Increasing physical activity for the treatment of hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low physical activity has been identified as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Medical societies therefore recommend increased physical activity be part of any antihypertensive therapy. OBJECTIVE: Focusing on patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and cardiovascular events, this review was conducted to assess the long-term effects of interventions aiming at increasing physical activity in comparison with no such interventions on adult patients with essential hypertension. DATA SOURCES: We searched for high-quality systematic reviews in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Reviews), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Other Reviews) and Health Technology Assessment Database (Technology Assessments) published between 1997 and February 2009 and for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Clinical Trials) published before September 2012. Additional studies were identified by hand searching reference lists of reviews. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs with at least 24 weeks' follow-up that evaluated the effect of increased physical activity on the blood pressure of adults with essential hypertension were included in our review. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, end-stage renal disease, quality of life and adverse events. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: When appropriate, we used random effects meta-analyses to determine mean difference with 95 % confidence intervals for each endpoint. All data were analysed using the Review Manager software version 5.0.24 from the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: None of the included nine trials, covering 891 patients with hypertension, provided sufficient data on patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality, cardiovascular events or injuries related to physical activity. Information on changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was provided for all included trials. The majority of the included RCTs reported that increased physical activity led to a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure of 5-10 and 1-6 mmHg, respectively, but due to marked heterogeneity in the meta-analyses both for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (I² = 70.0 and 73.0 %), no effect estimates were provided. LIMITATIONS: About 50 % of the included trials were small, evaluating at most 20 participants per study group, and more than twothirds were deemed to have a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Although a decrease in blood pressure is shown to be a consequence of increased physical activity, RCTs of appropriate study size and quality that examine potential patient-relevant benefits or harms still need to be conducted to evaluate whether physical activity really improves the health of patients with essential hypertension.

Benefit assessment of salt reduction in patients with hypertension: systematic overview.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the benefits and harm of reduced salt intake in patients with essential hypertension focusing on patient-relevant outcomes and blood pressure. METHODS: A systematic search of five electronic databases was performed to identify high-quality secondary literature based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An update primary literature search (RCTs) was performed for the time period up to 2010 that was not covered by secondary literature. Major outcomes were death, cardiovascular morbidity/mortality, hospital stays, terminal renal failure, quality of life, and adverse events. Change in blood pressure was defined as surrogate parameter. RESULTS: Four different systematic reviews and two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Only one review reported limited data on patient-relevant outcomes. Over an intervention period of up to 12 months, mean SBP was reduced by 3.6-8.0 mmHg in all reviews. For the same intervention period, a statistically significant advantage with regard to mean DBP reduction ranging from 1.9 to 2.8 mmHg was found in three reviews. The fourth publication reported a nonsignificant reduction (DBP reduction of 4.7 mmHg). None of the RCTs identified in the primary literature search update reported data on patient-relevant outcomes. However, both RCTs found blood pressure improvements with salt reduction. CONCLUSION: A benefit from a salt-reduced diet in patients with high blood pressure is not proven with regard to patient-relevant outcomes based on systematic reviews and RCTs published up to 2010. The results indicate a blood pressure-lowering effect through reduced salt intake in hypertensive patients.

A systematic review of the evidence for radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation with the HALO system is a new option for the treatment of patients with Barrett's esophagus. This systematic review summarizes the results of all relevant publications on this topic to answer patient-relevant clinical questions and to evaluate the potential benefit and harm of this new therapy. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL up to May 2009 was performed. To identify the relevant literature, references were evaluated by two reviewers independently. The inclusion criteria for the review required that studies investigated patients with Barrett's esophagus, used radiofrequency ablation as the intervention, and had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. RESULTS: A total of nine relevant observational studies (involving 429 patients) were identified. Complete eradication of Barrett's esophagus dysplasia and metaplasia was achieved respectively for 71-100% and for 46-100% of the patients. Only six cases of stenosis and one case of buried intestinal metaplasia were reported among all the patients. Only a few mild adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence of observational studies, the summary of the current data suggests that radiofrequency ablation with the HALO system could be a promising method associated with a low complication rate, low risk of stricture formations, and a minor probability of buried glands. To evaluate the potential benefit at a higher level of evidence, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a direct comparison with other more established endoscopic methods such as photodynamic therapy are necessary.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing drugs in hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND: All major guidelines for antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs might be a helpful option. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically induced reduction in body weight with orlistat, sibutramine or rimonabant on:- all cause mortality - cardiovascular morbidity - adverse events SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: - changes in systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure - body weight reduction SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from computerised searches of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and from hand searches in reference lists and systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in adult hypertensive patients with a study duration of at least 24 weeks comparing pharmacologic interventions (orlistat, sibutramine, rimonabant) for weight loss with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Studies were pooled using fixed-effect meta-analysis in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (p>0.1). Otherwise, we used the random effects method and investigated the cause of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies comparing orlistat or sibutramine to placebo fulfilled our inclusion criteria. No relevant studies investigating rimonabant for weight loss were identified. No study included mortality and cardiovascular morbidity as a pre-defined outcome. Incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher in orlistat treated vs. placebo treated patients. Most frequent side effects with sibutramine were dry mouth, constipation and headache. Patients assigned to weight loss diets, orlistat or sibutramine reduced their body weight more effectively than patients in the usual care/placebo groups. Blood pressure reduction in patients treated with orlistat was for systolic blood pressure (SBP): weighted mean difference (WMD): -2.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.0 to -0.9 mm Hg and for diastolic blood pressure (DBP): WMD -1.9 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.0 to -0.9 mm Hg. Meta-analysis showed DBP increase under therapy with sibutramine: WMD +3.2 mm Hg; 95%CI +1.4 to +4.9 mm Hg. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with elevated blood pressure, orlistat and sibutramine reduced body weight to a similar degree. In the same trials, orlistat reduced blood pressure and sibutramine increased blood pressure. No trials investigating rimonabant in people with elevated blood pressure could be included. Long-term trials assessing the effect of orlistat, sibutramine and rimonabant on mortality and morbidity are needed.