Whelton, Paul K.

Hypertension is the main risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), affecting 20–40% of Latin American (LATAM) adults, and responsible for more than two million deaths annually due to CVD. The different ethnic, economic, geographic, and cultural characteristics of the LATAM population influence the high prevalence of all cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), particularly metabolic disturbances such as type 2 diabetes (DM2), obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Their main determinants in LATAM includes environment, food quality, social inequity, low education, political aspects, contextual behaviour, and genetics. The prevalence of overweight and obesity in LATAM increased during the last four decades reaching figures of 10–20% in childhood, 30–40% in adolescence, and 60–70% in adults. Many studies in the region have reported the extremely low rates of awareness, treatment, and control of CVRF in the general population of LATAM, particularly in patients with metabolic disorders, and the consequent high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This 2026 LATAM consensus is developed by a large group of experts from different LATAM countries, the USA and Europe, representing areas of internal medicine, cardiology, nephrology, endocrinology, geriatrics, paediatrics, pharmacology, and epidemiology. A careful search for novel studies in LATAM, together with new evidence that has emerged since the 2019 LATAM consensus, support the statements and recommendations in the current report. This update aims to provide clear and useful recommendations for health professionals to improve awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension and associated CVRF in the region.

Hypertension is among the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and dementia. The artificial intelligence (AI) field is advancing quickly, and there has been little discussion on how AI could be leveraged for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension. AI technologies, including machine learning tools, could alter the way we diagnose and manage hypertension, with potential impacts for improving individual and population health. The development of successful AI tools in public health and health care systems requires diverse types of expertise with collaborative relationships between clinicians, engineers, and data scientists. Unbiased data sources, management, and analyses remain a foundational challenge. From a diagnostic standpoint, machine learning tools may improve the measurement of blood pressure and be useful in the prediction of incident hypertension. To advance the management of hypertension, machine learning tools may be useful to find personalized treatments for patients using analytics to predict response to antihypertension medications and the risk for hypertension-related complications. However, there are real-world implementation challenges to using AI tools in hypertension. Herein, we summarize key findings from a diverse group of stakeholders who participated in a workshop held by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in March 2023. Workshop participants presented information on communication gaps between clinical medicine, data science, and engineering in health care; novel approaches to estimating BP, hypertension risk, and BP control; and real-world implementation challenges and issues.

Key Points Identifying ways to prevent AKI may reduce mortality further in the setting of intensive BP control. Creatinine-based ascertainment of AKI, enabled by electronic health record data, may be more sensitive and less biased than traditional serious adverse event adjudication. Background Adjudication of inpatient AKI in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) was based on billing codes and admission and discharge notes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intensive versus standard BP control on creatinine-based inpatient and outpatient AKI, and whether AKI was associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. Methods We linked electronic health record (EHR) data from 47 clinic sites with trial data to enable creatinine-based adjudication of AKI. Cox regression was used to evaluate the effect of intensive BP control on the incidence of AKI, and the relationship between incident AKI and CVD and all-cause mortality. Results A total of 3644 participants had linked EHR data. A greater number of inpatient AKI events were identified using EHR data (187 on intensive versus 155 on standard treatment) as compared with serious adverse event (SAE) adjudication in the trial (95 on intensive versus 61 on standard treatment). Intensive treatment increased risk for SPRINT-adjudicated inpatient AKI (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.08) and for creatinine-based outpatient AKI (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.70), but not for creatinine-based inpatient AKI (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.48). Irrespective of the definition (SAE or creatinine based), AKI was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality, but only creatinine-based inpatient AKI was associated with increased risk for CVD. Conclusions Creatinine-based ascertainment of AKI, enabled by EHR data, may be more sensitive and less biased than traditional SAE adjudication. Identifying ways to prevent AKI may reduce mortality further in the setting of intensive BP control.

Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular disease and deaths worldwide especially in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the availability of safe, well-tolerated, and cost-effective blood pressure (BP)-lowering therapies, <14% of adults with hypertension have BP controlled to a systolic/diastolic BP <140/90 mm Hg. We report new hypertension treatment guidelines, developed in accordance with the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. Overviews of reviews of the evidence were conducted and summary tables were developed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. In these guidelines, the World Health Organization provides the most current and relevant evidence-based guidance for the pharmacological treatment of nonpregnant adults with hypertension. The recommendations pertain to adults with an accurate diagnosis of hypertension who have already received lifestyle modification counseling. The guidelines recommend BP threshold to initiate pharmacological therapy, BP treatment targets, intervals for follow-up visits, and best use of health care workers in the management of hypertension. The guidelines provide guidance for choice of monotherapy or dual therapy, treatment with single pill combination medications, and use of treatment algorithms for hypertension management. Strength of the recommendations was guided by the quality of the underlying evidence; the tradeoffs between desirable and undesirable effects; patient’s values, resource considerations and cost-effectiveness; health equity; acceptability, and feasibility consideration of different treatment options. The goal of the guideline is to facilitate standard approaches to pharmacological treatment and management of hypertension which, if widely implemented, will increase the hypertension control rate world-wide.

Several important findings bearing on the prevention, detection, and management of hypertension have been reported since publication of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline. This review summarizes and places in context the results of relevant observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses published between January 2018 and March 2021. Topics covered include blood pressure measurement, patient evaluation for secondary hypertension, cardiovascular disease risk assessment and blood pressure threshold for drug therapy, lifestyle and pharmacological management, treatment target blood pressure goal, management of hypertension in older adults, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, resistant hypertension, and optimization of care using patient, provider, and health system approaches. Presenting new information in each of these areas has the potential to increase hypertension awareness, treatment, and control which remain essential for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and mortality in the future.

Background Blood pressure ( BP ) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goals of this analysis are to evaluate concordance between (1) clinic and ambulatory BP , (2) clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability, and (3) first and second ambulatory BP and to evaluate whether different clinic targets affect these relationships. Methods and Results The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 participants at the 27‐month follow‐up visit and obtained a second reading in 203 participants 293±84 days afterward. There was considerable lack of agreement between clinic and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement in Bland‐Altman plots of −21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive‐treatment group and −26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard‐treatment group. Overall, there was poor agreement between clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability with correlation coefficients for systolic and diastolic BP all <0.16. We observed a high correlation between first and second ambulatory BP ; however, the limits of agreement were wide in both the intensive group (−27 to 21 mm Hg) and the standard group (−23 to 20 mm Hg). Conclusions We found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic and ambulatory BP and second ambulatory BP . Results did not differ by treatment arm. These results reinforce the need for multiple BP measurements before clinical decision making.

Blood pressure (BP) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on the concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goal of this analysis was to evaluate concordance in: 1) clinic BP and ambulatory BP, 2) clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability and 3) initial and repeat ambulatory BP. We also sought to evaluate whether treatment assignment of intensive vs standard BP target affected these relationships. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 SPRINT participants at the 27 month follow up visit and 203 consecutive repeat ambulatory BP readings taken an average of 9.8 months later. There was poor agreement between clinic systolic BP and daytime ambulatory systolic BP (limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plots of -21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and -26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard treatment group). There was poor agreement between clinic visit-to-visit variability (coefficient of variation) and ambulatory BP variability (coefficient of variation of a 24 hr ambulatory BP) with correlation coefficients for systolic BP <0.16. While there was a high correlation between ambulatory BP at 27 months and repeat ambulatory BP (r ~0.56), there was significant variability between repeat ambulatory BP assessments (limits of agreement of -27 to 21 mm Hg in the intensive group and -23 to 20 mm Hg in the standard group). In conclusion, irrespective of treatment target, we found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic BP and ambulatory BP, and additionally between repeat ambulatory BP assessments. These results reinforce the need for multiple guideline adherent BP measurements prior to clinical decision making.

Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control improved outcomes in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Our objective was to expand on reported findings by analysis of baseline characteristics, primary outcomes, adverse events, follow-up blood pressure, and medication use differences by baseline SBP (tertile 1 [T1], <132; tertile 2 [T2], 132–145; and tertile 3 [T3], >145 mm Hg). Participants with higher baseline SBP tertile were more often women and older, had higher cardiovascular risk, and lower utilization of antihypertensive medications, statins, and aspirin. Achieved SBP in both treatment arms was slightly higher in T2 and T3 compared with T1 and fewer in the T3 groups achieved SBP targets compared with T1 and T2 groups. The primary composite outcome with intensive versus standard SBP treatment was reduced by 30% in T1, 23% in T2, and 17% in T3 with no evidence of an interaction ( P =0.77). Event rates were lower in the intensive arm, and there was no evidence that this benefit differed by SBP tertile. There was no difference in the hazard for serious adverse events in any of the 3 tertiles. Medication utilization differed across the SBP tertiles at baseline with a lesser percentage of diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker drugs in the higher tertiles—a finding that reversed during the trial. The beneficial effects of intensive SBP lowering were not modified by the level of baseline SBP. Within the parameters of this population, these findings add support for clinicians to treat blood pressure to goal irrespective of baseline SBP.

Background: The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults provides recommendations for the definition of hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) thresholds for initiation of antihypertensive medication, and BP target goals. Objectives: This study sought to determine the prevalence of hypertension, implications of recommendations for antihypertensive medication, and prevalence of BP above the treatment goal among US adults using criteria from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7). Methods: The authors analyzed data from the 2011 to 2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (N = 9 623). BP was measured 3 times following a standardized protocol and averaged. Results were weighted to produce US population estimates. Results: According to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, the crude prevalence of hypertension among US adults was 45.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43.6% to 47.6%) and 31.9% (95% CI: 30.1% to 33.7%), respectively, and antihypertensive medication was recommended for 36.2% (95% CI: 34.2% to 38.2%) and 34.3% (95% CI: 32.5% to 36.2%) of US adults, respectively. Nonpharmacological intervention is advised for the 9.4% of US adults with hypertension who are not recommended for antihypertensive medication according to the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. Among US adults taking antihypertensive medication, 53.4% (95% CI: 49.9% to 56.8%) and 39.0% (95% CI: 36.4% to 41.6%) had BP above the treatment goal according to the 2017 ACC/AHA and JNC7 guidelines, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with the JNC7 guideline, the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline results in a substantial increase in the prevalence of hypertension, a small increase in the percentage of US adults recommended for antihypertensive medication, and more intensive BP lowering for many adults taking antihypertensive medication.