Dataset Information

Intensive systolic blood pressure control and incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without diabetes mellitus: secondary analyses of two randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Guidelines, including the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association blood pressure guideline, recommend tighter control of systolic blood pressure in people with type 2 diabetes. However, it is unclear whether intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure increases the incidence of chronic kidney disease in this population. We aimed to compare the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure control on incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without type 2 diabetes. METHODS:The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) tested the effects of a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive intervention) versus a goal of less than 140 mm Hg (standard intervention) in people without diabetes. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) blood pressure trial tested a similar systolic blood pressure intervention in people with type 2 diabetes. Our study is a secondary analysis of limited access datasets from SPRINT and the ACCORD trial obtained from the National Institutes of Health. In participants without chronic kidney disease at baseline (n=4311 in the ACCORD trial; n=6715 in SPRINT), we related systolic blood pressure interventions (intensive vs standard) to incident chronic kidney disease (defined as >30% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] to <60 mL/min per 1·73 m2). These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01206062 (SPRINT) and NCT00000620 (ACCORD trial). FINDINGS:The average difference in systolic blood pressure between intensive and standard interventions was 13·9 mm Hg (95% CI 13·4-14·4) in the ACCORD trial and 15·2 mm Hg (14·8-15·6) in SPRINT. At 3 years, the cumulative incidence of chronic kidney disease in the ACCORD trial was 10·0% (95% CI 8·8-11·4) with the intensive intervention and 4·1% (3·3-5·1) with the standard intervention (absolute risk difference 5·9%, 95% CI 4·3-7·5). Corresponding values in SPRINT were 3·5% (95% CI 2·9-4·2) and 1·0% (0·7-1·4; absolute risk difference 2·5%, 95% CI 1·8-3·2). The absolute risk difference was significantly higher in the ACCORD trial than in SPRINT (p=0·0001 for interaction). INTERPRETATION:Intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure increased the risk of incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without type 2 diabetes. However, the absolute risk of incident chronic kidney disease was higher in people with type 2 diabetes. Our findings suggest the need for vigilance in monitoring kidney function during intensive antihypertensive drug treatment, particularly in adults with diabetes. Long-term studies are needed to understand the clinical implications of antihypertensive treatment-related reductions in eGFR. FUNDING:National Institutes of Health.

SUBMITTER: Beddhu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6071316 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intensive systolic blood pressure control and incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without diabetes mellitus: secondary analyses of two randomised controlled trials.

Beddhu Srinivasan S Greene Tom T Boucher Robert R Cushman William C WC Wei Guo G Stoddard Gregory G Ix Joachim H JH Chonchol Michel M Kramer Holly H Cheung Alfred K AK Kimmel Paul L PL Whelton Paul K PK Chertow Glenn M GM

The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology 20180421 7

<h4>Background</h4>Guidelines, including the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association blood pressure guideline, recommend tighter control of systolic blood pressure in people with type 2 diabetes. However, it is unclear whether intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure increases the incidence of chronic kidney disease in this population. We aimed to compare the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure control on incident chronic kidney disease in people with and ...[more]

PMID: 29685860

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBrain perivascular spaces (PVS) are part of the glymphatic system and facilitate clearance of metabolic byproducts. Since enlarged PVS are associated with vascular health, we tested whether intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment affects PVS structure.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of the Systolic PRessure INtervention Trial (SPRINT) MRI Substudy: a randomized trial of intensive SBP treatment to goal < 120 mm Hg vs < 140 mm Hg. Participants had increased cardiovascular risk, pre-treatment SBP 130-180, and no clinical stroke, dementia, or diabetes. Brain MRIs acquired at baseline and follow-up were used to automatically segment PVS in the supratentorial white matter and basal ganglia using a Frangi filtering method. PVS volumes were quantified as a fraction of the total tissue volume. The effects of SBP treatment group and major antihypertensive classes on PVS volume fraction were separately tested using linear mixed-effects models while covarying for MRI site, age, sex, Black race, baseline SBP, history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, and white matter hyperintensities (WMH).ResultsFor 610 participants with sufficient quality MRI at baseline (mean age 67 ± 8, 40 % female, 32 % Black), greater PVS volume fraction was associated with older age, male sex, non-Black race, concurrent CVD, WMH, and brain atrophy. For 381 participants with MRI at baseline and at follow-up (median ± IQR = 3.9 ± 0.4 years), intensive treatment was associated with decreased PVS volume fraction relative to standard treatment (interaction coefficient: -0.029 [-0.055 to -0.0029] p = 0.029). Reduced PVS volume fraction was also associated with exposure to calcium channel blockers (CCB).ConclusionsPVS enlargement was partially reversed in the intensive SBP treatment group. The association with CCB use suggests that improved vascular compliance may be partly responsible. Improved vascular health may facilitate glymphatic clearance. Clincaltrials.gov: NCT01206062.

Project description:BackgroundBrain perivascular spaces (PVS) are part of the glymphatic system and facilitate clearance of metabolic byproducts. Since enlarged PVS are associated with vascular health, we tested whether intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment affects PVS structure.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of the Systolic PRessure INTervention (SPRINT) Trial MRI Substudy: a randomized trial of intensive SBP treatment to goal < 120 mm Hg vs. < 140 mm Hg. Participants had increased cardiovascular risk, pre-treatment SBP 130-180, and no clinical stroke, dementia, or diabetes. Brain MRIs acquired at baseline and follow-up were used to automatically segment PVS in the supratentorial white matter and basal ganglia using a Frangi filtering method. PVS volumes were quantified as a fraction of the total tissue volume. The effects of SBP treatment group and major antihypertensive classes on PVS volume fraction were separately tested using linear mixed-effects models while covarying for MRI site, age, sex, black race, baseline SBP, history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, and white matter hyperintensities (WMH).ResultsFor 610 participants with sufficient quality MRI at baseline (mean age 67±8, 40% female, 32% black), greater PVS volume fraction was associated with older age, male sex, non-Black race, concurrent CVD, WMH, and brain atrophy. For 381 participants with MRI at baseline and at follow-up (median = 3.9 years), intensive treatment was associated with decreased PVS volume fraction relative to standard treatment (interaction coefficient: -0.029 [-0.055 to -0.0029] p=0.029). Reduced PVS volume fraction was also associated with exposure to calcium channel blockers (CCB) and diuretics.ConclusionsIntensive SBP lowering partially reverses PVS enlargement. The effects of CCB use suggests that improved vascular compliance may be partly responsible. Improved vascular health may facilitate glymphatic clearance. Clincaltrials.gov : NCT01206062.

Project description:BackgroundThe cardiovascular benefits of intensive systolic blood pressure control vary across clinical populations tested in large randomised clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the application of machine learning to clinical trials of patients without and with type 2 diabetes to define the personalised cardiovascular benefit of intensive control of systolic blood pressure.MethodsIn SPRINT, a trial of intensive (systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg) versus standard (systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure control in patients without type 2 diabetes, we defined a phenotypic representation of the study population using 59 baseline variables. We extracted personalised treatment effect estimates for the primary outcome, time-to-first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and acute decompensated heart failure), through iterative Cox regression analyses providing average hazard ratio (HR) estimates weighted for the phenotypic distance of each participant from the index patient of each iteration. Next, we trained an extreme gradient boosting algorithm (known as XGBoost) to predict the personalised effect of intensive systolic blood pressure control using features most consistently linked to increased personalised benefit, before evaluating its performance in the ACCORD BP trial of patients with type 2 diabetes randomly assigned to receive intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure control. We stratified patients based on their predicted treatment effect, and key demographic groups (age, sex, cardiovascular disease, and smoking). We assessed the presence of heterogeneity with an interaction test, and assessed the performance of the algorithm in a simulation analysis of SPRINT in the presence or absence of an artificially introduced heterogeneous treatment effect.FindingsFrom SPRINT, we included all 9361 study participants (mean age 67·9 years [SD 9·4], 3332 [35·6%] female) who underwent randomisation to either intensive (n=4678) or standard (n=4683) treatment. The median individualised HR for MACE was 0·63 (IQR 0·53-0·78). An eight-feature tool built for this analysis to predict personalised benefit in SPRINT was externally tested in ACCORD BP (4733 participants (mean age 62·7 years [SD 6·7], 2258 [47·7%] female), wherein it successfully identified individuals with differential benefit from intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure control (adjusted HR for MACE of 0·70 [95% CI 0·55-0·90] in individuals with above-median MACE benefit versus 1·05 [95% CI 0·84-1·32] for below-median predicted benefit; pinteraction=0·0184). Subgroup analysis based on age (<65 years: HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·71-1·12]; ≥65 years: 0·85 [0·67-1·09]), sex (male: 0·89 [0·72-1·10]; female: 0·85 [0·65-1·10]), established cardiovascular disease (no: 0·89 [0·70-1·14]; yes: 0·84 [0·67-1·06]), or active smoking (no: 0·85 [0·71-1·02]; yes: 1·01 [0·64-1·60]) did not identify groups with heterogeneity of treatment effect. In a simulation analysis of SPRINT, the proposed algorithm detected groups with heterogeneous treatment effects in the presence, but not absence, of simulated subgroup differences.InterpretationBy use of machine learning to define an individual's personalised benefit through phenotypic representations of clinical trials, we created a practical tool for individualising the selection of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure control in patients without and with type 2 diabetes.FundingNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the US National Institutes of Health.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effect of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control in older adults with hypertension, considering cognitive and physical function. DESIGN:Secondary analysis. SETTING:Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) PARTICIPANTS: Adults 80?years or older. INTERVENTION:Participants with hypertension but without diabetes (N = 1167) were randomized to an SBP target below 120?mm Hg (intensive treatment) vs a target below 140?mm Hg (standard treatment). MEASUREMENTS:We measured the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), mortality, changes in renal function, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), probable dementia, and serious adverse events. Gait speed was assessed via a 4-m walk test, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to quantify baseline cognitive function. RESULTS:Intensive treatment led to significant reductions in cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR] = .66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .49-.90), mortality (HR = .67; 95% CI = .48-.93), and MCI (HR = .70; 95% CI = .51-.96). There was a significant interaction (P?<?.001) whereby participants with higher baseline scores on the MoCA derived strong benefit from intensive treatment for a composite of CVD and mortality (HR = .40; 95% CI = .28-.57), with no appreciable benefit in participants with lower scores on the MoCA (HR = 1.33 = 95% CI = .87-2.03). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects with respect to gait speed. Rates of acute kidney injury and declines of at least 30% in estimated glomerular filtration rate were increased in the intensive treatment group with no between-group differences in the rate of injurious falls. CONCLUSION:In adults aged 80?years or older, intensive SBP control lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events, MCI, and death, with increased risk of changes to kidney function. The cardiovascular and mortality benefits of intensive SBP control may not extend to older adults with lower baseline cognitive function. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01206062. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:496-504, 2020.

Project description:ObjectiveTo define the cardiovascular effects of lowering blood pressure in people with chronic kidney disease.DesignCollaborative prospective meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sources and eligibilityParticipating randomised trials of drugs to lower blood pressure compared with placebo or each other or that compare different blood pressure targets, with at least 1000 patient years of follow-up per arm.Main outcome measuresMajor cardiovascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cardiovascular death) in composite and individually and all cause death.Participants26 trials (152,290 participants), including 30,295 individuals with reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which was defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2).Data extractionIndividual participant data were available for 23 trials, with summary data from another three. Meta-analysis according to baseline kidney function was performed. Pooled hazard ratios per 5 mm Hg lower blood pressure were estimated with a random effects model.ResultsCompared with placebo, blood pressure lowering regimens reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about a sixth per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure in individuals with (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.90) and without reduced eGFR (0.83, 0.79 to 0.88), with no evidence for any difference in effect (P=1.00 for homogeneity). The results were similar irrespective of whether blood pressure was reduced by regimens based on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium antagonists, or diuretics/β blockers. There was no evidence that the effects of different drug classes on major cardiovascular events varied between patients with different eGFR (all P>0.60 for homogeneity).ConclusionsBlood pressure lowering is an effective strategy for preventing cardiovascular events among people with moderately reduced eGFR. There is little evidence from these overviews to support the preferential choice of particular drug classes for the prevention of cardiovascular events in chronic kidney disease.

Project description:Background Recent guidelines recommended a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of < 130 mmHg for patients with or without diabetes but without providing a lower bound. Our study aimed to explore whether additional clinical benefits remain at achieved blood pressure (BP) levels below the recommended target. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) among the non-diabetic population and the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes BP (ACCORD-BP) trial among diabetic subjects. We used the propensity score method to match patients from the intensive BP group to those from the standard group in each trial. Individuals with different achieved BP levels from the intensive BP group were used as “reference.” For each stratum, the trial-specific primary outcome (i.e., composite outcome of myocardial infarction (MI), acute coronary syndrome not resulting in MI, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure (HF), or cardiovascular death for SPRINT; non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death for ACCORD-BP) was compared by Cox regression. Results A non-linear association was observed between the mean achieved BP and incidence of composite cardiovascular events, regardless of treatment allocation. The significant treatment benefit for primary outcome remained at SBP 110–120 mmHg (hazard ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46, 0.76] for SPRINT; 0.67 [0.52, 0.88] for ACCORD-BP) and SBP 120–130 mmHg for SPRINT (0.47 [0.34, 0.63]) but not for ACCORD-BP (0.93 [0.70, 1.23]). The results were similar for the secondary outcomes including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stroke, and HF. Intensive BP treatment benefits existed among patients maintaining a diastolic BP of 60–70 mmHg but were less distinct. Conclusions The treatment benefit persists at as low as SBP 110–120 mmHg irrespective of diabetes status. Achieved very low BP levels appeared to increase cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-022-02407-z.

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.

Dataset Information

Intensive systolic blood pressure control and incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without diabetes mellitus: secondary analyses of two randomised controlled trials.

Publications

Intensive systolic blood pressure control and incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without diabetes mellitus: secondary analyses of two randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets