Dataset Information

Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guidelines recommend intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering in patients at high risk. While placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated 22% reductions in coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke associated with a 10-mmHg difference in systolic BP, it is unclear if more intensive BP lowering strategies are associated with greater reductions in risk of CHD and stroke. We did a systematic review to assess the effects of intensive BP lowering on vascular, eye, and renal outcomes.

Methods and findings

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for trials published between 1950 and July 2011. We included trials that randomly assigned individuals to different target BP levels. We identified 15 trials including a total of 37,348 participants. On average there was a 7.5/4.5-mmHg BP difference. Intensive BP lowering achieved relative risk (RR) reductions of 11% for major cardiovascular events (95% CI 1%-21%), 13% for myocardial infarction (0%-25%), 24% for stroke (8%-37%), and 11% for end stage kidney disease (3%-18%). Intensive BP lowering regimens also produced a 10% reduction in the risk of albuminuria (4%-16%), and a trend towards benefit for retinopathy (19%, 0%-34%, p = 0.051) in patients with diabetes. There was no clear effect on cardiovascular or noncardiovascular death. Intensive BP lowering was well tolerated; with serious adverse events uncommon and not significantly increased, except for hypotension (RR 4.16, 95% CI 2.25 to 7.70), which occurred infrequently (0.4% per 100 person-years).

Conclusions

Intensive BP lowering regimens provided greater vascular protection than standard regimens that was proportional to the achieved difference in systolic BP, but did not have any clear impact on the risk of death or serious adverse events. Further trials are required to more clearly define the risks and benefits of BP targets below those currently recommended, given the benefits suggested by the currently available data.

SUBMITTER: Lv J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3424246 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lv Jicheng J Neal Bruce B Ehteshami Parya P Ninomiya Toshiharu T Woodward Mark M Rodgers Anthony A Wang Haiyan H MacMahon Stephen S Turnbull Fiona F Hillis Graham G Chalmers John J Perkovic Vlado V

PLoS medicine 20120821 8

<h4>Background</h4>Guidelines recommend intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering in patients at high risk. While placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated 22% reductions in coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke associated with a 10-mmHg difference in systolic BP, it is unclear if more intensive BP lowering strategies are associated with greater reductions in risk of CHD and stroke. We did a systematic review to assess the effects of intensive BP lowering on vascular, eye, and renal outcomes.<h ...[more]

PMID: 22927798

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated that intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and provides greater vascular protection for patients with hypertension. Whether intensive BP lowering treatment is associated with such benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus remain unknown. We aimed to clarify these benefits by method of meta-analysis.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) that fulfilled study inclusion criteria. Two investigators independently extracted and summarized the relevant data of the included trials. Random-effects model was applied to calculate the estimates of all effect measures.ResultsWe included 16 RCTs and our meta-analysis showed that intensive BP lowering treatment vs less intensive BP lowering treatment resulted in significant reductions in the all-cause mortality risk [relative risk (RR), 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96], major CV events (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92, MI (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96), stroke (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88, CV death (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.92) and albuminuria progression (RR, 0.91 95% CI, 0.84-0.98). However, intensive BP lowering treatment had no clear effect on non-CV death (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.20), heart failure (HF) (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75-1.33). Subgroup analysis showed that the reduction in all cause-mortality was consistent across most patient groups, and intensive BP lowering treatment had a clear benefit even in patients with systolic blood pressure lower than 140 mm Hg. However, the benefit differed in patients with different CV risk (≥10%: RR, 0.77, 95%CI, 0.64-0.91; <10%: RR, 1.04, 95%CI, 0.84-1.29; Phetero = 0.028).ConclusionsOur data indicate that intensive BP lowering treatment provides greater benefits than less intensive treatment among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Further studies are required to more clearly evaluate the benefits and harms of BP targets below those currently recommended with intensive BP lowering treatment.

Project description:BackgroundIntensive glucose lowering has previously been shown to increase mortality among persons with advanced type 2 diabetes and a high risk of cardiovascular disease. This report describes the 5-year outcomes of a mean of 3.7 years of intensive glucose lowering on mortality and key cardiovascular events.MethodsWe randomly assigned participants with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors to receive intensive therapy (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level below 6.0%) or standard therapy (targeting a level of 7 to 7.9%). After termination of the intensive therapy, due to higher mortality in the intensive-therapy group, the target glycated hemoglobin level was 7 to 7.9% for all participants, who were followed until the planned end of the trial.ResultsBefore the intensive therapy was terminated, the intensive-therapy group did not differ significantly from the standard-therapy group in the rate of the primary outcome (a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes) (P=0.13) but had more deaths from any cause (primarily cardiovascular) (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.44) and fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.95). These trends persisted during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio for death, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.38; and hazard ratio for nonfatal myocardial infarction, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.96). After the intensive intervention was terminated, the median glycated hemoglobin level in the intensive-therapy group rose from 6.4% to 7.2%, and the use of glucose-lowering medications and rates of severe hypoglycemia and other adverse events were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAs compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy for 3.7 years to target a glycated hemoglobin level below 6% reduced 5-year nonfatal myocardial infarctions but increased 5-year mortality. Such a strategy cannot be recommended for high-risk patients with advanced type 2 diabetes. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.).

Project description:ImportanceHigh blood pressure (BP) is the most important risk factor for death and cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide. The optimal cutoff for treatment of high BP is debated.ObjectiveTo assess the association between BP lowering treatment and death and CVD at different BP levels.Data sourcesPrevious systematic reviews were identified from PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect. Reference lists of these reviews were searched for randomized clinical trials. Randomized clinical trials published after November 1, 2015, were also searched for in PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials during February 2017.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials with at least 1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing BP-lowering drugs vs placebo or different BP goals were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted from original publications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations assessment tool. Relative risks (RRs) were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses with Knapp-Hartung modification. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresPrespecified outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, heart failure, and end-stage renal disease.ResultsSeventy-four unique trials, representing 306 273 unique participants (39.9% women and 60.1% men; mean age, 63.6 years) and 1.2 million person-years, were included in the meta-analyses. In primary prevention, the association of BP-lowering treatment with major cardiovascular events was dependent on baseline systolic BP (SBP). In trials with baseline SBP 160 mm Hg or above, treatment was associated with reduced risk for death (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00) and a substantial reduction of major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87). If baseline SBP ranged from 140 to 159 mm Hg, the association of treatment with mortality was similar (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00), but the association with major cardiovascular events was less pronounced (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). In trials with baseline SBP below 140 mm Hg, treatment was not associated with mortality (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06) and major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04). In trials including people with previous CHD and mean baseline SBP of 138 mm Hg, treatment was associated with reduced risk for major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97), but was not associated with survival (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07).Conclusions and relevancePrimary preventive BP lowering is associated with reduced risk for death and CVD if baseline SBP is 140 mm Hg or higher. At lower BP levels, treatment is not associated with any benefit in primary prevention but might offer additional protection in patients with CHD.

Project description:Background and objectiveThe clinical effect of renal impairment on intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is unknown. This study sought to assess whether estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) affects clinical outcomes or modifies the efficacy of intensive systolic blood pressure (BP) control (target, 110-139 mm Hg) against the standard (target, 140-179 mm Hg) among patients with ICH.MethodsWe conducted post hoc analyses of ATACH-2, a randomized, 2-group, open-label trial. The baseline eGFR of each eligible patient was calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. The outcome of interest was death or disability at 90 days. Multivariate logistic regression models were used for analysis.ResultsAmong the 1,000 patients randomized, 974 were analyzed. The median baseline eGFR was 88 (interquartile range, 68, 99) mL/min/1.73 m2; 451 (46.3%), 363 (37.3%), and 160 (16.4%) patients had baseline eGFR values of ≥90, 60-89, and <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Compared with normal eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2), higher odds of death or disability were noted among those with eGFR values of <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-3.26) but not among those with eGFR values of 60-89 mL/min/1.73 m2 (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.70-1.46). The odds of death or disability were significantly higher in the intensive arm among patients with decreased eGFR; the ORs were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.55-1.44), 1.13 (0.68-1.89), and 3.60 (1.47-8.80) in patients with eGFR values of ≥90, 60-89, and <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively (p for interaction = 0.02).DiscussionDecreased eGFR is associated with unfavorable outcomes following ICH. The statistically significant interaction between the eGFR group and treatment assignment raised safety concerns for the intensive BP-lowering therapy among patients with renal impairment.Trial registration informationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01176565.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that in spontaneous ICH, decreased eGFR identifies patients at risk of death or disability following intensive BP control.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines have traditionally recommended blood pressure treatment based primarily on blood pressure thresholds. In contrast, using predicted cardiovascular risk has been advocated as a more effective strategy to guide treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to compare outcomes from a blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk with one based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) level.Methods and findingsWe used individual participant data from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) from 1995 to 2013. Trials randomly assigned participants to either blood pressure-lowering drugs versus placebo or more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering regimens. We estimated 5-y risk of CVD events using a multivariable Weibull model previously developed in this dataset. We compared the two strategies at specific SBP thresholds and across the spectrum of risk and blood pressure levels studied in BPLTTC trials. The primary outcome was number of CVD events avoided per persons treated. We included data from 11 trials (47,872 participants). During a median of 4.0 y of follow-up, 3,566 participants (7.5%) experienced a major cardiovascular event. Areas under the curve comparing the two treatment strategies throughout the range of possible thresholds for CVD risk and SBP demonstrated that, on average, a greater number of CVD events would be avoided for a given number of persons treated with the CVD risk strategy compared with the SBP strategy (area under the curve 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] for the CVD risk strategy versus 0.54 [95% CI 0.53-0.55] for the SBP strategy). Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 150 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 29% (95% CI 26%-31%) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 16% (95% CI 14%-18%) more events for the same number of persons treated. Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 3.8% (95% CI 12.5% fewer to 7.2% more) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 3.1% (95% CI 1.5%-5.0%) more events for the same number of persons treated, although the former estimate was not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, the CVD risk strategy did not appear to be more beneficial than the SBP strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus or established CVD.ConclusionsA blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk is more effective than one based on blood pressure levels alone across a range of thresholds. These results support using cardiovascular risk assessment to guide blood pressure treatment decision-making in moderate- to high-risk individuals, particularly for primary prevention.

Dataset Information

Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets