This article has a correction
Please see: The PROGRESS trial three years later: time for more action, less distraction (commentary)
- Stephen MacMahon (smacmahon@thegeorgeinstitute.org), professor of cardiovascular medicine and epidemiology1,
- Bruce Neal, associate professor of medicine1,
- Anthony Rodgers, director2,
- John Chalmers, emeritus professor of medicine1
- 1 The George Institute for International Health, University of Sydney, PO Box M201, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia
- 2 Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Correspondence to: S MacMahon
Since the publication of the results of the PROGRESS trial, there has been much comment in the BMJ and elsewhere.1 2 Most of this acknowledges the importance of the findings for the care of patients with cerebrovascular disease. These patients are at high risk of stroke recurrence, and before the trial was completed few interventions had been proved to reduce this risk. Aspirin was known to modestly reduce the risk of recurrence of ischaemic stroke, but no treatment had been shown to reduce the frequently catastrophic recurrence of cerebral haemorrhage. This situation was changed profoundly by the results of PROGRESS, which showed that a simple blood pressure lowering regimen substantially reduced the risks of recurrent stroke,3 disability,4 and cardiac events5 across a broad range of blood pressure levels in patients with either ischaemic or haemorrhagic cerebrovascular disease.
PROGRESS was conceived during an era in which many stroke specialists were concerned about possible risks of blood pressure lowering in patients with compromised cerebral circulation. While epidemiological evidence indicated that the lowest blood pressure levels were associated with the lowest risks of stroke recurrence,6 prevailing clinical opinion required us to allow individual doctors the discretion to determine the intensity of the blood pressure lowering regimen they provided to individual patients. …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: How much of a social media profile can doctors have?
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Is it unethical for doctors to encourage healthy adults to donate a kidney to a stranger? No
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Report predicts 20 million AIDS orphans in Africa by 2010
Published 13 February 2012
Re: On the impossibility of being expert
Published 13 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (8 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (7 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012