The Pharmacological Treatment of Arterial Hypertension in Frail, Older Patients
A systematic review
; ; ; ; ;
Background: It is debated whether the treatment goals and decision-making algorithms for elderly patients with hypertension should be the same as those for younger patients. The American and European guidelines leave decisions about antihypertensive treatment in frail, institutionalized patients up to the treating physician. We therefore systematically searched the literature for publications on the phamacotherapy of arterial hypertension in frail patients.
Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Central databases were systematically searched for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies, including observational studies, on the pharmacotherapy of arterial hypertension in elderly patients since the introduction of the concept of frailty, published over the period 1992–2017.
Results: Out of 19 282 citations for randomized, controlled trials and 5659 for non-randomized trials and observational studies, four RCTs and three observational studies were included in the further analysis. The included RCTs showed a trend towards a benefit from pharmacotherapy of hypertension in frail patients with respect to mortality, cardiovascular disease, functional status, and quality of life. On the other hand, some of the observational studies indicated a lower rate of falls and lower mortality among patients who received no antihypertensive treatment.
Conclusion: In view of the conflicting findings of RCTs and non-randomized studies, the lower representation of frail subjects in RCTs, and the high risk of bias in non-randomized studies, the findings of the studies included in this review do not enable the formulation of any strictly evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a rule of thumb, the authors propose that a target systolic blood pressure of <150 mmHg should be aimed at in patients whose gait speed is less than 0.8 m/s, while a target range of 130–139 mmHg can be set for patients over age 80 who are no more than mildly frail.
The current recommendations for blood pressure target values and pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension in older people are heterogeneous (1, 2). The 2017 guideline of the American College of Cardiology recommends a new target value of systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg for persons ≥ 65 years living at home (3). For the same age group, the recently published guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), state a target range of 130 to 139 mmHg for systolic pressure (level of evidence A) (4). The German Hypertension League and the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM) also recommend that the blood pressure should be <140/90 mmHg in the elderly (5–7). However, the DEGAM describes the research data on antihypertensive treatment in older patients as inadequate (6). Management of high blood pressure is particularly challenging in frail, elderly persons owing to the potential complications and the problem of tolerance. The above-mentioned American guideline (3) differentiates older patients primarily by morbidity, age, and institutionalization, but not by degree of frailty. In contrast, the current ESC guideline distinguishes between fit, independent patients and frail patients (4). While it can be assumed that older hypertensive patients who are not frail can be treated analogously to younger age groups, one has to question whether frail elderly patients benefit from such a therapy (8).
But what is “frailty”? The term has never been clearly defined since its introduction in 1992 and remains controversial. While the explanatory model proposed by Fried et al. (9) defines frailty mainly in physical terms such as measurements of grip strength, undesired weight loss, physical activity, and gait speed, the Frailty Index (FI) of Rockwood et al. (10) also embraces cognitive parameters, comorbidity, and malnutrition. In order to achieve comparable characterization of older participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in 2015 the European Medicines Agency (EMA) suggested measuring walking speed and carrying out the Short Physical Performance Battery (11).
At present, both the American and European guidelines leave the decision on antihypertensive treatment of frail, older adults to the treating physician (3, 4). Although frailty already plays a role in guideline recommendations, the existing systematic reviews have only considered age. For this reason, we took frailty into account in a systematic assessment of the evidence regarding the pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension.
The MEDLINE, Embase, and Central databases were searched for relevant records in the period 1 January 1992 to 31 December 2017 (PROSPERO CRD42017067253) (12). Two reviewers (VM, SB) independently carried out the following steps:
- Selection of studies
- Data extraction
- Assessment of the risk of bias in the primary studies
Any disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by discussion or by a third person (MD, DD). Included for analysis were RCTs that investigated the effects of pharmacological treatment of hypertension on the endpoints functionality, mortality, morbidity, or quality of life in relation to physical frailty. Nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) were also included if they analyzed physical frailty as effect modifier of antihypertensive treatment for the above-mentioned endpoints (for further details, please refer to the eMethods supplement). Physical frailty was evaluated systematically on the basis of the functional assessments (e.g., of mobility or activities of daily living [ADL]) that had been performed (13).
The survey revealed 19 282 records for RCTs based on the titles and abstracts, of which 39 were identified as potentially relevant. For non-RCTs and observational studies, 41 of 5659 records were judged potentially relevant. After full-text screening, four RCTs (14–19) and three prospective longitudinal cohort studies (20–22) were included for analysis. One reanalysis of an RCT (23) was identified and included after an additional search for the first and last authors of these seven studies. Details of the studies included and their results are presented in Table 1 and eTable 1, and the risk of bias for the RCTs is shown in eTable 2.
Randomized controlled trials
Four RCTs were identified (Table 1, eTable 1):
- HYVET (HYpertension in the Very Elderly Trial) (16, 17)
- DANTE (Discontinuation of Antihypertensive Treatment in Elderly People) (18)
- SHEP (Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program) (19)
- SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) (14, 15, 23)
HYVET investigated the interaction between drug treatment (a combination of slow-release indapamide 1.5 mg ± perindopril 2–4 mg) and frailty in patients 80 years of age or older with a systolic blood pressure >160 mmHg (16). In this context the available data suggest that the protective effect of antihypertensive treatment—with regard to the incidence of strokes and of fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events—could be greater with increasing frailty. Further analysis of the HYVET data with the change in frailty during the first 24 months as endpoint showed no significant difference, but the outcome tended to be better in the intervention group (17). The risk of bias for HYVET was found to be predominantly low. However, the description of random sequence generation was insufficient (eTable 2).
In DANTE, short-term discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment in patients ≥ 75 years of age with mild cognitive deficits (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score 21–27) did not improve cognition or functionality (ADL) after 16 weeks (18). The treatment for hypertension also showed no differences in effect on cognition between groups with and without restricted ADL. The risk of bias was predominantly low, but there was no blinding of participants or study personnel (18) (eTable 2).
SHEP, published in 1991, was the first American RCT to show the protective effect of antihypertensive treatment (chlorthalidone ± atenolol) against fatal and nonfatal stroke compared with placebo (25). A post-hoc analysis 25 years after the end of the study demonstrated no modification of the effect by self-reported functional limitations (19). There were signs that the treatment increased the risk of occurrence of the secondary endpoints overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke in functionally impaired patients. The risk of bias was predominantly low; however, the risk was unclear for random sequence generation and high for incomplete outcome data (eTable 2).
SPRINT examined, in a subanalysis, the effects on the primary endpoints mortality and cardiovascular disease of intensive treatment for high blood pressure (<120 mmHg) compared with standard treatment (<140 mmHg) in patients aged 75 years and over (14). Intense lowering of blood pressure protected against cardiovascular events regardless of gait speed. Further analyses of the SPRINT data showed no differences between the groups for decrease in gait speed over the following 3 years (15). For intensive treatment the risk of death was lower in patients without restricted mobility. However, the protective effect did not attain significance in those with restricted mobility. Patients who reported worse physical quality of life at the beginning of the study showed a more rapid decrease in gait speed than those whose self-assessment was better (15). After stratification by frailty, no significant difference in subjective quality of life was observed between the two groups (23). The risk of bias was predominantly unclear due to inadequacies in the description of random sequence generation and in blinding (eTable 2) (26, 27).
Non-randomized controlled trials
The three non-RTCs included for analysis were the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study (Health ABC) (21), the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (20), and the Jerusalem Longitudinal Study (22) (Table 1, eTable 1). (For information on study quality, please refer to the eMethods supplement.)
Health ABC investigated the association between consumption of antihypertensive medications and recurrent falls over a period of 7 years in 2948 community-dwelling, initially well-functioning older adults (21). A sensitivity analysis showed no effect modification by gait speed. The risk of bias was assessed as moderate.
One of the analyses in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey showed that administration of intensive drug treatment for high blood pressure was associated with an increased risk of serious fall injuries in 4961 Medicare patients ≥ 70 years of age. The risk was significantly higher in patients who were physically frail (as defined by falls in the foregoing year); however, there was no essential difference in risk between the groups with moderate and high decreases in blood pressure (20). The risk of bias was assessed as serious.
The Jerusalem Longitudinal Study examined the association between medicinal treatment of arterial hypertension and overall mortality in patients over 90 years of age depending on frailty, assessed in terms of ADL and grip strength (22). There were trends towards slightly lower mortality in untreated persons with hypertension and higher mortality in those who received treatment for hypertension compared with normotensive persons who did not receive treatment. The protective effect without treatment was greater among the participants with better physical functionality (22). The risk of bias was assessed as moderate
Although the term “frailty” was introduced as long ago as 1992 (28), our literature search for this review found only a small number of studies that characterized their participants in this respect. The findings of the RCTs we identified show that even patients with pronounced physical frailty may benefit from treatment of hypertension in terms of mortality, cardiovascular disease, functionality, and quality of life. However, because the risk of bias was often unclear, the proportion of participants with marked functional limitations mostly low, and the heterogeneity of the studies analyzed high, the quality of the evidence does not permit derivation of treatment recommendations. The quality of the non-RCTs we identified is also too low to evaluate whether physical frailty can be considered an effect modifier.
HYVET and SPRINT can be described as landmark RCTs for our study question, as they were the first to characterize the participants precisely in terms of frailty (eTable 3). The results show that antihypertensive treatment has a protective effect even in physically frail older patients. However, the subgroup analyses lacked the necessary statistical power for robust conclusions. Furthermore, it is questionable to what extent the RCTs’ selected patient populations reflect the the reality of prescription practice. For instance, SPRINT excluded patients with diabetes, symptomatic heart failure, orthostatic hypotension, or dementia and nursing home residents (29, 30). Dementia and the need for 24-h care were also exclusion criteria in HYVET (16).
The risk of bias in SPRINT was predominantly unclear, with inadequacies in the description of random sequence generation and in blinding of study personnel (26, 27). Gait speed and mobility restriction were not considered endpoints at the beginning of the study according to the registered study protocol (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01206062). Since all the study results display wide confidence intervals, the precision of the estimate of effect is low. Both HYVET and SPRINT were terminated prematurely, so the effect of the intervention may be overestimated (31). Moreover, in HYVET the FI, used to classify functionality, was also calculated for participants in whom not all, or not at least half, of the items were present (16). Therefore, the classification of the participants may be erroneous in this respect.
In addition, a higher risk of bias must be assumed for the non-RCTs. The results presented are of little assistance in deciding on differential treatment depending on physical frailty. Here too, many of the study participants had only slight functional limitations or none at all (21). While the known risk of a higher rate of falls with more intensive treatment for high blood pressure was confirmed, functional limitation seems to increase the risk (20). Many non-RCTs had to be excluded from our analysis either because they merely used the measured blood pressure as a surrogate for antihypertensive treatment or because they investigated neither greater functional limitation nor physical frailty as effect modifier. Only the PARTAGE study looked at the interaction between systolic blood pressure and the number of antihypertensive medications in residents of nursing homes. The results showed that patients with systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg who were taking at least two antihypertensive medications had the highest risk of death (32). Unfortunately there was no stratification of participants according to physical frailty, so this study had to be excluded.
The PARTAGE findings are in accordance with those of other epidemiological studies that postulate a J-shaped association between blood pressure and mortality. However, there is a distinct danger of reverse causation. For example, persons over 80 years old in Great Britain were found to be at greater risk of death with systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg (33). On examination of the blood pressure over time, however, a sharp drop in pressure was found particularly in the last 2 years of life, independent of antihypertensive treatment. The association may thus be explained by an as yet pathophysiologically unexplained blood pressure decrease up to 2 years before death, rather than by treatment for hypertension or by the blood pressure at the beginning of the study (33, 34). In the absence of sensitivity analyses to exclude reverse causation, results should therefore always be viewed critically. However, these analyses point to a basic problem: in the months before death, treatments may be no longer indicated or required but are nevertheless continued (33).
The target systolic blood pressure of 130–139 mmHg in the new ESC guideline for persons over 80 years of age may need critical re-evaluation for patients with severe or very severe physical limitations (4). In HYVET, for instance, there was a reduction in mortality for target pressures <150 mmHg (16). More research is needed to ascertain to what extent a further reduction of the target to <140 mmHg would provide further protection. The ongoing INFINITY study (“Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Lowering to Prevent Functional Decline in Older People”; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01650402) will also achieve little with regard to persons with severe to very severe limitations, because it excluded patients with signs of physical frailty (Short Physical Performance Battery score <10 points).
Strengths and limitations
The strength of this systematic review is that for the first time the available literature—both RCTs and non-RCTs, including observational studies—on the treatment of hypertension has been evaluated taking into account physical frailty. We strove to ensure identification of all relevant publications by hand-searching the reference lists of systematic reviews on antihypertensive treatment in older patients (35–37) and further landmark studies (eTable 3). However a small risk remains that single subgroup-analyses were not considered. Another critical point is the method used to identify physically frail, functionally impaired patients. The heterogeneity of the definitions of frailty highlighted the considerable differences between function-oriented assessments, cognition-oriented assessments, and deficit models such as Rockwood’s cumulative FI (used in SPRINT and HYVET). For instance, the FI in SPRINT features hardly any aspects of physical function. Moreover, post-hoc subgroup analyses limit the robustness of the results. In most non-RCTs not all confounding factors can be taken into account. Assessment of publication bias was not feasible owing to the small number of studies identified.
Even after a systematic analysis of the published data with regard to physical frailty, questions remain open. The SPRINT and HYVET findings seem to show that antihypertensive treatment as recommended in the prevailing guidelines may also be indicated in this group of patients. Whether patients with severe physical frailty were included in these studies is uncertain because of the deficit-oriented FI they used. Furthermore, these two studies are not representative due to their exclusion criteria. Among the non-RCTs only a small number of studies have analyzed both drug treatment and physical function in detail. To ensure reliable characterization and facilitate comparability among studies, not only should older members of the population be included in future research, as stated so often before, but systematically evaluated geriatric assessment instruments should be used. This is the only way in which modification of effects by physical frailty can be evaluated. Moreover, in order to fill the gaps in evidence, not only classical clinical studies but also deprescribing RCTs and new methodological approaches including prospective meta-analyses should be carried out in established research networks.
The authors are grateful to their fellow members of the MedQol Group for fruitful discussions and excellent cooperation with regard to further questions of diabetes, dementia and depression. The membership is as follows: University of Heidelberg: Walter E. Haefeli, Hanna M. Seidling (Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology), Jürgen M. Bauer, Annette Eidam (Agaplesion Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg); University of Freiburg: Claudia Bollig, Gabriel Torbahn, Sebastian Voigt-Radloff (Institute for Evidence in Medicine [for the Cochrane Germany Foundation], Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Freiburg); University of Ulm: Simone Brefka, Dhayana Dallmeier, Michael D. Denkinger, Viktoria Mühlbauer (Agaplesion Bethesda Hospital, Department of Geriatrics, University of Ulm and Geriatric Center Ulm/Alb-Donau), Carlos Schönfeldt-Lecuona (Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy III, University Hospital Ulm), Christine von Arnim (Department of Neurology, University Hospital Ulm); University of Bern: Stefan Klöppel (University Psychiatric Service Bern [UPD], Department of Geriatric Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bern).
This work was financed by the open funding line of the special line “Medicine,” an element of the University Funding Contract (Hochschulfinanzierungsvertrag) Baden-Württemberg, as part of the joint project “Medication and Life Circumstances in Old Age” (“Medikation und Lebenssituation im Alter”).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.
Manuscript submitted on 13 September 2018, revised version accepted on 4 December 2018
Translated from the original German by David Roseveare
For eReferences please refer to:
eMethods, eBoxes, eTables:
Department of Geriatrics, University of Ulm and Geriatric Center Ulm/Alb-Donau,
Agaplesion Bethesda Hospital: Viktoria Mühlbauer, PD Dr. Dhayana Dallmeier, Ph.D.,
Simone Brefka, Prof. Dr. Michael Denkinger
Institute for Evidence in Medicine (for the Cochrane Germany Foundation), Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Freiburg: Claudia Bollig, M.Sc., Dr. Sebastian Voigt-Radloff, M.Sc.
Freiburg Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Freiburg:
Dr. Sebastian Voigt-Radloff, M.Sc.
Prof. Dr. med. Michael Dieter Denkinger
Geriatrie der Universität Ulm
und Geriatrisches Zentrum Ulm/Alb-Donau
Agaplesion Bethesda Klinik
89073 Ulm, Germany
|1.||Conroy SP, Westendorp RGJ, Witham MD: Hypertension treatment for older people-navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. Age Ageing 2018; 47: 505–8 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|2.||Stott DJ, Applegate WB: Perspectives on hypertension treatment in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2018; 66: 1060–1 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|3.||Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al.: 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2018; 138: e484–e594 CrossRef CrossRef|
|4.||Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, et al.: 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J 2018; 39: 3021–104 CrossRef CrossRef MEDLINE|
|5.||Deutsche Hochdruckliga e.V. (DHL): Deutsche Hochdruckliga hält an moderaten Zielwerten fest. www.hochdruckliga.de/pressemeldung/items/deutsche-hochdruckliga-haelt-an-moderaten-zielwerten-fest.html (last accessed on 19 November 2018).|
|6.||Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin (DEGAM): DEGAM Statement zu Blutdruck-Zielwerten. www.degam.de/files/Inhalte/Degam-Inhalte/Sektionen_und_ Arbeitsgruppen/Sektion_Versorgungsaufgaben/DEGAM%20Statement%20zur%20Blutdruckabsenkung%202017_11_28_final.pdf (last accessed on 19 November 2018).|
|7.||Jordan J, Kurschat C, Reuter H: Arterial Hypertension. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2018; 115: 557–68 VOLLTEXT|
|8.||Odden MC, Peralta CA, Haan MN, Covinsky KE: Rethinking the association of high blood pressure with mortality in elderly adults: the impact of frailty. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172: 1162–8 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|9.||Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al.: Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001; 56: M146–56 CrossRef MEDLINE MEDLINE|
|10.||Rockwood K, Song X, Mitnitski A: Changes in relative fitness and frailty across the adult lifespan: evidence from the Canadian National Population Health Survey. CMAJ 2011; 183: E487–94 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|11.||European Medicines Agency (EMA): Reflection paper on physical frailty: instruments for baseline characterisation of older populations in clinical trials. EMA/CHMP/778709/2015. www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/reflection-paper-physical-frailty-instruments-baseline-characterisation-older-populations-clinical_en.pdf (last accessed 18. December 2018).|
|12.||Denkinger M, Dallmeier D, Brefka S, Mühlbauer V: Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in frail older adults: a systematic review on efficacy and safety. www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017067253 (last accessed on 19 November 2018).|
|13.||Brefka S, Dallmeier D, Mühlbauer V, et al.: A proposal for the retrospective identification and categorization of older people with functional impairments in scientific studies—Recommendations of the Medication and Quality of Life in frail older persons (MedQoL) Research Group. JAMDA (in press) CrossRef|
|14.||Williamson JD, Supiano MA, Applegate WB, et al.: Intensive vs standard blood pressure control and cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults aged ≥ 75 years: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 315: 2673–82 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|15.||Odden MC, Peralta CA, Berlowitz DR, et al.: Effect of intensive blood pressure control on gait speed and mobility limitation in adults 75 years or older: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177: 500–7 CrossRef CrossRef PubMed Central|
|16.||Warwick J, Falaschetti E, Rockwood K, et al.: No evidence that frailty modifies the positive impact of antihypertensive treatment in very elderly people: an investigation of the impact of frailty upon treatment effect in the HYpertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET) study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of antihypertensives in people with hypertension aged 80 and over. BMC Med 2015; 13: 78 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|17.||Beckett N, Warwick J, Rockwood K, et al.: Impact of blood pressure lowering treatment on frailty in the hypertension in the very elderly trial (HYVET). Eur Geriatr Med.2015; 6: S6 CrossRef|
|18.||Moonen JEF, Foster-Dingley JC, de Ruijter W, et al.: Effect of discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment in elderly people on cognitive functioning—the DANTE Study Leiden: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175: 1622–30 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|19.||Charlesworth CJ, Peralta CA, Odden MC: Functional status and antihypertensive therapy in older adults: a new perspective on old data. Am J Hypertens 2016; 29: 690–5 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|20.||Tinetti ME, Han L, Lee DSH, et al.: Antihypertensive medications and serious fall injuries in a nationally representative sample of older adults. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 588–95 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|21.||Marcum ZA, Perera S, Newman AB, et al.: Antihypertensive use and recurrent falls in community-dwelling older adults: findings from the Health ABC Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2015; 70: 1562–8 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|22.||Stessman J, Bursztyn M, Gershinsky Y, Hammerman-Rozenberg A, Jacobs JM: Hypertension and Its Treatment at Age 90 Years: Is There an Association with 5-Year Mortality? J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017; 18: 277.e13–277.e19 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|23.||Berlowitz DR, Foy CG, Kazis LE, et al.: Effect of intensive blood-pressure treatment on patient-reported outcomes. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 733–44 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|24.|| Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, et al.: Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 |
years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1887–98 CrossRef MEDLINE
|25.||SHEP Cooperative Research Group: Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 1991; 265: 3255–64 CrossRef CrossRef MEDLINE|
|26.||Ambrosius WT, Sink KM, Foy CG, et al.: The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Clin Trials 2014; 11: 532–46 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|27.|| SPRINT Research Group, Wright JT, Williamson JD, et al.: A randomized |
trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2103–16 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central
|28.||Buchner DM, Wagner EH: Preventing frail health. Clin Geriatr Med 1992; 8: 1–17 CrossRef|
|29.||Supiano MA, Williamson JD: Applying the systolic blood pressure intervention trial results to older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2017; 65: 16–21 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|30.||Düsing R. [Treatment Targets in Hypertension]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2017; 142: 1420–9 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|31.||Kulig M, Perleth M, Langer G, et al.: [GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence: imprecision]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2012; 106: 677–88 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|32.||Benetos A, Labat C, Rossignol P, et al.: Treatment with multiple blood pressure medications, achieved blood pressure, and mortality in older nursing home residents: The PARTAGE Study. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175: 989–95 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|33.||Ravindrarajah R, Dregan A, Hazra NC, Hamada S, Jackson SHD, Gulliford MC: Declining blood pressure and intensification of blood pressure management among people over 80 years: cohort study using electronic health records. J Hypertens 2017; 35: 1276–82 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|34.||Sattar N, Preiss D: Reverse causality in cardiovascular epidemiological research: More Common Than Imagined? Circulation 2017; 135: 2369–72 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|35.||Weiss J, Freeman M, Low A, et al.: Benefits and harms of intensive blood pressure treatment in adults aged 60 years or older: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2017; 166: 419–29 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|36.||Moraes AAI, Baena CP, Muka T, et al.: Achieved systolic blood pressure in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr 2017; 17: 279 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|37.||Musini VM, Tejani AM, Bassett K, Wright JM: Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 4: CD000028 CrossRef|
|e1.||Ressing M, Blettner M, Klug SJ: Data analysis of epidemiological studies: part 11 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107: 187–92 VOLLTEXT|
|e2.||van de Glind EMM, van Munster BC, Spijker R, Scholten RJPM, Hooft L. Search filters to identify geriatric medicine in Medline. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA. 2012; 19: 468–72 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|e3.||Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org. (last accessed on 6 Dez 2018)|
|e4.||BMJ Best Pracice: Study design search filters. http://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/learn-ebm/study-design-search-filters/ (last accessed on 6 Dez 2018).|
|e5.||Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al.: ROBINS-I: Atool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016 ; 355: i4919 CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central|
|e6.||Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al.: Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007; 4(10): e297.|
|e7.||Jacobs JM, Cohen A, Bursztyn M, et al. Cohort profile: The Jerusalem Longitudinal Cohort Study. Int J Epidemiol 2009; 38:1464e1469 CrossRef MEDLINE|
|e8.||Stessman J, Cohen A, Ginsberg GM et al. The Jerusalem 70-year-olds longitudinal study. I: Description of the initial cross sectional survey. European J Epidemiol 1995; 11: 675–84 CrossRef|