Aims  Whether isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH), as defined by the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline, is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been disputed. We aimed to further study the associations of IDH with (i) subclinical CVD in the form of coronary artery calcium (CAC), (ii) incident systolic hypertension, and (iii) CVD events. Methods and results  We used multivariable-adjusted logistic and Cox regression to test whether IDH by 2017 ACC/AHA criteria (i.e. systolic blood pressure <130 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mmHg) was associated with the above outcomes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). In a random-effects meta-analysis of the association between IDH and CVD events, we combined the MESA results with those from seven other previously published cohort studies. Among the 5104 MESA participants studied, 7.5% had IDH by the 2017 ACC/AHA criteria. There was no association between IDH and CAC [e.g. adjusted prevalence odds ratio for CAC >0 of 0.88 (95% CI 0.66, 1.17)]. Similarly, while IDH was associated with incident systolic hypertension, there was no statistically significant associations with incident CVD [hazard ratio 1.19 (95% CI 0.77, 1.84)] or death [hazard ratio 0.94 (95% CI 0.65, 1.36)] over 13 years in MESA. In a stratified meta-analysis of eight cohort studies (10 037 843 participants), the 2017 IDH definition was also not consistently associated with CVD and the relative magnitude of any potential association was noted to be numerically small [e.g. depending on inclusion criteria applied in the stratification, the adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.04 (95% CI 0.98, 1.10) to 1.09 (95% 1.03, 1.15)]. Conclusion  The lack of consistent excess in CAC or CVD suggests that emphasis on healthy lifestyle rather than drug therapy is sufficient among the millions of middle-aged or older adults who now meet the 2017 ACC/AHA criteria for IDH, though they require follow-up for incident systolic hypertension. These findings may not extrapolate to adults younger than 40 years, motivating further study in this age group.

Four decades have passed since the first trial suggesting aspirin's efficacy in the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction. Further trials, summarized in the Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration, solidified the historical role of aspirin in secondary prevention. Although the benefit of aspirin in the immediate phase following a myocardial infarction remains incontrovertible, a number of emerging lines of evidence - discussed in this narrative review - now raise some uncertainty as to the primacy of aspirin for the lifelong management of all patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). For example, data challenging the previously unquestioned role of aspirin in CCS have come from recent trials where aspirin was discontinued in specific clinical scenarios; including early discontinuation of the aspirin component of dual-antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention and the withholding of aspirin among CCS patients with atrial fibrillation who require anticoagulation. Added to this, recent primary prevention trials have failed to consistently demonstrate net benefit for aspirin in patients treated to optimal contemporary cardiovascular risk-factor targets, indicating that the efficacy of aspirin for secondary prevention of CCS may similarly have changed with the addition of more modern secondary prevention therapies. Therefore, the totality of recent evidence supports further study of the universal need for lifelong aspirin in the modern secondary prevention of all adults with CCS, particularly in stable older patients who are at highest risk for aspirin-induced bleeding.

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.

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.