Hypertension Prevalence and Control at Trial Entry in the REPRIEVE Study Population: Results From a Secondary Analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: We evaluated baseline hypertension prevalence and control and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) among people with HIV in REPRIEVE who had low to moderate traditional cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Methods: Hypertension at baseline was defined by (1) a preexisting diagnosis regardless of antihypertensive treatment or (2) systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg without a prior diagnosis. We estimated the prevalence of the composite hypertension and control outcomes and calculated adjusted prevalence ratios controlling for traditional CVD risk factors using log binomial regression. We explored the relationship between hypertension and MACE using cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of 7769 participants enrolled from 5 regions, the median age was 50 years, and 2419 (31%) were women. The prevalence of baseline hypertension was 36% (n = 2780) with geographic variation. Among these, 1911 (69%) individuals had a preexisting hypertension diagnosis; the remainder (n = 869, 31%) were undiagnosed. Region and traditional CVD risk factors were associated with hypertension prevalence, with obese and overweight body mass index having the highest adjusted prevalence ratios (1.80 [95% CI, 1.67-1.95] and 1.38 [95% CI, 1.28-1.49], respectively). Among those with preexisting hypertension, 40% were uncontrolled, with regional variation. Hypertension at baseline was associated with an increased hazard of MACE (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.57-2.55) and key components of MACE, including myocardial infarction and stroke. Conclusions: Approximately 1 in 3 REPRIEVE participants had hypertension at baseline. Hypertension was frequently suboptimally controlled. These findings highlight the need for improved screening and optimized treatment of hypertension in people with HIV.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.