4.7 Review

Antihypertensive Treatment in People With Dementia

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.03.005

Keywords

Hypertension; dementia; antihypertensive drugs

Funding

  1. MRC [MR/K00414X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. National Institute for Health Research [PB-PG-1112-29070] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [PB-PG-1112-29070] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)
  4. Department of Health [PB-PG-1112-29070] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The range and magnitude of potential benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment in people with dementia has not been previously established. Methods: A scoping review to identify potential domains of benefits and harms of antihypertensive therapy in people with dementia was undertaken. Systematic reviews of these domains were undertaken to examine the magnitude of the benefits or harms. Results: Potential outcome domains identified in the 155 papers in the scoping review were cardiovascular events, falls, fractures and syncope, depression, orthostatic hypotension, behavioral disturbances, polypharmacy risks, kidney problems, sleep problems, interactions with cholinesterase inhibitors, and pain. The systematic reviews across these domains identified relatively few studies done in people with dementia, and no convincing evidence of safety, benefit, or harm across any of them. Discussion: Given the lack of firm evidence of benefits or harm from antihypertensive therapy in people with dementia and the weak evidence for benefits in people over 80 years of age, the current presumption that the favorable evidence drawn from the treatment of nondemented people should be extrapolated to those with dementia is contentious. There is sufficient evidence to warrant particular caution and further research into treatment in this group of patients. (C) 2014 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available