Key result
Intensive blood pressure lowering provides substantial benefits and is a cost-effective means to improve health in many adults with high blood pressure compared to standard guidelines.
Why the study?
Does intensive blood pressure lowering improve health outcomes in adults with high blood pressure compared to standard guideline recommendations?
Does intensive blood pressure lowering improve health outcomes in adults with high blood pressure compared to standard guideline recommendations?
This review highlights that intensive blood pressure lowering, as demonstrated in SPRINT, is a cost-effective strategy that offers substantial benefits over standard guideline-recommended targets.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The optimal blood pressure (BP) goal during treatment of hypertension has been controversial. In this report, recent articles that elaborate on this issue are reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: Results from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) have suggested substantial benefits from more intensive BP lowering than is recommended in current US BP management guidelines. SUMMARY: Increasing evidence suggests that intensive BP lowering provides a cost-effective means to improve health in many adults with high BP. SPRINT provides the most convincing confirmation, but experience in other trials, alone and in pooled analyses augments and broadens the evidence base to patient groups who were not included in SPRINT. Implementation trials to document feasibility and effectiveness of SPRINT-like interventions in routine practice, including in resource-constrained settings, are warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Whelton et al. (2017) conducted a review in Hypertension. Intensive blood pressure lowering vs. Standard blood pressure lowering guidelines was evaluated. Intensive blood pressure lowering provides substantial benefits and is a cost-effective means to improve health in many adults with high blood pressure compared to standard guidelines.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: