Dataset Information

Combined intensive blood pressure and glycemic control does not produce an additive benefit on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients.

ABSTRACT: A reduction of either blood pressure or glycemia decreases some microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes, and we studied here their combined effects. In total, 4733 older adults with established type 2 diabetes and hypertension were randomly assigned to intensive (systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic blood pressure less than 140 mm Hg) blood pressure control, and separately to intensive (HbA1c less than 0.060) or standard (HbA1c 0.070-0.079) glycemic control. Prespecified microvascular outcomes were a composite of renal failure and retinopathy and nine single outcomes. Proportional hazard regression models were used without correction for type I error due to multiple tests. During a mean follow-up of 4.7 years, the primary outcome occurred in 11.4% of intensive and 10.9% of standard blood pressure patients (hazard ratio 1.08), and in 11.1% of intensive and 11.2% of standard glycemia control patients. Intensive blood pressure control only reduced the incidence of microalbuminuria (hazard ratio 0.84), and intensive glycemic control reduced the incidence of macroalbuminuria and a few other microvascular outcomes. There was no interaction between blood pressure and glycemic control, and neither treatment prevented renal failure. Thus, in older patients with established type 2 diabetes and hypertension, intensive blood pressure control improved only 1 of 10 prespecified microvascular outcomes. None of the outcomes were significantly reduced by simultaneous intensive treatment of glycemia and blood pressure, signifying the lack of an additional beneficial effect from combined treatment.

SUBMITTER: Ismail-Beigi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4641306 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Combined intensive blood pressure and glycemic control does not produce an additive benefit on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients.

Ismail-Beigi Faramarz F Craven Timothy E TE O'Connor Patrick J PJ Karl Diane D Calles-Escandon Jorge J Hramiak Irene I Genuth Saul S Cushman William C WC Gerstein Hertzel C HC Probstfield Jeffrey L JL Katz Lois L Schubart Ulrich U

Kidney international 20111214 6

A reduction of either blood pressure or glycemia decreases some microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes, and we studied here their combined effects. In total, 4733 older adults with established type 2 diabetes and hypertension were randomly assigned to intensive (systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic blood pressure less than 140 mm Hg) blood pressure control, and separately to intensive (HbA1c less than 0.060) or standard (HbA1c 0.070-0.079) glycemic control. ...[more]

PMID: 22166848

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:In people with type 2 diabetes, aggressive control of glycemia, BP, and lipids have resulted in conflicting short-term (<5 years) kidney outcomes. We aimed to determine the long-term kidney effects of these interventions. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) was a multifactorial intervention study in people with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular disease (n=10,251), to examine the effects of intensive glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c <6.0% versus 7%-7.9%), BP control (systolic BP <120 mm Hg versus <140 mm Hg) or fenofibrate versus placebo added to simvastatin on cardiovascular events and death. The glycemia trial lasted 3.7 years and participants were followed for another 6.5 years in ACCORDION, the ACCORD Follow-On Study. The post hoc primary composite kidney outcome was defined as incident macroalbuminuria, creatinine doubling, need for dialysis, or death by any cause. Cox proportional hazards regression estimated the effect of each intervention on the composite outcome and individual components. In secondary outcome analyses, competing risk regression was used to account for the risk of death in incident kidney outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographics, randomization groups, and clinical factors. RESULTS:There were 988 cases of incident macroalbuminuria, 954 with doubling of creatinine, 351 requiring dialysis, and 1905 deaths. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite outcome with intensive glycemic, BP control, and fenofibrate use compared with standard therapy were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.86 to 0.98), 1.16 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.28), and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.27). Multivariable, secondary outcome analyses showed that in the glycemia trial, only macroalbuminuria was significantly decreased (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.77). In the BP and lipid trials, only creatinine doubling was affected (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.06 and HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:In people with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular disease, intensive glycemic control may result in a long-term reduction in macroalbuminuria; however, intensive BP control and fenofibrates may increase the risk for adverse kidney events.

Project description:ImportanceHigh blood pressure (BP) is a leading contributor to premature mortality worldwide. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated a 27% reduction in all-cause death with intensive (vs standard) BP control. However, traditional reporting of survival benefits is not readily interpretable outside medical communities.ObjectiveTo estimate residual life span and potential survival gains with intensive compared with standard BP control in the SPRINT trial using validated nonparametric age-based methods.Design, setting, and participantsThis secondary analysis of data from an open-label randomized clinical trial included data from 102 enrolling clinical sites in the United States. Adults who were 50 years or older, were at high cardiovascular risk but without diabetes, and had a screening systolic BP between 130 and 180 mm Hg were enrolled between November 2010 and March 2013. Data analysis occurred from May 2019 to December 2019.InterventionsA 1:1 randomization to intensive (target, <120 mm Hg) or standard (target, <140 mm Hg) systolic BP targets.Main outcomes and measuresWe calculated age-based estimates of projected survival (at a given age) using baseline age rather than time from randomization as the time axis. In each treatment arm at every year of age, residual life span was estimated using the area under the survival curve, up to a maximum of 95 years. Differences in areas under the survival curves reflect the estimated treatment benefits on projected survival.ResultsA total of 9361 adults were enrolled (mean [SD] age at randomization, 68 [9] years; 6029 [64.4%] were men; 5399 [57.7%] were non-Hispanic white individuals). Mean survival benefits with intensive vs standard BP control ranged from 6 months to up to 3 years. At age 50 years, the estimated residual survival was 37.3 years with intensive treatment and 34.4 years with standard treatment (difference, 2.9 years [95% CI, 0.9-5.0 years]; P?=?.008). At age 65 years, residual survival was 24.5 years with intensive treatment and 23.3 years with standard treatment (difference, 1.1 years [95% CI, 0.1-2.1 years]; P?=?.03). Absolute survival gains with intensive vs standard BP control decreased with age, but the relative benefits were consistent (4% to 9%).Conclusions and relevanceIntensive BP control improves projected survival by 6 months to 3 years among middle-aged and older adults at high cardiovascular risk but without diabetes mellitus. These post hoc actuarial analyses from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive BP control, especially among middle-aged adults at risk.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Project description:OBJECTIVES: To explore the relationship between depressive symptoms and waist-to-hip ratio, dyslipidemia, glycemic levels or blood pressure among diabetic and non-diabetic Chinese women. METHODS: 11,908 women aged ≥40 years were enrolled in this cross-sectional study, including 2,511 with type 2 diabetes and 9,397 without. Depressive symptoms (defined as having mild-to-severe depressive symptoms) were assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic algorithm. The prevalence and the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for having depressive symptoms were estimated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The age-adjusted prevalence of depressive symptoms was significantly higher in non-diabetic subjects with waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) ≥0.9 (8.6%, age-adjusted OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.17, 1.95]), total cholesterol (TC)>6.22 mmol/L (8.8%, 1.58 [1.16, 2.15]), and Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥6.00 mmol/L (7.7%, 1.69 [1.34, 2.14]), while it was significantly lower in non-diabetic subjects with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 80 to 89 mmHg (6.2%, 0.78 [0.64, 0.95]). These relationships remained significant even after controlling for multiple factors (WHR ≥0.9: multivariable-adjusted OR 1.39 [95% CI 1.07, 1.80]; TC>6.22 mmol/L: 1.56 [1.14, 2.12]; HbA1c ≥6.00 mmol/L: 1.64 [1.30, 2.08]; DBP 80-89 mmHg: 0.78 [0.64, 0.95]). However, no significant trend between depressive symptoms and WHC, TC, HbA1c, DBP was observed in diabetic women, and no significant trend relationship between depressive symptoms and BMI, WC, TG, or SBP was observed in both non-diabetic and diabetic women. Moreover, the prevalence of depressive symptoms was significantly higher in previously-diagnosed diabetes, compared with non-diabetic subjects, while no significant differences were observed between newly-diagnosed diabetes and non-diabetic subjects. CONCLUSION: The present study showed a relationship between WHR, TC, HbA1c, DBP and depressive symptoms among non-diabetic women, while no significant relationship between them was observed among diabetic women, even after controlling for multiple confounding factors.

Project description:Importance:Among high-risk patients with hypertension, targeting a systolic blood pressure of 120 mm Hg reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with a higher target. However, intensive blood pressure management incurs additional costs from treatment and from adverse events. Objective:To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management compared with standard management. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from September 2015 to August 2016 used a Markov cohort model to estimate cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management among 68-year-old high-risk adults with hypertension but not diabetes. We used the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) to estimate treatment effects and adverse event rates. We used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Life Tables to project age- and cause-specific mortality, calibrated to rates reported in SPRINT. We also used population-based observational data to model development of heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and subsequent mortality. Costs were based on published sources, Medicare data, and the National Inpatient Sample. Interventions:Treatment of hypertension to a systolic blood pressure goal of 120 mm Hg (intensive management) or 140 mm Hg (standard management). Main Outcomes and Measures:Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually. Results:Standard management yielded 9.6 QALYs and accrued $155?261 in lifetime costs, while intensive management yielded 10.5 QALYs and accrued $176?584 in costs. Intensive blood pressure management cost $23?777 per QALY gained. In a sensitivity analysis, serious adverse events would need to occur at 3 times the rate observed in SPRINT and be 3 times more common in the intensive management arm to prefer standard management. Conclusions and Relevance:Intensive blood pressure management is cost-effective at typical thresholds for value in health care and remains so even with substantially higher adverse event rates.

Dataset Information

Combined intensive blood pressure and glycemic control does not produce an additive benefit on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients.

Publications

Combined intensive blood pressure and glycemic control does not produce an additive benefit on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure