Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS:We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS:At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

SUBMITTER: SPRINT Research Group

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4689591 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

Wright Jackson T JT Williamson Jeff D JD Whelton Paul K PK Snyder Joni K JK Sink Kaycee M KM Rocco Michael V MV Reboussin David M DM Rahman Mahboob M Oparil Suzanne S Lewis Cora E CE Kimmel Paul L PL Johnson Karen C KC Goff David C DC Fine Lawrence J LJ Cutler Jeffrey A JA Cushman William C WC Cheung Alfred K AK Ambrosius Walter T WT

The New England journal of medicine 20151109 22

<h4>Background</h4>The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain.<h4>Methods</h4>We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite out ...[more]

PMID: 26551272

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a previously reported randomized trial of standard and intensive systolic blood-pressure control, data on some outcome events had yet to be adjudicated and post-trial follow-up data had not yet been collected.MethodsWe randomly assigned 9361 participants who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease but did not have diabetes or previous stroke to adhere to an intensive treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Additional primary outcome events occurring through the end of the intervention period (August 20, 2015) were adjudicated after data lock for the primary analysis. We also analyzed post-trial observational follow-up data through July 29, 2016.ResultsAt a median of 3.33 years of follow-up, the rate of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality during the trial were significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (rate of the primary outcome, 1.77% per year vs. 2.40% per year; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86; all-cause mortality, 1.06% per year vs. 1.41% per year; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92). Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. When trial and post-trial follow-up data were combined (3.88 years in total), similar patterns were found for treatment benefit and adverse events; however, rates of heart failure no longer differed between the groups.ConclusionsAmong patients who were at increased cardiovascular risk, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality than targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg, both during receipt of the randomly assigned therapy and after the trial. Rates of some adverse events were higher in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Project description:In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease who received intensive systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 mm Hg) had significantly lower rates of death and cardiovascular disease events than did those who received standard control (target, <140 mm Hg). On the basis of these data, we wanted to determine the lifetime health benefits and health care costs associated with intensive control versus standard control.We used a microsimulation model to apply SPRINT treatment effects and health care costs from national sources to a hypothetical cohort of SPRINT-eligible adults. The model projected lifetime costs of treatment and monitoring in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease events and subsequent treatment costs, treatment-related risks of serious adverse events and subsequent costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for intensive control versus standard control of systolic blood pressure.We determined that the mean number of QALYs would be 0.27 higher among patients who received intensive control than among those who received standard control and would cost approximately $47,000 more per QALY gained if there were a reduction in adherence and treatment effects after 5 years; the cost would be approximately $28,000 more per QALY gained if the treatment effects persisted for the remaining lifetime of the patient. Most simulation results indicated that intensive treatment would be cost-effective (51 to 79% below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY and 76 to 93% below the threshold of $100,000 per QALY), regardless of whether treatment effects were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the remaining lifetime.In this simulation study, intensive systolic blood-pressure control prevented cardiovascular disease events and prolonged life and did so at levels below common willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY, regardless of whether benefits were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the patient's remaining lifetime. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).

Project description:ImportanceThere are currently no proven treatments to reduce the risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of intensive blood pressure control on risk of dementia.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial conducted at 102 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico among adults aged 50 years or older with hypertension but without diabetes or history of stroke. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The trial was stopped early for benefit on its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. The final date for follow-up of cognitive outcomes was July 22, 2018.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group; n = 4678) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group; n = 4683).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary cognitive outcome was occurrence of adjudicated probable dementia. Secondary cognitive outcomes included adjudicated mild cognitive impairment and a composite outcome of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia.ResultsAmong 9361 randomized participants (mean age, 67.9 years; 3332 women [35.6%]), 8563 (91.5%) completed at least 1 follow-up cognitive assessment. The median intervention period was 3.34 years. During a total median follow-up of 5.11 years, adjudicated probable dementia occurred in 149 participants in the intensive treatment group vs 176 in the standard treatment group (7.2 vs 8.6 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04). Intensive BP control significantly reduced the risk of mild cognitive impairment (14.6 vs 18.3 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95) and the combined rate of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia (20.2 vs 24.1 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97).Conclusions and relevanceAmong ambulatory adults with hypertension, treating to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a goal of less than 140 mm Hg did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of probable dementia. Because of early study termination and fewer than expected cases of dementia, the study may have been underpowered for this end point.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Project description:Importance:Blood pressure (BP) lowering is considered neuroprotective in patients with cerebral small vessel disease; however, more intensive regimens may increase cerebral hypoperfusion. This study examined the effect of standard vs intensive BP treatment on cerebral perfusion in patients with severe small vessel disease. Objective:To investigate whether standard vs intensive BP lowering over 3 months causes decreased cerebral perfusion in small vessel disease. Design, Setting, and Participants:This randomized clinical trial took place at 2 English university medical centers. Patients were randomized via a central online system (in a 1:1 ratio). Seventy patients with hypertension and with magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed symptomatic lacunar infarct and confluent white matter hyperintensities were recruited between February 29, 2012, and October 21, 2015, and randomized (36 in the standard group and 34 in the intensive group). Analyzable data were available in 62 patients, 33 in the standard group and 29 in the intensive group, for intent-to-treat analysis. This experiment examines the 3-month follow-up period. Interventions:Patients were randomized to standard (systolic, 130-140 mm Hg) or intensive (systolic, <125 mm Hg) BP targets, to be achieved through medication changes. Main Outcomes and Measures:Cerebral perfusion was measured using arterial spin labeling; the primary end point was change in global perfusion between baseline and 3 months, compared between treatment groups by analysis of variance. Linear regression compared change in perfusion against change in BP. Magnetic resonance imaging scan analysis was masked to treatment group. Results:Among 62 analyzable patients, the mean age was 69.3 years, and 60% (n?=?37) were male. The mean (SD) systolic BP decreased by 8 (12) mm Hg in the standard group and by 27 (17) mm Hg in the intensive group (P?<?.001), with mean (SD) achieved pressures of 141 (13) and 126 (10) mm Hg, respectively. Change in global perfusion did not differ between treatment groups: the mean (SD) change was -0.5 (9.4) mL/min/100 g in the standard group vs 0.7 (8.6) mL/min/100 g in the intensive group (partial ?2, 0.004; 95% CI, -3.551 to 5.818; P?=?.63). No differences were observed when the analysis examined gray or white matter only or was confined to those achieving target BP. The number of adverse events did not differ between treatment groups, with a mean (SD) of 0.21 (0.65) for the standard group and 0.32 (0.75) for the intensive group (P?=?.44). Conclusions and Relevance:Intensive BP lowering did not reduce cerebral perfusion in severe small vessel disease. Trial Registration:isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN37694103.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:The appropriate treatment target for systolic blood pressure (SBP) in older patients with hypertension remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effects of intensive (<120 mm Hg) compared with standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP targets in persons aged 75 years or older with hypertension but without diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A multicenter, randomized clinical trial of patients aged 75 years or older who participated in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Recruitment began on October 20, 2010, and follow-up ended on August 20, 2015. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomized to an SBP target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group, n?=?1317) or an SBP target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group, n?=?1319). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary cardiovascular disease outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in a myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal acute decompensated heart failure, and death from cardiovascular causes. All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. RESULTS:Among 2636 participants (mean age, 79.9 years; 37.9% women), 2510 (95.2%) provided complete follow-up data. At a median follow-up of 3.14 years, there was a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome (102 events in the intensive treatment group vs 148 events in the standard treatment group; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.85]) and all-cause mortality (73 deaths vs 107 deaths, respectively; HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49-0.91]). The overall rate of serious adverse events was not different between treatment groups (48.4% in the intensive treatment group vs 48.3% in the standard treatment group; HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.11]). Absolute rates of hypotension were 2.4% in the intensive treatment group vs 1.4% in the standard treatment group (HR, 1.71 [95% CI, 0.97-3.09]), 3.0% vs 2.4%, respectively, for syncope (HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.76-2.00]), 4.0% vs 2.7% for electrolyte abnormalities (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 0.99-2.33]), 5.5% vs 4.0% for acute kidney injury (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.98-2.04]), and 4.9% vs 5.5% for injurious falls (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.65-1.29]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among ambulatory adults aged 75 years or older, treating to an SBP target of less than 120 mm Hg compared with an SBP target of less than 140 mm Hg resulted in significantly lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Project description:BackgroundSubcortical microvascular disease represented by brain white matter hyperintensity on magnetic resonance imaging is associated with functional decline in older people with hypertension. The effects of 2 levels of 24-hour average systolic blood pressure (BP) on mobility, white matter disease progression, and cognitive function over 3 years were studied.MethodsThis trial was a prospective, randomized, blinded end-points study in patients ≥75 years of age with systolic hypertension and magnetic resonance imaging evidence of white matter hyperintensity lesions. Patients were randomized to a 24-hour mean systolic BP of ≤130 mm Hg (intensive treatment) versus ≤145 mm Hg (standard treatment) with antihypertensive therapies. Primary study outcomes were changes in mobility (gait speed) and accrual of white matter hyperintensity volume after 3 years. Changes in cognitive function (executive processing) and adverse events were also evaluated.ResultsIn 199 randomized patients, the mean age of the cohort was 80.5 years, and 54% were women; the average 24-hour systolic BP was 149 mm Hg. Goal BPs were achieved after a median treatment period of 3 to 4 months; at that time, the mean 24-hour systolic BP was 127.7 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and 144.0 mm Hg in the standard treatment group for an average difference of 16.3 mm Hg. Changes in gait speed were not different between treatment groups (0.40±2.0 versus 0.42±2.7 s in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively; P=0.91), whereas changes from baseline in white matter hyperintensity volumes were smaller (0.29%) in the intensive treatment group compared with the standard treatment group (0.48%; P=0.03). Cognitive outcomes also were not different between the treatment groups. Major adverse cardiovascular events were higher in the standard treatment group compared with the intensive treatment group (17 versus 4 patients; P=0.01). Falls, with or without injury, and syncope were comparable in the treatment groups.ConclusionsIntensive lowering of ambulatory BP reduction in older patients with hypertension did not result in differences in mobility outcomes but was associated with a reduction in accrual of subcortical white matter disease. Over periods >3 years, a reduction in the accumulation of white matter disease may be a factor in conserving function.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01650402.

Project description:BackgroundResults from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive control of systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the occurrence of mild cognitive impairment, but not probable dementia. We investigated the effects of intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure on specific cognitive functions in a preplanned substudy of participants from SPRINT.MethodsSPRINT was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial undertaken at 102 sites, including academic medical centres, Veterans Affairs medical centres, hospitals, and independent clinics, in the USA and Puerto Rico. Participants were adults aged 50 years or older with systolic blood pressure higher than 130 mm Hg, but without diabetes, history of stroke, or dementia. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) versus less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). All major classes of antihypertensive agents were included. A subgroup of randomly assigned participants including, but not limited to, participants enrolled in an MRI substudy was then selected for a concurrent substudy of cognitive function (target 2800 participants). Each individual was assessed with a screening cognitive test battery and an extended cognitive test battery at baseline and biennially during the planned 4-year follow-up. The primary outcomes for this substudy were standardised composite scores for memory (Logical Memory I and II, Modified Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure [immediate recall], and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised [delayed recall]) and processing speed (Trail Making Test and Digit Symbol Coding). SPRINT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01206062.FindingsFrom Nov 23, 2010, to Dec 28, 2012, 2921 participants (mean age 68·4 years [SD 8·6], 1080 [37%] women) who had been randomly assigned in SPRINT were enrolled in the substudy (1448 received intensive treatment and 1473 received standard treatment). SPRINT was terminated early due to benefit observed in the primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular events). After a median follow-up of 4·1 years (IQR 3·7-5·8), there was no between-group difference in memory, with an annual decline in mean standardised domain score of -0·005 (95% CI -0·010 to 0·001) in the intensive treatment group and -0·001 (-0·006 to 0·005) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference -0·004, 95% CI -0·012 to 0·004; p=0·33). Mean standardised processing speed domain scores declined more in the intensive treatment group (between-group difference -0·010, 95% CI -0·017 to -0·002; p=0·02), with an annual decline of -0·025 (-0·030 to -0·019) for the intensive treatment group and -0·015 (-0·021 to 0·009) for the standard treatment group.InterpretationIntensive treatment to lower systolic blood pressure did not result in a clinically relevant difference compared with standard treatment in memory or processing speed in a subgroup of participants from SPRINT. The effect of blood pressure lowering might not be evident in specific domains of cognitive function, but instead distributed across multiple domains.FundingNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Alzheimer's Association.

Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

Publications

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets