Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is becoming the most important burden to health care systems in most part of the world, especially in Asia. Aiming at identifying high risk individuals and tailoring preventive treatment, many cardiovascular risk assessment tools have been established and most of them were developed in Western countries.However, these cardiovascular risk assessment tools cannot be used interchangeably without recalibration because of the different risk factor profiles (ie, greater absolute burden of hypertension and lower level of total-cholesterol in Asians and higher prevalence of metabolic disorders in South Asians) and different CVD profiles (higher ratio of stroke/coronary heart disease in Asians) between Western and Asian populations. Original risk models such as Prediction for ASCVD Risk in China (China-PAR) and Japan Arteriosclerosis Longitudinal Study (JALS) score have been developed and well validated for specific countries, while most of countries/regions in Asia are using established models. Due to higher incidence of stroke in Asians, risk factors like hypertension should weigh more in cardiovascular risk assessment comparing with Western populations, but their actual proportions should be based on CVD profiles in specific countries/regions. The authors encourage the development of new cardiovascular risk assessment tools for Asians, if possible. Still, modifying established models with native epidemiological data of risk factor as well as CVD is acceptable in regions where health care resources are insufficient.

Background: Guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference—Individual Participant Data Collaboration. Methods: One-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared. Results: We analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P< 0.001). Higher arm BP models fitted better for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events (all P <0.001). Higher arm BP models better predicted cardiovascular events with Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores (both P <0.001) and reclassified 4.6% and 3.5% of participants respectively to higher risk categories compared with lower arm BPs). Conclusions: Using BP from higher instead of lower reading arms reclassified 12% of people over thresholds used to diagnose hypertension. All prediction models performed better when using the higher arm BP. Both arms should be measured for accurate diagnosis and management of hypertension. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: CRD42015031227.

Asia is a large continent and there is significant diversity between countries and regions. Over the last 30 years, absolute blood pressure (BP) levels in Asia have increased to a greater extent than those in other regions. In diverse Asia-Pacific populations, for choosing an Asia-specific approach to hypertension management is important to prevent target organ damage and cardiovascular diseases. In this consensus document of HOPE Asia Network, we introduce seven action approaches for management of hypertension in Asia.

The present study investigated the prognostic values for office brachial (OB), office central (OC), and ambulatory daytime brachial (AmDB) hypertension, as defined by a unifying threshold of 130/80 mmHg, and the incremental value of either OC or AmDB hypertension to OB hypertension. A total of 1219 community residents without receiving anti‐hypertensive treatment (671 men and 548 women, aged ≥ 30 years old) from central Taiwan and Kinmen islands had OB, OC, and AmDB blood pressure measurements during a cardiovascular survey conducted in 1992–1993. OB hypertension, OC hypertension, and AmDB hypertension were all defined in retrospect at the threshold of 130/80 mmHg. They were followed up for nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events until December 31, 2017, by linking the baseline database to the National Health Insurance Research dataset and the National Death Registry. During a follow‐up of 25 612.5 person‐years (Average event‐free time: 21.0 years), there were 368 fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. In multivariable analyses, OB hypertension, OC hypertension, and AmDB hypertension had similar hazard ratios for cardiovascular events [2.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.47‐2.80]; 1.92 (1.47‐2.51); and 1.79 (1.41‐2.29), respectively. Using OB normotension as the reference, either the concordant OB and OC hypertension [2.24 (1.61‐3.12)], or the concordant OB and AmDB hypertension [2.52 (1.80‐3.54)] was significantly associated with cardiovascular events. Moreover, OB hypertension plus AmDB normotension was also significantly associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events. We concluded that OB hypertension, OC hypertension, and AmDB hypertension defined by a unifying threshold of 130/80 mmHg may provide similar estimates of long‐term risk for cardiovascular events. Cross‐classification analyses suggest that addition of OC hypertension or AmDB hypertension may improve the prognostic value of OB hypertension.

IntroductionWe investigated the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) in individuals without known diabetes in Taiwan and developed a risk prediction model for identifying undiagnosed diabetes and IFG.Research design and methodsUsing data from a large population-based Taiwan Biobank study linked with the National Health Insurance Research Database, we estimated the standardized prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and IFG between 2012 and 2020. We used the forward continuation ratio model with the Lasso penalty, modeling undiagnosed diabetes, IFG, and healthy reference group (individuals without diabetes or IFG) as three ordinal outcomes, to identify the risk factors and construct the prediction model. Two models were created: Model 1 predicts undiagnosed diabetes, IFG_110 (ie, fasting glucose between 110 mg/dL and 125 mg/dL), and the healthy reference group, while Model 2 predicts undiagnosed diabetes, IFG_100 (ie, fasting glucose between 100 mg/dL and 125 mg/dL), and the healthy reference group.ResultsThe standardized prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes for 2012–2014, 2015–2016, 2017–2018, and 2019–2020 was 1.11%, 0.99%, 1.16%, and 0.99%, respectively. For these periods, the standardized prevalence of IFG_110 and IFG_100 was 4.49%, 3.73%, 4.30%, and 4.66% and 21.0%, 18.26%, 20.16%, and 21.08%, respectively. Significant risk prediction factors were age, body mass index, waist to hip ratio, education level, personal monthly income, betel nut chewing, self-reported hypertension, and family history of diabetes. The area under the curve (AUC) for predicting undiagnosed diabetes in Models 1 and 2 was 80.39% and 77.87%, respectively. The AUC for predicting undiagnosed diabetes or IFG in Models 1 and 2 was 78.25% and 74.39%, respectively.ConclusionsOur results showed the changes in the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and IFG. The identified risk factors and the prediction models could be helpful in identifying individuals with undiagnosed diabetes or individuals with a high risk of developing diabetes in Taiwan.