Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Dec 17;12(12):CD011575.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011575.pub3.

Higher blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults

Jamie M Falk  1 , Liesbeth Froentjes  2 , Jessica Em Kirkwood  2 , Balraj S Heran  3 , Michael R Kolber  2 , G Michael Allan  2   4 , Christina S Korownyk  2 , Scott R Garrison  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Higher blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults

Jamie M Falk et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: This is an update of the original Cochrane review, published in 2017. Eight out of 10 major antihypertensive trials in adults, 65 years of age or older, attempted to achieve a target systolic blood pressure (BP) of < 160 mmHg. Collectively, these trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefit for treatment, compared to no treatment, for older adults with BP > 160 mmHg. However, an even lower BP target of < 140 mmHg is commonly applied to all age groups. Yet the risk and benefit of antihypertensive therapy can be expected to vary across populations, and some observational evidence suggests that older adults who are frail might have better health outcomes with less aggressive BP lowering. Current clinical practice guidelines are inconsistent in target BP recommendations for older adults, with systolic BP targets ranging from < 130 mmHg to < 150 mmHg. The 2017 review did not find compelling evidence of a reduction in any of the primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, or total serious cardiovascular adverse events, comparing a lower BP target to a higher BP target in older adults with hypertension. It is important to update this review to explore if new evidence exists to determine whether older adults might do just as well, better, or worse with less aggressive pharmacotherapy for hypertension.

Objectives: To assess the effects of a less aggressive blood pressure target (in the range of < 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg), compared to a conventional or more aggressive BP target (of < 140/90 mmHg or lower) in hypertensive adults, 65 years of age or older.

Search methods: For this update, Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to June 2024: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid, and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also contacted authors of relevant papers requesting information on further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

Selection criteria: We included randomised trials of hypertensive older adults (≥ 65 years) that spanned at least one year, and reported the effect on mortality and morbidity of a higher or lower systolic or diastolic BP treatment target. Higher BP targets ranged from systolic BP < 150 to 160 mmHg or diastolic BP < 95 to 105 mmHg; lower BP targets were 140/90 mmHg or lower, measured in an ambulatory, home, or office setting.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, and extracted data. We combined data for dichotomous outcomes using the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, institutionalisation, and serious cardio-renal vascular adverse events. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, unplanned hospitalisation, each component of cardiovascular serious adverse events separately (including cerebrovascular disease, cardiac disease, vascular disease, and renal failure), total serious adverse events, total minor adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse effects, systolic BP achieved, and diastolic BP achieved.

Main results: With the addition of one new trial, we included four trials in this updated review (16,732 older adults with a mean age of 70.3 years). Of these, one trial used a combined systolic and diastolic BP target and compared a higher target of < 150/90 mmHg to a lower target of < 140/90 mmHg, and two trials utilised a purely systolic BP target, and compared a systolic BP < 150 mmHg (1 trial) and a systolic BP < 160 mmHg (1 trial), to a systolic BP < 140 mmHg. The fourth and newest trial also utilised a systolic BP target, but also introduced a lower limit for systolic BP. It compared systolic BP in the target range of 130 to 150 mmHg to a lower target range of 110 to 130 mmHg. The evidence shows that treatment to the lower BP target over two to four years may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.37; 4 studies, 16,732 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the lower BP target does reduce stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67; 4 studies, 16,732 participants; high-certainty evidence), and likely reduces total serious cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45; 4 studies, 16,732 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were not available from all trials, but the lower BP target likely does not increase withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.33; 3 studies, 16,008 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: When comparing a higher BP target, in the range of < 150 to 160/95 to 105 mmHg, to a lower BP target of 140/90 or lower, over two to four years of follow-up, there is high-certainty evidence that the lower BP target reduces stroke, and moderate-certainty evidence that the lower BP target likely reduces serious cardiovascular events. The effect on all-cause mortality is unclear (low-certainty evidence), and the lower BP target likely does not increase withdrawals due to adverse effects (moderate-certainty evidence). Although additional research is warranted in those who are 80 years of age and older, and those who are frail (in whom risks and benefits may differ), conventional BP targets may be appropriate for the majority of older adults.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Jamie Falk: none

Scott Garrison: Dr. Garrison holds 2 government grants (from Alberta Innovates, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research) which jointly fund 2 antihypertensive timing trials, one in a Canadian primary care population (BedMed), and one in an Alberta continuing care ('nursing home') population (BedMed‐Frail). Dr. Garrison is the principal investigator for both trials.

Mike Kolber: none

Christina S Korownyk: none

Benji Heran: none

G Michael Allan: none

Jessica Kirkwood: none

Liesbeth Froentjes: none

Figures

1
1
PRISMA flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias domain for each included study
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 1: All‐cause mortality
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 2: Stroke
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 3: Serious cardiovascular adverse events
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 4: Cardiovascular mortality
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 5: Non‐cardiovascular mortality
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 6: Myocardial infarction/acute coronary syndrome
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 7: Heart failure (decompensation/hospitalisation/death)
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 8: Renal failure
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 9: Total serious adverse events
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 10: Total minor adverse events
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 11: Withdrawals due to adverse effects
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 12: Mean systolic BP achieved
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 13: Mean diastolic BP achieved
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 14: All‐cause mortality (excluding Wei)
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 15: Stroke (excluding Wei)
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 16: Serious cardiovascular adverse events (excluding Wei)
1.17
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 17: Cardiovascular mortality (excluding Wei)
1.18
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 18: All‐cause mortality (excluding JATOS)
1.19
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 19: Serious cardioavascular adverse events (excluding JATOS)
1.20
1.20. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 20: Stroke (excluding JATOS)
1.21
1.21. Analysis
Comparison 1: Higher (< 150 to 160/95 to 100 mmHg) versus lower (< 140/90 mmHg) BP target, Outcome 21: Cardiovascular mortality (excluding JATOS)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

JATOS 2008 {published data only}
    1. Hayashi K, Saruta T, Goto Y, Ishii M, on behalf of the JATOS Study Group. Impact of renal function on cardiovascular events in elderly hypertensive patients treated with efonidipine: renal subset analysis of the Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS). Hypertension Research 2010;33:1211-20. - PubMed
    1. JATOS Study Group. Principal results of the Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS). Hypertension Research 2008;31(12):2115-27. - PubMed
    1. JATOS Study Group. The Japanese trial to assess optimal systolic blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients (JATOS): protocol, patient characteristics, and blood pressure during the first 12 months. Hypertension Research 2005;28(6):513-20. - PubMed
    1. Kawano Y, Ogihara T, Saruta T, Goto Y, Ishii M. Association of blood pressure control and metabolic syndrome with cardiovascular risk in elderly Japanese: JATOS study. American Journal of Hypertension 2011;24(11):1250-6. - PubMed
    1. Rakugi H, Ogihara T, Goto Y, Ishii M, on behalf of the JATOS Study Group. Comparison of strict- and mild-blood pressure control in elderly hypertensive patients: a per-protocol analysis of JATOS. Hypertension Research 2010;33:1124-8. - PubMed
VALISH 2010 {published data only}
    1. Ogihara T, Saruta T, Matsuoka H, Shimamoto K, Fujita T, Shimada K, et al. Valsartan in elderly isolated systolic hypertension (VALISH) study: rationale and design. Hypertension Research 2004;27(9):657-61. - PubMed
    1. Ogihara T, Saruta T, Rakugi H, Matsuoka H, Shimamoto K, Shimada K, et al. Target blood pressure for treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: valsartan in elderly isolated systolic hypertension study. Hypertension 2010;56(2):196-202. - PubMed
Wei 2013 {published data only}
    1. Jin Z, Guoying S, Xiaowei Z, Ye Z, Pingyan F, Junying P, et al. Intensified antihypertensive therapy and blood pressure variability in older than 70 of Chinese hypertensive patients. Heart (British Cardiac Society) 2011;97(3):A193.
    1. Wei Y, Jin Z, Shen G, Zhao X, Yang W, Zhong Y, et al. Effects of intensive antihypertensive treatment on Chinese hypertensive patients older than 70 years. Journal of Clinical Hypertension 2013;15(6):420-7. - PMC - PubMed
Zhang 2021 {published data only}
    1. Deng Y, Zhang J, Chen Z, Bai J, Yang X, Yu C, et al. Intensive blood pressure lowering improves left ventricular geometry in older hypertensive patients: the STEP trial. MedRxiv: the Preprint Server for Health Sciences 2024;NA:NA. [DOI: 10.1101/2024.03.04.24303756] - DOI
    1. Feng X, Yan M, Tang L, Zhou D, Wu S, Cai J, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure treatment on myocardial work in elderly hypertensive patients: a subcenter study of the STEP randomized controlled trial. Clinical Cardiology 2024;47(1):e24172. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yang R, Cai J. Remnant cholesterol and intensive blood pressure control in older patients with hypertension: a post hoc analysis of the step randomized trial. Journal of Hypertension 2023;41:e11. - PubMed
    1. Yang R, Huang R, Zhang L, Li D, Luo J, Cai J. Influence of baseline diastolic blood pressure on the effects of intensive blood pressure lowering: results from the STEP randomized trial. Hypertension 2023;80(12):2572-80. - PubMed
    1. Yang R, Zhang J, Yu X, Yang G, Cai J. Remnant cholesterol and intensive blood pressure control in older patients with hypertension: a post hoc analysis of the STEP randomized trial. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2024;31(8):997-1004. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Agarwal 2019 {published data only}
    1. Agarwal A, Cheung AK, Ma J, Cho M, Li M. Effect of baseline kidney function on the risk of recurrent stroke and on effects of intensive blood pressure control in patients with previous lacunar stroke: a post hoc analysis of the SPS3 trial (Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes). Journal of the American Heart Association 2019;8(16):e013098. - PMC - PubMed
Andersson 2016 {published data only}
    1. Andersson C, Vasan RS. Intensive vs standard blood pressure control for older adults. JAMA 2016;316(18):1922-3. - PubMed
Arima 2006 {published data only}
    1. Arima H, Chalmers J, Woodward M, Anderson C, Rodgers A, Davis S, et al. Lower target blood pressures are safe and effective for the prevention of recurrent stroke: the PROGRESS trial. Journal of Hypertension 2006;24(6):1201-8. - PubMed
Blum 2020 {published data only}
    1. Blum MR, Scherzer R, Ikeme JC, Benavente OR, McClure LA, Peralta CA, et al. Functional health and white matter hyperintensities as effect modifiers of blood pressure-lowering on cognitive function and vascular events in older Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes trial participants. Journal of Hypertension 2020;38(8):1578-85. - PMC - PubMed
Denardo 2010 {published data only}
    1. Denardo SJ, Gong Y, Nichols WW, Messerli FH, Bavry AA, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al. Blood pressure and outcomes in very old hypertensive coronary artery disease patients: an INVEST substudy. American Journal of Medicine 2010;123(8):719-26. - PMC - PubMed
Dimitri 2016 {published data only}
    1. Dimitri M, Janus E, Karunajeewa H. Intensive vs standard blood pressure control for older adults. JAMA 2016;316(18):1921-2. - PubMed
Giacona 2024 {published data only}
    1. Giacona JM, Bates BM, Sundaram V, Brinker S, Moss E, Paspula R, et al. Preventing cognitive decline by reducing BP target (PCOT): a randomized, pragmatic, multi-health systems clinical trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2024;138:107443. - PubMed
Ihle‐Hansen 2015 {published data only}
    1. Ihle-Hansen H, Thommessen B, Fagerland MW, Oksengard AR, Wyller TB, Engedal K, et al. Blood pressure control to prevent decline in cognition after stroke. Vascular Health and Risk Management 2015;11:311-6. - PMC - PubMed
Ikeme 2019 {published data only}
    1. Ikeme JC, Pergola PE, Scherzer R, Shlipak MG, Catanese L, McClure LA, et al. Cerebral white matter hyperintensities, kidney function decline, and recurrent stroke after intensive blood pressure lowering: results from the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS 3) trial. Journal of the American Heart Association 2019;8(3):e010091. - PMC - PubMed
Karayiannis 2016 {published data only}
    1. Karayiannis C, Phan TG, Srikanth V. Intensive vs standard blood pressure control for older adults. JAMA 2016;316(18):1920-1. - PubMed
Karmali 2018 {published data only}
    1. Karmali KN, Lloyd-Jones DM, Leeuw J, Goff Jr DC, Yusuf S, Zanchetti A, et al. Blood pressure-lowering treatment strategies based on cardiovascular risk versus blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual participant data. PLoS Medicine 2018;15(3):e1002538. - PMC - PubMed
Kim 2016 {published data only}
    1. Kim DH. Intensive vs standard blood pressure control for older adults. JAMA 2016;316(18):1921. - PubMed
Kim 2018 {published data only}
    1. Kim BJ, Park JM, Park TH, Kim J, Lee J, Lee KJ, et al. Remote blood pressure monitoring and behavioral intensification for stroke: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. PloS One 2018;15(3):e0229483. - PMC - PubMed
Ku 2018a {published data only}
    1. Ku E, Ix JH, Jamerson K, Tangri N, Lin F, Gassman J, et al. Acute declines in renal function during intensive BP lowering and long-term risk of death. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: JASN 2018;29(9):2401-8. - PMC - PubMed
Ku 2018b {published data only}
    1. Ku E, Scherzer R, Odden MC, Shlipak M, White CL, Field TS, et al. Patterns of blood pressure response during intensive BP lowering and clinical events: results from the secondary prevention of small subcortical strokes trial. Blood Pressure 2018;27(2):73-81. - PMC - PubMed
Miskulin 2018 {published data only}
    1. Miskulin DC, Gassman J, Schrader R, Gul A, Jhamb M, Ploth DW, et al. BP in dialysis: results of a pilot study. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: JASN 2018;29(1):307-16. - PMC - PubMed
NCT04040634 {published data only}
    1. NCT04040634. Optimal blood pressure for the prevention of major vascular events in patients with DIABETES mellitus (OPTIMAL-DIABETES). https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04040634 (first posted 1 August 2019).
Ogihara 2008 {published data only}
    1. Ogihara T, Nakao K, Fukui T, Fukiyama K, Fujimoto A, Ueshima K, et al. The optimal target blood pressure for antihypertensive treatment in Japanese elderly patients with high-risk hypertension: a subanalysis of the Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial. Hypertension Research 2008;31(8):1595-601. - PubMed
Ogihara 2009 {published data only}
    1. Ogihara T, Saruta T, Rakugi H, Fujimoto A, Ueshima K, Yasuno S, et al. Relationship between the achieved blood pressure and the incidence of cardiovascular events in Japanese hypertensive patients with complications: a sub-analysis of the CASE-J trial. Hypertension Research 2009;32:248-54. - PubMed
Ogihara 2011 {published data only}
    1. Ogihara T, Matsuoka H, Rakugi H. Practitioner’s trial on the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment in elderly patients with hypertension II (PATE-Hypertension II study) in Japan. Geriatrics & Gerontology International 2011;11:414-21. - PubMed
Ogihara 2012 {published data only}
    1. Ogihara T, Fujimoto A, Ueshima K, Nakao K, Saruta T. Optimal blood pressure to prevent cardiovascular events in the elderly high-risk hypertensive patients: subanalysis of the CASE-J Ex study. Journal of Hypertension 2012;30(e-Suppl 1):e244-5.
Omboni 2015 {published data only}
    1. Omboni S, Malacco E, Mallion JM, Volpe M. Olmesartan vs ramipril in the treatment of hypertension and associated clinical conditions in the elderly: a reanalysis of two large double-blind, randomized studies at the light of the most recent blood pressure targets recommended by guidelines. Clinical Interventions in Aging 2015;10:1575-86. - PMC - PubMed
Rosenberg 2016 {published data only}
    1. Rosenberg K. Intensive blood pressure control lowers rate of CV events and death in the elderly. American Journal of Nursing 2016;116(9):68-9. - PubMed
Saito 2011 {published data only}
    1. Saito I, Suzuki H, Kageyama S, Saruta T. Treatment of hypertension in patients 85 years of age or older: a J-BRAVE substudy. Clinical and Experimental Hypertension 2011;33(5):275-80. - PubMed
Saxby 2008 {published data only}
    1. Saxby BK, Harrington F, Wesnes KA, McKeith IG, Ford GA. Candesartan and cognitive decline in older patients with hypertension: a substudy of the SCOPE trial. Neurology 2008;70(19 Pt 2):1858-66. - PubMed
SPRINT 2015 {published data only}
    1. SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;373(22):2103-16. - PMC - PubMed
Steurer 2016 {published data only}
    1. Steurer J. Intensive Blutdruckbehandlung vs. weniger intensive Behandlung. Praxis 2016;105(4):225-6. [DOI: 10.1024/1661-8157/a002281] - DOI - PubMed
Zhang 2011 {published data only}
    1. Zhang Y, Zhang X, Liu L, Zanchetti A. Is a systolic blood pressure target < 140 mmHg indicated in all hypertensives? Subgroup analyses of findings from the randomized FEVER trial. European Heart Journal 2011;32(12):1500-8. - PubMed
Zhao 2023 {published data only}
    1. Zhao B, Jia W, Yuan Y, Li Z, Fu X. Effects of intensive blood pressure control on cognitive function in patients with cerebral small vessel disease. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 2023;32(9):107289. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

NCT03453268 {published data only}
    1. NCT03453268. Impact of the reduction in antihypertensive treatment on total mortality in frail subjects with low systolic blood pressure: study in subjects over 80 years living in nursing homes (RETREAT-FRAIL). https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03453268 (first posted 5 March 2018).

Additional references

Beckett 2008
    1. Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, Staessen JA, Liu L, Dumitrascu D, et al. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. New England Journal of Medicine 2008;358(18):1887-98. - PubMed
Benetos 2019
    1. Benetos A, Petrovic M, Strandberg T. Hypertension management in older and frailolder patients. Circulation Research 2019;124(7):1045-60. - PubMed
Cadieux 1989
    1. Cadieux RJ. Drug interactions in the elderly. How multiple drug use increases risk exponentially. Postgraduate Medicine 1989;86(8):179-86. - PubMed
Chen 2010
    1. Chen N, Zhou M, Yang M, Guo J, Zhu C, Yang J, et al. Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 8. Art. No: CD003654. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003654.pub4] - DOI - PubMed
Chen 2022
    1. Chen T, Shao F, Chen K, Wang Y, Wu Z, Wang Y, et al. Time to clinical benefit of intensive blood pressure loweringin patients 60 years and older with hypertension: a secondary analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Internal Medicine 2022;182(6):660-7. - PMC - PubMed
Coles 2022
    1. Coles S, Fisher L, Lin KW, Lyon C, Vosooney AA, Bird MD. Blood pressure targets in adults with hypertension: a clinical practice guideline from the AAFP. American Family Physician 2022;106(6):1-11. - PubMed
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Covidence. Version accessed 24 June 2024. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation, 2024. Available at covidence.org.
D'Agostino 2008
    1. D'Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, Wolf PA, Cobain M, Massaro JM, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2008;117(6):743-753. - PubMed
Dai 2009
    1. Dai S, Bancej C, Bienek A, Walsh P, Stewart P, Wielgosz A. 2009 Tracking Heart Disease and Stroke in Canada. Report from the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Available at www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2009/cvd-avc/index-eng.php (accessed 18 March 2015).
Deeks 2023
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, editor(s). Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.4.
Ettehad 2016
    1. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, Anderson SG, Callender T, Emberson J, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2016;387(10022):957-67. - PubMed
Finegold 2013
    1. Finegold JA, Asaria P, Francis DP. Mortality from ischaemic heart disease by country, region, and age: statistics from World Health Organization and United Nations. International Journal of Cardiology 2013;168(2):934-45. - PMC - PubMed
Finley 2018
    1. Finley CR, Chan DS, Garrison S, Korownyk C, Kolber MR, Campbell S, et al. What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review. Canadian Family Physician 2018;64(11):832-40. - PMC - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. GRADRpro GDT. Version accessed 24 June 2024. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2024. Available at gradepro.org.
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JC, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s). CochraneHandbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). Cochrane, 2017. Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.2.
Higgins 2023
    1. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.4.
Hilmer 2007
    1. Hilmer SN, McLachlan AJ, Le Couteur DG. Clinical pharmacology in the geriatric patient. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 2007;21(3):217-30. - PubMed
Jamerson 2008
    1. Jamerson K, Weber MA, Bakris GL, Dahlof B, Pitt B, Shi V, et al. Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients. New England Journal of Medicine 2008;359(23):2417-28. - PubMed
Lewington 2002
    1. Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 2002;360(9349):1903-13. - PubMed
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Mancia 2023
    1. Mancia G (Chairperson), Brunström M, Burnier M, Grassi G, Januszewicz A, Muiesan ML, et al. 2023 ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension. Endorsed by the European Renal Association (ERA) and the International Society of Hypertension (ISH). Journal of Hypertension 2023;41(12):1874-2071. - PubMed
Musini 2019
    1. Musini VM, Tejani AM, Bassett K, Puil L, Wright JM. Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the adults 60 years or older. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 6. Art. No: CD000028. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000028.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
NICE 2023
    1. NICE Hypertension in Adults Guideline Committee. Hypertension in adults: diagnosis and management; NICE guideline (NG136). Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng136 Updated 21 November 2023.
Odden 2012
    1. Odden MC, Peralta CA, Haan MN, Covinsky KE. Rethinking the association of high blood pressure with mortality in elderly adults: the impact of frailty. Archives of Internal Medicine 2012;172(15):1162-8. - PMC - PubMed
Oliveros 2020
    1. Oliveros E, Patel H, Kyung S, Fugar S, Goldberg A, Madan N, et al. Hypertension in older adults: assessment, management, and challenges. Clinical Cardiology 2020;43(2):99-107. - PMC - PubMed
Qaseem 2017
    1. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Rich R, Humphrey LL, Frost J, Forciea MA. Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older to higher versus lower blood pressure targets: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine 2017;166(6):430-7. [DOI: 10.7326/M16-1785] - DOI - PubMed
Rabi 2020
    1. Rabi DM, McBrien KA, Sapir-Pichhadze R, Nakhla M, Ahmed SB, Dumanski SM, et al. Hypertension Canada’s 2020 comprehensive guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment of hypertension in adults and children. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 2020;36(5):596-624. - PubMed
Rahimi 2021
    1. The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis. Lancet 2021;397:1625-36. - PMC - PubMed
Reeve 2020
    1. Reeve E, Jordan V, Thompson W, Sawan M, Todd A, Gammie TM, et al. Withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in older people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 6. Art. No: CD012572. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012572.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
RevMan 2024 [Computer program]
    1. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 8.8. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2024. Available at https://revman.cochrane.org.
Sabayan 2012
    1. Sabayan B, Oleksik AM, Maier AB, Van Buchem MA, Poortvliet RK, De Ruijter W, et al. High blood pressure and resilience to physical and cognitive decline in the oldest old: the Leiden 85-plus study. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 2012;60(11):2014-9. - PubMed
Scott 2019
    1. Scott IA, Hilmer SN, Le Couteur DG. Going beyond the guidelines in individualising the use of antihypertensive drugs in older patients. Drugs and Aging 2019;36(8):675-85. - PubMed
Tschanz 2020
    1. Tschanz MP, Cushman WC, Harrell TE, Berlowitz DR, Sall JL. Synopsis of the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense clinical practice guideline: the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the primary care setting. Annals of Internal Medicine 2020;173(11):904-13. - PubMed
Van Spall 2007
    1. Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA 2007;297(11):1233-40. - PubMed
Whelton 2017
    1. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE Jr, Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. Hypertension 2017;71(6):1269-324. [DOI: 10.1161/HYP.0000000000000065] - DOI - PubMed
Wiysonge 2017
    1. Wiysonge CS, Bradley HA, Volmink J, Mayosi BM, Opie LH. Beta-blockers for hypertension. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 1. Art. No: CD002003. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Wright 2018
    1. Wright JM, Musini VM, Gill R. First-line drugs for hypertension. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 4. Art. No: CD001841. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001841.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Xue 2015
    1. Xue H, Lu Z, Tang WL, Pang LW, Wang GM, Wong GW, et al. First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 1. Art. No: CD008170. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008170.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Garrison 2015
    1. Garrison SR, Kolber MR, Korownyk CS, McCracken RK, Allan GM. Blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 3. Art. No: CD011575. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011575] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Garrison 2017
    1. Garrison SR, Kolber MR, Korownyk CS, McCracken RK, Heran BS, Allan GM. Blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 8. Art. No: CD011575. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011575.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources