Alan P. Jacobsen

Orthostatic hypotension affects roughly 10% of individuals with hypertension and is associated with several adverse health outcomes, including dementia, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death. Among adults with hypertension, orthostatic hypotension has also been shown to predict patterns of blood pressure dysregulation that may not be appreciated in the office setting, including nocturnal nondipping. Individuals with uncontrolled hypertension are at particular risk of orthostatic hypotension and may meet diagnostic criteria for the condition with a smaller relative reduction in blood pressure compared with normotensive individuals. Antihypertensive medications are commonly de-prescribed to address orthostatic hypotension; however, this approach may worsen supine or seated hypertension, which may be an important driver of adverse events in this population. There is significant variability between guidelines for the diagnosis of orthostatic hypotension with regards to timing and position of blood pressure measurements. Clinically relevant orthostatic hypotension may be missed when standing measurements are delayed or when taken after a seated rather than supine position. The treatment of orthostatic hypotension in patients with hypertension poses a significant management challenge for clinicians; however, recent evidence suggests that intensive blood pressure control may reduce the risk of orthostatic hypotension. A detailed characterization of blood pressure variability is essential to tailoring a treatment plan and can be accomplished using both in-office and out-of-office monitoring.

Background: Aspirin is widely administered to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, appropriate use of aspirin depends on patient understanding of its risks, benefits, and indications, especially where aspirin is available over the counter (OTC). Methods and Results: We did a survey of patient‐reported 10‐year cardiovascular risk; aspirin therapy status; form of aspirin access (OTC versus prescription); and knowledge of the risks, benefits, and role of aspirin in CVD prevention. Consecutive adults aged ≥50 years with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor attending outpatient clinics in America and Europe were recruited. We also systematically reviewed national policies regulating access to low‐dose aspirin for CVD prevention. At each site, 150 responses were obtained (300 total). Mean±SD age was 65±10 years, 40% were women, and 41% were secondary prevention patients. More than half of the participants at both sites did not know (1) their own level of 10‐year CVD risk, (2) the expected magnitude of reduction in CVD risk with aspirin, or (3) aspirin’s bleeding risks. Only 62% of all participants reported that aspirin was routinely indicated for secondary prevention, whereas 47% believed it was routinely indicated for primary prevention ( P =0.048). In America, 83.5% participants obtained aspirin OTC compared with 2.5% in Europe ( P <0.001). Finally, our review of European national policies found only 2 countries where low‐dose aspirin was available OTC. Conclusions: Many patients have poor insight into their objectively calculated 10‐year cardiovascular risk and do not know the risks, benefits, and role of aspirin in CVD prevention. Aspirin is mainly obtained OTC in America in contrast to Europe, where most countries restrict access to low‐dose aspirin.

Purpose of Review: The treatment of hypertension has changed dramatically over the last century, with recent trials informing clinical guidelines that recommend aiming for lower blood pressure (BP) targets than ever before. However, a “J”- or “U-shaped curve” in the association between diastolic BP and cardiovascular events has been observed in epidemiological studies, suggesting that both high diastolic BPs and diastolic BPs below a certain nadir are associated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Despite the potential for confounding and reverse causation, this association may caution against overly intensive BP lowering in some hypertensive adults who also have a low baseline diastolic BP. Recent Findings: Recent post-hoc analyses of the landmark Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) appear to contradict these J-curve concerns, finding that the benefit of more intensive BP treatment did not differ based on baseline blood pressure. Similarly, sensitivity analyses of The Strategy of Blood Pressure Intervention in the Elderly Hypertensive Patients (STEP) randomized controlled trial found that patients experienced similar benefits from an intensive BP goal, regardless of whether their diastolic BP was above or below 60 mm Hg. Finally, several Mendelian randomization analyses, which are less susceptible to confounding and reverse causation, demonstrated a clear linear relationship between diastolic BP and cardiovascular events. These studies indicate that a potential reduction in CVD risk is possible, irrespective of baseline diastolic BP values. Summary: Sufficient recent evidence indicates that low diastolic BP is not causal of worse cardiovascular outcomes but rather represents confounding or reverse causation. Therefore, while low diastolic BP can be considered a marker of CVD risk, this risk is not expected to increase with further BP lowering when necessary to control concomitant elevations of systolic BP. Indeed, BP reduction in this setting appears beneficial.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped health care delivery for all patients but has distinctly affected the most marginalized people in society. Incarcerated patients are both more likely to be infected and more likely to die from COVID-19. There is a paucity of guidance for the care of incarcerated patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This article will discuss how patient privacy, adequate communication, and advance care planning are rights that incarcerated patients may not experience during this pandemic. We highlight the role of compassionate release and note how COVID-19 may affect this prospect. A number of pragmatic recommendations are made to attenuate the discrepancy in hospital care experienced by those admitted from prisons and jails. Physicians must be familiar with the relevant hospital policies, be prepared to adapt their practices in order to overcome barriers to care, such as continuous shackling, and advocate to change these policies when they conflict with patient care. Stigma, isolation, and concerns over staff safety are shared experiences for COVID-19 and incarcerated patients, but incarcerated patients have been experiencing this treatment long before the current pandemic. It is crucial that the internist demand the equitable care that we seek for all our patients.