Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Lawrence E Ramsay a University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, b University of Leicester School of Medicine,
Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester LE2 7LX, c Queen's
University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, d Department of
Medicine, St George's Hospital, London SW17 0RE, e Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Thomas's
Hospital, London SE1 7EH, f Imperial
College School of Medicine, London W2 1NY, g North Staffordshire Royal
Infirmary, Stoke on Trent ST4 7LN
Correspondence to: B
Williams bw17{at}leicester.ac.uk
This article summarises the new British Hypertension
Society guidelines for management of hypertension, which have been
published in full.1 Since the previous
guidelines
2 3
much new evidence has emerged on optimal
blood pressure targets4; management of hypertension in
diabetic patients4-7; treatment of isolated systolic
hypertension8; comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy
and tolerability of different drug classes9-11; the role of non-pharmacological measures for prevention
12 13
and
treatment of hypertension14; and additional benefits
associated with the use of aspirin and statins.
Of concern is that national surveys continue to reveal incomplete
detection, treatment, and control of hypertension.15
Furthermore, treated hypertensive patients still die prematurely from
cardiovascular disease.16 These guidelines aim to present
the best currently available evidence on hypertension management and
their
implementation.
Box 1
: Blood pressure measurement
Box 2
: Indications for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
(ABPM)
All adults should have their blood pressure measured routinely at
least every five years until the age of 80 years. Those with
high-normal values (135-139/85-89 mm Hg) and those who have had high
readings at any time previously should have their blood pressure
remeasured annually. The British Hypertension Society's recommendations for measuring blood pressure should be followed (box
1).17 Seated blood pressure recordings are generally
sufficient, but standing blood pressure should be measured in elderly
or diabetic patients to exclude orthostatic hypotension. Ambulatory
blood pressure monitoring may be helpful (box 2).
Formal estimation of coronary heart disease risk has been proposed
as an aid to treatment decisions in hypertension.18
Mindful of the strong relation between blood pressure and stroke risk, the British Hypertension Society acknowledges that targeting
cardiovascular disease risk rather than coronary heart disease risk is
preferable. However, to be consistent with three existing national
guideline recommendations,19-21 we recommend formal
estimation of 10 year coronary heart disease risk using the Cardiac
Risk Assessor computer program or the coronary heart disease risk chart
issued by the Joint British Societies in their recommendations for
coronary heart disease prevention.19 This pragmatic
recommendation is reasonable because coronary heart disease risk is a
good predictor of cardiovascular disease risk, which can be estimated
by multiplying the coronary heart disease risk level by 4/3 (for
example, 30% coronary heart disease risk=40% cardiovascular disease
risk). Moreover, estimates of 10 year stroke risk as well as coronary heart disease risk are provided by the Joint British Societies' Cardiac Risk Assessor computer program.
1 19
The levels of coronary heart disease risk quoted in these guidelines will
appropriately precipitate intervention for patients at higher risk of
cardiovascular disease.
All hypertensive patients should have a thorough history and
physical examination, but need only a limited number of routine investigations (box 3). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the
cause of the hypertension, associated cardiovascular risk factors,
evidence of target organ damage, and comorbid diseases, all of which
may influence treatment decisions. More complex investigations may
require specialist referral (box
4).
Box 3
: Routine investigation of hypertensive people
Box 4
: Indications for specialist referral
Non-pharmacological advice should be offered to all hypertensive
people and those with a strong family history of hypertension. Such
measures may obviate the need for drug treatment or reduce the dose or
number of drugs required to control blood pressure.
12 14
In patients with mild hypertension but no cardiovascular complications or target organ damage, the response to these measures should be
observed during the initial 4-6 month period of evaluation. When drug
treatment has to be introduced more quickly, non-pharmacological measures should be instituted in parallel with drug treatment.
Good evidence from trials shows that several lifestyle modifications
lower blood pressure: weight reduction to achieve an ideal body weight
via reduced fat and total calorie intake12; regular
physical exercise designed to improve fitness Effective implementation of these non-pharmacological measures requires
enthusiasm, knowledge, patience, and time spent with patients and their
families. It is best undertaken by well trained health
professionals Systolic blood pressure is at least as important as
diastolic blood pressure as a predictor of cardiovascular disease.
Systolic and diastolic blood pressure thresholds are thus provided to
guide intervention with drug treatment in people with hypertension
(figure).
The hypertension optimal treatment (HOT) trial was underpowered
but provides the best evidence to date on optimal blood pressure targets.4 Optimal blood pressure for reduction of major
cardiovascular events (based on an analysis of patients receiving
treatment) was reported to be 139/83 mm Hg and reduction of blood
pressure below this level caused no harm. However, patients whose
blood pressure was below 150/90 mm Hg were not apparently
disadvantaged. An intention to treat analysis in hypertensive patients
with diabetes showed that lowering blood pressure to below 80 mm Hg
rather than below 90 mm Hg was advantageous. Recommendations for target
pressures during treatment are shown in table 1. It is emphasised that even with best practice, these targets will not be achieved in all
hypertensive people.
Table 1.
For each class of antihypertensive drug there are compelling
indications based on sound randomised controlled trial data for use in
specific patient groups, and also compelling contraindications. There
are also indications and contraindications that are less clear-cut, and
which are given different weight by different doctors (possible
indications/contraindications). These indications and contraindications
for each drug class are summarised in table 2. When none of the special
considerations apply, the least expensive drug, with the most
supportive trial evidence
Table 2.
Summary points
Use non-pharmacological measures in all hypertensive and
borderline hypertensive people
Initiate antihypertensive drug treatment in people with sustained
systolic blood pressure
160 mm Hg or sustained diastolic blood
pressure
100 mm Hg
Decide on treatment in people with sustained systolic blood pressure
between 140 and 159 mm Hg or sustained diastolic blood pressure between
90 and 99 mm Hg according to the presence or absence of target organ
damage, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or a 10 year coronary heart
disease risk
15% according to the Joint British Societies coronary
heart disease risk assessment programme or risk chart
Optimal blood pressure treatment targets are systolic blood pressure
<140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <85 mm Hg; the minimum
acceptable level of control (audit standard) recommended is <150/<90
mm Hg
In the absence of contraindications or compelling indications for other
antihypertensive agents, low dose thiazide diuretics or
blockers
are preferred as first line treatment for the majority of hypertensive
people; compelling indications and contraindications for all
antihypertensive drug classes are specified
Other drugs that reduce cardiovascular risk must also be considered;
these include aspirin and statins
![]()
Blood pressure measurement
![]()
Estimating risk of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular
disease
![]()
Evaluation of hypertensive patients
![]()
Non-pharmacological measures
this should be
predominantly dynamic (brisk walking, for example) rather than isometric (weight training); limiting alcohol consumption to <21 units
per week for men and <14 units per week for women; reduced use of salt
when preparing food and elimination of excessively salty foods from the
diet14; increased consumption of fruit and
vegetables.12 Lifestyle modifications that further reduce cardiovascular disease risk are stopping smoking; reducing total intake
of saturated fat, replacing it with polyunsaturated or monounsaturated
fats; increased intake of oily fish; and regular physical exercise.
for example, a practice or clinic nurse
and should be
backed up by simple clear written information.
![]()
Thresholds for intervention with drug treatment

View larger version (42K):
[in a new window]
Blood pressure thresholds and drug treatment in hypertension
![]()
Treatment goals or "targets"
for example, <140/85 mmHg means less than 140 systolic
and less than 85 diastolic
![]()
Choice of antihypertensive drug
a low dose of a thiazide
diuretic
should be preferred.
Since publication of the previous guidelines,3 three long
term, double blind studies have compared the major classes of antihypertensive drugs (thiazide,
blocker, calcium antagonist, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, and
blocker) and overall showed no consistent or important differences as regards
antihypertensive efficacy, side effects, or quality of
life.9-11 Differences in average response between drug
classes are, however, related to age and ethnic group.10
Few trials have compared different classes of drugs directly as regards
reduction in cardiovascular events,22 and none is entirely
satisfactory, but they have shown no consistent differences between
regimens based on different drug classes. With the exception of the
systolic hypertension-Europe and systolic hypertension-China trials and
the captopril prevention project study,
8 23 24
most
evidence from outcome trials is for treatment based on thiazide or
blockers. Indirect comparison between the systolic hypertension in
the elderly program,25 based on diuretic treatment,
and the systolic hypertension-Europe trial,8 based on
a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, found that the outcome with these
regimens was similar.
Controlled trials of dihydropyridine calcium antagonists have not
supported earlier concerns about the safety of these
drugs,
8 23
although nifedipine in capsule form should no
longer be prescribed.
| |
Dosage and combination therapy |
|---|
The drug or formulation used should ideally be effective when taken as a single daily dose. An interval of at least four weeks to observe the full response should be allowed, unless it is necessary to lower blood pressure more urgently. The dose of drug (except thiazide diuretics) should be increased according to manufacturers' instructions. If the first drug is well tolerated but the response is small and insufficient, substitution of an alternative drug is appropriate when hypertension is mild and uncomplicated. In more severe or complicated hypertension it is safer to add drugs stepwise until blood pressure control is attained. Treatment can be stepped down later if blood pressure falls substantially below the optimal level.
Most hypertensive people will require combinations of antihypertensive
therapy to achieve optimal control.
4 6
Drugs from different classes generally have additive effects on blood pressure when they are prescribed together. Submaximal doses of two drugs result
in larger responses of blood pressure and fewer side effects than
maximal doses of a single drug. Rational drug combinations combine
drugs with different modes of action that are additive
for example,
diuretic with
blocker, diuretic with angiotensin converting enzyme
inhibitor,
blocker with calcium antagonist, calcium antagonist with
angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. Fixed dose combinations may be
convenient for patients and are acceptable when monotherapy is
ineffective, individual drug components are appropriate, and there are
no major cost implications.
| |
Elderly people with hypertension |
|---|
Hypertension, including isolated systolic hypertension
(
160/<90 mm Hg), is found in more than half of all people aged over 60.15 These people have a higher risk of cardiovascular
complications, including heart failure and dementia, than do younger
people with hypertension, and antihypertensive treatment of diastolic
hypertension26 and isolated systolic hypertension reduces
this risk.
8 25
Antihypertensive treatment is beneficial
until at least age 80, and regular screening of blood pressure should
continue until this age. Once treatment is started, it should be
continued after the age of 80. When hypertension is first diagnosed in
people over 80, there is limited evidence to guide policy but treatment decisions should probably be based on biological rather than
chronological age. Low dose thiazides are the accepted first line
treatment for elderly people.
Blockers are less effective than
thiazides as first line treatment; in a meta-analysis they were shown
to reduce only stroke events.27 Dihydropyridine
calcium antagonists are suitable alternatives for elderly patients when
thiazides are ineffective, contraindicated, or not
tolerated.8
The full version of the guidelines includes other special groups of
patients: those with type I and type II diabetes; those with renal
disease; pregnant women; users of oral contraceptives; users of hormone
replacement therapy; and ethnic subgroups.1
| |
Aspirin and hypertension |
|---|
In the hypertension optimal treatment trial, 75 mg aspirin daily reduced major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients by 15%, but not fatal events.4 Similar effects were observed in the hypertensive cohort within the thrombosis prevention trial of aspirin.28 In both trials, however, the number of major bleeding episodes due to aspirin was similar to the number of cardiovascular events saved. Hence for primary prevention, aspirin should be considered only for hypertensive people who meet the criteria set out in box 5.
|
| |
Treatment with statins |
|---|
Several trials have shown that statin treatment reduces coronary events and all cause mortality and is safe, simple, and well tolerated in both secondary and primary prevention.19 Statin treatment also reduces stroke risk substantially in patients who have coronary heart disease.19 In subgroup analyses, benefits were similar in hypertensive patients. Given the persistent high cardiovascular risk in treated hypertensive patients, and the relation of this risk to serum cholesterol,16 these trials have large implications for hypertension management. Statin treatment could now be justified at a 10 year coronary heart disease risk of 6%,29 but this would entail treating over half of all hypertensive patients. The main constraint on statin treatment at present is its cost.
The British Hypertension Society's recommendations for statin therapy
are designed to be consistent with three recent sets of UK
guidelines.19-21 These are conservative recommendations
and represent minimum acceptable levels of treatment. Statin treatment should be prioritised by using the criteria set out in box 5.
| |
Follow up |
|---|
The frequency of follow up for treated patients with adequate
blood pressure control depends on factors including severity and
variability of blood pressure, complexity of the treatment regimen,
compliance, and the need for non-pharmacological advice. Three monthly
review is sufficient when treatment and blood pressure are stable; the
interval should not generally exceed six months. The routine for follow
up visits, at which trained nurses have an important role, should be
simple: measure blood pressure and weight; inquire about general health
and side effects; reinforce non-pharmacological advice; and test urine
for proteinuria annually.
| |
Objectives of the guidelines |
|---|
| |
Implementation of guidelines |
|---|
Realisation of these objectives will depend largely on the efforts
of doctors and nurses in general practice. Surveys revealing incomplete
detection, treatment, and control of hypertension indicate a serious
failure to implement the knowledge we have, although there has been
some improvement in recent years.15 Ideally, all practices
or primary care groups should develop a protocol for hypertension
management that covers screening policy; initial evaluation and
investigation; estimation of cardiovascular risk; non-pharmacological measures; use of antihypertensive drugs,
aspirin, and statins; treatment targets; follow up strategy; and
methods for identifying and recalling patients who drop out of follow up. Written information should be available for patients about hypertension and its treatment. The protocol should detail those aspects of management that are in the province of the practice nurse
and of the doctor, and the implementation of the practice policy should
be audited periodically.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The authors of this manuscript were members of the executive committee of the British Hypertension Society who formed the third working party for the production of these guidelines. LER chaired the working party and produced the first draft after receiving written sections from each member. This draft was reviewed by the membership of the British Hypertension Society and their comments were used by BW to modify subsequent drafts. BW coordinated the final writing and preparation of the manuscript which was reviewed and approved at each draft stage by all members of the working party.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
Appendix |
|---|
Material for patients
Material for doctors
Recommendations of the British
Hypertension Society. 3rd edition, 1997. (Edited by E O'Brien et al; price £4.95.)
| |
References |
|---|
| 1. | Ramsay LE, Williams B, Johnston DG, MacGregor GA, Poston L, Potter JF, et al. Guidelines for management of hypertension: report of the third working party of the British Hypertension Society, 1999. J Hum Hypertens 1999; 13: 569-592[Medline]. |
| 2. | Swales JD, Ramsay LE, Coope JR, Pocock SJ, Robertson JIS, Sever PS, et al. Treating mild hypertension. BMJ 1989; 298: 694-698. |
| 3. | Sever P, Beevers G, Bulpitt C, Lever A, Ramsay L, Reid J, et al. Management guidelines in essential hypertension: report of the second working party of the British Hypertension Society. BMJ 1993; 306: 983-987. |
| 4. | Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, Dahlöf B, Elmfeldt D, Julius S, et al, for the HOT Study Group. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the hypertension optimal treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 1998; 351: 1755-1762[Medline]. |
| 5. | Curb JD, Pressel SL, Cutler JA, Savage PJ, Aplegate WB, Black H, et al, for the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program Co-operative Research Group. Advantage of diuretic-based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in older diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension. JAMA 1996; 276: 1886-1892[Abstract]. |
| 6. |
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group.
Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38.
BMJ
1998;
317:
703-713 |
| 7. |
Tuomilehto J, Rastenyte D, Birkenhager WH, Thijs L, Antikainen R, Bulpitt CJ, et al.
Effects of calcium-channel blockade in older patients with diabetes and systolic hypertension. Syst Eur Investigators.
N Engl J Med
1999;
340:
677-684 |
| 8. | Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Cetis H, Arabidze CG, Birkenhager WH, et al, for the Systolic Hypertension-Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Morbidity and mortality in the placebo-controlled European trial on isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly. Lancet 1997; 360: 757-764. |
| 9. | Neaton JD, Grimm RH, Prineas RJ, Stamler J, Grandits GA, Elmer PJ, et al, for the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group. Treatment of mild hypertension study. Final results. JAMA 1993; 270: 713-724[Abstract]. |
| 10. |
Materson BJ, Reda DJ, Cushman WC, Massie BM, Freis ED, Kochar MS, et al, for the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents.
Single-drug therapy for hypertension in men. A comparison of six antihypertensive agents with placebo.
N Engl J Med
1993;
328:
914-921 |
| 11. |
Philipp T, Anlauf M, Distler A, Holzgreve H, Michaelis J, Wellek S, on behalf of the HANE Trial Research Group.
Randomised, double blind, multicentre comparison of hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, nitrendipine, and enalapril in antihypertensive treatment: results of the HANE study.
BMJ
1997;
315:
154-159 |
| 12. |
Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E, Vollmer WM, Svetkey LP, Sacks FM, et al, for the DASH Collaborative Research Group.
A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure.
N Engl J Med
1997;
336:
1117-1124 |
| 13. | Trials of Hypertension Prevention Collaborative Research Group. Effects of weight loss and sodium reduction intervention on blood pressure and hypertension incidence in overweight people with high-normal blood pressure: the trials of hypertension prevention, phase II. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 657-667[Abstract]. |
| 14. |
Whelton PK, Appel LJ, Espeland MA, Applegate WB, Ettinger WH, Kostis JB, et al, for the TONE Collaborative Research Group.
Sodium reduction and weight loss in the treatment of hypertension in older persons. A randomized controlled trial of nonpharmacologic interventions in the elderly (TONE).
JAMA
1998;
279:
839-846 |
| 15. | Colhoun HM, Dong W, Poulter NR. Blood pressure screening, management and control in England, results from the health survey for England 1994. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 747-753[Medline]. |
| 16. |
Andersson OK, Almgren T, Persson B, Samuelsson O, Hedner T, Wilhelmsen L.
Survival in treated hypertension: follow up study after two decades.
BMJ
1998;
317:
167-171 |
| 17. | O'Brien ET, Petrie JC, Littler WA, De Swiet M, Padfield PD, Dillon MJ, et al. Blood pressure measurement: recommendations of the British Hypertension Society. 3rd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group , 1997. |
| 18. |
Alderman MH.
Blood pressure management: individualized treatment based on absolute risk and the potential for benefit.
Ann Intern Med
1993;
119:
329-335 |
| 19. |
Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice.
Heart
1998;
80(suppl 2):
S1-29 |
| 20. | Standing Medical Advisory Committee. The use of statins. London: Department of Health , 1997. |
| 21. | Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network. Lipids and the primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Edinburgh: SIGN , 1999(pc47.cee.h2.ac.uk/sign/; accessed 24 August 1999.) |
| 22. | Psaty BM, Smith NL, Siscovick DS, Koepsell TD, Weiss NS, Heckbert SR, et al. Health outcomes associated with antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents. A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 1997; 277: 739-745[Abstract]. |
| 23. | Liu L, Wang JG, Gong L, Liu G, Staessen JA. Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 1823-1829[Medline]. |
| 24. | Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L, Lanke J, Hedner T, Niklason A, et al. Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the captopril prevention project (CAPPP). Lancet 1999; 353: 611-615[Medline]. |
| 25. | SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the systolic hypertension in the elderly program (SHEP). JAMA 1991; 265: 3255-3264[Abstract]. |
| 26. | Thijs L, Fagard R, Lijnen P, Staessen J, Van Hoof R, Amery A. A meta-analysis of outcome trials in elderly hypertensives. J Hypertens 1992; 10: 1103-1109[Medline]. |
| 27. |
Messerli FH, Grossman E, Goldbourt U.
Are ß-blockers efficacious as first-line therapy for hypertension in the elderly? A systematic review.
JAMA
1998;
279:
1903-1907 |
| 28. | Medical Research Council's General Practice Research Framework. Thrombosis prevention trial: randomised trial of low-intensity oral anticoagulation with warfarin and low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease in men at increased risk. Lancet 1998; 351: 233-241[Medline]. |
| 29. |
Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S, Whitney E, Shapiro DR, Beere PA, et al.
Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels. Results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS.
JAMA
1998;
279:
1615-1622 |
(Accepted 11 August 1999)
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+