appendix Figure and Appendix Table 1 ) . Authors then provided a summary determination of whether they would recommend this guideline for use by recording yes , no , or yes with modifications . Appendix Figure . Mean AGREE II scores for items in each domain across the 6 review ers . Each question was rated on a Likert scale with a minimum of 1 point and a maximum of 7 points . The scores were averaged for each of the 6 review ers . Error bars represent calculated st and ard deviation . AACE/ACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology ; ADA = American Diabetes Association ; AGREE II = Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II ; GDG = guideline development group ; ICSI = Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement ; NICE = National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ; SIGN = Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network ; VA/DoD = U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense . Appendix Table 1 . Scaled AGREE II Domain Scores for Each Guideline and Overall Assessment Peer Review The draft guidance statement was peer- review ed through Annals of Internal Medicine and was posted online for comments from ACP Regents and Governors , who represent ACP members at the regional level . The final guidance statement incorporated comments from peer review ers and ACP Regents and Governors . Public Panel Review The development of this guidance statement also included perspectives , values , and preferences of 2 CGC members who represent the public and a 7-member public panel . Summary of Evaluated Guidelines Using the AGREE II Instrument We review ed and rated 6 guidelines ( AACE/ACE [ 9 ] , ADA [ 10 ] , ICSI [ 8 ] , NICE [ 7 ] , SIGN [ 11 ] , and VA/DoD [ 12 ] ) , focusing solely on sections addressing HbA1c targets in patients with type 2 diabetes . Appendix Table 1 shows the detailed scaled domain scores and average quality ratings for each guideline , and the Appendix Figure shows average AGREE II scores for each item in each of the 6 domains . The fundamental difference between high- and low-scoring guidelines was methodology . The 2 lowest-scoring guidelines , AACE/ACE and ADA , scored lowest on stakeholder involvement , applicability , editorial independence , and scientific rigor . A systematic review is the backbone for any trustworthy guideline , but some guidelines might not be based on a systematic review or may not have made the review publicly available ( 14 , 15 ) . Several factors were important in considering guideline quality . For example , although many guidelines described benefits , adverse effects , and the strength and limitations of evidence or linked the evidence to the recommendation , they often inadequately described how they had considered or weighted these factors in developing the final recommendations . The guidelines frequently relied on selective reporting of studies or outcomes and focused on relative versus absolute effects and asymptomatic surrogate measures rather than patient-centered health outcomes . All of the review ed guidelines recommend individualizing HbA1c targets on the basis of patient characteristics , such as comorbid conditions and risk for hypoglycemia ( Appendix ) . The ADA and SIGN guidelines recommend a target of 7 % for the general population , whereas AACE/ACE recommends 6.5 % ( if it can be achieved safely ) . The NICE guideline specifies 6.5 % or 7 % , depending on the patient 's treatment regimen . Both ICSI and VA/DoD recommend target ranges . The ICSI guideline recommends less than 7 % to less than 8 % based on patient factors , whereas the VA/DoD recommends the following target ranges based on life expectancy and comorbid conditions : 6 % to 7 % for patients with a life expectancy greater than 10 to 15 years and no or mild microvascular complications ; 7 % to 8.5 % for those with established microvascular or macrovascular disease , comorbid conditions , or a life expectancy of 5 to 10 years ; and 8 % to 9 % for those with a life expectancy less than 5 years , significant comorbid conditions , advanced complications of diabetes , or difficulties in self-management attributable to mental status , disability , or other factors ( 12 ) . All guidelines recognize that HbA1c targets can be higher in patients with comorbid conditions and limited life expectancy . We looked into the evidence presented in these guidelines , specifically 5 large , long-term r and omized trials with a treat-to-target strategy and corresponding reports on extended follow-up ( 1623 ) . We summarize below the individual studies and result ing benefits and harms . Note that recent studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of several newer diabetes drugs ( for example , recently approved sodiumglucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors , dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors , and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists ) were not considered in guideline sections pertaining to HbA1c targets because these studies were not design ed to evaluate treat-to-target strategies . Therefore , their findings are not described here . Benefits and Harms of Lower HbA1c Targets : Evidence From Clinical Trials Five large , long-term r and omized controlled trials investigated intensive ( achieved HbA1c levels , 6.3 % to 7.4 % ) versus less intensive ( achieved HbA1c levels , 7.3 % to 8.4 % ) OBJECTIVE To assess the association between  first myocardial infa rct ion and the use of antihypertensive agents .  DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted a population -based case-control study among enrollees of the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound ( GHC ) . PATIENTS AND METHODS Cases were hypertensive patients who sustained a first fatal or nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion from 1986 through 1993 among women and from 1989 through 1993 among men . Controls were a stratified r and om sample of hypertensive GHC enrollees , frequency matched to the cases on age , sex , and calendar year . All 623 cases and 2032 controls had pharmacologically treated hypertension . Data collection included a review of the ambulatory medical record a brief telephone interview of consenting survivors . Antihypertensive therapy was assessed using the GHC 's computerized pharmacy data base . RESULTS The first analysis included only the 335 cases and 1395 controls initially free of cardiovascular disease . Compared with users of diuretics alone , the adjusted risk ratio of myocardial infa rct ion was increased by about 60 % among users of calcium channel blockers with or without diuretic ( risk ratio = 1.62 % ; 95 % confidence interval [ Cl ] , 1.11 to 2.34 ; P = .01 ) . The second analysis was restricted to 384 cases and 1108 controls who were taking either a calcium channel blocker or a beta-blocker .  Among these subjects , the use of calcium channel blockers compared with beta-blockers was associated with about a 60 % increase in the adjusted risk of myocardial infa rct ion ( risk ratio = 1.57 ; 95 % Cl , 1.21 to 2.04 ; P < .001 ) . While high doses of beta-blockers were associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infa rct ion ( trend P = .04 ) , high doses of calcium channel blockers were associated with an increased risk ( trend P < .01 ) . CONCLUSIONS In this study of hypertensive patients , the use of short-acting calcium channel blockers , especially in high doses , was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infa rct ion . Ongoing large-scale clinical trials will assess the effect of various antihypertensive therapies , including calcium channel blockers , on several important cardiovascular end points . Until these results are available , the findings of this study support the current guidelines from the Joint National Committee on the Detection , Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure that recommend diuretics and beta-blockers as first-line agents unless contraindicated , unacceptable , or not tolerated Key Summary Points Almost one half of adults in the general population who meet criteria for chronic kidney disease are older than 70 years . Persons older than 70 years are underrepresented in most trials underpinning major U.S. practice guidelines for the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors and angiotensin IIreceptor blockers ( ARBs ) in chronic kidney disease . More than 85 % of persons older than 70 years who meet criteria for chronic kidney disease do not have proteinuria . The relevance of guideline trials to this group may be limited because most favored inclusion of participants with proteinuria . Differences between guidelines in criteria for the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in chronic kidney disease lead to considerable variation across guidelines in the proportion of older adults targeted . Practice guidelines specifically recommend the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in patients with chronic kidney disease because these agents are renoprotective . However , slowing progression of kidney disease may not be the most patient-centric goal of therapy in many older adults with this condition . Angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors and angiotensin IIreceptor blockers ( ARBs ) are widely recommended in clinical practice guidelines for patients with chronic kidney disease . Such recommendations are based on the results of r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) demonstrating that these agents slow progression of kidney disease . The unique renoprotective properties of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are generally attributed to their ability to reduce proteinuria ( 1 , 2 ) . Proteinuria is a major risk factor for end-stage renal disease ( 3 , 4 ) and may play a direct pathogenic role in progression of chronic kidney disease ( 2 ) . In RCTs , both ACE inhibitors and ARBs are more likely to slow progression of kidney disease in participants with greater degrees of proteinuria ( 57 ) . In patients without diabetes excreting less than 500 mg/d of protein , ACE inhibitors may be no more renoprotective than other antihypertensive agents ( 7 ) . Use of these agents in patients with chronic kidney disease m and ates close monitoring for acute renal failure and hyperkalemia , may require dietary modification or long-term administration of an ion-exchange resin , and may limit the use of other medications that also increase serum potassium level ( 8) . More than one third of adults in the general population age 70 years or older have chronic kidney disease ( 9 ) . Whether evidence supporting current guidelines for the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in chronic kidney disease can be extrapolated to this large group is unknown . To address this question , we first examined the representation of older adults in RCTs used to formulate contemporary guidelines from the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative ( KDOQI ) ; the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention , Detection , Evaluation , and Treatment of High Blood Pressure ( JNC 7 ) ; and the American Diabetes Association ( Table 1 ) ( 8 , 1012 ) . We also examined the representation of older adults in relevant major trials whose results were published after guideline preparation . Second , we compared the characteristics of participants in guideline trials with those of a representative sample of older adults with chronic kidney disease from the general population enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey ( NHANES ) 19992006 . Table 1 . Summary of Guidelines Were Older Adults Well Represented in Trials Underpinning Major U.S. Practice Guidelines for the Use of ACE Inhibitors and ARBs in Chronic Kidney Disease ? Two co authors screened all articles referenced in the aforementioned guidelines ( Table 1 ) . When the primary article cited in the relevant guideline did not provide all prespecified data elements , we performed directed search es to identify additional publications from that study that might include this information . We restricted these search es to English- language articles published before or during the evidence review period for the most recent guideline in which the primary study was cited ( Table 1 ) . We performed these directed search es by using MEDLINE and by h and - search ing the reference lists of primary articles . When we could not identify all data elements from published sources , we requested needed information from corresponding authors . For inclusion in our review , the study was required to be an RCT in which at least 1 group was treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB and was compared with a control group not receiving either agent . Because the rationale for all of the guidelines review ed here is that ACE inhibitors and ARBs slow progression of kidney disease , we also required that at least 1 of the following renal outcomes was reported in the article cited in the relevant guideline : change in urinary protein or albumin excretion , change in serum creatinine level , creatinine clearance , measured or estimated glomerular filtration rate ( GFR or eGFR , respectively ) , requirement for dialysis , or onset of end-stage renal disease . Two co authors separately abstract ed relevant prespecified trial characteristics , participant characteristics , and entry criteria . The guidelines referenced 37 articles describing 32 RCTs ( 6 , 1348 ) . We excluded 2 trials because the referenced article did not include a renal outcome measure ( 45 , 46 ) and 3 trials because they lacked a comparison with a control group not receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB ( 44 , 47 , 48 ) ( Table 1 ) . We included the remaining 27 trials ( total participants , 15794 ) ( Appendix Table 1 ) . Appendix Table 1 . Baseline Participant Characteristics and Entry Criteria of Guideline Trials The mean age of trial participants ranged from 29 to 71 years . The maximum age of participants could not be ascertained in 2 trials . Among the remaining trials , 19 ( 76 % ) either excluded or did not include participants older than 70 years . No trial provided information on the number and characteristics of participants older than 70 years . Although most trials did not enroll older participants , the 5662 participants in ALLHAT ( Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial ) ( 30 ) with an eGFR less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had a mean age of 71 years , indicating that this trial enrolled a substantial number of persons older than 70 years . With the notable exception of ALLHAT , older adults were poorly represented in most guideline trials . What Were the Other Characteristics of Participants in Guideline Trials ? Most trials ( 70 % ) enrolled only participants with diabetes . Six trials were limited to those with type 1 diabetes ( n= 775 ) , 12 trials were limited to those with type 2 diabetes ( n= 6840 ) , and 1 trial included participants with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes ( n= 103 ) . Two trials included participants both with and without diabetes ( n= 6245 ) . The remaining 6 trials were conducted among participants without diabetes ( n= 1831 ) . Hypertension was an entry requirement for most trials . Female participants ranged from 23 % to 70 % across trials . Urinary protein excretion of at least 30 mg/d or equivalent was an entry criterion for 79 % of trials in persons with diabetes . Only 1 trial that included participants without diabetes explicitly required a minimum level of proteinuria . Nevertheless , mean urinary protein excretion at baseline exceeded 500 mg/d in most trials of nondiabetic chronic kidney disease . The only trial not to ascertain urinary protein level was ALLHAT , which included participants both with and without diabetes . In summary , most guideline trials were conducted among participants with diabetes and most favored inclusion of participants with proteinuria . Are Older Adults Well Represented in Recent Trials Comparing the Effect of ACE Inhibitors or ARBs With That of Other Agents on Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease ? We conducted a MEDLINE search from 1 July 2002 through 31 December 2008 to identify the results of major trials published after the most recent review date s for the 2004 KDOQI guideline ( for studies of nondiabetic kidney disease ) and the 2007 KDOQI guideline ( for studies of diabetic kidney disease ) . We limited our search to English- language publications , human studies , and RCTs . One coauthor review ed all titles , and abstract s and manuscripts as needed , to identify eligible studies . We included only RCTs that compared the effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with a control group not receiving either agent , enrolled more than 200 participants , and included at least 1 renal outcome measure . We excluded trials in specialized population s ( for example , patients receiving dialysis , kidney transplant recipients , and patients with heart failure ) . Two co authors separately abstract ed prespecified baseline participant characteristics and exclusion criteria for eligible trials . We identified 380 MEDLINE citations , obtained 68 articles for further review , and identified 6 eligible trials ( Appendix Table 2 ) ( 4954 ) . Only 1 trial did not enroll participants older than 70 years . Mean participant age ranged from 45 to 63 years across trials . All but 1 trial included participants without diabetes . Only 2 trials ( 49 , 54 ) included a substantial number of participants without microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria . Dagenais and colleagues ( 49 ) r and omly assigned 5269 adults age 30 years or older with glucose intolerance and without clinical proteinuria to receive ramipril or placebo . The composite renal outcome ( increase in proteinuria , decrease in eGFR 30 % , or dialysis or transplantation ) did not differ between groups over a 3-year follow-up . Vogt and colleagues ( 54 ) r and omly assigned 614 adults to receive telmisartan , hydrochlorothiazide , or placebo . Most participants did not have diabetes  , and only 25 % had microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria . Over a 6-week follow-up , urinary albumin excretion decreased to the greatest extent in the group receiving telmisartan . Change in creatinine clearance did not differ across groups . Our AIM To determine if the management of a hypothetical case of essential hypertension by general practitioners conforms with the Report to the National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Services guidelines on the Management of Raised Blood Pressure in New Zeal and ( Core Services Report on Hypertension ) sent to all general practitioners in November 1992 . METHOD A cross-sectional survey of a r and om sample of 100 Auckl and general practitioners using a st and ard case of a 60 year old man with essential hypertension . Seventy interviews were conducted by a face-to-face interview and 30 by telephone interview . The main outcome measures were . Initial choice of medication and levels at which blood pressure would require treatment . RESULTS Forty one percent of the interviewed doctors had read the Core Services report on hypertension . Fifty percent of the doctors indicated they would use the recommended first line antihypertensive medication ( ie , diuretic or beta blocker ) . Doctors who prescribed beta blockers had been graduated a significantly longer time than those who did not . The majority of doctors indicated that they would initiate pharmacological treatment at lower blood pressures in younger patients than older patients contrary to the recommendation of the report . CONCLUSIONS Current reported practice is only partially consistent with that suggested by the Core Services report on hypertension . Approximately half of the doctors interviewed were prescribing the recommended first line medication . Treatment was more likely to be initiated at lower levels in younger patients than in older patients in spite of the higher absolute risk and potential absolute benefit in the latter group . Adherence to the guidelines could see a shift from overtreatment of younger patients to an increase in treatment for older patients who are at higher risk of blood pressure related disease . More specific graduate educational measures will be needed if the Core Services report on hypertension are to be implemented BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program ( SHEP ) demonstrated a significant reduction in stroke and coronary event rates among participants r and omly assigned to active blood pressure treatment . Selected participants were evaluated for peripheral atherosclerosis and followed up for cardiovascular events beyond the end of the SHEP trial . Antihypertensive treatment effects were evaluated based on the presence or absence of clinical or sub clinical atherosclerosis . METHODS As an ancillary study to SHEP , 190 participants at the Pittsburgh center were evaluated for peripheral atherosclerosis , defined as either an internal carotid stenosis ( by duplex scan ) or lower extremity arterial disease ( identified by ankle blood pressure ) . Participants were subsequently followed up for cardiovascular events . RESULTS Estimates of 4-year mortality rates were 4.8 % for participants with no atherosclerosis , 16.7 % for those with sub clinical atherosclerosis , and 23 % among those with clinical evidence of atherosclerosis ( P < .001 ) . Fatal plus nonfatal cardiovascular event rates were 10.9 % , 29.8 % , and 58.3 % for the three groups , respectively ( P < .001 ) . Differences remained significant after adjustment for age , sex , treatment assignment , smoking , and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol . Individuals assigned to placebo at the beginning of SHEP had higher cardiovascular event rates than individuals assigned to active treatment ( P = .011 ) , with the most striking difference 3 or more years after the end of the SHEP trial . When this analysis was stratified by the presence or absence of detectable atherosclerosis , the absolute treatment effect was largest among those with evidence of disease . CONCLUSIONS Individuals with systolic hypertension and evidence of peripheral atherosclerosis are at high risk for cardiovascular events . Targeting this group for antihypertensive therapy would result in the prevention of a large number of cardiovascular events
Strict control [ systolic BP ( SBP ) < 140 mmHg ] was not consistently better than mild control ( SBP < 150 mmHg ) for adults aged ≥65 years .
Mild SBP control benefitted subjects in all age ranges over 65 years .
Conclusions In this review , older adults with hypertension had decreased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality  with antihypertensives compared with no treatment .
Strict control was not consistently better than mild control in older adults .
The current evidence is insufficient to determine the safest , most beneficial hypertension regimen in older adults
Background Hypertension increases with increasing age .
Optimal treatment of hypertension is important to reduce cardiovascular disease .
Recent guidelines for hypertension have made recommendations for older adults but are supported by evidence that includes younger individuals .
This systematic review evaluates the benefits and harms of antihypertensive agents in adults aged ≥65 years .