The
New York Times (12/19, A23,
Kolata, Subscription Publication, 9.61M) reports that “new guidelines suggest
that people over 60 can have a higher blood pressure than previously
recommended before starting treatment to lower it.” The guidelines committee,
“composed of 17 academics, was tasked with updating guidelines last re-examined
a decade ago.” The recommendations were “published online on Wednesday in The
Journal of the American Medical Association.”
The
AP (12/19) reports that “the
panel completed its work earlier this year, around the same time that the
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute announced that it was getting out of
the guidelines business and turning the job over to the American Heart
Association and American College of Cardiology.” NHLBI Director Dr. Gary Gibbons
released “a statement Wednesday emphasizing that his agency has not sanctioned
the panel’s report, nor has the broader National Institutes of Health.”
Although he pointed out “that the panel decided not to collaborate with the
heart groups’ efforts, Gibbons said his agency would work with those groups ‘to
transition’ the panel’s evidence review into their update.”
The
Wall Street Journal (12/19,
A2, Winslow, Subscription Publication, 5.91M) points out that neither the
American College of Cardiology nor the American Heart Association vetted the
document, nor did the NHLBI. This led one NHLBI researcher to remove his name
from the document, according to Michael Lauer, director of cardiovascular
sciences at NHLBI
The
Los Angeles Times (12/19,
Kaplan, 3.07M) “Science Times” blog reports that “rather than aim for a target
blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg, the target will be relaxed slightly to 150/90
mm Hg, according to” the “new guidelines.” The guidelines’ authors “emphasized
that they were not changing the definition of high blood pressure.” Instead,
“they are recognizing that data from randomized clinical trials do not show
that using drugs to nudge down systolic blood pressure from 150 to 140 provides
any health benefit.”
Bloomberg News (12/19, Cortez,
1.91M) reports that individuals aged “60 and older were focused on in the
guidelines because they ‘are a unique population and we are concerned about the
number of medications that may be required,’ said Paul James, the lead author
of the article.”
Forbes (12/19, Husten, 6.03M) contributor Larry Husten writes
that “one important difference between the hypertension guideline and the
AHA/ACC guidelines released last month is the approach to risk assessment.”
While “the AHA/ACC recommendations were based on an assessment of total
cardiovascular risk, the hypertension guideline is more narrowly focused on
blood pressure.”
According
to the Boston Globe (12/19,
Kotz, 1.75M), “a number of cardiologists...complained that the new guideline
was not issued by any major medical group or government entity.”
Harlan
Krumholz, MD, discusses the guidelines in the New York Times (12/19, 9.61M) “Well” blog.
CardioSource (12/19, 2K) reports, “Practice guidelines are
traditionally promulgated by the government or by learned medical professional
societies. The JAMA paper is a report of a group experts in the field of
hypertension, but it does not carry the endorsement of any organized body.
Moving forward, these recommendations will be taken into account in the coming
year as the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines moves forward with
developing the collaborative model to update the national hypertension
guidelines in partnership with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
(NHLBI).” Also covering the story are CNN
(12/19, Willingham, 14.53M), MedPage
Today (12/19, Neale, 122K), and HealthDay
(12/19, Thompson, 5K).
Posted
by: Steven Almany M.D.
The
New York Times (12/19, A23,
Kolata, Subscription Publication, 9.61M) reports that “new guidelines suggest
that people over 60 can have a higher blood pressure than previously
recommended before starting treatment to lower it.” The guidelines committee,
“composed of 17 academics, was tasked with updating guidelines last re-examined
a decade ago.” The recommendations were “published online on Wednesday in The
Journal of the American Medical Association.”
The
AP (12/19) reports that “the
panel completed its work earlier this year, around the same time that the
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute announced that it was getting out of
the guidelines business and turning the job over to the American Heart
Association and American College of Cardiology.” NHLBI Director Dr. Gary Gibbons
released “a statement Wednesday emphasizing that his agency has not sanctioned
the panel’s report, nor has the broader National Institutes of Health.”
Although he pointed out “that the panel decided not to collaborate with the
heart groups’ efforts, Gibbons said his agency would work with those groups ‘to
transition’ the panel’s evidence review into their update.”
The
Wall Street Journal (12/19,
A2, Winslow, Subscription Publication, 5.91M) points out that neither the
American College of Cardiology nor the American Heart Association vetted the
document, nor did the NHLBI. This led one NHLBI researcher to remove his name
from the document, according to Michael Lauer, director of cardiovascular
sciences at NHLBI
The
Los Angeles Times (12/19,
Kaplan, 3.07M) “Science Times” blog reports that “rather than aim for a target
blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg, the target will be relaxed slightly to 150/90
mm Hg, according to” the “new guidelines.” The guidelines’ authors “emphasized
that they were not changing the definition of high blood pressure.” Instead,
“they are recognizing that data from randomized clinical trials do not show
that using drugs to nudge down systolic blood pressure from 150 to 140 provides
any health benefit.”
Bloomberg News (12/19, Cortez,
1.91M) reports that individuals aged “60 and older were focused on in the
guidelines because they ‘are a unique population and we are concerned about the
number of medications that may be required,’ said Paul James, the lead author
of the article.”
Forbes (12/19, Husten, 6.03M) contributor Larry Husten writes
that “one important difference between the hypertension guideline and the
AHA/ACC guidelines released last month is the approach to risk assessment.”
While “the AHA/ACC recommendations were based on an assessment of total
cardiovascular risk, the hypertension guideline is more narrowly focused on
blood pressure.”
According
to the Boston Globe (12/19,
Kotz, 1.75M), “a number of cardiologists...complained that the new guideline
was not issued by any major medical group or government entity.”
Harlan
Krumholz, MD, discusses the guidelines in the New York Times (12/19, 9.61M) “Well” blog.
CardioSource (12/19, 2K) reports, “Practice guidelines are
traditionally promulgated by the government or by learned medical professional
societies. The JAMA paper is a report of a group experts in the field of
hypertension, but it does not carry the endorsement of any organized body.
Moving forward, these recommendations will be taken into account in the coming
year as the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines moves forward with
developing the collaborative model to update the national hypertension
guidelines in partnership with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
(NHLBI).” Also covering the story are CNN
(12/19, Willingham, 14.53M), MedPage
Today (12/19, Neale, 122K), and HealthDay
(12/19, Thompson, 5K).
Posted
by: Steven Almany M.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment