Hypertension
Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

 

Preeclampsia is a serious complication of pregnancy that affects 5 to 10 percent of all pregnancies — over 8 million a year worldwide — and claims the lives of 76,000 mothers and half a million babies each year.

The condition causes hypertension and abnormal protein in the urine, and has few effective preventive or therapeutic strategies. The clinical abnormalities usually resolve completely after delivery, but recent research shows that women who have had preeclampsia have higher rates of heart disease later in life, for reasons that are poorly understood.

That’s where Mark HlatkyVirginia Winn, and their Stanford Medicine research team come in. They were recently awarded a 4-year, $6 million NIH grant from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute to study the links between preeclampsia and the subsequent risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as women grow older.

“The goal of this study is to improve cardiovascular health in women, by learning how pregnancy affects heart disease later in life,” said Hlatky, a Stanford Health Policy fellow. “We hope that shedding new light on these links can lead to better prevention and treatment.”

The interdisciplinary study called EPOCH — Effect of Preeclampsia On Cardiovascular Health — could eventually help millions of women and their clinicians worldwide.

“Since about 85 percent of women become pregnant at some point during their lives, and heart disease is the leading cause of death in women, determining how pregnancy complications might increase the risk of heart disease later in life could be very important,” said Hlatky, a professor of health research and policy and of cardiovascular medicine. “If there is a specific biomarker ‘signature’ of heart disease risk in women who have had preeclampsia, it would open up new possibilities for risk assessment and better treatment to prevent heart attacks and strokes.”

Image
screen shot 2018 11 07 at 3 08 27 pm

Hlatky and his co-principal investigator, Stanford high-risk obstetrician Winn, note that a history of preeclampsia doubles the woman’s risk of future heart disease and stroke, and triples her risk of hypertension. And these adverse consequences occur at younger ages than in women who never developed the condition during pregnancy.

"The dramatic physiologic changes that happen during pregnancy are indeed remarkable," said Winn, the Arline and Pete Harman faculty scholar in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. "This study highlights how complications that occur in pregnancy impact women's health beyond pregnancy." 

The pathogenic links between preeclampsia early in life and ASCVD late in life have been difficult to investigate because the process develops over decades, the authors said. And few clinicians are aware of the link between the condition and late ASCVD risk and there are no validated biomarkers for this process.

Preliminary data that contributed to the application of the project was a direct result of Winn’s endowed Arline and Pete Harman Faculty Scholar award and funding from the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute and the Stanford Cardiovascular Institute.

The 4-year grant will support a multi-disciplinary research team in taking a life-course approach. The EPOCH study will enroll three cohorts of women at distinct points in the natural history of the disorder: during pregnancy in their reproductive years; during the long, asymptomatic period in mid-life; and the ultimate development of ASCVD in later life.

“It’s very difficult to study the effects of early life events on the development of diseases late in life, since they are separated by 40 years or more,” Hlatky said. “We don’t have reliable health records in the United States from 40 or more years ago, so it’s a challenge for American researchers.” This is why, he said, the EPOCH study includes researchers from Denmark, which has a national health system, complete medical data of their citizens since the 1970’s, and a national biobank that will allow study of later life events.

The first cohort of women will include some of those who are already part of the Stanford March of Dimes Prematurity Research Center. The center, led by David Stevenson began recruiting women in 2011 to study pregnancy from the first trimester through delivery. The study has collected a wide array of “omics” measures at multiple time points: metabolomics, proteomics, cell-free RNA, the microbiome and immune cells for analysis, as well as collection of amniotic fluid, cord blood, and the placenta. The pregnancy cohort will enroll additional women who are cared for at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital for treatment of preeclampsia, about 100 in all, plus a matched group with uncomplicated pregnancies.

This is where it gets pretty technical — but also pretty cool

The researchers will collect high-dimensional “omic” biomarker data to assess the pathophysiology of preeclampsia and its relationship to cardiovascular function and disease. They’ll assess cell signaling pathways using single-cell immune profiling (CyTOF) methods in the lab of Brice Gaudilliere, an assistant professor of anesthesia.

Image

They will then analyze the cell-free RNA profiles using methods developed by co-investigator Stephen Quake, a professor of bioengineering and applied physics, and co-president of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub. They will assess metabolomics using novel methods also developed at Stanford by co-investigator Michael Snyder,  professor and chair of genetics.

Stanford data scientists, including co-investigators, Robert Tibshirani and Nima Aghaeepour, have been at the forefront of developing and applying novel statistical and bioinformatic approaches, which the team will use to analyze the torrents of data that can now be collected by modern “omics” technologies from individual clinical research subjects.

“The EPOCH study is truly interdisciplinary — we are bringing together faculty from eight different departments to study a major problem in women’s health.”

The second, mid-life cohort will be recruited from women who had a pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia. Marcia Stefanick, professor of medicine in the Stanford Prevention Research Center, will use the Stanford Medicine Research Data Repository (STARR), which contains electronic records from more than 1.6 million patients since 1995, to identify eligible women. Stefanick and the EPOCH team will recruit 200 pre-menopausal women who had either a pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia or an uncomplicated pregnancy.

The third, late-life cohort of women will be identified in the Danish National Biobank by Stanford visiting professor Mads Melbye. Samples will be retrieved from women who had preeclampsia early in life and ASCD later in life, as well as a set of matched control subjects, and analyzed in Stanford laboratories.

“We’re not quite sure whether the physiologic challenges of pregnancy that result in preeclampsia simply reveal underlying cardiovascular risk, or causes change that leads to the increased risk in later life,” Winn said. “The EPOCH study will identify unique aspects of preeclampsia that links it to later ASCVD, opening potential novel approaches to improve women’s health.”

The EPOCH study brings together investigators from eight departments. Additional faculty include Gary Shaw and Seda Tierney (Pediatrics), Martin Angst (Anesthesia), Nicholas Leeper (Surgery) and Heather Boyd (Danish Biobank).

All News button
1
Authors
Beth Duff-Brown
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends adults ages 40 to 75 with no history of heart disease — but who nevertheless have at least one risk factor and an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease — take a low- to moderate-dose statin.

The independent panel of experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine issued the recommendation in the Nov. 15 issue of JAMA.

An estimated 505,000 adults died of coronary heart and cerebrovascular disease in 2011. The prevalence of heart disease increases with, ranging from about 7 percent in adults ages 45-64 to 20 percent in those 65 and older. It is somewhat higher in men than in women.

Douglas Owens, MD, was a member of the task force when the guideline was developed. He is a professor of medicine at the School of Medicine and director of the Center for Health Policy and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. The centers are part of Stanford Health Policy. He is also a physician with the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System.

We ask Owens some questions about the new guideline:

Q: What prompted this new recommendation by the task force?

Owens: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for 1 in 3 deaths among adults due to heart attack and stroke. And statins can provide an important benefit to people at elevated risk of cardiovascular disease. But in order to know whether statins are going to be beneficial, it’s important to know something about the patient’s cardiovascular risk.

We reviewed the literature comprehensively — including 19 randomized clinical trials involving more than 73,340 patients, as well as additional observational studies — to understand both the benefits and the harms of statins. We concluded that the benefits outweigh the harms in appropriate patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The primary benefit of statins is a reduction in your chance of having a heart attack or stroke.

Q: What are statins and why do they offer such benefit?

Owens: A statin is a drug that reduces the production of cholesterol by the liver. High cholesterol is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke, and statins help prevent the formation of the so-called bad cholesterol. Statin drugs also help lower triglycerides, or blood fats, and raise the so-called good cholesterol, HDL.

While there are some reported side effects from the use of statins, such as muscle and joint aches, most people tolerate statins fairly well. There is mixed evidence about whether statins may result in a modest increase in the chance of diabetes, but the task force assessed the benefits to clearly outweigh harms in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

 

 

Q: Who should be taking low- to moderate-dose statins?

Owens: The task force recommends that clinicians offer statins to adults who are 40 to 75 years old and have at least one existing cardiovascular disease risk, such as diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol or smoking. They also must have a calculated risk of 10 percent or more that they will experience a heart attack or stroke in the next decade.

The task force recommends clinicians use the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association risk calculator to estimate cardiovascular risk because it provides gender- and race-specific estimates of heart disease and stroke.

For people with a risk of 7.5 to 10 percent of heart attack or stroke over the next decade, the task force recommends individual decision-making, as the benefits of statins are less in this age group because these people have a lower baseline risk of having a cardiovascular event.

The task force also looked at the initiation of statins in people 75 or older and found there wasn’t enough evidence to determine whether people in this age group who have not previously been on a statin would benefit from starting a statin. So the task force suggests people in this age group consult their physicians about whether a statin may be beneficial.

Q: Do these new statin guidelines override the task force recommendation in 2008 that adults be screened for lipid disorders due to high cholesterol?

Owens: Yes, this recommendation replaces the 2008 recommendation on screening for lipid disorders in adults.

The accumulating evidence on the role of statins in preventing heart disease has now led the task force to reframe its main clinical question from “Who should be screened for dyslipidemia?” to “Which population should be prescribed statin therapy?”

We recommend that physicians go beyond screening for elevated lipid levels and assess the overall cardiovascular risk to identify adults ages 40 to 75 years who will benefit most from statin use.

Q: What does the task force hope to accomplish with the new recommendation?

Owens: We hope this guideline will help both clinicians and patients decide what their cardiovascular risk is and what steps they can take to reduce those risks, which include a healthy lifestyle, a healthy diet and exercise, and for appropriate patients at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, potentially a statin. 

We also hope to highlight areas that would benefit from additional research. Further research on the long-term harms of statin therapy, and on the balance of benefits and harms of statin use in adults 76 years and older, would be helpful in informing clinicians and patients. 

 

All News button
1

Practice guidelines aim to guide physician practice according to the best available evidence.  Data were mixed regarding the impact of practice guidelines on physician prescribing. The researchers analyzed data from three national ambulatory care surveys to depict long-term trends in U.S.

Paragraphs

To address growing concerns over childhood obesity, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently recommended that children undergo obesity screening beginning at age 6. An Expert Committee recommends starting at age 2. Analysis is needed to assess these recommendations and investigate whether there are better alternatives. We model the age- and sex-specific population-wide distribution of BMI through age 18 using National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) data. The impact of treatment on BMI is estimated using the targeted systematic review performed to aid the USPSTF. The prevalence of hypertension and diabetes at age 40 are estimated from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). We fix the screening interval at 2 years, and derive the age- and sex-dependent BMI thresholds that minimize adult disease prevalence, subject to referring a specified percentage of children for treatment yearly. We compare this optimal biennial policy to biennial versions of the USPSTF and Expert Committee recommendations. Compared to the USPSTF recommendation, the optimal policy reduces adult disease prevalence by 3% in relative terms (the absolute reductions are <1%) at the same treatment referral rate, or achieves the same disease prevalence at a 28% reduction in treatment referral rate. If compared to the Expert Committee recommendation, the reductions change to 6 and 40%, respectively. The optimal policy treats mostly 16-year olds and few children under age 14. Our results suggest that adult disease is minimized by focusing childhood obesity screening and treatment on older adolescents.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Obesity
Authors
Wein, L.M
Yang, Y.
Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert
Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert
Paragraphs

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

To determine which of 3 interventions was most effective in improving blood pressure (BP) control, we performed a 4-arm randomized trial with 18-month follow-up at the primary care clinics at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

METHODS:

Eligible patients were randomized to either usual care or 1 of 3 telephone-based intervention groups: (1) nurse-administered behavioral management, (2) nurse- and physician-administered medication management, or (3) a combination of both. Of the 1551 eligible patients, 593 individuals were randomized; 48% were African American. The intervention telephone calls were triggered based on home BP values transmitted via telemonitoring devices. Behavioral management involved promotion of health behaviors. Medication management involved adjustment of medications by a study physician and nurse based on hypertension treatment guidelines.

RESULTS:

The primary outcome was change in BP control measured at 6-month intervals over 18 months. Both the behavioral management and medication management alone showed significant improvements at 12 months-12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6%-24.1%) and 12.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-23.6%), respectively-but not at 18 months. In subgroup analyses, among those with poor baseline BP control, systolic BP decreased in the combined intervention group by 14.8 mm Hg (95% CI, -21.8 to -7.8 mm Hg) at 12 months and 8.0 mm Hg (95% CI, -15.5 to -0.5 mm Hg) at 18 months, relative to usual care.

CONCLUSIONS:

Overall intervention effects were moderate, but among individuals with poor BP control at baseline, the effects were larger. This study indicates the importance of identifying individuals most likely to benefit from potentially resource intensive programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00237692.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Archives of Internal Medicine
Authors
Bosworth HB
Powers BJ
Olsen MK
McCant F
Grubber J
Smith V
Gentry PW
Rose C
Van Houtven C
Wang V
Mary K. Goldstein
Mary Goldstein
Oddone EZ
Paragraphs

Clinical practice guidelines aim to help providers make decisions that optimize patient care (1). Both developers and users of guidelines understand that guidelines could be improved by tailoring the recommendations to the specific circumstances of an individual patient. Tailored guideline recommendations may improve health outcomes when a group of patients can be divided into subgroups in which the tailored recommendations would increase benefits, reduce harms, or save costs relative to more generic recommendations. For example, a guideline for hypertension may recommend antihypertensive treatment in patients whose blood pressure is higher than 140/90 mm Hg. However, patients with diabetes or high cardiovascular risk may benefit from receiving treatment at lower blood pressures, whereas other patients may benefit from less aggressive treatment.

However, for both guideline developers and clinicians, tailoring recommendations is easier said than done. Developers of guidelines face a difficult tradeoff: Issue simplified, easy-to-follow guidelines or, instead, guidelines targeted more precisely to each patient, at the cost of greater complexity and more challenging implementation. In addition, little evidence may exist to guide how to tailor recommendations, because trials may exclude patients who have the comorbid conditions and other factors that would warrant tailoring a recommendation.

Clinicians also may have far more information about an individual patient than even complex guidelines can accommodate. Should a patient with atrial fibrillation receive guideline-concordant anticoagulation therapy even if he or she is at increased risk for falls? Such …

This 100-word excerpt has been provided in the absence of an abstract.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Annals of Internal Medicine
Authors
Douglas K. Owens
Douglas Owens
Paragraphs

Study objective: We describe the availability of preventive health services in US emergency departments (EDs), as well as ED directors' preferred service and perceptions of barriers to offering preventive services.

Methods: Using the 2007 National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI)-USA, we randomly sampled 350 (7%) of 4,874 EDs. We surveyed directors of these EDs to determine the availability of

  1. screening and referral programs for alcohol, tobacco, geriatric falls, intimate partner violence, HIV, diabetes, and hypertension;
  2. vaccination programs for influenza and pneumococcus; and
  3. linkage programs to primary care and health insurance.

ED directors were asked to select the service they would most like to implement and to rate 5 potential barriers to offering preventive services.

Results: Two hundred seventy-seven EDs (80%) responded across 46 states. Availability of services ranged from 66% for intimate partner violence screening to 19% for HIV screening. ED directors wanted to implement primary care linkage most (17%) and HIV screening least (2%). ED directors "agreed/strongly agreed" that the following are barriers to ED preventive care: cost (74%), increased patient length of stay (64%), lack of follow-up (60%), resource shifting leading to worse patient outcomes (53%), and philosophical opposition (27%).

Conclusion: Most US EDs offer preventive services, but availability and ED director preference for type of service vary greatly. The maj ority of EDs do not routinely offer Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- recommended HIV screening. Most ED directors are not philosophically opposed to offering preventive services but are concerned with added costs, effects on ED operations, and potential lack of follow- up.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Authors
Mucio Kit Delgado
Acosta CD
Ginde AA
Wang NE
Strehlow MC
Khandwala YS
Camargo CA
Paragraphs

Background: Many patients with hypertension have legitimate reasons to forego standard blood pressure targets yet are nonetheless included in performance measurement systems. An approach to performance measurement incorporating clinical reasoning was developed to determine which patients to include in a performance measure.

Design: A 10-member multispecialty advisory panel refined a taxonomy of situations in which the balance of benefits and harms of anti-hypertensive treatment does not clearly favor tight blood pressure control (< 140/90 mm Hg).

Findings: The panel identified several broad categories of reasons for exempting a patient from performance measurement for blood pressure control. These included

  1. patients who have suffered adverse effects from multiple classes of antihypertensive medications;
  2. patients already taking four or more antihypertensive medications;
  3. patients with terminal disease, moderate to severe dementia, or other conditions that overwhelmingly dominate the patient's clinical status; and
  4. other patient factors, including comfort care orientation and poor medication adherence despite attempts to remedy adherence difficulties.

Several general principles also emerged. Performance measurement should focus on patients for whom the benefits of treatment clearly outweigh the harms and should incorporate a longitudinal approach. In addition, the criteria for exempting a patient from performance measurement should be more strict in patients at higher risk of adverse health outcomes from hypertension and more lenient for patients at lower risk.

Conclusions: Incorporating "real world" clinical principles and judgment into performance measurement systems may improve targeting of care and, by accounting for patient case mix, allow for better comparison of performance between institutions.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety
Authors
Steinman MA
Mary K. Goldstein
Mary Goldstein
Subscribe to Hypertension