The controversial hypertension-management guidelines released by the former JNC 8 panel in December was not the group’s last word. There was a minority report, too, published almost a month later in mid-January.
Five of the 17 members of the group originally assembled in 2008 by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to research and write the eighth edition of the official U.S. hypertension guidelines not only disagreed with their 12 colleagues about resetting the systolic blood pressure target to 150 mm Hg from the prior target of 140 mm Hg for people aged 60-79 without diabetes or chronic kidney disease, but also felt strongly enough to write an article about it.
Courtesy Michael V. Hayes, Wikimedia Commons
The controversial hypertension-management guidelines released by the former JNC 8 panel in December was not the group's last word. There was a minority report, too, published almost a month later in mid-January.
A published minority report is not how most medical guideline writing panels usually work.
The history of the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8) already featured some unusual twists. After many months of unexpected delays leading up to the report’s release, the NHLBI announced last June that it would hand off the JNC 8 process to an appropriate medical group. A few weeks later, the institute announced that JNC 8 would get published under the auspices of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. Then came word that the arrangement had fallen through, leaving what became the former JNC 8 panel to release its data analysis and recommendations without endorsement from a medical association.
The fact that the 150–mm Hg systolic target for treating 60- to 79-year-olds was controversial among the panel members themselves was no surprise. The former JNC 8 panel’s majority report in December acknowledged their lack of consensus on this issue. What had been previously unknown was exactly how the panel split, and the minority view that led to the disagreement.
The five dissenters were Dr. Jackson T. Wright Jr., Case Medical Center, Cleveland; Dr. Lawrence J. Fine, NHLBI, Bethesda, Md.; Daniel T. Lackland, Ph.D., Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Dr. Gbenga Ogedegbe, New York University; and Cheryl R. Dennison Himmelfarb, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Summarizing their view in their report, the five said they "believed that evidence was insufficient to increase the SBP goal from its current level of less than 140 mm Hg because of concern that increasing the goal may cause harm by increasing the risk for CVD and partially undoing the remarkable progress in reducing cardiovascular mortality in Americans older than 60 years. Because of the overall evidence, including the RCT data reviewed by the panel, and the decrease in CVD mortality, we concluded that the evidence for increasing a blood pressure target in high-risk populations should be at least as strong as the evidence required to decrease the recommended blood pressure target. In addition, one target would simplify implementation for clinicians."
The unusual circumstances that surrounded release of the former JNC 8 panel’s report and the controversial systolic target they set initially raised questions about the impact the recommendations would have on U.S. practice. The minority report puts an asterisk on the majority report and dilutes its influence even more.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler