Big Pharma is trying to con more people like they did with cholesterol to make more money. Before cholesterol 200 and below was considered normal it was 250 and below. The new guidelines resulted in more statin scripts written with billions more for Big Pharma. If you ask your doctor what is your difference in mortality between numbers of 200 and 250 he will most likely throw a blank. Well shift just got serious. The new lower guideline for hypertension is 130/80.That means more Americans will be placed on hypertensive drugs. For subjects it probably mean that many will have to rethink income options. Just like statin studies boomed when nornal cholesterol was revised to 200 expect the same for bp meds. But for many participants they will not be eligible for these studies. Demand and will mean these studies will pay more however. abcnews.go.com/Health/103-million-americans-high-blood-pressure-guidelines/story?id=51121618
Last Edit: Nov 13, 2017 20:22:58 GMT -5 by respect
Post by FloridaGirl on Nov 14, 2017 6:10:53 GMT -5
I just saw that last night on the news and my first thought was I wonder how that will effect screening bp's. My bp is usually a little low but I screen a little higher due to nerves ( 100/60 goes to 120/70) so I will be ok but yr right about it possibly effecting People if they change screening Values. Studies do vary with what is normal range especially if a medication will cause low bp then they want you to have a higher normal range so hopefully things won't change too much...... maybe not at all.
I think the rules applies. They will be less tolerant. They may also look at it in context of other cardio risk factors reflected in lipid panels, ecgs, inflammation markers; and now diabetic risk vis a vis a1c is also considered a vascular health risk.
The IRBs, FDA and ethics board are probably atching their heads. Doctors if they practice ignoring someone health problem could put their research career at risk; do no harm. Time will tell To be noted however is that the Obama administration at its end and now the Trump administration has made it easier for pharma to do their research. They can now fulfill study requirements with smaller groups and less cohorts.
I think a more reasonable approach is for studies to have tier cut off for bp for age and gender the same way they have for other lab values and telemetry. Some centers already apply the age approach to bp. To be noted the change in hypertension definition affects more men than women. Only 19% of women are affected under 45. The data on the same group of men are more troubling.
Most lab rats focus on the systolic, top number when they are excluded but the diastolic new cut off of 80 and above just moved a good 50% into the failure category. This number is less responsive to all the tricks employed when vitals are taken. Even doctors will tell you medication is better at controlling systole than diastole. Diastole occurs when the heart is at rest between beats which is 2/3 of cardiac cycle. To change soing at rest is like asking a possum to play more dead. Diastole is more responsive over time to conditioning so it's inversely proportional to time spent in studies. May be we will have a new terminology in study Non Clinical Significant Hypertension which means for purpose of the study they will ignore values >130/80 and <140/85. Why 85 verses 90 because a 5 point movement in diastole is twice as significant as a 5 point move in systole. Not to bore you but for every 2 point move in the top number the bottom should move only one. So if the top number jumps to 10 above 130 then you should only tolerate 5 point increase in diastole since the heart has to sustain this 5 point jump in pressure 2/3 time longer than the increase pressure of 10 in its contracted state.
Thanks for that information, Respect. I dont watch the television at home, but just heard this, maybe in the airport. Being I was out of my usual routine, I didn't even think about it in relation to studies. I just recall thinking it was a bit interesting, but having my mind move on to soing else relatively quickly.
I'm not going to fib, IF this actually effects guinea pigs(the term lab rat is also shared by people who work in labs doing research, like my friend who spent quite awhile at one of the sponsors, Bristol-Myers Squibb...Squibb, for some reason that word amuses me) in the ways speculated, I might be grateful for it. Ive generally gotten into studies, but for anyone increasing their odds, Im guessing they will be happy.
As for the majority of those who will feel the effects of this(ordinary Americans), thats who it really sucks for. You were spon on, Respect....another money grab for the Pharma-Medica complex(doctors need more income for writing you a prescription when reading numbers that about anyone on here could do, right?). If insurance has to dish out gobs more for this unnecessary crap, how do you think that will effect premiums?
Speaking of insurance premiums, it's nice to see some truth that these loosened restrictions started under Obama, and not Trump(sorry Maxheadroom, I love your posts other than that nonsense). The funny part about it is that while it indeed fits with what Trump campaigned on(less wasteful bureacracy), the guy who actually made the changes was all about more and more government intervention. Things like that may jump out to a thinking person who isnt all into the partisan non-sense of establishment party politics cults of personality.
That said, while men indeed will be effect more, I don't recall being struck that it was going to be any giant sort of jump in terms of percentage, as opposed to overall numbers. Hopefully some of us will interrogate folks at clinics soon, and report back on any possible effects. Great thread, Respect! Very interested to see how this turns out.
Last Edit: Nov 16, 2017 0:22:52 GMT -5 by puntkicker