BACKGROUND: translation of the available evidence concerning primary cardiovascular prevention into clinical guidance for the heterogeneous population of older adults is challenging. With this review, we aimed to give an overview of the thresholds and targets of antihypertensive drug therapy for older adults in currently used guidelines on primary cardiovascular prevention. Secondly, we evaluated the relationship between the advised targets and guideline characteristics, including guideline quality.
METHODS: we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Emcare and five guideline databases. We selected guidelines with (i) numerical thresholds for the initiation or target values of antihypertensive drug therapy in context of primary prevention (January 2008-July 2020) and (ii) specific advice concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. We extracted the recommendations and appraised the quality of included guidelines with the AGREE II instrument.
RESULTS: thirty-four guidelines provided recommendations concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. Twenty advised a higher target of systolic blood pressure (SBP) for octogenarians in comparison with the general population and three advised a lower target. Over half of the guidelines (n = 18) recommended to target a SBP <150 mmHg in the oldest old, while four endorsed targets of SBP lower than 130 or 120 mmHg. Although many guidelines acknowledged frailty, only three gave specific thresholds and targets. Guideline characteristics, including methodological quality, were not related with the recommended targets.
CONCLUSIONS: the ongoing debate concerning targets of antihypertensive treatment in older adults, is reflected in an inconsistency of recommendations across guidelines. Recommended targets are largely set on chronological rather than biological age.

People with diabetes are at a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared with those without diabetes. Though aspirin has been shown to have an overall net clinical benefit when used for secondary prevention of ASCVD in people with and without diabetes, the evidence for primary prevention, especially in those with diabetes, remains inconsistent. In this article, we review the latest studies examining the risks and benefits of aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD in adults with diabetes, discuss key aspects in assessing the risk-benefit ratio of aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD, and summarize current guidelines from professional societies on aspirin use for primary prevention in adults with diabetes.
In the general population, past studies have shown no difference in the beneficial effect of aspirin for primary cardiovascular disease prevention by diabetes status. However, several randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses in adults with diabetes have shown lack of net clinical benefit of aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD. The recent ASCEND trial documented cardiovascular benefit of aspirin for primary prevention in adults with diabetes but suggested that the increased risk of bleeding may outweigh the cardiovascular benefit. The decision to initiate aspirin for primary prevention of ASCVD must be considered carefully on an individual basis to balance the cardiovascular benefit and bleeding risk in all patients, especially those with diabetes. A multifactorial approach that focuses on managing ASCVD risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, dysglycemia, and smoking is recommended in all patients. More research is needed to identify subgroups of people with diabetes who are more likely to benefit from aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD and develop better antithrombotic strategies that shift the risk-benefit balance toward an overall net clinical benefit.