13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Alcohol Consumption, Hypertension, and Cardiovascular Health Across the Life Course: There Is No Such Thing as a One‐Size‐Fits‐All Approach

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction Elevated blood pressure is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease and related disability worldwide.1 It is a largely preventable condition influenced by a range of lifestyle behaviors, including but not limited to level of physical activity, poor diet, and alcohol consumption. In this issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA), 2 articles make important incremental contributions in extending the evidence base of the latter. Roerecke and colleagues2 carried out a systematic review and dose–response meta‐analysis of the association between alcohol consumption, defined using average number of drinks consumed per day, and incident hypertension separately in men and women. They found that no level of alcohol intake was associated with a lower risk of developing hypertension in either sex, which is in contrast to previous systematic reviews of this topic as well as observational studies of alcohol consumption and some cardiovascular outcomes.3, 4 Piano and co‐workers5 provide complementary findings, focusing on the cross‐sectional association of episodic heavy drinking (often referred to as “binge drinking” as the authors chose to, defined as men or women consuming 5 or 4 or more drinks in a single day, respectively) and indicators of cardiometabolic health, including blood pressure, in younger people. They found that frequency of binge drinking was associated with elevated levels of systolic blood pressure in men but not women. This result is in some ways supported by the work of Roerecke et al,2 who similarly found a less pronounced effect of average alcohol intake on risk of developing hypertension in women. However, this study regrettably falls short of “completing the puzzle” of whether this difference in association with blood pressure by sex is driven by variation in drinking pattern (ie, episodes of heavy drinking being more common in men) through having not included either adjustment for, or the formal testing of an interaction with, overall volume of alcohol consumed. Notwithstanding this unfortunate missed opportunity, the results of the study by Piano et al5 are valuable in their own right through reminding us that the drinking habits we adopt in early adulthood and middle age (a time when we are typically free from disease) correlate with premorbid indicators of cardiovascular health. Considering their findings, both sets of authors rightly call for changes in clinical practice to reduce the burden of alcohol‐related hypertension. This viewpoint is by no means controversial, given the wealth of data now available suggesting that alcohol consumption, even at levels typically considered “moderate”, is causally associated with elevated blood pressure (and increased risk of developing certain types of cancer and other disorders).6 However, it could be argued that the suggestion from both teams that screening and counseling for alcohol consumption should be carried out when hypertension is present is not proactive enough if the goal of doing so is to minimize raised blood pressure (and through doing so lower the burden of cardiovascular disease) at a population level. It is vital that one considers cardiovascular health and its determinants from a life course perspective.1, 7, 8 Raised blood pressure with advancing age is not observed in all societies,9 suggesting that this is not an inevitable part of the aging process. It is for this reason that ensuring healthy lifestyle behaviors are adopted early and maintained across the life course has the potential to substantially reduce, and perhaps even eliminate, cardiovascular disease in the population. The benefits of intervening early in the health‐disease continuum have already been elegantly demonstrated for systolic blood pressure.10 Exposure to (“genetically determined”) higher levels of systolic blood pressure is associated with more rapid increases in blood pressure with age, even before the development of hypertension. This indicates that lowering systolic blood pressure before it becomes elevated may slow or attenuate age‐related changes in blood pressure. While this finding should be enough to convince most that adopting a life course perspective is crucial to the prevention of cardiovascular disease, the same study also revealed that systolic blood pressure appears to have a cumulative effect on risk of developing coronary heart disease, such that the reduction in risk is proportional to the average time exposed to lower blood pressure. The public health mantra that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure certainly applies in this scenario. Waiting until the problem is overt is suboptimal for at least 2 reasons: first, we are not reducing the collective time an individual is subjected to a state of elevated systolic blood pressure, and second, it may be too late if hypertension (which is usually asymptomatic in the initial stages) has already led to accelerated atherosclerosis or irreversible damage to major organs. However, as Roerecke et al2 note, the association of alcohol consumption with cardiovascular end points is not always linear, or necessarily negative (this is echoed in the work of Piano et al5 also).3 This leaves public health officials and clinicians in some ways stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to providing advice on alcohol consumption. While it might appear a simple task on paper, the reality of what counsel to provide a patient seeking advice on alcohol consumption and health is not necessarily straightforward.11 This is perhaps one of the reasons why clinicians may be reluctant to inquire about, or provide advice on, alcohol consumption in primary care, even in situations where it might be beneficial to do so.12 For example, barely a of quarter of individuals in the United States presenting to their general practitioner with hypertension are recommended to reduce their alcohol intake as a nonpharmacological means of controlling their blood pressure.13 On the other hand, there are clinicians who have gone as far as recommending that nondrinkers over 40 years of age consider taking up drinking as a means of extending their life and lowering their risk of developing cardiovascular disease.14 However, this has mostly been met with cynicism,15 even among proponents of the hypothesis that moderate drinking confers cardiovascular benefits11, 16 and certainly no major public health body endorses such advice. The largest study to date of the dose–response association between alcohol consumption and selected cardiovascular outcomes and all‐cause mortality, among those who choose to drink, calculated that the excess risk associated with each additional standard alcoholic drink within the confines of most international drinking guidelines is at a level most would consider acceptable for practically all outcomes investigated.4 It is important to remember that people consume alcohol for pleasure and most do so responsibly. The majority of researchers do not actively advocate that people stop drinking but merely seek to emphasize that reductions in consumption can reduce one's overall risk of prematurely developing disease and/or dying. However, this subtle point can occasionally be lost in translation when findings from studies are communicated to the public via the media (sometimes without the involvement of the researchers themselves in this process). As such, public health professionals can quickly be branded as enemies of the people17 for being perceived as trying to push a temperance agenda upon people who are perfectly content with their current level of consumption. Nevertheless, it is clear that a substantial proportion of the population are not fully aware of the risks associated with (even minimal) alcohol consumption,18 and there is evidence that those who believe alcohol confers cardioprotective effects tend to drink more on average than those who do not.19 As such, it is important that the evidence base for alcohol consumption and health continues to be debated in public (including the strengths, limitations, sources of bias, and degree of uncertainty of the collective pool of knowledge). But perhaps rather than messages simply re‐stating that drinking alcohol (or not drinking as it may be) is associated with an increased risk of disorder X, that can sometimes be perceived as condescending (and may lead to people disengaging),20 they might instead be packaged in a way that is easily interpretable and/or tailored to an individual, such as absolute differences in risk for someone of their age with otherwise similar characteristics. It is also important to remember that health is dynamic and there is no such thing as a one‐size‐fits‐all approach to managing risk. An individual's decision to drink, and at what level, should be motivated by their own personal circumstances.3 Population‐level initiatives, such as recommended drinking limits, can only go so far, after which individual‐level approaches are needed. Therefore, it is vital that an open and honest dialogue about alcohol consumption be initiated and maintained.18 What level of alcohol consumption might be considered acceptable for 1 individual may not be for another; equally, an individual might wish to consider changing their drinking habits if their situation changes. Ultimately, our job boils down to empowering an individual to make an informed decision about their level of alcohol intake and how this may influence their long‐ and short‐term health through transparent communication. Disclosures None.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intersalt: an international study of electrolyte excretion and blood pressure. Results for 24 hour urinary sodium and potassium excretion. Intersalt Cooperative Research Group.

          The relations between 24 hour urinary electrolyte excretion and blood pressure were studied in 10,079 men and women aged 20-59 sampled from 52 centres around the world based on a highly standardised protocol with central training of observers, a central laboratory, and extensive quality control. Relations between electrolyte excretion and blood pressure were studied in individual subjects within each centre and the results of these regression analyses pooled for all 52 centres. Relations between population median electrolyte values and population blood pressure values were also analysed across the 52 centres. Sodium excretion ranged from 0.2 mmol/24 h (Yanomamo Indians, Brazil) to 242 mmol/24 h (north China). In individual subjects (within centres) it was significantly related to blood pressure. Four centres found very low sodium excretion, low blood pressure, and little or no upward slope of blood pressure with age. Across the other 48 centres sodium was significantly related to the slope of blood pressure with age but not to median blood pressure or prevalence of high blood pressure. Potassium excretion was negatively correlated with blood pressure in individual subjects after adjustment for confounding variables. Across centres there was no consistent association. The relation of sodium to potassium ratio to blood pressure followed a pattern similar to that of sodium. Body mass index and heavy alcohol intake had strong, significant independent relations with blood pressure in individual subjects.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations

            Excessive drinking is a significant cause of mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. Brief interventions aim to reduce alcohol consumption and related harm in hazardous and harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking help for alcohol problems. Interventions usually take the form of a conversation with a primary care provider and may include feedback on the person's alcohol use, information about potential harms and benefits of reducing intake, and advice on how to reduce consumption. Discussion informs the development of a personal plan to help reduce consumption. Brief interventions can also include behaviour change or motivationally‐focused counselling. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007. To assess the effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in hazardous or harmful drinkers in general practice or emergency care settings. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and 12 other bibliographic databases to September 2017. We searched Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Science Database (to December 2003, after which the database was discontinued), trials registries, and websites. We carried out handsearching and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption in people attending general practice, emergency care or other primary care settings for reasons other than alcohol treatment. The comparison group was no or minimal intervention, where a measure of alcohol consumption was reported. 'Brief intervention' was defined as a conversation comprising five or fewer sessions of brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling and a total duration of less than 60 minutes. Any more was considered an extended intervention. Digital interventions were not included in this review. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We carried out subgroup analyses where possible to investigate the impact of factors such as gender, age, setting (general practice versus emergency care), treatment exposure and baseline consumption. We included 69 studies that randomised a total of 33,642 participants. Of these, 42 studies were added for this update (24,057 participants). Most interventions were delivered in general practice (38 studies, 55%) or emergency care (27 studies, 39%) settings. Most studies (61 studies, 88%) compared brief intervention to minimal or no intervention. Extended interventions were compared with brief (4 studies, 6%), minimal or no intervention (7 studies, 10%). Few studies targeted particular age groups: adolescents or young adults (6 studies, 9%) and older adults (4 studies, 6%). Mean baseline alcohol consumption was 244 g/week (30.5 standard UK units) among the studies that reported these data. Main sources of bias were attrition and lack of provider or participant blinding. The primary meta‐analysis included 34 studies (15,197 participants) and provided moderate‐quality evidence that participants who received brief intervention consumed less alcohol than minimal or no intervention participants after one year (mean difference (MD) ‐20 g/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐28 to ‐12). There was substantial heterogeneity among studies (I² = 73%). A subgroup analysis by gender demonstrated that both men and women reduced alcohol consumption after receiving a brief intervention. We found moderate‐quality evidence that brief alcohol interventions have little impact on frequency of binges per week (MD ‐0.08, 95% CI ‐0.14 to ‐0.02; 15 studies, 6946 participants); drinking days per week (MD ‐0.13, 95% CI ‐0.23 to ‐0.04; 11 studies, 5469 participants); or drinking intensity (‐0.2 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐3.1 to 2.7; 10 studies, 3128 participants). We found moderate‐quality evidence of little difference in quantity of alcohol consumed when extended and no or minimal interventions were compared (‐20 g/week, 95% CI ‐40 to 1; 6 studies, 1296 participants). There was little difference in binges per week (‐0.08, 95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.12; 2 studies, 456 participants; moderate‐quality evidence) or difference in days drinking per week (‐0.45, 95% CI ‐0.81 to ‐0.09; 2 studies, 319 participants; moderate‐quality evidence). Extended versus no or minimal intervention provided little impact on drinking intensity (9 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐26 to 9; 1 study, 158 participants; low‐quality evidence). Extended intervention had no greater impact than brief intervention on alcohol consumption, although findings were imprecise (MD 2 g/week, 95% CI ‐42 to 45; 3 studies, 552 participants; low‐quality evidence). Numbers of binges were not reported for this comparison, but one trial suggested a possible drop in days drinking per week (‐0.5, 95% CI ‐1.2 to 0.2; 147 participants; low‐quality evidence). Results from this trial also suggested very little impact on drinking intensity (‐1.7 g/drinking day, 95% CI ‐18.9 to 15.5; 147 participants; very low‐quality evidence). Only five studies reported adverse effects (very low‐quality evidence). No participants experienced any adverse effects in two studies; one study reported that the intervention increased binge drinking for women and two studies reported adverse events related to driving outcomes but concluded they were equivalent in both study arms. Sources of funding were reported by 67 studies (87%). With two exceptions, studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment. We found moderate‐quality evidence that brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in hazardous and harmful drinkers compared to minimal or no intervention. Longer counselling duration probably has little additional effect. Future studies should focus on identifying the components of interventions which are most closely associated with effectiveness. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations What is the aim of this review? We aimed to find out whether brief interventions with doctors and nurses in general practices or emergency care can reduce heavy drinking. We assessed the findings from 69 trials that involved a total of 33,642 participants; of these 34 studies (15,197 participants) provided data for the main analysis. Key messages Brief interventions in primary care settings aim to reduce heavy drinking compared to people who received usual care or brief written information. Longer interventions probably make little or no difference to heavy drinking compared to brief intervention. What was studied in the review? One way to reduce heavy drinking may be for doctors and nurses to provide brief advice or brief counselling to targeted people who consult general practitioners or other primary health care providers. People seeking primary healthcare are routinely asked about their drinking behaviour because alcohol use can affect many health conditions. Brief interventions typically include feedback on alcohol use and health‐related harms, identification of high risk situations for heavy drinking, simple advice about how to cut down drinking, strategies that can increase motivation to change drinking behaviour, and the development of a personal plan to reduce drinking. Brief interventions are designed to be delivered in regular consultations, which are often 5 to 15 minutes with doctors and around 20 to 30 minutes with nurses. Although short in duration, brief interventions can be delivered in one to five sessions. We did not include digital interventions in this review. Search date The evidence is current to September 2017. Study funding Funding sources were reported by 60 (87%) studies. Of these, 58 studies were funded by government institutes, research bodies or charitable foundations. One study was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and a brewers association, another by a company developing diagnostic testing equipment. Nine studies did not report study funding sources. What are the main results of the review? We included 69 controlled trials conducted in many countries. Most studies were conducted in general practice and emergency care. Study participants received brief intervention or usual care or written information about alcohol (control group). The amount of alcohol people drank each week was reported by 34 trials (15,197 participants) at one‐year follow‐up and showed that people who received the brief intervention drank less than control group participants (moderate‐quality evidence). The reduction was around a pint of beer (475 mL) or a third of a bottle of wine (250 mL) less each week. Longer counselling probably provided little additional benefit compared to brief intervention or no intervention. One trial reported that the intervention adversely affected binge drinking for women, and two reported that no adverse effects resulted from receiving brief interventions. Most studies did not mention adverse effects. Quality of the evidence Findings may have been affected because participants and practitioners were often aware that brief interventions focused on alcohol. Furthermore, some participants could not be contacted at one‐year follow‐up to report drinking levels. Overall, evidence was assessed as mostly moderate‐quality. This means the reported effect size and direction is likely to be close to the true effect of these interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effect of a reduction in alcohol consumption on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Although it is well established that heavy alcohol consumption increases the risk of hypertension, little is known about the effect of a reduction of alcohol intake on blood pressure. We aimed to assess the effect of a reduction in alcohol consumption on change in blood pressure stratified by initial amount of alcohol consumption and sex in adults.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                scb81@medschl.cam.ac.uk
                Journal
                J Am Heart Assoc
                J Am Heart Assoc
                10.1002/(ISSN)2047-9980
                JAH3
                ahaoa
                Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2047-9980
                27 June 2018
                03 July 2018
                : 7
                : 13 ( doiID: 10.1002/jah3.2018.7.issue-13 )
                : e009698
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] National Institute for Health Research Blood and Transplant Unit in Donor Health and Genomics at the University of Cambridge University of Cambridge Strangeways Research Laboratory Cambridge United Kingdom
                [ 2 ] UK Medical Research Council/British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge Strangeways Research Laboratory Cambridge United Kingdom
                [ 3 ] Division of Cardiovascular Medicine British Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Steven Bell, PhD, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge CB1 8RN, United Kingdom. E‐mail: scb81@ 123456medschl.cam.ac.uk
                Article
                JAH33327
                10.1161/JAHA.118.009698
                6064877
                29950487
                b659809e-967b-4943-9901-ea30ad4687f8
                © 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 3, Words: 2606
                Categories
                Editorial
                Editorial
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jah33327
                03 July 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.4.1.1 mode:remove_FC converted:03.07.2018

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                editorials,alcohol,high blood pressure,hypertension,lifetime risk,longitudinal cohort study,risk,epidemiology,primary prevention,risk factors,lifestyle

                Comments

                Comment on this article