Salt and blood pressure in children: reply to commentary by Alderman
F J He,G A MacGregor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1002280
2007-01-01
Journal of Human Hypertension
Abstract:We are grateful to Dr Alderman for his commentary1 on our paper.2 However, we respectfully disagree with several aspects of his article. In relation to the evidence on salt and blood pressure (BP) in children, he does not mention the large body of evidence that BP tracks,3, 4 and any reduction in BP in childhood is likely to lead to much larger changes subsequently in adulthood. It would also have been worth highlighting a recent meta-analysis of salt reduction trials in children, where there was a significant fall in BP with a modest reduction in salt intake,5 and in the commentary, there was only one quote of a paper on the relation between salt intake and BP in children, giving a selected view of the literature. Of importance, the magnitude of the quantitative association between salt intake and BP observed in our paper,2 involving a large number of children on their usual diet, is very close to that found in the meta-analysis where salt intake was reduced.5 These consistent findings provide very strong support for a reduction in salt intake in children. In relation to the evidence in adults, Alderman quotes the meta-analysis by Graudal et al.6 but we would suggest that this paper is flawed, particularly, given it includes a large number of short-term metabolic studies, for example, from a high salt intake of 20 to <1 g day−1 for only a few days. Such studies are not relevant to the current public health recommendations for a much more modest reduction in salt intake over a prolonged period of time. We also have a different interpretation of the meta-analysis by Hooper et al.7 cited by Alderman.1 The major message of this meta-analysis was the difficulty for individuals to reduce salt intake over a long period of time, in countries where ≈80% of salt is already in the food.8 In fact, Hopper et al.7do show that even with a small reduction in salt intake, there was still a significant fall in BP. A much more up-to-date meta-analysis9 clearly demonstrates that a modest reduction in salt intake for a month or longer causes significant and, from a population point of view, important falls in BP in individuals with both raised and normal BP.9 Furthermore, this meta-analysis shows a clear dose–response between the reduction in salt intake and the fall in BP. Indeed, for a 6 g day−1 reduction in salt intake, there would be a 5 mm Hg fall in systolic BP in adults. When the results from the meta-analysis by Hooper et al.7 are plotted on the scatter graph, their data can be fitted exactly with the regression line. In other words, the smaller fall in BP in the meta-analysis by Hopper et al. was probably due to the smaller reduction in salt intake achieved. The commentary by Alderman1 claims that reducing salt intake increases sympathetic nervous activity, reduces insulin sensitivity and stimulates the renin–angiotensin system. He quotes the data derived from acute and large reductions in salt intake and ignores the correspondence10 and contrary evidence, including an article published in the Journal of Human Hypertension, which refutes his claims.11 Indeed, longer-term modest salt reduction trials have shown no effect on the sympathetic nervous system12 or insulin sensitivity13 and only a small but physiological increase in plasma renin activity (PRA). Indeed, this rise in PRA is less than that seen with thiazide diuretics, which lower BP by mechanisms similar to salt reduction. Outcome trials have demonstrated that long-term treatment with thiazide diuretics significantly reduces cardiovascular mortality in hypertensive individuals. In a double-blind study, we also demonstrated that the effect of a modest reduction in salt intake in patients who were on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor was the same as 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, but unlike thiazide, salt restriction did not cause a fall in plasma potassium.14 There is no evidence that a modest reduction in salt intake is harmful, and this is inherently unlikely given that man's evolutionary salt intake was <0.5 g day−1. It is only over the last 100 years or so that salt intake has reached such high amounts, and the food industry has contributed to this, certainly in developed countries. Importantly, there is a very high salt intake now in children in most developed countries.15, 16 There is a wealth of other evidence that supports a reduction in salt intake for the whole population, including outcome trial evidence on cardiovascular disease.17 The United Kingdom has adopted a policy of a gradual but persistent reduction in the amount of salt added by the food industry, not only to adults' food, but also children's food. These small reductions, that is, 10–20%, cannot be detected by human salt taste receptors and do not cause any technological or safety problems either. It has already been demonstrated that salt intake in adults, as measured by 24-h urinary sodium, is falling in the United Kingdom.18 Such a policy is now being adopted by other developed countries worldwide. Indeed, of all public health policies, salt reduction is probably the easiest because it can be done without consumers' knowledge, but needs the cooperation of the food industry. If this was achieved, the benefits in preventing the development of high BP, strokes and heart attacks, would be very large.19