We only have this paper's title and publication details.
Read it at the sourceCaptured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“While the news media says that now half the country is hypertensive, that's not arbitrary at all. It's based on very good data that look at risk. It specifically has as a goal that if [a patient has] greater than 10% 10-year cardiovascular risk, you should be more aggressive with treatment. That may sound obvious, but previous guidelines assumed that, never really defined it and never put it into context. This guideline does that, and it's a very important step forward.”
“There's been an accumulation of evidence to suggest that lower blood pressure targets provide some benefits. However, they also carry some increased risks. In balancing the benefits and risks, the guideline writers tilted toward the more aggressive targets. That's generally reasonable for many people, but not necessarily for all.”
“The challenge is to get blood pressure measured accurately in clinical practice. The way SPRINT was conducted, blood pressure was measured using a standardized protocol that we can't often afford in practice: resting for 5 minutes, no talking, no looking at your iPhone. Each practice needs to think about these protocols carefully and try to incorporate them into practice. If they ignore that, it could potentially increase the risks of the treatment, because you could potentially have more side effects from overtreatment if you don't measure blood pressure carefully.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Whelton et al. (2017) studied this question.