Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

A call to retract the JNC-8 hypertension guidelines

David K. Cundiff, MD
Conditions
January 4, 2014
Share
Tweet
Share

JAMA published the long-awaited Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure-8 (JNC-8) guidelines December 18, 2013. They recommended blood pressure lowering drug treatment for patients ≥ 60-years-old with systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 150 or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 90 mm Hg. For patients < 60-years-old, they recommended medications for DBP ≥ 90 mm Hg. They classified both of these recommendations as “Grade A” (strong). To say the least, the evidence-basis for the drug treatment recommendations for mild hypertension in this report is in dispute.

The JNC-8 authors simply ignored a systematic review that I co-authored in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews that found no evidence supporting drug treatment for patients of any age with mild hypertension (SBP: 140-159 and/or DBP 90-99) and no previous cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or renal disease (i.e., low risk).

The JNC-8 hypertension guidelines are not endorsed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, nor any other authoritative body. They are endorsed only by the 17 JNC-8 panelists and various individuals such as Dr. Howard Bauchner, editor-in-chief of JAMA and two colleagues from the journal’s editorial staff who authored an editorial accompanying the new BP guidelines. The editorial mentioned that the guidelines, “appropriately acknowledged the areas of controversy.” However, there was no mention in the guidelines about controversy concerning the BP threshold of initiating drug treatment in low risk people.

Notably, the JAMA systematic review editor invited my Cochrane review colleagues and me last spring to submit a synopsis of our systematic review of drug treatment for mild hypertension. In the summer, after several drafts of the synopsis were circulated to and from the editor, she withdrew the offer stating, “the studies we reviewed were old and that they didn’t think these studies were sufficient to address whether drugs worked or not.”

JNC-8 report matter-of-factly acknowledged 2 limitations, but did not elaborate on the implications of those huge flaws that go to the essence of what is meant by “evidence-based”:

  1. “The evidence review did not include observational studies, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses, and the panel did not conduct its own meta-analysis based on prespecified inclusion criteria. Thus, information from these types of studies was not incorporated into the evidence statements or recommendations.”
  2.  “Although adverse effects and harms of antihypertensive treatment documented in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered when the panel made its decisions, the review was not designed to determine whether therapy-associated adverse effects and harms resulted in significant changes in important health outcomes.”

In effect, these limitations mean that the JNC-8 guidelines were not based on a systematic review of the data, and there was not a thorough analysis of the adverse effect and harms of drugs used for hypertension.

The division of the JNC-8 drug treatment recommendations according to age (≥ 60 years old versus < 60 years old) is new compared with previous JNC guidelines (JNC-1 – JNC-7). It is completely unsupported by RCT evidence. For patients ≥ 60 years-old, the JNC-8 panel raised the threshold for drug treatment from 140/90 mm Hg to 150/90 mm Hg. In relation to this changed drug treatment threshold recommendation, the JNC-8 panel cited 6 RCTs. The first 3 of these placebo controlled RCTs (Staessen, Beckett, and SHEP) involve only patients with stage 2 hypertension (SBP ≥ 160) rather than mild (stage 1) hypertension. RCTs of stage 2 patients say nothing about the important issue, which is whether the threshold to begin drug treatment should be at SBP = 140, 150, or 160. The widely acknowledged benefits of drugs for stage 2 hypertension were inappropriately extrapolated to apply to patients with stage 1 hypertension. The last 3 RCTs (Jatos, Ogihara, and Verdecchia) involved almost exclusively stage 2 hypertension patients and had no placebo control arms. These studies tell us nothing about the efficacy and safety of drugs for mild hypertension.

The JNC-8 authors referenced 5 RCTs as providing “high quality evidence” to support their strong (Grade A) recommendation for drug use above a threshold of DBP ≥ 90:

  1. The hypertension detection and follow up program (HDFP) was excluded from our Cochrane review of drugs for mild hypertension because it did not have a placebo or no treatment arm in the trial and it mixed stage 1 and 2 patients.
  2. The U.K. Medical Research Council Working Party trial (DBP 90-109) mixed the results of stage 1 and 2 patients. For our Cochrane review of drugs for mild hypertension, we included about 40% of the patients in this study because we could obtain individual subject data on treatment and outcomes. We found no significant benefit in stroke, health attacks of other cardiovascular disease outcomes.
  3. The Hypertension-Stroke Cooperative Study Group study found no benefit from blood pressure lowering drugs in patients after a stroke.
  4. The “Australian therapeutic trial in mild hypertension” combined stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension patients. We were able to get patient level data. In the about half of the patients that had stage 1 hypertension, there was no benefit of drugs.
  5. The “Effects morbidity of treatment on hypertension study” mixed stage 1 and 2 patients.

As I noted in a guest post for Health News Review titled, “The Economics & Politics of Drugs for Mild Hypertension,” there is no evidence that drugs benefit tens of millions of low risk Americans with mild hypertension. About 2 million low cardiovascular disease risk Americans with stage 1 hypertension (about 9% of those taking drugs) suffer side effects from blood pressure lowering drugs severe enough for them to stop treatment. The cost for drugs and clinic visits to comply with these JNC-8 guidelines over the next 10 years is projected from American Heart Association data to be almost $500 billion.

I call for JAMA to retract the JNC-8 guidelines, because they are demonstrably not evidence-based and are likely to harm patients medically and financially.

David K. Cundiff is an internal medicine physician and author of Money Driven Medicine Test and Treatments That Don’t Work.

Prev

Real market reforms for health care

January 4, 2014 Kevin 54
…
Next

A large part of healing is listening, caring, and imparting hope

January 5, 2014 Kevin 0
…

Tagged as: Cardiology

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Real market reforms for health care
Next Post >
A large part of healing is listening, caring, and imparting hope

ADVERTISEMENT

More by David K. Cundiff, MD

  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Cut hospitalizations to reduce hospital related medical errors

    David K. Cundiff, MD
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    How ACOs creatively destroy fee for service medicine

    David K. Cundiff, MD
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    The story behind a whistleblower doctor license reinstatement hearing

    David K. Cundiff, MD

Related Posts

  • The new aspirin guidelines: The media does a disservice to patients

    Olubadewa A. Fatunde, MD, MPH
  • When breast cancer screening guidelines conflict: Some patients face real consequences

    Leda Dederich
  • Is physician shadowing immoral?

    David Penner
  • Ending DACA is a travesty

    David Velasquez
  • Why are medical students non-essential?

    David Chen
  • The way we treat young doctors is barbaric

    David Penner

More in Conditions

  • Facing terminal cancer as a doctor and mother

    Kelly Curtin-Hallinan, DO
  • Why doctors must stop ignoring unintentional weight loss in patients with obesity

    Samantha Malley, FNP-C
  • Why hospitals are quietly capping top doctors’ pay

    Dennis Hursh, Esq
  • Why point-of-care ultrasound belongs in emergency department triage

    Resa E. Lewiss, MD and Courtney M. Smalley, MD
  • Why PSA levels alone shouldn’t define your prostate cancer risk

    Martina Ambardjieva, MD, PhD
  • Reframing chronic pain and dignity: What a pain clinic teaches us about MAiD and chronic suffering

    Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • America’s ER crisis: Why the system is collapsing from within

      Kristen Cline, BSN, RN | Conditions
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
  • Recent Posts

    • Beyond burnout: Understanding the triangle of exhaustion [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Facing terminal cancer as a doctor and mother

      Kelly Curtin-Hallinan, DO | Conditions
    • Online eye exams spark legal battle over health care access

      Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James | Policy
    • FDA delays could end vital treatment for rare disease patients

      G. van Londen, MD | Meds
    • Pharmacists are key to expanding Medicaid access to digital therapeutics

      Amanda Matter | Meds
    • Why ADHD in women requires a new approach [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 5 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • America’s ER crisis: Why the system is collapsing from within

      Kristen Cline, BSN, RN | Conditions
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
  • Recent Posts

    • Beyond burnout: Understanding the triangle of exhaustion [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Facing terminal cancer as a doctor and mother

      Kelly Curtin-Hallinan, DO | Conditions
    • Online eye exams spark legal battle over health care access

      Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James | Policy
    • FDA delays could end vital treatment for rare disease patients

      G. van Londen, MD | Meds
    • Pharmacists are key to expanding Medicaid access to digital therapeutics

      Amanda Matter | Meds
    • Why ADHD in women requires a new approach [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

A call to retract the JNC-8 hypertension guidelines
5 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...