Response to Comment on: Risk of heart failure in ambulatory resistant hypertension: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Francesca Coccina,Gil F. Salles,José R. Banegas,Ramón C. Hermida,José M. Bastos,Sante D. Pierdomenico

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-024-01730-7

2024-05-29

Hypertension Research

Abstract:Dear Editor, We read with interest the comment by Wang et al. [1] regarding our manuscript [2]. The authors report that our finding deepens present understanding on the role of different phenotypes of hypertension, particularly ambulatory resistant hypertension, in the pathogenesis of heart failure. They also argue there could be some limitations in the study. First, in line with Stang et al. [3] they question the validity of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of the included studies as it might be prone to arbitrary results. However, it has also been reported [4] that the versatility of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and its wide applicability are the most important advantages for using this tool in meta-research. In observational studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale can combine accuracy and time needed to score the instrument and should be considered as a first option when assessing the quality of observational studies in meta-research [4]. In this context, the authors also recommend the use of other tools, such as the Non-Randomized Research Methodology Index [5], to more comprehensively assess study quality. When we used this tool and its applicable items, the score of each study was in the upper quartile range for 2 reviewers indicating a good quality of the studies and similar results to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. In any case, all the tools reported in the literature have advantages and disadvantages [4] and the identification of a gold standard is still pending. Second, the authors suggest that non-explained heterogeneity among the included studies may be related to other unaccounted factors, such as patient lifestyle, genetic background, or other comorbidities, that could influence the relationship between ambulatory resistant hypertension and heart failure risk. The heterogeneity we found was only moderate and observed in two comparisons. We tried to explore potential sources of the heterogeneity by subgroup meta-analysis or meta-regression by considering various patient/study characteristic but none of them was the source of the heterogeneity. Hence, we agree with the letter authors that it was possibly due to unmeasured factors. Third, the authors report that despite sensitivity analyses and attempts to assess publication bias, the influence of these factors on the results cannot be completely excluded, especially considering that diagnostic criteria for heart failure may vary between studies. We assessed carefully by several methods the possibility of publication bias and small studies effect (funnel plots with the Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill method, Begg's and Egger's tests) and we showed that although there was a possible absence of 2–3 studies at the left of the mean effects, it did not change any of the results. (Supplementary Figure 1 of the published manuscript). Regarding the possible influence of different diagnostic criteria of heart failure, we have shown the criterion of heart failure diagnosis of each study (Supplementary Table 1 of the published manuscript), and they were basically the same, the need of hospitalization due to signs and symptoms of heart failure, confirmed by an objective method (biomarker and/or instrumental). Hence, we do not believe that different heart failure diagnostic criteria among included studies may have influenced the results. Fourth, the authors state that the retrospective and observational nature of the studies does not necessarily allow to determine causality. We performed a study-level meta-analysis of 6 observational cohorts, and hence, it is a limitation inherent to observational cohort studies that it cannot determine cause-and-effect relationships, but temporal associations between the exposure (the blood pressure phenotypes based on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring) and the future outcome (heart failure incidence). Causality is better assessed in randomized clinical trials. Considering the letter globally, despite the indicated limitations, the authors emphasize the importance of our study and the potential implications for clinical practice and for future developments. We agree and thank the authors for their interest in our study.

peripheral vascular disease