This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

NICE set to lower hypertension treatment thresholds for CVD patients

NICE is to reduce thresholds for considering high blood pressure treatment, including for patients with a risk of CVD, according to new draft guidelines.

However it will not lower thresholds for diagnosing hypertension – a move that was being considered and which could have seen a large proportion of the population assessed as having the condition.

GPs have said they are 'already working flat out' managing patients' CVD risk and that additional funding would be required to deal with the any resulting extra workload.

The latest draft guidelines from NICE, which will replace the 2011 version, include a number of updates as to when patients should start treatment, including reducing the threshold for considering high blood pressure treatment for patients with a risk of CVD.

The draft said blood pressure lowering drugs should be offered to stage one hypertension patients under 80, who have an estimated 10-year risk of CVD of 10% or more, a reduction on the previous ‘20% or greater’ threshold.

Around 450,000 men and 270,000 women would fall into this category and could therefore require medication, NICE said.

However, due to ‘variability in how the 2011 recommendation with a threshold of 20% is being implemented in practice’, it's estimated around 50% of people in this group are already being treated with blood pressure lowering drugs, NICE added.

Meanwhile, the new draft guidance said that despite recent studies showing the apparent benefit of reducing thresholds for diagnosing hypertension, the evidence was lacking and 'difficult to interpret'.

NICE previously said it was considering the same evidence that led to drastically lowered hypertension thresholds in the US, and an additional 14% of the population classed as having high blood pressure.

The US guidance was updated last year, and included a sharp reduction in the threshold for stage one hypertension from an average systolic blood pressure of 140 to 130 mmHg, and from ≥160 to ≥140 mmHg for stage two.

The change was prompted by the 2015 SPRINT study, which showed that by treating patients with a target blood pressure of 120 mmHg, rather than the 140 mmHg target, mortality and cardiovascular events were significantly reduced.

But today's draft NICE guidelines said: ‘The evidence did not show that changing the current blood pressure thresholds for clinic measurement or home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) would improve diagnostic accuracy compared with ambulatory measurement pressure measurement (ABPM), so the committee agreed the 2011 thresholds for diagnosis should be retained.

‘The committee noted that these are in line with most international guidance.’

NICE explained that while the committee considered the same studies as the US - which said people with blood pressure below 140/90mmHg might also benefit from medication - they were ‘difficult to interpret because although they recruited people with raised blood pressure who had increased CVD risk, they also included people who had other CVD risk factors such as established blood pressure-related organ damage from previous CVD, or chronic kidney disease’.

Professor Anthony Wierzbicki, guideline committee chair and consultant in metabolic medicine/chemical pathology, said: ‘The guideline effectively shifts the focus to earlier intervention with lifestyle or drug treatment because this may slow the age-related deterioration of blood pressure.

BMA GP committee clinical and prescribing lead Dr Andrew Green said: ‘This is an important consultation as it has enormous implications both for GP workload and also for individual patients.

‘It is extremely challenging for GPs to translate studies that show benefits to populations into advice for individuals, many of whom will not see any benefit from lifelong pharmacological intervention.

‘GPs are already working flat out on managing patients’ cardiovascular risk and recognise the impact that poorly managed blood pressure can have on individuals’ health, and any additional activity will need to be funded with extra resources. The BMA will consider this document carefully and contribute to the consultation in due course.’

RCGP chair Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard said: 'Taking steps to prevent cardiovascular disease in patients is vital to help safeguard their long-term health and wellbeing, and it is a key pledge in the NHS long-term plan. But many GPs do also have concerns about overdiagnosis and the unintended harms of prescribing medication to groups of patients when the benefits may be limited.

'Lowering the [cardiovascular] threshold for treating hypertension, or high blood pressure – a condition that already affects a very large number of patients in the UK - is likely to affect thousands, if not millions of patients, so this decision must not be taken lightly and must be evidence-based.'

A study published last November, which analysed nearly 40,000 low-risk patients across England, found not only was there no benefit to treating such patients with anti-hypertensive medication, it also had the potential to cause ‘harm’.

Treatment recommendations in full

Discuss with the person their preferences for treatment before starting antihypertensive drug treatment. Continue to offer lifestyle advice and support them to make lifestyle changes whether or not they choose to start antihypertensive drug treatment. [2019]

Offer antihypertensive drug treatment in addition to lifestyle advice to adults aged under 80 with persistent stage one hypertension who have one or more of the following:

  • target organ damage
  • established cardiovascular disease
  • renal disease
  • diabetes
  • an estimated 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease of 10% or more. [2019]

Offer antihypertensive drug treatment to adults of any age with persistent stage two hypertension. Use clinical judgement for people with frailty or multimorbidity. [2019]

Consider antihypertensive drug treatment in addition to lifestyle advice for 10 younger adults with stage one hypertension and an estimated 10-year risk 11 below 10%. Bear in mind that 10-year cardiovascular risk may underestimate the lifetime probability of developing cardiovascular disease. [2019]

Consider starting antihypertensive drug treatment for people aged over 80 with stage one hypertension. Use clinical judgement for people with frailty or multimorbidity. [2019]

For adults aged under 40 with hypertension, consider seeking specialist evaluation of secondary causes of hypertension and a more detailed assessment of the long-term balance of treatment benefit and risks. [2019]

Source: NICE hypertension in adults diagnosis and management

Related images

  • blood pressure - pulse
  • phone - smartphone - app - mobile - online

Readers' comments (16)

  • That's NICE - lower targets with no resources to achieve them.

    Always interesting to look at the expert opinions when NICE brings out new guidelines. Take as one example the comments of Prof MacMahon from Oxford :

    "But other experts said the guidelines did not go far enough.
    "Much lower blood pressure targets are required and multiple drugs need to be used right from the start, if patients are to achieve the largest reduction in the risks of stroke and heart attack," said Prof Stephen MacMahon, from the University of Oxford."

    and now bear in mind that Stephen is a director of George Enterprises:

    " By the end of the decade, global sales for all cardiometabolic drugs will exceed $200 billion. Over the same period, the global market for antihypertensive drugs alone will exceed $40 billion annually, while the market for diabetes drugs will surpass this, reaching more than $70 billion annually.

    George Medicines is developing a series of affordable high-quality novel drug formulations proven by research at The George. Using the infrastructure of George Clinical and the scientific expertise of the Institute, George Medicines can move quickly into late-stage drug development (rather than early high-risk stages of drug discovery and development). Our first product is a combination medication, for patients with a history of coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular diseases. A multi-million investment in the development of this product was secured in Australia from our partner, the global health insurer, BUPA, under the name SmartGenRx. The product is expected to be launched in 2019. George Medicines has a pipeline of several other products, some of which have patents pending. "

    come on Pulse journalists, dig... dig... dig !


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Urgh do we have to. Does nobody consider the effort involved in investigating, monitoring and reviewing all these patients? The man (or woman!) hours generated for all concerned - patients, doctors, pharmacists, lab technicians is immense and detracts from the care of actual ill people.
    Not to mention the harms of many of these medications, the unwanted side effects (swollen ankles, running to the toilet all the time, dizziness, passing out anyone?) and the blood tests we ultimately end up doing to monitor them.
    We might end up hitting the targets but I think we are seriously missing the point.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes offer medication. But offer as well the NNT and the risk of side effects

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Isnt it amazing how no bats an eyelid at conflict of interest nowadays, especially when it those 'higher up the pecking order'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Jmd

    I feel any new workload generated by any national or local body needs to be resourced. The NHSE cannot continue to demand more work from GPs without resources. The money they predict will be save by these schemes should be ploughed back as resources to meet the new demands.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Smoke and mirrors they will not save any money, people will still die,maybe a year or two later living a poorer quality of life.But in th elast 18 months of life they will still cost a lot of money to the state.This is more about the pharma industry opening new markets when the research pipeline is a little bare.Making money ladies and gents,capitalism.Ironic when the NHS doesnt, is more a socialist/communist construct.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There would be zero chance of treating myself to these targets.
    Even with the usual financial carrots, I could not in conscience recommend to low risk individuals that they adopt the requisite burden of medication, even if I had the time to have the conversation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thanks carfentanyl.
    This is why there is no trust in anything or anyone in power anymore. They are all at it or associated with it. IT being putting money and profit about people. It’s a black age and it will not end well.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Probably should comment that I am a member of the BIHS (British and Irish Hypertension Society), but comments are my own.
    I did tell Richard Vautrey last week that the new NICE guidance may be a problem. The new contract has already lowered the threshold for QoF to the target of the last NICE, but there could yet be more.
    The obvious issue that following the SPRINT study my opinion is that the Target BP should be lower.
    Before someone has apoplexy I suggest looking at the SPRINT trial, the results of which have resulted in re-writing of the US, and the European guidelines.
    They took BP in a different way.. no one in the room, a 5 minute delay, automatic BP machine .. but isnt that like Home BP??
    Target was 120/ .. and they got half of patients to target, average bp 123/
    Results .. less heart failure, stroke, CVD mortality,.. and we shouldnt really mention it because it was not a preset target.. 27% reduction in overall mortality.
    I think we should be looking at a target Home BP of less than 130/.
    This is what Europeans came out with, and Prof Cappuccio President of BIHS has stated.
    The 10% threshold is sensible, I see many patients treated at much lower risk on current guidelines. Only caveat is that it should be unified with cholesterol guidelines. At 10% risk you may want to take a statin or antihypertensive; but probably not both.


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @carfenatyl
    Spot on. NICE = snouts in the trough.
    Shameful thing is that we are the minions mooted to do the dirty work for them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say