Role of Industry in Hypertension of Ecomony

If the American Society for Hypertension hoped to devise an expanded definition of the condition that would be scientifically  and ethically defensible, it sure picked the wrong way to do it. Virtually every key step in its efforts to redefine hypertension from mere high blood pressure to a broader syndrome has been financed by pharmaceutical companies that would gain by selling drugs to more people.

 Hypertension, which is a risk factor for developing cardiovascular disease, is currently defined as a blood pressure reading of 140/90 and above. Some 65 million  Americans have high blood pressure by that definition. But 59 million more are considered pre-hypertensive, which means they have blood pressure readings of at least 120/80. The new concept being debated within the society would move about half of these into the hypertension category based on other risk factors.

With the rise of machines and the industrial ventures, the number of people having hypertension has increased. Industries have crowded all around major cities with some even penetrating near the residential areas. The air is not fresh and clean as it was used to be, creating health problems. The employers of the companies are overburdened with the ever increasing workload and the tensions of finishing job within the deadlines, leaving a negative impact on their health. The swarm of multinational companies has further intensified the competition in this wild goose chase.

 
The rationale is that simple blood pressure measurements fail to identify all the people who may need to be treated to prevent heart attacks and strokes. So the expanded definition would throw in various cardiovascular risk factors, biochemical markers and signs of organ damage that could, collectively, justify a diagnosis of hypertension even if blood pressure was too low to meet the current definition. The proposed definition does not recommend any specific treatment, but it would seem likely to expand the use of medications. 

While this approach has merit in principle, some complain that the new definition is not grounded on solid scientific evidence and inevitably bears the taint of financial ties with the industry. No guidelines produced this way will have much credibility.