Our Review Summary
This news release describes an analysis of data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) study showing a link between a buildup of calcium in coronary arteries and heart attacks in patients with borderline high blood pressure, referred to here as “prehypertension.” The study asserts that coronary artery calcification (CAC) can be used to guide treatment decisions for these “gray zone” patients. Aside from an overreaching headline and sub-headline, the news release delivers essential information including costs, harms, availability, and study limitations.
Why This Matters
Nearly 30 percent of U.S. adults have prehypertension, defined as blood pressure between 120 and 139 for the first number (systolic) and/or 80 to 89 for the second number (diastolic). Preypertension is associated with a higher risk of heart attack as well as a heightened risk of developing high blood pressure, which increases the risk of stroke.
But the concept of “prehypertension” is somewhat controversial. The most recent hypertension guidelines (JNC 8) do not include this classification. It’s still a leap of faith to imply that identifying this risk group and more aggressively treating their blood pressure would significantly reduce their cardiovascular risk.
Patients generally are advised to make lifestyle changes such as exercise and weight loss, but medication is sometimes prescribed. A tool to better determine which patients would benefit from aggressive treatment — as coronary artery calcification scans might prove to be — could help clinicians make better recommendations, improving outcomes and reducing costs.
Criteria
Satisfactory
The news release says that coronary artery calcium scans “aren’t usually covered by insurance and can range in cost from $100 to $400.”
Satisfactory
The news release does a good job of explaining the findings with numbers. It says the study shows “heart CT scans can help personalize treatment in patients whose blood pressure falls in the gray zone of just above normal or mild high blood pressure.” It says the study suggests “people with the highest calcium levels would benefit most from aggressive blood pressure treatment, whereas those with little or no calcium may not need to be treated as intensively, depending on their other heart disease risk factors.”
It gives some detailed numbers to show the risk differential between people with no calcium buildup and those with a lot of calcium. To paraphrase the release, among participants with borderline blood pressure readings, those with calcium scores of zero and high predicted risk of heart disease had a low actual event rate, of 12.7 events per 1,000 person-years. Those with calcium scores over 100 but a low predicted risk of heart disease ended up with a higher rate of actual cardiac events, 19.7.
“Thus,” the release says, “even though their calculated heart disease risk is relatively low and their blood pressure is below traditional cutoffs for treatment, the researchers say people in this category with calcium over 100 are high risk and may benefit from more aggressive blood pressure treatment.
Given that the difference in cardiac event rates between people with low calcium scores and those with high calcium scores isn’t extreme, this might amount to a marginal benefit; we would have liked some discussion of how many patients might fall into this “gray zone” and thus benefit from this approach.
Basically, the benefits, including the number needed to treat (NNT), cost-effectiveness, as well as harms and costs of obtaining these calcium scores are unknown. All we know is the magnitude of the increased potential risk associated with higher calcium scores, not whether this risk can be reduced.
Satisfactory
The news release states: “The scans use radiation, so there is a very small cancer risk for susceptible individuals.” While the mention of cancer risk is laudable, we aren’t clear what’s meant by “susceptible individuals.” Also, it does not mention that CT scans are not recommended for pregnant women due to possible risk to the fetus. In addition, harms can also arise from medications prescribed to treat these calcium scores.
Satisfactory
The news release is forthcoming about study limitations. It states: “The researchers caution that results are from an observational study, and a randomized trial would be needed to confirm the recommendations.” While other limitations are mentioned in the study, these are key ones readers should know about.
Satisfactory
The news release is accurate when it states that nearly one in three adults in the US. has the range of blood pressure it describes as prehypertension. But we wonder why it mentions that 70 million adults in the U.S. have high blood pressure, since the study results do not directly apply to that population.
Not Satisfactory
The news release mentions who funded the study, but it omits one potential conflict of interest that was reported in the study: one of the authors serves on a speakers’ bureau for GE Healthcare, which makes imaging equipment and software designed to detect coronary artery calcification. It’s not a a major concern, but the lack of disclosure means the release doesn’t quite meet our standard here.
Satisfactory
The news release offers this comparison: “Previously, the appropriate blood pressure treatment for these patients used risk calculations and some guesswork, potentially leaving many vulnerable to heart disease or taking drugs they don’t need.”
Previous treatment guidelines (JNC 7) recommended only lifestyle changes for the average-risk prehypertensive patient. (And as noted above, the current guidelines do not include a prehypertensive category.) We would like to see some mention of these recommended lifestyle changes such as exercise, weight loss, dietary changes, and limiting alcohol, which can reduce blood pressure along with providing other health benefits.
Satisfactory
Though CT scans are widely available, the news release mentions that coronary artery calcium scans aren’t usually covered by insurance. This seems to be an important stumbling block to widespread adoption. Could insurers be persuaded to pay for scans if the cost is outweighed by better targeting of treatments? Addressing this point would have added value to the news release.
Satisfactory
The news release offers perspective via this quote from a researcher: “Our study, along with others, such as SPRINT and HOPE, positions cardiac risk and coronary artery calcium as helpful ways to determine if a given patient would either benefit from more intensive blood pressure control or do just fine with a more traditional blood pressure target.”
According to the study itself, it’s the “first to incorporate information on individual coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden to personalize the risk-based treatment of hypertension.”
It should be noted that the release is comparing an observational study with the HOPE and SPRINT trials which were randomized treatment trials. The former examines an association while the latter provides experimental evidence.
Not Satisfactory
This is a close call. Overall the tone of this news release is measured. However, the sub-headline jumps the gun when it states the CAC score “gives risk assessment to prevent over- or undertreatment of blood pressure.” The score may be able to help guide treatment decisions when the path is unclear, but as the body of the news release mentions, a randomized trial is needed to find out whether there’s a clinical benefit.
Also, we’re wondering whether the term “personalized treatment” is overused. In the past it’s typically referred to treatment approaches directed by genetic variables. But in this case, the term has been expanded to cover variables in calcium buildup, with no known genetic component.
The release also states: “the researchers say these calcium scores allow physicians to go beyond the traditionally calculated risk factors to determine which blood pressure treatment strategy may be most appropriate for a particular patient.” At best, this provides the rationale for conducing a study to determine whether blood pressure treatment is appropriate–it cannot address the issue of which strategy.
Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like