Abstract
It remains unclear which paediatric hypertension clinical practice guideline (CPG) should be applied in an African population. We therefore aimed to compare three commonly used CPG (2017 AAP, 2016 ESH and 2004 Fourth Report) developed in high-income countries for use in South African children at four paediatric ages (children: 5yrs and 8yrs; adolescents: 13yrs and 17yrs) to determine which best predicts elevated blood pressure (EBP) in young adulthood (22yrs and 28yrs). Moreover, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for each specific paediatric CPG was calculated. The 2017 AAP definition identified more children and adolescents with hypertension when compared to the 2004 Fourth Report and 2016 ESH guidelines. In computed hazards ratios, from ages 8yrs to 17yrs, all three paediatric CPG significantly predicted the risk of EBP in young adulthood (p≤0.008). However, sensitivity to predict EBP at age 22yrs for all CPG was generally low (17.0% - 33.0%) with higher specificity (87.4% - 93.1%). Sensitivity increased at age 28yrs (51.4.0% - 70.1%), while specificity decreased (52.8% - 65.1%). Both PPV and NPV at both adult age points varied widely (17.9% - 79.9% and 29.3% - 92.5% respectively). The performance of these paediatric CPG in terms of AUC were not optimal at both adult age points, however, the AAP definition at 17yrs met an acceptable level of performance (AUC= 0.71). Our results highlight the need for more research to examine if an African-specific CPG would better identify high-risk children to minimise their trajectory towards adult hypertension.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Bt20 study was funded by the South African Medical Research Council, the Institute for Behavioural Sciences at the University of South Africa, the Wellcome Trust has been a major contributor since 1998, as well as additional support from the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, the Medical Research Council, the University of the Witwatersrand, the Mellon Foundation, the South-African Netherlands Programme on Alternative Development and the Anglo American Chairman's Fund.
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 was conducted in line with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and obtained approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee (Medical) of the University of the Witwatersrand (South Africa) (Ref: M190263). All participants were fully informed about the objectives of the study and written informed consent/assent was obtained from each adult and child participant respectively.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
