Dataset Information

Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Treatment According to Baseline Prediabetes Status: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To determine whether the effects of intensive (<120 mmHg) compared with standard (<140 mmHg) systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment are different among those with prediabetes versus those with fasting normoglycemia at baseline in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:This was a post hoc analysis of SPRINT. SPRINT participants were categorized by prediabetes status, defined as baseline fasting serum glucose ?100 mg/dL versus those with normoglycemia (fasting serum glucose <100 mg/dL). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios for study outcomes with intensive compared with standard SBP treatment among those with prediabetes and normoglycemia. RESULTS:Among 9,361 participants randomized (age 67.9 ± 9.4 years; 35.5% female), 3,898 and 5,425 had baseline prediabetes and normoglycemia, respectively. After a median follow-up of 3.26 years, the hazard ratio for the primary outcome was 0.69 (95% CI 0.53, 0.89) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.66, 1.03) among those with prediabetes and normoglycemia, respectively (P value for interaction 0.30). For all-cause mortality, the hazard ratio with intensive SBP treatment was 0.77 (95% CI 0.55, 1.06) for prediabetes and 0.71 (95% CI 0.54, 0.94) for normoglycemia (P value for interaction 0.74). Effects of intensive versus standard SBP treatment on prespecified renal outcomes and serious adverse events were similar for prediabetes and normoglycemia (all interaction P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:In SPRINT, the beneficial effects of intensive SBP treatment were similar among those with prediabetes and fasting normoglycemia.

SUBMITTER: Bress AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5606306 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Treatment According to Baseline Prediabetes Status: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

Bress Adam P AP King Jordan B JB Kreider Kathryn E KE Beddhu Srinivasan S Simmons Debra L DL Cheung Alfred K AK Zhang Yingying Y Doumas Michael M Nord John J Sweeney Mary Ellen ME Taylor Addison A AA Herring Charles C Kostis William J WJ Powell James J Rastogi Anjay A Roumie Christianne L CL Wiggers Alan A Williams Jonathan S JS Yunis Reem R Zias Athena A Evans Greg W GW Greene Tom T Rocco Michael V MV Cushman William C WC Reboussin David M DM Feinglos Mark N MN Papademetriou Vasilios V

Diabetes care 20170809

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether the effects of intensive (<120 mmHg) compared with standard (<140 mmHg) systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment are different among those with prediabetes versus those with fasting normoglycemia at baseline in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).<h4>Research design and methods</h4>This was a post hoc analysis of SPRINT. SPRINT participants were categorized by prediabetes status, defined as baseline fasting serum glucose ≥100 mg/dL versus ...[more]

PMID: 28793997

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunication of the benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering strategy is crucial for shared decision-making.ObjectivesTo quantify the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure lowering in terms of the number of event-free days DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9361 adults 50 years or older without diabetes or stroke who had a systolic blood pressure of 130-180 mmHg and elevated cardiovascular risk INTERVENTIONS: Intensive (systolic blood pressure goal <120 mmHg) versus standard blood pressure lowering (<140 mmHg) MAIN MEASURES: Days free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious adverse events (SAE), and monitored adverse events (hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute kidney injury) over a median follow-up of 3.33 years KEY RESULTS: The intensive treatment group gained 14.7 more MACE-free days over 4 years (difference, 14.7 [95% confidence interval: 5.1, 24.4] days) than the standard treatment group. The benefit of the intensive treatment varied by cognitive function (normal: difference, 40.7 [13.0, 68.4] days; moderate-to-severe impairment: difference, -15.0 [-56.5, 26.4] days; p-for-interaction=0.009) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -22.7 [-51.5, 6.1] days; poor: difference, 156.1 [31.1, 281.2] days; p-for-interaction=0.001). The mean overall SAE-free days were not significantly different between the treatments (difference, -14.8 [-35.3, 5.7] days). However, the intensive treatment group had 28.5 fewer monitored adverse event-free days than the standard treatment group (difference, -28.5 [-40.3, -16.7] days), with significant variations by frailty status (non-frail: difference, 38.8 [8.4, 69.2] days; frail: difference, -15.5 [-46.6, 15.7] days) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -12.9 [-45.5, 19.7] days; poor: difference, 180.6 [72.9, 288.4] days; p-for-interaction <0.001).ConclusionsOver 4 years, intensive systolic blood pressure lowering provides, on average, 14.7 more MACE-free days than standard treatment, without any difference in SAE-free days. Whether this time-based effect summary improves shared decision-making remains to be elucidated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Registration: 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:IntroductionLong-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and their combinations, are recommended for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to determine whether the safety and efficacy of aclidinium bromide differs by baseline maintenance LABA and ICS therapies.MethodsASCENT-COPD was a phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive aclidinium 400 μg or placebo twice daily, via a multidose dry-powder inhaler for up to 3 years. Outcomes included time to first major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and COPD assessment test (CAT) total score over 3 years, and annual moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation rate in patients receiving aclidinium or placebo with maintenance LABA monotherapy, ICS monotherapy, LABA + ICS (fixed/free), or no maintenance therapy (neither LABA nor ICS) at baseline.ResultsA total of 3589 patients were included (LABA, n = 227; ICS, n = 290; LABA + ICS, n = 2058; no maintenance, n = 1130). Aclidinium did not increase the risk of MACE or all-cause mortality versus placebo, regardless of baseline maintenance treatment. Reductions in moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates were observed with aclidinium versus placebo in all subgroups [LABA 43% (P = 0.046); ICS 25% (P = 0.202); LABA + ICS 22% (P = 0.003); no maintenance 18% (P = 0.130)]. Aclidinium improved morning trough FEV1 irrespective of baseline therapy and CAT total scores, except for LABA and ICS subgroups, versus placebo at several time points.ConclusionIn patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and CV risk factors, the addition of aclidinium to maintenance therapy with LABA or LABA + ICS provided further benefit.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01966107.

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.).

Dataset Information

Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Treatment According to Baseline Prediabetes Status: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

Publications

Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Treatment According to Baseline Prediabetes Status: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets