[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 111
Citations 0
Comment & Response
April 2018

Questionable Conclusions Regarding Blood Pressure End Points

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware
JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(4):574-575. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0026

To the Editor In an Original Investigation published in a recent issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Brünstrom and Carlberg1 provide a novel viewpoint and welcome insight into the ongoing discussion about target blood pressure.

It makes intuitive sense that those with higher baseline blood pressures could derive greater benefit from blood pressure reduction than those with lower baseline blood pressure. However, I find it difficult to translate the results of the meta-analysis by Brünstrom and Carlberg1 to clinical practice because they do not describe the specific blood pressure end points that result in risk reduction. I would argue that a difference of 5 mm Hg may have a different outcome compared with a difference of 10 mm Hg or 20 mm Hg, or even the reduction of blood pressure to less than 140 mm Hg systolic, which was considered normotensive in the study.1 This lack of clarity makes the data hard to incorporate into actual decision making regarding patients. Additionally, explanation of how the baseline blood pressures were obtained in the 74 trials would help the reader in forming opinions regarding the validity of the trials and whether or not they are replicable in the clinical setting.1

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words