Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations.

The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors.

To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin.

The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic.

Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as:

- accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability,

- diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician,

- individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences,

- difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders,

- pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless,

- the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs.

The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II).

A tremendous amount of scientific evidence regarding the physiology and physiopathology of high blood pressure combined with a sophisticated therapeutic arsenal is at the disposal of the medical community to counteract the overall public health burden of hypertension. Ample evidence has also been gathered from a multitude of large-scale randomized trials indicating the beneficial effects of current treatment strategies in terms of reduced hypertension-related morbidity and mortality.

In spite of these impressive advances and, deeply disappointingly from a public health perspective, the real picture of hypertension management is overshadowed by widespread diagnostic inaccuracies (underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis) as well as by treatment failures generated by undertreatment, overtreatment, and misuse of medications.

The scientific, medical and patient communities as well as decision-makers worldwide are striving for greatest possible health gains from available resources.

A seemingly well-crystallised reasoning is that comprehensive strategic approaches must not only target hypertension as a pathological entity, but rather, take into account the wider environment in which hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease carrying a great deal of our inheritance, and its interplay in the constellation of other, well-known, modifiable risk factors, i.e., attention is to be switched from one's "blood pressure level" to one's absolute cardiovascular risk and its determinants. Likewise, a risk/benefit assessment in each individual case is required in order to achieve best possible results.

Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance to insure generalizability of ABPM use in clinical practice with the aim of improving the accuracy of a first diagnosis for both individual treatment and clinical research purposes. Widespread adoption of the method requires quick adjustment of current guidelines, development of appropriate technology infrastructure and training of staff (i.e., education, decision support, and information systems for practitioners and patients). Progress can be achieved in a few years, or in the next 25 years.