Abstract
Background Hypertension (HTN) is a key risk-factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Blood-pressure (BP) categorizations between systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 120 and 140 remain debatable. In the current study we aim to evaluate if individuals with a baseline SBP between 130-140 mm Hg (hypertension as per AHA 2017 guidelines) have a significantly higher proportion of incident hypertension on follow-up, as compared to those with SBP between 120-130 mm Hg.
Methods Secondary data analysis was performed in a community-based cohort, instituted, and followed since 2017. Participants were aged ≥30 years, residents of urban slums in Bhopal. BP was measured at or near home by Community Health Workers (CHWs). Two-year follow up was completed in 2019. We excluded participants who were on BP reduction therapy, had fewer than two out-of-office BP measurements and who could not be followed. Eligible participants were re-classified based on baseline BP in four categories: Normal (Category-A), Elevated-BP (Category-B), Variable-BP (Category-C) and reclassified HTN based on AHA-2017 (Category-D). Proportion of individuals who developed incident hypertension on follow up was primary outcome.
Result Out of 2649 records, 768 (28.9%), 647 (24.4%), 586 (22.1%), 648 (24.4%) belonged to Categories A, B, C and D respectively. Incident HTN with cut-off of 140/90 mm Hg was, 1.6%, 2.6%, 6.7%, 12% in categories A, B, C and D respectively. Incidence of incident hypertension in individuals with a baseline SBP between 130-140 mm Hg (Category D) was significantly higher as compared to those with SBP between 120-130 mm Hg (Category B).
Conclusion We conclude that biological basis for AHA-2017 definition of hypertension is relatively robust also for low income and resource-limited settings. Evidence from our longitudinal study will be useful for policy makers for harmonizing national guidelines with AHA-2017.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi as an extramural project grant. Funders have no role in data collection, analysis and writing of the manuscript. (Grant PI Dr Rajnish Joshi, IRIS-2014-0976)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study design was approved by the Institutional Human Ethics Committee of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal (Ref: IHEC-LOP/2017/EF00045).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
onkarawadhiya{at}gmail.com
ankitinvincible21{at}gmail.com
solankilata89{at}gmail.com
anuja.ds{at}aiimsbhopal.edu.in
neeleshstv{at}gmail.com
ankur.cfm{at}aiimsbhopal.edu.in
abhijit.cfm{at}aiimsbhopal.edu.in
Data Availability
Raw data of this study is not deposited in any public repository. However, anonymized raw data of this study would be available to academicians or researchers on reasonable request to corresponding author.
