2025 加拿大高血压指南：基层医疗中成人高血压的诊断和治疗

Abstract

Background: Canada has historically been among the world leaders in hypertension care, but hypertension treatment and control rates have regressed in recent years. This guideline is intended to provide pragmatic primary care–focused recommendations to improve hypertension management in adults at the population level.

Methods: We employed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and ADAPTE frameworks in accordance with Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) quality and reporting standards to develop recommendations on managing hypertension for adults aged 18years and older. We used

the HEARTS framework — a model of care developed by the World Health Organization to improve hypertension control and reduce cardiovascular burden — to integrate these recommendations into streamlined, pragmatic, and evidence-based algorithms. The guideline committee predominantly comprised primary care providers and also included patient, methodology, and hypertension specialist representatives. Our process for managing competing interests adhered to Guidelines Inter national Network principles.

Recommendations: The 9recommendations for managing hypertension in adults are grouped under the categories of diagnosis and treatment. Diagnostic

recommendations include a standardized approach to measuring blood pressure (BP) and confirming hypertension, as well as providing a uniform definition for hypertension of ${\mathsf{B P}}\geq130/80~\mathsf{m m}\,{\mathsf{H g}}.$ . Treatment recommendations include targeting a systolic $\mathsf{B P<130\m m H g}$ , implementing healthy lifestyle changes, and providing stepwise guidance on optimal medication choices for patients requiring pharmacotherapy.

Interpretation: Our aim is to enhance the standard of hypertension care in the Canadian primary care setting. Accurate diagnosis and optimal treatment of hypertension can reduce adverse cardiovascular events and risk of death.

Hypertension is the most common modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death, 1 prevalent in about 1 in 4adults in Canada. 2 Historically, Canada has been among the world’s leaders in hypertension treatment and control rates. 3 However, declining trends in hypertension treatment and control across Canada in recent years have raised concerns. 4,5 This decline has been proposed to relate to discrepancies in optimal blood pressure (BP) targets, overly complex guideline recommendations, inadequate implementation strategies, and suboptimal engagement with front-line health care providers. 6

Most hypertension is managed in primary care; therefore, improving hypertension care at the population level necessitates

prioritizing primary care. To this end, Hypertension Canada has adopted a new 2-part guideline approach. 7 As an adjunct to its forthcoming comprehensive guideline, Hypertension Canada has developed this primary care–focused hypertension guideline that comprises pragmatic recommendations for efficient implementation in everyday practice.

We used the World Health Organization’s (WHO) HEARTS (Healthy-lifestyle counselling, Evidence-based treatment protocols, Access to essential medicines and technology, Risk-based cardiovascular disease management, Team-based care, Systems for monitoring) framework to integrate these recommendations

into streamlined, pragmatic, and evidence-based algorithms for use in primary care in Canada. Designed to improve populationwide hypertension control and reduce cardiovascular disease burden, HEARTS outlines principles for optimal diagnostic procedures and simplified directive treatment algorithms along with monitoring and evaluation. 8 HEARTS was initially developed within the Kaiser Permanente system in the United States, where hypertension control rates improved from $44\%$ to $90\%$ in just over a decade. 9,10 HEARTS was not designed as a rigid protocol; rather, nations are encouraged to adapt the framework to meet their unique needs, and the framework has been successfully implemented in a host of countries to improve hypertension care. 11

Herein, we present the Hypertension Canada guideline recommendations and HEARTS-adapted algorithms for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in adults in Canadian primary care.

Scope

The target users for this guideline are primary care providers (family physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, and pharmacists), policy-makers, and patients and caregivers affected by hypertension. Whereas this guideline is intended as a framework for managing most cases of hypertension in primary care, it is not intended to be applied directly to all clinical scenarios. Specif ically, this guideline is not to be used to manage hypertension in children or in people who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant; separate guidelines are available for these patient populations. 12,13 This guideline is designed as an adjunct to the forthcoming Hypertension Canada comprehensive guideline, to enhance implementation in the primary care setting. The upcoming comprehensive guideline will serve as a resource for more complex and nuanced aspects of hypertension management, such as resistant hypertension.

Recommendations

We formulated the guideline recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework (Table1); 14 they are summarized in Table2. Along with each recommendation, we provide the supporting rationale and the values and preferences that the guideline committee prioritized, based on the existing literature and perspectives shared by primary care providers and patients.

Diagnosis

Blood pressure assessment with a validated automated device and using a standardized method is recommended (strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

Rationale

Because detection and management of hypertension rely on accurate BP measurement, it is important to use a device that has been validated and confirmed for accuracy. Validated automated oscillometric devices are preferred to auscultatory sphygmomanometers as they are easier to use, less prone to human error and end-digit preference (i.e., where the observer rounds

off the last digit), and have better reproducibility. 15 Validation demonstrates relative equivalency between the tested device and rigorously performed manual auscultatory measurements. 16 Globally, only $10\%$ of devices have evidence of validation for accuracy. 17 In Canada, $90\%$ of BP devices sold at pharmacies are validated compared with only $45\%$ of BP devices sold by online retailers. 18 Exceptions where automated devices are inaccurate and manual BP measurement is preferred include in patients with persistent or high burden of arrhythmias, and populations in which an automated device has not been validated (e.g., children and pregnant people, for whom this guideline is not intended). 16

Even when a validated automated device is used, the accur acy of BP measurement may be influenced by many factors. 19–21 A standardized procedure with proper preparation and positioning, appropriate equipment, and multiple averaged measurements reduces variability (Figure1). 22 Meta-analyses show that standardized automated office BP provides BP measurements that closely approximate daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM). 23,24 Nonstandardized office BP measurements result in readings that are on average $5{\mathrm{-}}10~{\mathrm{mm}}\,{\mathrm{Hg}}$ higher than standardized measurements. 25 Measuring BP more than once with all values averaged reduces shortterm variability. 26 The optimal number of measurements is uncertain, although most recent clinical trials have employed a protocol consisting of a 5-minute seated rest period, followed by 3measurements at 1-minute intervals. 27–30

## Values and preferences

The guideline committee placed a high value on using proper BP measurement technique and equipment to ensure accurate readings. As such, the recommendation prioritizes precision in BP assessment to ensure appropriate diagnosis and management. While recognizing that access to validated devices and standardized methods may be limited in some settings, this recommendation underscores the importance of maintaining measurement quality to reduce errors and improve clinical decision-making.

Out-of-office BP assessment is recommended to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension or to detect white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension (strong recommendation, moderatecertainty evidence).

Rationale

Out-of-office BP measurements (ABPM or HBPM) are useful to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension when office BP is elevated. Ambulatory BP monitoring measures BP at 20- to 30-minute intervals during both day and night. 31 The standard protocol for HBPM involves measuring BP in duplicate twice daily for a week. Out-of-office BP measurements (particularly ABPM) correlate more closely with cardiovascular events and death than office BP measurements do. For example, a large observational study of about 60000primary care patients found that 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was

Table 1: Interpretation of strength of recommendation and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations

Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach 14

|Strength of recommendation|Interpretation| |---|---| |strong| The desirable effects or consequences of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects or consequences. | ||| |Conditional| The desirable effects or consequences of an intervention probably outweigh its undesirable effects or consequences. | |Certainty of evidence|| ||| |high|High confidence that the true efíect lies close to that of the estimate of efect.| | moderate low | The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. | |very low|The true efiect may be substantialy diferent firom the estimate of effect.| ||The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.|

Table 2: Recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in primary care

|Recommendation| strength of recommendation | certainty of evidence || |---|---|---|---| |Diagnosis|||| |BP assessment with a validated automated device and using a standardized method is recommended.|strong|moderate|| | Out-of-office BP assessment is recommended to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension or to detect white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension. |strong|moderate|| | The definition of hypertension in adults is recommended as BP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg when measured with a validated device under optimal conditions. |strong|moderate|| ||||| | Treatment Healthy lifestyle changes are recommended for all adults with hypertension. |||| ||strong|| high high | | Pharmacotherapy initiation for hypertension is recommended for adults with BP ≥ 140/90 mm Hg and for adults with systolic BP 130-139 mm Hg at high cardiovascular disease risk. |strong||| | Treatment, including healthy lifestyle changes with or without pharmacotherapy, is recommended for adults with hypertension to achieve a target systolic BP ||||

Note: ACEI angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker, BP = blood pressure, CCB = calcium channel blocker.

strongly associated with cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR]1.51, $95\%$ confidence interval [CI]1.41–1.62) and allcause death (HR1.43, $95\%$ CI1.37–1.49), even after adjusting for office BP. 32 Out-of-office BP assessment is also required to identify the common BP phenotypes of white-coat hypertension (BP elevated in office but not out of office, which is present in $15\%{-}30\%$ of people with elevated office BP) 33 and masked hypertension (BP elevated out of office but not in office; prevalence of $10\%{-15\%}$ ). 33,34

When out-of-office BP measurements are not feasible owing to lack of accessibility, affordability, or adequate training for patients or caregivers, the diagnosis of hypertension can be confirmed with repeat office BP measurement using the standardized technique. Although reliance on single-visit office BP meas urements to diagnose hypertension reduces specificity relative to ABPM, 35 it may need to be considered in certain circumstances, such as for patients with infrequent office visits who are unable or unwilling to perform out-of-office measurements.

Optimal blood pressure measuring technique:


Proper preparation:

• Quiet and calm room • No cafeine, tobacco, or exercise in the 30 minutes before the measurements

Appropriate equipment:

• Validated automated BP device (see https://hypertension.ca/public /recommended-devices or ask a pharmacist) • Wide range of cuf sizes to select the appropriate size

Standardized protocol:

• If feasible, observe a rest period of 1–5 minutes before measurements • Measure BP 3 times at 1-minute intervals • Average and record all values

 Figure 1: Optimal blood pressure (BP) measuring technique.

Values and preferences

The guideline committee prioritized the importance of accurate hypertension diagnosis by emphasizing out-of-office BP assessment. The recommendation places a high value on minimizing misdiagnosis from white-coat hypertension or masked hypertension, which could lead to unnecessary treatment or missed cases of hypertension. Although accessibility and feasibility of out-ofoffice BP monitoring may vary across different settings, this recommendation places greater importance on diagnostic precision over potential challenges in implementation.

The definition of hypertension in adults is recommended as $B P\geq\mathcal{I}30/80$ mmHg when measured with a validated device under optimal conditions (strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

Rationale

Starting as low as with a systolic BP of $90\ \mathsf{m m}\,\mathsf{H g}.$ , observational data have shown a continuous relationship between higher BP and risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes. 36 Yet for clinical care and public health purposes, it is helpful to establish a cat egorical threshold to define hypertension. In the present guideline, we set the BP threshold to define hypertension in adults at $130/80\ \mathsf{m m\,H g},$ a threshold below what was previously recommended by Hypertension Canada. 31

The rationale behind this change is based on observational and randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on the relationship between BP and the magnitude of cardiovascular risk. Metaanalysis of prospective study data has shown that the relative risk for major adverse cardiovascular events for people with ${\mathsf{B P}}\geq130{\mathrm{-}}139/85{\mathrm{-}}89~{\mathsf{m m}}~{\mathsf{H g}}$ is 1.5-fold to 2.0-fold higher than for people with $\mathsf{B P<120/80}$ , and a risk substantially higher than for those with BP 120–129/80–84mmHg. 37 Similarly, RCT data on the effects of more intensive BP-lowering treatments have consistently shown their effectiveness in reducing the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events for people with ${\mathsf{B P}}\,\geq\,130/80\,\mathsf{\ m m\,H g}$ (and in some cases for people with $\mathsf{B P<130/80~m m\,H g})$ ), as discussed in the “Treatment” recommendations section. 27,28,30,38–44

In adults with confirmed hypertension, routine testing should be performed to assess cardiovascular disease risk and screen for end-organ damage (Appendix1, Supplementary Table1, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.241770/ tab-related-content).

Values and preferences

The guideline committee placed high value on early detection and intervention by defining hypertension at a lower threshold (BP 130/80mmHg) than in previous guidelines. This reflects a high value placed on aligning with emerging evidence that associates cardiovascular risk with lower BP levels. Although this lower threshold will increase the number of people labelled as having hypertension, the recommendation emphasizes the benefits of earlier management in preventing longterm complications.

Treatment

Healthy lifestyle changes are recommended for all adults with hypertension (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence).

Rationale

Unhealthy lifestyle habits play a major role in the development of hypertension and its associated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus, lifestyle modification should be advised for all people with hypertension. Dietary salt intake displays a nearly linear dose– response relationship with BP. 45 Data from RCTs show that reducing dietary sodium via a salt substitute among people aged 60years or older with hypertension and a history of stroke led to a $13\%$ decrease in major adverse cardiovascular events (rate ratio0.87, $95\%$ CI0.80–0.94) and a $12\%$ decrease in all-cause death (rate ratio0.88, $95\%$ CI0.82–0.95) over about 5years. 46 The WHO advises restriction of dietary sodium intake to less than 2g per day. 47 Notably, more than $70\%$ of dietary sodium intake from the typical Western diet comes from processed foods rather than table salt. 48

Increased dietary potassium intake (i.e., from a diet rich in fruits and vegetables) is linked to lower BP and reduced cardiovascular risk. 46,49–51 The WHO advises dietary potassium intake of more than 3.5g per day. 52 For patients with chronic kidney disease or those prescribed medications that may raise potassium (e.g., angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs], angiotensin II receptor blockers [ARBs], and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists), potassium should be monitored.

Hypertension and obesity (body mass index $.\,\!\geq30$ ) are commonly comorbid conditions, and weight loss in these cases can improve BP control. A meta-analysis of RCTs on weight-reducing diets in adults with hypertension and obesity found a mean decline in systolic and diastolic BP of 4.5 $\langle95\%$ CI1.8–7.2) and 3.2 (95% CI1.5–4.8) mm Hg, respectively, although the reduction in BP occurred in a dosedependent relationship with the magnitude of weight reduction. 53 Weight-reducing medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists are also effective in improving BP. For instance, an RCT of semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity showed that in addition to a $12\%$ reduction in weight, mean systolic BP was also reduced by 5.1 (95% CI3.9–6.3) mmHg. 54

Regular exercise can improve BP control. Dynamic aerobic exercise has been the most well-studied form of exercise, with meta-analysis data showing that among people with hypertension, mean systolic and diastolic BP improved by 6.9 and $4.9\,\mathsf{m m\,H g}$ , respectively. 55 The WHO advises at least 150–300minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week. 31,56

Reducing alcohol consumption lowers BP in a dosedependent fashion with a suggested threshold effect. Metaanalysis data demonstrate that among adults who consume 2or fewer drinks per day, reducing alcohol intake had no effect on BP. However, for adults consuming 3, 4–5, or 6or more drinks per day, reducing alcohol intake is associated with a mean reduction in systolic BP of 1.2 $(95\%$ CI0.0–2.3), 3.0 $95\%$ CI2.0– 4.0), and 5.5 (95% CI4.3–6.7) mm Hg, respectively. 31,57,58

Finally, although the effects of smoking on BP are only modest, 59 all people with hypertension should be counselled to stop smoking to reduce its associated risks of cardiovascular morbidity and death. 60

Values and preferences

The guideline committee prioritized the foundational role of healthy lifestyle changes in managing hypertension, recognizing their broad benefits beyond BP control. This recommendation reflects a high value placed on nonpharmacologic interventions that can improve overall health and reduce cardiovascular risk. Given that various healthy lifestyle changes have been shown to potentially reduce BP, the committee chose not to specify particular interventions in the recommendation, recognizing that people may have different values and preferences regarding which changes to prioritize.

Pharmacotherapy initiation for hypertension is recommended for adults with $B P\geq140/90$ mmHg and for adults with systolic BP 130– 139mmHg at high cardiovascular disease risk (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence).

Rationale

When an adult is diagnosed with hypertension and their BP is $\geq140/90\ {\mathsf{m m}}\,{\mathsf{H g}}$ , pharmacologic treatment should be initiated. This is based on RCT data demonstrating that such individuals benefit from pharmacologic treatment, including $28\%$ lower odds of stroke (odds ratio [OR]0.72, $95\%$ CI0.55–0.94) and $22\%$ lower odds of all-cause death (OR0.78, $95\%$ CI0.67–0.92) over 5years, irrespective of their baseline cardiovascular disease risk. 39,61

Pharmacologic treatment should also be started for adults with systolic BP130–139mmHg who are at high risk of cardio vascular disease (Box1). This threshold is based on meta-analysis data of RCTs showing that adults at high baseline risk for cardiovascular disease with BP within this range benefit from a reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events with pharmacologic treatment, primarily driven by a $60\%$ decrease in stroke risk for every 10mmHg decrease in systolic BP achieved. 39,64

Clinicians should emphasize that pharmacologic treatment is to be used in combination with (and not as a replacement for) lifestyle modification, and that successful lifestyle modification may allow for down-titration or discontinuation of medications in the future. For adults with systolic BP $130{\mathrm{-}}139\;\mathsf{m m}\,\mathsf{H g}$ and not at high cardiovascular disease risk, healthy lifestyle changes

Box 1: High cardiovascular disease risk conditions\*

• Established cardiovascular disease (coronary artery disease, heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral artery disease) • Diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2) • Chronic kidney disease $({\mathsf{e G F R}}<60\,{\mathsf{m L}}/{\mathsf{m i n}}/1.73\,{\mathsf{m}}^{2}$ or albuminuria ≥ 3 mg/mmol) • 10-year Framingham Risk Score $\geq20\%^{62}$ • Age ≥ 75 years

Note: eGFR $\cdot=$ estimated glomerular filtration rate, $\mathsf{E S C}=$ European Society of Cardiology, SPRINT $\dot{}=$ Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

\*Criteria adapted from the 2024 ESC hypertension guidelines 63 and the SPRINT trial. 30

alone should be emphasized, with BP reassessment within 3–6months. If systolic BP remains at $130{\mathrm{-}}139\ \mathsf{m m}\,\mathsf{H g}$ and the person remains not at high cardiovascular disease risk, we advise BP reassessment every 6–12months.

Values and preferences

The guideline committee prioritized timely initiation of pharmacotherapy to reduce cardiovascular risk, placing a high value on preventing complications associated with elevated BP by targeting people at the greatest risk. The committee recognizes that the benefit of pharmacotherapy initiation in people at lower risk (i.e., systolic BP130–139 without any high-risk conditions) is uncertain. This recommendation places lower value on pharmacotherapy avoidance, costs, and tolerability, as most agents are now available as low-cost generics and are well tolerated.

Treatment, including healthy lifestyle changes with or without pharmacotherapy, is recommended for adults with hypertension to achieve a target systolic BP <130mmHg, provided the treatment is well tolerated (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence).

Rationale

The recommended treatment target of systolic $\mathsf{B P<130\m m H g}$ is supported by current RCT evidence showcasing the benefits of more intensive BP control. 27,28,30,39–44 A recent large meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating lower BP targets with pharmacotherapy (>70000participants) found that compared with a systolic BP target of $\geq130\;{\mathsf{m m}}\,{\mathsf{H g}},$ , a systolic BP target of $<130\ {\mathsf{m m}}\,{\mathsf{H g}}$ led to a $22\%$ reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (HR0.78, $95\%$ CI0.70–0.87) and an $11\%$ reduction in all-cause death (HR0.89, $95\%$ CI0.79–0.99). 38 Notably, this meta-analysis also showed that compared with a systolic BP target of $<140\;\mathsf{m m\;H g},$ a systolic BP target of $<120\ {\mathsf{m m}}\,{\mathsf{H g}}$ led to an $18\%$ reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (HR0.82, $95\%$ CI0.74–0.91) and a possible reduction in all-cause death (HR 0.85, $95\%$ CI0.71–1.01). 38 The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT; comparing a systolic BP target of $<\,120\,\mathsf{\ m m\ H g\ v}.$ . $<140~\mathsf{m m}\,\mathsf{H g})$ ) reported a number needed to treat (NNT) of 61 for the primary cardiovascular composite outcome (myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes) and an NNT of 90 for allcause death. 30

Rather than recommending the more intensive BP target of systolic ${\mathsf{B P}}<120\ {\mathsf{m m}}\,{\mathsf{H g}},$ , we chose to recommend a more con servative systolic BP target of $<130\ \mathsf{m m\,H g}.$ , given that researchquality BP measures are generally $5{\mathrm{-}}10~{\mathsf{m m~H g}}$ lower than BP measures in the routine clinical care setting; 25 modern-day RCTs studying intensive BP control included only people with baseline systolic ${\mathsf{B P}}\,{\geq}\,130\ {\mathsf{m m}}\,{\mathsf{H g}};^{38}$ most participants in large RCTs targeting a systolic $\mathsf{B P<120\m m H g}$ did not achieve this target; 27,29,30 and feedback from primary care providers and patients supported the recommendation. We do not recommend a specific diastolic BP target, given evidence that adults with a systolic BP $<130\ {\mathsf{m m}}\,{\mathsf{H g}}$ are at relatively low cardiovascular risk even when diastolic BP is $70{\mathrm{-}}90\,\mathsf{m m\,H g}$ . 65

Although RCTs on intensive BP control have proven benefit in reducing cardiovascular events and risk of death, 27,28,30,40–44 implementation of intensive BP control must be balanced against potential harms. A recent meta-analysis of RCTs on intensive BP targets showed significantly increased rates of the following adverse events (although the absolute risks as shown by the numbers needed to harm [NNH] were low): hypotension (NNH508, $95\%$ CI309–1425), syncope (NNH1701, $95\%$ CI991–5999), injurious falls (NNH2941, $95\%$ CI1479–258938), electrolyte abnormalities (NNH3222, $95\%$ CI1150–4013), and acute kidney injury or acute renal failure (NNH1657, $95\%$ CI693–4235). 38

Exceptions to targeting a systolic $\mathsf{B P<130\m m H g}$ include patient-specific factors such as goals of care, frailty, fall risk, and orthostatic hypotension. In these scenarios, a higher systolic BP target may be required to minimize adverse effects, and we advise targeting a systolic BP as low as is reasonably achievable, although this threshold varies on a case-by-case basis, necessitating use of clinical discretion.

Values and preferences

The guideline committee placed a relatively high value on a simplified approach to hypertension management by adopting a single treatment target for all, irrespective of cardiovascular risk and comorbidities. While we recognize that some people may benefit from a lower target and some may tolerate only a higher target, this recommendation prioritizes ease of implementation and is a response to requests for more pragmatic and streamlined guidance to hypertension management in primary care.

For adults with hypertension requiring pharmacotherapy, lowdose combination therapy (ideally as a single-pill combination) is recommended as initial treatment, which includes drugs from 2 of the following 3 complementary classes of medications: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, and long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

Rationale

On average, ACEIs or ARBs, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and $\upbeta$ -blockers reduce BP to a similar degree 66 and effectively lower cardiovascular risk when used at optimal doses. 67 However, the magnitude of reduction of cardiovascular risk (specifically for stroke) is less with $\upbeta$ -blocker use for hypertension, and $\upbeta$ -blockers are more likely to be discontinued because of adverse effects. 68 Given their less favourable benefit-to-risk ratio, $\upbeta$ -blockers are not recommended as first-line therapy for hypertension unless a specific clinical indication is present, such as heart failure, angina, post–myocardial infarction, or heart rate or rhythm control. 69,70 Angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors or ARBs, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, and dihydropyridine CCBs are well tolerated, provide similar cardiovascular risk protection, and should all be con sidered first-line agents for hypertension. 67,71

However, ACEIs and ARBs are teratogenic, particularly when taken in the second or third trimester of pregnancy, and should be avoided or discontinued in all people who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant. 72 Moreover, all people of childbearing age should be counselled on the teratogenic risk of ACEIs and ARBs as part of the shared decision-making process.

Although thiazide-like diuretics were previously preferred over thiazide diuretics, 31 an RCT comparing chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide found similar efficacy in mitigating adverse cardiovascular events (HR1.04, $95\%$ CI0.94–1.16), whereas hypokalemia incidence was higher with chlorthalidone (6.0% v. 4.4%, $p\!<\!0.001$ ). 73

We recommend upfront combination therapy (ideally as a single-pill combination) with an ACEI or ARB plus either a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic or a dihydropyridine CCB for adults with hypertension requiring pharmacologic treatment. About $70\%$ of adults with hypertension will require more than 1class of medication to achieve BP control, 74 a proportion projected to increase as BP targets are lowered.

Combining lower doses of different classes provides additive BPlowering effects while minimizing adverse effects. 66 Meta-analysis data show that single-pill combinations reduce mean systolic BP by 4.0 (95% CI0.1–7.9) mmHg beyond that achieved by free-equivalent combination therapy. 75 Single-pill combinations achieve BP control in about one-third more patients than with standard monotherapy $(65\%$ v. $48\%$ , risk ratio [RR]1.32, 95% CI1.20–1.45). 76 Compared with free-drug combinations, single-pill combinations are associated with significantly better drug adherence (OR1.21, $95\%$ CI1.03–1.43) and a possible trend toward better drug persistence (OR1.54, $95\%$ CI0.95–2.49). 77 An observational study of more than100000patients with hypertension showed that upfront combination therapy reduced therapeutic inertia, as these patients were over 2-fold more likely to be on a multidrug prescription at 3 years than those started on monotherapy. 78 Notably, the patients started on combination therapy in this study also had a $16\%$ (95% CI10%–21%) reduction in hospital admission for cardiovascular events and a $20\%$ ( $95\%$ $\mathsf{C l\,11\%-}28\%$ ) reduction in all-cause death. 78

Single-pill combinations also yield substantial cost savings compared with their free-drug equivalents, with a 2009Canadian study estimating a yearly cost savings of $\S27–45$ million. 79 With regard to potential harms from use of single-pill combinations in the initial management of hypertension, meta-analysis data showed no difference in withdrawal from adverse events for single-pill combinations compared with free-drug combination use (OR0.80, $95\%$ CI0.58–1.11) 76,77 or standard-dose mono therapy (RR1.19, $95\%$ CI0.83–1.69). 76 However, there is a higher incidence of dizziness with single-pill combinations than with standard-dose monotherapy (RR1.54, $95\%$ CI1.08–2.19). 76

Values and preferences

The guideline committee placed a high value on initiating a combination of effective and well-tolerated drugs to reduce therapeutic inertia and increase time in target range. Single-pill combination agents are often available at lower cost than their individual components. While recognizing the potential uncertainty regarding which agent may cause intolerance in a combination pill, we placed lower value on this concern than on the benefits of timely and efficient treatment.

If BP remains above target despite 2-drug combination therapy, 3-drug combination therapy consisting of an angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker, a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic, and a long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker is recommended (strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

Rationale

Given the aforementioned benefits regarding effective BP and cardiovascular risk reduction relative to other medication classes (discussed under previous recommendation), we recommend using ACEIs or ARBs, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, and longacting dihydropyridine CCBs preferentially in combination in adults with hypertension requiring pharmacotherapy. 67,80,81 When 3drugs are required to achieve BP control, we recommended combining all 3 of these complementary medication classes. Notably, ACEIs and ARBs should not be used in combination, as they increase the risk for adverse events including hyperkalemia, acute kidney injury, hypotension, and syncope, with no added clinical benefit. 82,83 Recently, single-pill triple-combination therapy with ACEI or ARB, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic, and dihydropyridine CCB has been shown to be effective in improving hypertension control; 84–86 however, this single pill is not yet available in Canada.

Values and preferences

The guideline committee prioritized the use of medications with well-established cardiovascular benefits over those for which such benefits have not been clearly demonstrated.

If BP remains above target despite 3-drug combination therapy consisting of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker, a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic, and a long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker at their maximally tolerated doses, the addition of spironolactone is suggested (conditional recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

Rationale

Resistant hypertension is present when BP remains above target despite adherence to the combination of an ACEI or ARB, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic, and CCB at their maximally tolerated doses. 63 In this setting, the addition of spironolactone results in substantially greater BP reduction than with alternative fourthline agents. The PATHWAY-2 RCT found that among adults with resistant hypertension, the mean reduction in systolic BP was greater with spironolactone than with placebo (8.7, $95\%$ CI7.7– $9.7\,\mathsf{m m\,H g},$ ), doxazosin (4.0, $95\%\,{\sf C I}~3.0–5.0~{\sf m m}\,{\sf H g}.$ ), and bisoprolol (4.5, $95\%~{\sf C I}~3.5–5.5~\sf{m m}~{\sf H g})$ . 87 Mechanistic subanalyses later showed that these findings related to a high proportion of dysregulated aldosterone production among people with resistant hypertension. 88 However, no prospective data exist that demonstrate improved cardiovascular outcomes with spironolactone compared with other antihypertensive agents.

The PATHWAY-2 trial showed no difference in serious adverse events or withdrawal for adverse events (including

hyperkalemia and gynecomastia) with spironolactone versus doxazosin, bisoprolol, or placebo. 87 However, spironolactone is known to increase the risk of hyperkalemia, particularly in patients with chronic kidney disease (in whom spironolactone use is associated with a 3-fold higher risk of hyperkalemiaassociated hospital admission) 89 and those taking other medications that raise potassium levels (e.g., ACEIs or ARBs). 90 We advise monitoring serum potassium 2–4weeks after spirono lactone initiation and with any dose adjustment. Given the antiandrogen effects of spironolactone, males should be counselled on the risk of gynecomastia. For instance, in the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study (RALES) trial, which randomized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to spironolactone 25mg versus placebo, $10\%$ of males randomized to spironolactone developed gynecomastia, compared with $1\%$ of males randomized to placebo. 91

Patients with resistant hypertension should be considered for screening for secondary causes of hypertension and referral to specialist care. Specifically, given the high prevalence of primary aldosteronism among patients with resistant hyper tension, 92–95 screening with aldosterone and renin measurements (ideally before the introduction of spironolactone) should be performed. 96

Values and preferences

The guideline committee placed high value on the proven BPlowering benefits of spironolactone compared with other fourthline agents, while assigning lower value to potential adverse effects, including the risk of hyperkalemia, that may arise with its use. The lower strength of evidence for this recommendation reflects the limited data available on the long-term cardiovascular benefits of the treatment.

Methods

This guideline was developed by the volunteer Primary Care Guideline Committee of Hypertension Canada and was supported by Hypertension Canada. We followed GRADE 14 and ADAPTE 97 frameworks to develop the recommendations in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) quality and reporting standards. 98

Composition of participating groups

The Primary Care Guideline Committee was selected by the Hypertension Canada Guideline Executive Committee. The guideline committee consisted of family medicine physicians (K.A.T., J.H., and G.C.), pharmacists (R.T.T. and S.C.G.), a nurse practitioner (J.B.), hypertension specialists (R.G. [co-chair], G.L.H. [co-chair], R.T.T., A.A.L., N.R.C.C., and E.L.S.), and a methodologist (N.S.) with expertise in guideline development and GRADE methodology. Additionally, a working group of 4 patient-partners with lived experience with hypertension (listed in Acknowledgements) was formed, which provided feedback throughout the guideline development process and led the creation of the associated patient support tool.

Selection of priority topics

During an in-person open forum session at the 2023Canadian Hypertension Congress on Oct. 23, 2023, with more than 200primary care providers, hypertension providers, and patients with lived experience, there was a consensus request for the development of a streamlined, pragmatic, and evidence-based hypertension guideline specifically focused on primary care.

With input from the primary care providers on the guideline committee and the patient-partner working group, and after review of existing hypertension guidelines (discussed below), the committee came to consensus on the priority topics for inclusion, encompassing diagnosis and management of hypertension. Additionally, in response to the provider request made at the congress, the committee decided to limit the number of recommendations to only those deemed most relevant to primary care.

Literature review and quality assessment

The guideline committee used the ADAPTE 97 framework to select international hypertension guidelines published over the previous 10years. The committee considered the quality and availability of evidence reviews, use of GRADE or similar grading frameworks to rate the strength of recommendations and certainty of evidence systematically and explicitly, clarity of recommendations, and publication time frames when selecting the source guidelines: American Heart Association, 99 WHO, 71 and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). 63 The committee used the existing evidence syntheses and GRADE levels from each of these source guidelines when developing the recommendations. The ESC guideline had the most recently updated recommendations (published in August2024), with evidence tables updated to January2024, with the exception of the Effects of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment in Reducing Risk of Cardiovascular Events (ESPRIT) trial, which was published in June2024. 28,63

Development of recommendations

The guideline committee meetings were held virtually on a monthly basis from July 25, 2024, to Jan. 20, 2025. The committee reviewed the evidence from the source recommendations and made judgments about the effects of the interventions, feas ibility, resources, patient values and preferences, and availability or accessibility issues. Each recommendation was discussed and either adapted or adopted. Consensus was desired; however, when a unanimous decision could not be reached, the committee voted, with consensus defined as more than $70\%$ . We assigned the strength of each recommendation according to the GRADE framework, as strong (applying the terminology “recommended”) or conditional (applying the terminology “suggested”). 14 Further information on how each recommendation was adapted from the source guidelines is available in Appendix1, SupplementaryTables 2–10.

In addition, the committee used HEARTS to develop streamlined algorithms for hypertension diagnosis and treatment to optimize implementation into the Canadian primary care setting, which incorporate and align with the recommendations in this guideline. 8

External review

The preliminary guideline was posted on the Hypertension Canada website from Sept. 27, 2024, through Oct. 25, 2024, for external review. Family physicians, pharmacists, nurses, hypertension specialists, and patients and caregivers from across Canada were invited to review the guideline and provide feedback via an online survey with both English and French versions. Requests for feedback were emailed using mailing lists from major national organizations representing these stakeholders (listed in the Acknowledgements section), including requests for patient-specific feedback from established patient-partners from Hypertension Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. We received 143responses (45 pharmacists, 26 family physicians, 25 other physicians, 19 nurse practitioners, 14 nurses, 10 patients and 4 researchers). The feedback was collated, reviewed, and incorporated to update both the recommendations and HEARTS-derived algorithms (as appropriate) upon collective review by the guideline committee. The responses to frequent comments and questions received are detailed in Appendix2, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.241770/ tab-related-content.

Management of competing interests

Competing interests for all guideline committee members were managed according to Hypertension Canada policies, which are informed by Guidelines International Network principles (Appendix 3, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ doi/10.1503/cmaj.241770/tab-related-content). 100 On appointment, all members agreed to avoid direct competing interests with companies that could be affected by the guideline and provided written disclosure of all financial and non financial interests relevant to the guideline topic. Verbal updates on competing interests were requested at the beginning of every committee meeting. The conflict-of-interest oversight committee reviewed the disclosures and made judgments about conflicts. Guideline chairs were required to be free of relevant financial competing interests throughout the guideline development process. Two committee members with potentially relevant disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies were permitted to join in the discussion about pharmacotherapy recommendations but were excluded from voting on these topics. Notably, only generic medications were discussed.

Funding came solely from Hypertension Canada, which receives its funding from the following sources: device endorsement revenue $\left(63\%\right)$ ; investment income $(18\%)$ ; certification program revenue $(7\%)$ ; grants and sponsorships $(4\%)$ , including from a health technology company; registration fees $(4\%)$ ; membership dues $(4\%)$ ; and donations $(<1\%)$ . No funding is received from pharmaceutical companies. Hypertension Canada funded the guideline and assembled the committee; however, it had no role in developing the recommendations or supporting resources. No sponsorship was accepted for this guideline, and no companies were allowed to participate in the guideline process.

Implementation

Consistent with the guideline recommendations, the committee adapted the HEARTS framework to develop suggested algorithms for the diagnosis (Figure2) and treatment (Figure3) of hypertension in the Canadian primary care setting. 8 Standardized protocols are effective in improving population-wide BP control. A recent meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that standardized treatment protocols reduce mean systolic and diastolic BP by 6.7 (95%CI 3.7–9.8) mmHg and 2.6 ( $\textbackslash95\%$ CI 1.2–4.1) mmHg, respectively, compared with usual care. 101 With broad adoption, specific algorithms can reduce drug costs through bulk drug purchasing and make standardized education and task-sharing more efficient and less costly. 11

Factors we considered for the recommended drug selection within the algorithm included efficacy, tolerability, cost, coverage, availability, protection from future drug shortages, and ability to

split pills (Appendix2). Based on these, we selected a combination pill with irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide as the preferred initial combination therapy at this time, although the initial combination will be periodically reconsidered given availability and new evidence to suggest more cost-effective choices. Acceptable alternative single-pill combination therapies currently available in Canada are listed in Table3.

Importantly, the cost of most single-pill combinations is generally lower than the cost for the equivalent individual compon ents. It should be noted that the lower BP thresholds adopted for both defining hypertension and treatment targets relative to previous Hypertension Canada guidelines means that a higher number of people will be labelled as having hypertension, which may have meaningful personal implications (e.g., stigma, insurance). 31 However, the committee thought that the contemporary evidence strongly supports the lower thresholds to promote early detection of, and intervention for, hypertension, which will

 Figure 2: Suggested algorithm for the diagnosis of hypertension in primary care. Note: ABPM $=$ ambulatory blood pressure monitor, BP = blood pressure, HBPM = home blood pressure monitor. \*Continue yearly or opportunistic BP monitoring. Perform out-of-office BP assessment if masked hypertension is suspected. †If unavailable or infeasible, repeat office BP assessment at a separate visit. ‡Use Hypertension Canada–recommended or other validated home BP devices. §Continue yearly or opportunistic BP monitoring.

 Figure 3: Suggested algorithm for the treatment of hypertension in primary care (not intended for use in pregnancy). Note: BP = blood pressure, CVD = cardiovascular disease, eGFR $=$ estimated glomerular filtration rate, ${\mathsf{H C T Z}}=$ hydrochlorothiazide, SBP = systolic blood pressure. \*High CVD risk conditions include established CVD (coronary artery disease, heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral artery disease), type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease $({\mathsf{e G F R}}<60\;{\mathsf{m L}}/{\mathsf{m i n}}/1.73\;{\mathsf{m}}^{2}$ or albuminuria $\geq3\:\mathsf{m g}/\mathsf{m m o l}$ ), 10-year Framingham Risk Score $\ge20\%$ , 62 and age ≥ 75 years. †Initial single-pill combination therapy is preferred if available and covered. If not, 2 separate pills can use used as an alternative, with preference for a long-acting thiazide-like diuretic over a thiazide diuretic. If patient is at high risk of symptomatic hypotension, treatment initiation with a single agent is reasonable. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers should be avoided or discontinued in all people who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant. ‡See Table 3 for acceptable alternative single-pill combinations available in Canada. §Includes unexplained, sudden worsening of hypertension, hypokalemia, adrenal nodule, abdominal bruit, acute kidney injury after hypertension treatment, severe or malignant hypertension, hypertension at a young age, and resistant hypertension.

|Table 3: Available single-pill antihypertensive medication combinations in Canada and associated costs| |---| | Cost for 30 days Cost for 30 days of combination pills, of the individual drug equivalents, Single-pill combinations $can* $can* | |ARB + thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic| |Irbesartan-hydrochlorothiazide 6.55 7.31| |Telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazide 6.29 6.95| |Olmesartan- hydrochlorothiazide 8.12 8.76| |Candesartan-hydrochlorothiazide 7.33 7.25| |ACEl + thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic| |Lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide 7.51 6.31| |Perindopril-indapamide 8.58 12.04| |ARB + long-acting dihydropyridine CCB| |Telmisartan-amlodipine 16.42 12.47|

Note: ACEI $=$ angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker, $\mathsf{C C B}=$ calcium channel blocker. \*Drug costs obtained from https://www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca/fr, https://www.formulary.health.gov.on.ca/formulary/, and https://pharmacareformularysearch.gov.bc.ca/ (accessed 2025 Feb. 5).

translate into mitigating long-term cardiovascular complications at the population level.

The HEARTS framework has a well-established implementation policy to engage primary care and optimize guideline uptake, which will be leveraged for this purpose within Canada. 8 This includes active engagement with primary care centres, along with the development of knowledge transfer tools to support health care providers and patients. These tools include a downloadable patient support tool, to be made widely available for posting in clinics and provision to patients as educational handouts (Appendix 4, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ doi/10.1503/cmaj.241770/tab-related-content). Additional free online resources for health care providers and patients are listed in Appendix5, available at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/ cmaj.241770/tab-related-content.

Timely dissemination of the guideline content and implementation tools will take place via the Hypertension Canada website (https://hypertension.ca) and network, social media, podcasts, and national primary care conferences. Successful implementation will be tracked via downloads of the patient support tool, traffic to the guideline website, and prospective trends on hypertension treatment and control rates, which Hypertension Canada has traditionally captured via the Can adian Health Measures Survey. 5

Hypertension Canada will update this guideline when new data pertinent to the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension emerge or when new cost-effective antihypertensive combination pills become available in Canada.

Other guidelines

Hypertension Canada has adopted a new 2-part guideline approach. This primary care–focused guideline was developed at the request of primary care providers for more pragmatic guidance

on managing hypertension in routine clinical practice. An upcoming comprehensive guideline will be updated on a rolling topic-by-topic basis beginning later this year. 7 Currently, we are undertaking a prioritization exercise to determine the topics to be updated and the order in which these updates will occur. The comprehensive guideline will serve as a resource for more complex and nuanced aspects of hypertension management.

The recommendations within this guideline were developed based on evidence syntheses and adaptation of recommendations from the American Heart Association, 99 ESC, 63 and WHO hypertension guidelines. 71 Compared with the 2020 Hypertension Canada guideline, 31 the present guideline encourages initial low-dose combination therapy. Additionally, a common request from primary care providers in developing this guideline was to provide a single BP threshold definition for hypertension and a single BP treatment target. Therefore, in contrast to the 2020 Hypertension Canada guideline 31 but consistent with other international guidelines 63,99 and based upon updated evidence on the benefits of more intensive BP lowering, 27–30,38 we adopted the definition of hypertension as ${\mathsf{B P}}\,\geq\,130/80\,\mathsf{\ m m\ H g},$ , and the treatment target of systolic $\mathsf{B P<130\m m\,H g}$ .

Gaps in knowledge

These recommendations are informed by the best level of evidence available to date. Ongoing research will continue to inform and advance hypertension care. Although a large armamentarium of antihypertensive medications already exists, a number of new drug classes have recently been developed. 102–104 Furthermore, renal denervation provides a potential future interventional approach to improve BP control. 105 The role of these novel management approaches in future hypertension algorithms remains to be seen.

Limitations

Although we did not conduct new evidence reviews to support these recommendations, numerous reviews have been conducted by different organizations. Therefore, to reduce duplication of research and to expedite creation of a new primary care– focused guideline, we reviewed the evidence from high-quality, recently published guidelines. Correspondingly, the strength and certainty of the evidence of the recommendations were based on literature available at the time the source guidelines performed their evidence syntheses (the most recent being the 2024ESC guideline). We acknowledge that the source guidelines were not developed using a Canadian context; however, we considered the feasibility, acceptability, resources, and other issues in Canada when adapting the recommendations.

Further, some aspects of the recommendations lack Canadaspecific evidence. For instance, when using cardiovascular risk calculators to determine whether an individual is at high cardiovascular disease risk, several risk calculators are available. 62,106–109 However, none are Canada-specific and it is uncertain which is most accurate within Canada.

Our guideline committee also attempted to incorporate NNT and NNH to demonstrate the risks and benefits relevant to each recommendation. These metrics were available for intensive BP targets, but not for all recommendations, and instead we used syntheses of descriptive summaries of effects. Finally, with the goal of developing pragmatic primary care–specific management recommendations, more nuanced details of hypertension management are not included in this guideline. For instance, topics such as how best to integrate care with ever-evolving complementary treatments (e.g., statins, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor antagonists) to lower cardiovascular risk among patients with hypertension and other comorbidities were beyond the scope of this guideline. Such topics will be addressed with the forthcoming Hypertension Canada comprehensive guideline.

Conclusion

We aimed to provide pragmatic, evidence-based recommendations and algorithms to improve the standard for care for hypertension management in the Canadian primary care setting. Successful uptake of this guideline will serve to improve hypertension treatment and control at the population level.

References

1. Global Cardiovascular Risk Consortium; Magnussen C, Ojeda FM, Leong DP, et al. Global effect of modifiable risk factors on cardiovascular disease and mortality. N Engl J Med 2023;389:1273-85. 2. DeGuire J, Clarke J, Rouleau K, et al. Blood pressure and hypertension. Health Rep 2019;30:14-21. 3. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants. Lancet 2021;398:957-80. 4. Leung AA, Williams JVA, McAlister FA, et al.; Hypertension Canada’s Research and Evaluation Committee. Worsening hypertension awareness, treatment, and control rates in Canadian women between 2007 and 2017. Can J Cardiol 2020;36:732-9. ment, and control of hypertension in Canadian adults with common comorbidities. CJC Open 2024;6:1099-107. 6. Leung AA, Bell A, Tsuyuki RT, et al. Refocusing on hypertension control in Canada. CMAJ 2021;193:E854-5. 7. Goupil R, Tsuyuki RT, Terenzi KA, et al. Ushering in a new era of hypertension Canada guidelines: a roadmap of what lies ahead. Can J Cardiol 2025; 41:159-62. 8. HEARTS technical package for cardiovascular disease management in primary health care: risk based CVD management . Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. 9. Jaffe MG, Lee GA, Young JD, et al. Improved blood pressure control associated with a large-scale hypertension program. JAMA 2013;310:699-705. 10. Jaffe MG, Young JD. The Kaiser Permanente Northern California story: improving hypertension control from $44\%$ to $90\%$ in 13 years (2000 to 2013). J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2016;18:260-1. 11. Campbell NRC, Ordunez P, Giraldo G, et al. WHO HEARTS: a global program to reduce cardiovascular disease burden — experience implementing in the Americas and opportunities in Canada. Can J Cardiol 2021;37:744-55. 12. Butalia S, Audibert F, Cote AM, et al.; Hypertension Canada. Hypertension Canada’s 2018 guidelines for the management of hypertension in pregnancy. Can J Cardiol 2018;34:526-31. 13. Dionne JM, Harris KC, Benoit G, et al.; Hypertension Canada Guideline Committee. Hypertension Canada’s 2017 guidelines for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of pediatric hypertension. Can J Cardiol 2017;33:577-85. 14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6. 15. Muntner P, Shimbo D, Carey RM, et al. Measurement of blood pressure in humans: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension 2019;73:e35-66. 16. Stergiou GS, Alpert B, Mieke S, et al. A universal standard for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices: association for the Advancement of Med ical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organ ization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) collaboration statement. Hypertension 2018;71:368-74. 17. Picone DS, Campbell NRC, Schutte AE, et al. Validation status of blood pressure measuring devices sold globally. JAMA 2022;327:680-1. 18. Chan JCH, Vandermeer I, Picone DS, et al. Validity of home blood pressure devices sold in Canada. CJC Open 2024;6:54-6. 19. Kallioinen N, Hill A, Horswill MS, et al. Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients’ resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review. J Hypertens 2017;35:421-41. 20. Ishigami J, Charleston J, Miller ER III, et al. Effects of cuff size on the accuracy of blood pressure readings: the Cuff(SZ) randomized crossover trial. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183:1061-8. 21. Liu H, Zhao D, Sabit A, et al. Arm position and blood pressure readings: the ARMS crossover randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2024;184:1436-42. 22. Cheung AK, Whelton PK, Muntner P, et al. International consensus on standardized clinic blood pressure measurement: a call to action. Am J Med 2023; 136:438-45 e1. 23. Pappaccogli M, Di Monaco S, Perlo E, et al. Comparison of automated office blood pressure with office and out-off-office measurement techniques. Hypertension 2019;73:481-90. 24. Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J, Myers MG. Comparing automated office blood pressure readings with other methods of blood pressure measurement for identifying patients with possible hypertension: a systematic review and metaanalysis. JAMA Intern Med 2019;179:351-62. 25. Drawz PE, Agarwal A, Dwyer JP, et al. Concordance between blood pressure in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial and in routine clinical practice. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:1655-63. 26. Einstadter D, Bolen SD, Misak JE, et al. Association of repeated measurements with blood pressure control in primary care. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178:858-60. 27. Zhang W, Zhang S, Deng Y, et al. Trial of intensive blood-pressure control in older patients with hypertension. N Engl J Med 2021;385:1268-79. 28. Liu J, Li Y, Ge J, et al.; ESPRIT Collaborative Group. Lowering systolic blood pressure to less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg in patients with high cardiovascular risk with and without diabetes or previous stroke: an open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised trial. Lancet 2024;404:245-55. 29. Bi Y, Li M, Liu Y, et al.; BPROAD Research Group. Intensive blood-pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2025;392:1155-67. 30. SPRINT Research Group; Wright JT Jr, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2103-16.

31. Rabi DM, McBrien KA, Sapir-Pichhadze R, et al. Hypertension Canada’s 2020 comprehensive guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment of hypertension in adults and children. Can J Cardiol 2020;36:596-624. 32. Staplin N, de la Sierra A, Ruilope LM, et al. Relationship between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure and mortality: an observational cohort study in 59124 patients. Lancet 2023;401:2041-50. 33. Franklin SS, Thijs L, Hansen TW, et al. White-coat hypertension: new insights from recent studies. Hypertension 2013;62:982-7. 34. Thakkar HV, Pope A, Anpalahan M. Masked hypertension: a systematic review. Heart Lung Circ 2020;29:102-11. 35. Guirguis-Blake JM, Evans CV, Webber EM, et al. Screening for hypertension in adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2021;325:1657-69. 36. Rapsomaniki E, Timmis A, George J, et al. Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and agespecific associations in 1.25 million people. Lancet 2014;383:1899-911. 37. Guo X, Zhang X, Guo L, et al. Association between pre-hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospect ive studies. Curr Hypertens Rep 2013;15:703-16. 38. Whelton PK, O’Connell S, Mills KT, et al. Optimal antihypertensive systolic blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension 2024;81:2329-39. 39. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participantlevel data meta-analysis. Lancet 2021;397:1625-36. 40. Verdecchia P, Staessen JA, Angeli F, et al.; Cardio-Sis investigators. Usual versus tight control of systolic blood pressure in non-diabetic patients with hypertension (Cardio-Sis): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2009;374:525-33. 41. SPS3 Study Group; Benavente OR, Coffey CS, Conwit R, et al. Blood-pressure targets in patients with recent lacunar stroke: the SPS3 randomised trial. Lancet 2013;382:507-15. 42. Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL, Juraschek SP, et al. Assessment of long-term benefit of intensive blood pressure control on residual life span: secondary analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). JAMA Cardiol 2020;5:576-81. 43. SPRINT Research Group; Lewis CE, Fine LJ, Beddhu S, et al. Final report of a trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med 2021;384:1921-30. 44. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Age-stratified and blood-pressure-stratified effects of blood-pressure-lowering pharmacotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis. Lancet 2021;398:1053-64. 45. Huang L, Trieu K, Yoshimura S, et al. Effect of dose and duration of reduction in dietary sodium on blood pressure levels: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2020;368:m315. 46. Neal B, Wu Y, Feng X, et al. Effect of salt substitution on cardiovascular events and death. N Engl J Med 2021;385:1067-77. 47. Guideline: Sodium intake for adults and children . Geneva: World Health Organ ization; 2012:1-56. 48. Mattes RD, Donnelly D. Relative contributions of dietary sodium sources. J Am Coll Nutr 1991;10:383-93. 49. Mente A, O’Donnell M, Rangarajan S, et al. Urinary sodium excretion, blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and mortality: a community-level prospect ive epidemiological cohort study. Lancet 2018;392:496-506. 50. Aburto NJ, Hanson S, Gutierrez H, et al. Effect of increased potassium intake on cardiovascular risk factors and disease: systematic review and metaanalyses. BMJ 2013;346:f1378. 51. O’Donnell M, Mente A, Rangarajan S, et al. Urinary sodium and potassium excretion, mortality, and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2014;371:612-23. 52. Guideline: Potassium intake for adults and children . Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012:1-52. 53. Semlitsch T, Krenn C, Jeitler K, et al. Long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;2:CD008274. 54. Wilding JPH, Batterham RL, Calanna S, et al.; STEP 1 Study Group. Onceweekly semaglutide in adults with overweight or obesity. N Engl J Med 2021;384:989-1002. 55. Fagard RH, Cornelissen VA. Effect of exercise on blood pressure control in hypertensive patients. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2007;14:12-7. 56. WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour . Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO); 2020:1-104. 57. Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J, Tobe SW, et al. The effect of a reduction in alcohol consumption on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health 2017;2:e108-20. 58. Liu F, Liu Y, Sun X, et al. Race- and sex-specific association between alcohol consumption and hypertension in 22 cohort studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2020;30:1249-59.

59. Primatesta P, Falaschetti E, Gupta S, et al. Association between smoking and blood pressure: evidence from the health survey for England. Hypertension 2001;37:187-93. 60. Yang JJ, Yu D, Shu X-O, et al. Reduction in total and major cause-specific mortality from tobacco smoking cessation: a pooled analysis of 16 populationbased cohort studies in Asia. Int J Epidemiol 2022;50:2070-81. 61. Sundström J, Arima H, Jackson R, et al.; Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Effects of blood pressure reduction in mild hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:184-91. 62. D’Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2008;117:743-53. 63. McEvoy JW, McCarthy CP, Bruno RM, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2024 ESC guidelines for the management of elevated blood pressure and hypertension. Eur Heart J 2024;45:3912-4018. 64. Thomopoulos C, Parati G, Zanchetti A. Effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on outcome incidence. 12. Effects in individuals with high-normal and normal blood pressure: overview and meta-analyses of randomized trials. J Hypertens 2017;35:2150-60. 65. Beddhu S, Chertow GM, Cheung AK, et al.; SPRINT Research Group. Influence of baseline diastolic blood pressure on effects of intensive compared with standard blood pressure control. Circulation 2018;137:134-43. 66. Law MR, Wald NJ, Morris JK, et al. Value of low dose combination treatment with blood pressure lowering drugs: analysis of 354 randomised trials. BMJ 2003;326:1427. 67. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2016;387:957-67. 68. Wiysonge CS, Bradley H, Mayosi BM, et al. Beta-blockers for hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;(1):CD002003. 69. Andrade JG, Aguilar M, Atzema C, et al.; Members of the Secondary Panel. The 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society comprehensive guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Can J Cardiol 2020;36:1847-948. 70. McDonald M, Virani S, Chan M, et al. CCS/CHFS heart failure guidelines update: defining a new pharmacologic standard of care for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Can J Cardiol 2021;37:531-46. 71. Guideline for the pharmacological treatment of hypertension in adults . Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021:1-61. 72. Fitton CA, Steiner MFC, Aucott L, et al. In-utero exposure to antihypertensive medication and neonatal and child health outcomes: a systematic review. J Hypertens 2017;35:2123-37. 73. Ishani A, Cushman WC, Leatherman SM, et al.; Diuretic Comparison Project Writing Group. Chlorthalidone vs. hydrochlorothiazide for hypertensioncardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2022;387:2401-10. 74. Gu Q, Burt VL, Dillon CF, et al. Trends in antihypertensive medication use and blood pressure control among United States adults with hypertension: the National Health And Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001 to 2010. Circulation 2012;126:2105-14. 75. Parati G, Kjeldsen S, Coca A, et al. Adherence to single-pill versus freeequivalent combination therapy in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension 2021;77:692-705. 76. Salam A, Kanukula R, Atkins E, et al. Efficacy and safety of dual combination therapy of blood pressure-lowering drugs as initial treatment for hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Hypertens 2019;37:1768-74. 77. Gupta AK, Arshad S, Poulter NR. Compliance, safety, and effectiveness of fixeddose combinations of antihypertensive agents: a meta-analysis. Hypertension 2010;55:399-407. 78. Rea F, Corrao G, Merlino L, et al. Initial antihypertensive treatment strategies and therapeutic inertia. Hypertension 2018;72:846-53. 79. Stankus V, Hemmelgarn B, Campbell NR, et al. Reducing costs and improving hypertension management. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2009;16:e151-5. 80. MacDonald TM, Williams B, Webb DJ, et al.; British Hypertension Society Programme of Prevention And Treatment of Hypertension With Algorithm-based Therapy (PATHWAY). Combination therapy is superior to sequential monotherapy for the initial treatment of hypertension: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6:e006986. 81. Egan BM, Bandyopadhyay D, Shaftman SR, et al. Initial monotherapy and combination therapy and hypertension control the first year. Hypertension 2012; 59:1124-31. 82. Fried LF, Emanuele N, Zhang JH, et al.; VA NEPHRON-D Investigators. Combined angiotensin inhibition for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1892-903. 83. ONTARGET Investigators; Yusuf S, Teo KK, Pogue J, et al. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1547-59. 84. Ojji DB, Salam A, Sani MU, et al. Low-dose triple-pill vs standard-care protocols for hypertension treatment in Nigeria: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2024;332:1070-9. 85. Rodgers A, Salam A, Schutte AE, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel low-dose triple single-pill combination compared with placebo for initial treatment of hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2024;84:2393-403. 86. Webster R, Salam A, de Silva HA, et al.; TRIUMPH Study Group. Fixed low-dose triple combination antihypertensive medication vs usual care for blood pressure control in patients with mild to moderate hypertension in Sri Lanka: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;320:566-79. 87. Williams B, MacDonald TM, Morant S, et al.; British Hypertension Society’s PATHWAY Studies Group. Spironolactone versus placebo, bisoprolol, and doxazosin to determine the optimal treatment for drug-resistant hypertension (PATHWAY-2): a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial. Lancet 2015;386:2059-68. 88. Williams B, MacDonald TM, Morant SV, et al.; British Hypertension Society programme of Prevention And Treatment of Hypertension With Algorithm based Therapy (PATHWAY) Study Group. Endocrine and haemodynamic changes in resistant hypertension, and blood pressure responses to spironolactone or amiloride: the PATHWAY-2 mechanisms substudies. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018;6:464-75. 89. Yang C-T, Kor C-T, Hsieh Y-P. Long-term effects of spironolactone on kidney function and hyperkalemia-associated hospitalization in patients with chronic kidney disease. J Clin Med 2018;7:459. 90. Hundemer GL, Sood MM. Hyperkalemia with RAAS inhibition: mechanism, clinical significance, and management. Pharmacol Res 2021;172:105835. 91. Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1999;341:709-17. 92. Cohen JB, Cohen DL, Herman DS, et al. Testing for primary aldosteronism and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use among U.S. veterans: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2021;174:289-97. 93. Xu Z, Yang J, Hu J, et al.; Chongqing Primary Aldosteronism Study (CONPASS) Group. Primary aldosteronism in patients in China with recently detected hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;75:1913-22. 94. Brown JM, Siddiqui M, Calhoun DA, et al. The unrecognized prevalence of primary aldosteronism: a cross-sectional study. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:10-20. 95. Monticone S, Burrello J, Tizzani D, et al. Prevalence and clinical manifestations of primary aldosteronism encountered in primary care practice. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:1811-20. 96. Funder JW, Carey RM, Mantero F, et al. The management of primary aldo steronism: case detection, diagnosis, and treatment: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:1889-916. 97. Fervers B, Burgers JS, Haugh MC, et al. Adaptation of clinical guidelines: literature review and proposition for a framework and procedure. Int J Qual Health Care 2006;18:167-76. 98. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al.; AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ 2010;182:E839-42. 99. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 2018;71:1269-324. 100. Schünemann HJ, Al-Ansary LA, Forland F, et al.; Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network. Guidelines International Network: principles for disclosure of interests and management of conflicts in guidelines. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:548-53. 101. Satheesh G, Dhurjati R, Jha V, et al. Effectiveness and safety of using standardized treatment protocols for hypertension compared to usual care: a metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2025;27:e14950. 102. Desai AS, Webb DJ, Taubel J, et al. Zilebesiran, an RNA interference therapeutic agent for hypertension. N Engl J Med 2023;389:228-38. 103. Freeman MW, Halvorsen Y-D, Marshall W, et al. Phase 2 trial of baxdrostat for treatment-resistant hypertension. N Engl J Med 2023;388:395-405. 104. Schlaich MP, Bellet M, Weber MA, et al.; PRECISION investigators. Dual endothelin antagonist aprocitentan for resistant hypertension (PRECISION): a multicentre, blinded, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2022; 400:1927-37. 105. Sesa-Ashton G, Nolde JM, Muente I, et al. Long-term blood pressure reductions following catheter-based renal denervation: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Hypertension 2024;81:e63-70. 106. Khan SS, Matsushita K, Sang Y, et al.; Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium and the American Heart Association Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Science Advisory Group. Development and validation of the American Heart Association’s PREVENT equations [published erratum in Circulation 2024; 149:e956]. Circulation 2024;149:430-49. 107. SCORE2 working group and ESC Cardiovascular risk collaboration. SCORE2 risk prediction algorithms: new models to estimate 10-year risk of cardio vascular disease in Europe. Eur Heart J 2021;42:2439-54. 108. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al.; American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014;129(Suppl 2):S49-73. 109. WHO CVD Risk Chart Working Group. World Health Organization cardiovascular disease risk charts: revised models to estimate risk in 21 global regions. Lancet Glob Health 2019;7:e1332-45.

Competing interests: Rémi Goupil reports receiving research grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Kidney Foundation of Canada, and Fonds de recherche du Québec–Santé, Université de Montréal. Dr. Goupil also reports holding unpaid positions as a board member of the Canadian Society of Nephrology and vicepresident of the Société québécoise d’hypertension artérielle. Ross Tsuyuki reports receiving a research grant from Sanofi Canada and an editor-in-chief stipend from the Canadian Pharmacists Journal , as well as consulting fees from Shoppers Drug Mart. Dr. Tsuyuki also reports holding (volunteer) positions as president and past president of the Board of Directors of Hypertension Canada. Kristen Terenzi reports consulting fees, honoraria, and travel support from, as well as participation on data safety monitoring boards with, AstraZeneca, Astella, Amgen, AbbVie, Aspen, Allergan, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk,

Pfizer, Moderna, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Takeda. Jeffrey Habert reports consulting fees from Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Idorsia, Eisai, and Elvium; speaker fees, and participation on scientific planning committees with, Boehr inger Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Elvium, Bausch and Lomb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk, Janssen, Eisai, HLS, Otsuka, Idorsia, Pfizer, Amgen, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, and Valeo; and meeting support from Eli Lilly and Idorsia. Dr. Habert was cochair for the Thrombosis Canada clinical guidelines, coauthor of the 2023 Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) guideline, and coauthor of the Canadian sleep consensus on insomnia. He is the physician lead of the Holland-Davis Family Health Organization and a director for the CPD Network Physician Organization. Gemma Cheng received an honorarium from the Montreal Chinese Hospital Foundation for a lecture on type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Stephanie Gysel reports funding from Novo Nordisk and

University Health Foundation; consulting fees from Novartis Canada, Amgen Canada, Pfizer Canada, and Kye Pharma; honoraria from Novartis Canada, Amgen Canada, and Pfizer Canada; and travel support from Amgen Canada. Jill Bruneau reports receiving research grants from CIHR, and travel support from Memorial University of Newfoundland to attend the Canadian Women’s Heart Health Alliance Conference, and from Hypertension Canada to attend the Nurse Practitioner Conference of Canada. Dr. Bruneau also reports participating in the Knowledge Translation Working Group, Canadian Women’s Heart Health Alliance and is a member of the Hypertension Canada Board of Directors (both positions unpaid). Dr. Bruneau reports use of intrauterine devices (IUD) simulator, expertise, and sponsorship from Bayer for the purposes of Nurse Practitioner Education only (paid to institution). Alexander Leung reports receiving the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada’s National New Investigator Award and Petro

Canada’s Young Innovator Award in Commun ity Health, as well as the Calgary Centre for Clinical Research, Cumming School of Medicine, and Alberta Health Services Clinical Research Fund Seed Grant (all paid to institution). Dr. Leung also reports receiving an honorarium as a clinical expert for the Canad ian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Scientific Advice Program. Norman Campbell reports serving as chair of Alberta Health Professionals for the Environment, past chair of the Canadian Hypertension Coalition, special advisor to the World Hypertension League Board, consultant for the Pan American Health Organization’s HEARTS in the Americas program, consultant with Resolve to Save Lives, and consultant for the Crowfoot Primary Care Clinic. Ernesto Schiffrin reports receiving a project grant from CIHR, consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim International, and payment for participating in a speaker’s bureau from Idorsia. Dr. Schiffrin has also served on the Hypertension Canada Budget Committee. Gregory Hundemer reports receiving research grants from CIHR, the Kidney Foundation of Canada, and The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization, and is the Lorna Jocelyn Wood Chair for Kidney Research (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute). No other competing interests were declared.

This article has been peer reviewed.

Affiliations: Division of Nephrology (Goupil), Department of Medicine, Hôpital du Sacré- Coeur de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Que.; EPICORE (Tsuyuki), Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Santesso), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Langstaff Medical Centre (Terenzi), Woodbridge, Ont.; Department of Family and

Community Medicine (Habert), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine (Cheng), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Que.; Apothecare Pharmacy (Gysel), Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Faculty of Nursing (Bruneau), Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL; Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism (Leung), Department of Medicine, and Department of Community Health Sciences (Leung), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary; Libin Cardiovascular Institute (Campbell), Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.; Department of Medicine and Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research (Schiffrin), Sir Mortimer B. DavisJewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Que.; Division of Nephrology (Hundemer), Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa; Inflammation and Chronic Disease Program (Hundemer), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.

Contributors: All of the authors contributed to the conception and design of the work, and the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. Rémi Goupil and Gregory Hundemer drafted the manuscript, and all authors revised it critically for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding: Funding for this initiative was provided by Hypertension Canada.

Content licence: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BYNC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is noncommercial

(i.e., research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/4.0/

Acknowledgements: The authors thank Matthew Ford, Anna Stoutenberg, Asif Ahmed, and Laurel Taylor from Hypertension Canada for providing administrative support and pro ject coordination. The authors thank the following patient-partners who provided feedback from the patient perspective on the guideline and led development of the patient support tool: Kerri Eady, J.K. Laughton, Karen Moffat, and Raveenie Rajasingham. The authors thank the following patient-partners who provided feedback during the external review: Catherine Allard, Linda Edwards, Rosemary Lyman Lohaza, Duncan Macpherson, and R.M. Wiebe. The authors thank the following organizations for assisting with eliciting member feedback during the external review phase: Hypertension Canada, Canadian Association of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation, Canadian Cardiovascular Harmonized National Guidelines Endeavour, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Nurses Association, Canadian Society of Internal Medicine, College of Family Physicians of Canada, Co-op Pharmacy, Diabetes Canada, Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, Kidney Foundation of Canada, Obesity Canada, Public Health Phys icians of Canada, and Société québécoise d’hypertension artérielle.

Editor’s note: This guideline is also being republished with permission in Canadian Family Physician and Canadian Pharmacists Journal , with a synopsis in Canadian Nurse.

Correspondence to: Gregory Hundemer, ghundemer@toh.ca

相关指南

• 2025高血压指南 AHA／ACC／AANP／AAP A／ABC／ACCP／ACPM／AGS／AM A／ASPC／NMA／ PCNA／SGIM指南 ：成人高血压的预防、检 测、评估和管理 · 心血管内科 2025
• 高血压精准化诊疗中国专家共识（2024） · 心血管内科 2024
• 高血压合理用药指南(第2版) · 心血管内科 2017
• 中国高血压临床实践指南 · 心血管内科 2024
• 中国老年高血压管理指南2019 · 心血管内科 2019
• 2024 AHA_ARC指南：急救 · 外科 2024
• 2025 ACC_AHA_ACEP 指南：急性冠脉综合征患者的管理 · 心血管内科 2025
• 2025 日本临床实践指南：卟啉症的管理（英文版） · 血液内科 2025