The Hypertension in the Very Old Trial (HYVET) and the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) both showed that intensive blood pressure treatment is beneficial even in the oldest old [7, 8]. However, these trials were criticised because the participants in both, even the oldest old, were presumably healthy, fit and non-frail, given the numerous exclusion criteria. Many experts feared that, according to the evidence from the observational studies, a low blood pressure might harm older frail patients. Subsequently, the authors of both trials published secondary analyses involving frailty status and found beneficial results even for the frail old trial participants [9, 10]. However, these findings have to be interpreted with great caution. Given the numerous exclusion criteria, it is difficult to imagine that there were any truly frail patients in either trial. Thus, we have to ask how the authors of the HYVET or SPRINT trial found frail patients in their study populations. We have to study their way of defining frailty. Both trials used a multi-item frailty index; for example, the SPRINT trial used a 37-item index [10]. A close look at the single items used for the definition of frailty shows that only one of the 37 items (i.e., gait speed) can be considered as a good indicator of frailty, whereas all other items have little or nothing to do with it [10]. The relative weight of gait speed in the frailty index was 1/37, and it was available for only half of the study participants. Thus, it has to be concluded that the frailty index used in the HYVET and SPRINT trials did not necessarily measure frailty. This statement is supported by the publication of Pajewksi et al., who characterised frailty status in the SPRINT trial [11]. The authors found that participants aged 50 to 60 had nearly the same frailty index as participants aged 80 to 90 years. These results prove that the frailty index in the SPRINT trial measured something different from frailty. The question of what the frailty index measured arises. According to the single items used, the index measured mainly (cardiovascular) comorbidities [10]. However, comorbidities and frailty should not be mixed up. Comorbidities may trigger frailty (see fig. 1), but do not necessarily have to. There are many patients with a high comorbidity burden who are not frail. In the light of these considerations, it also becomes evident why the HYVET and SPRINT trials found beneficial results for “frail” participants, even a trend towards better results for the “frail” vs “non-frail” participants [9, 10]. The “frail” participants were simply those with higher cardiovascular comorbidity, and thus those in whom antihypertensive treatment is particularly effective.
Commentaires
Avec la fonction commentaires, nous proposons un espace pour un échange professionnel ouvert et critique. Celui-ci est ouvert à tous les abonné-e-s SHW Beta. Nous publions les commentaires tant qu’ils respectent nos lignes directrices.