Dataset Information

Generalizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes Mellitus.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Controversy over blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for individuals with diabetes is in part due to conflicting perspectives about generalizability of available trial data. OBJECTIVE:The authors sought to estimate how results from the largest clinical trial of intensive BP treatment among adults with diabetes would generalize to the U.S. POPULATION: METHODS:The authors used transportability methods to reweight individual patient data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial (N = 4,507) of intensive (goal systolic BP <120 mm Hg) versus standard (goal systolic BP <140 mm Hg) treatment to better represent the demographic and clinical risk factors of the U.S. population of adults with diabetes (data from NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] 2005 to 2014, n = 1,943). The primary outcome was the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analysis used weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust standard errors. RESULTS:The ACCORD BP sample had less racial/ethnic diversity and more elevated cardiovascular risk factors than the NHANES participants. Weighted results significantly favored intensive BP treatment, unlike unweighted results (hazard ratio for primary outcome in intensive versus standard treatment in weighted analyses: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.91; in unweighted analyses: hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.07). Over 5 years, the weighted results estimate a number needed to treat of 34, and number needed to harm of 55. CONCLUSIONS:After reweighting to better reflect the U.S. adult population with diabetes, intensive BP therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for cardiovascular events. However, data were limited among racial/ethnic minorities and those with lower cardiovascular risk.

SUBMITTER: Berkowitz SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6358208 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Generalizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes Mellitus.

Berkowitz Seth A SA Sussman Jeremy B JB Jonas Daniel E DE Basu Sanjay S

Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20180901 11

<h4>Background</h4>Controversy over blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for individuals with diabetes is in part due to conflicting perspectives about generalizability of available trial data.<h4>Objective</h4>The authors sought to estimate how results from the largest clinical trial of intensive BP treatment among adults with diabetes would generalize to the U.S.<h4>Population</h4><h4>Methods</h4>The authors used transportability methods to reweight individual patient data from the ACCORD (Ac ...[more]

PMID: 30189998

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events.MethodsA total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years.ResultsAfter 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensive-therapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P=0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P=0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P=0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P<0.001).ConclusionsIn patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

Project description:BACKGROUND:The previously published results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial showed that among participants with hypertension and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, the rates of cardiovascular events were lower among those who were assigned to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) than among those who were assigned to a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). Whether such intensive treatment affected patient-reported outcomes was uncertain; those results from the trial are reported here. METHODS:We randomly assigned 9361 participants with hypertension to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg or a target of less than 140 mm Hg. Patient-reported outcome measures included the scores on the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression scale (PHQ-9), patient-reported satisfaction with their blood-pressure care and blood-pressure medications, and adherence to blood-pressure medications. We compared the scores in the intensive-treatment group with those in the standard-treatment group among all participants and among participants stratified according to physical and cognitive function. RESULTS:Participants who received intensive treatment received an average of one additional antihypertensive medication, and the systolic blood pressure was 14.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 14.3 to 15.4) lower in the group that received intensive treatment than in the group that received standard treatment. Mean PCS, MCS, and PHQ-9 scores were relatively stable over a median of 3 years of follow-up, with no significant differences between the two treatment groups. No significant differences between the treatment groups were noted when participants were stratified according to baseline measures of physical or cognitive function. Satisfaction with blood-pressure care was high in both treatment groups, and we found no significant difference in adherence to blood-pressure medications. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-reported outcomes among participants who received intensive treatment, which targeted a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, were similar to those among participants who received standard treatment, including among participants with decreased physical or cognitive function. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of antihypertensive treatment on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in people with diabetes mellitus, at different blood pressure levels. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, and BIOSIS were searched using highly sensitive search strategies. When data required according to the protocol were missing but trials were potentially eligible, we contacted researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and authorities. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials including 100 or more people with diabetes mellitus, treated for 12 months or more, comparing any antihypertensive agent against placebo, two agents against one, or different blood pressure targets. RESULTS:49 trials, including 73,738 participants, were included in the meta-analyses. Most of the participants had type 2 diabetes. If baseline systolic blood pressure was greater than 150 mm Hg, antihypertensive treatment reduced the risk of all cause mortality (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.99), cardiovascular mortality (0.75, 0.57 to 0.99), myocardial infarction (0.74, 0.63 to 0.87), stroke (0.77, 0.65 to 0.91), and end stage renal disease (0.82, 0.71 to 0.94). If baseline systolic blood pressure was 140-150 mm Hg, additional treatment reduced the risk of all cause mortality (0.87, 0.78 to 0.98), myocardial infarction (0.84, 0.76 to 0.93), and heart failure (0.80, 0.66 to 0.97). If baseline systolic blood pressure was less than 140 mm Hg, however, further treatment increased the risk of cardiovascular mortality (1.15, 1.00 to 1.32), with a tendency towards an increased risk of all cause mortality (1.05, 0.95 to 1.16). Metaregression analyses showed a worse treatment effect with lower baseline systolic blood pressures for cardiovascular mortality (1.15, 1.03 to 1.29 for each 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure) and myocardial infarction (1.12, 1.03 to 1.22 for each 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure). Patterns were similar for attained systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS:Antihypertensive treatment reduces the risk of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in people with diabetes mellitus and a systolic blood pressure more than 140 mm Hg. If systolic blood pressure is less than 140 mm Hg, however, further treatment is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, with no observed benefit.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Treating to a lower blood pressure (BP) may increase acute kidney injury (AKI) events. STUDY DESIGN:Data for AKI resulting in or during hospitalization or emergency department visits were collected as part of the serious adverse events reporting process of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:9,361 participants 50 years or older with 1 or more risk factors for cardiovascular disease. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomly assigned to a systolic BP target of <120 (intensive arm) or <140mmHg (standard arm). OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS:Primary outcome was the number of adjudicated AKI events. Secondary outcomes included severity of AKI and degree of recovery of kidney function after an AKI event. Baseline creatinine concentration was defined as the most recent SPRINT outpatient creatinine value before the date of the AKI event. RESULTS:There were 179 participants with AKI events in the intensive arm and 109 in the standard arm (3.8% vs 2.3%; HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.30-2.10; P<0.001). Of 288 participants with an AKI event, 248 (86.1%) had a single AKI event during the trial. Based on modified KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) criteria for severity of AKI, the number of AKI events in the intensive versus standard arm by KDIGO stage was 128 (58.5%) versus 81 (62.8%) for AKI stage 1, 42 (19.2%) versus 18 (14.0%) for AKI stage 2, and 42 (19.2%) versus 25 (19.4%) for AKI stage 3 (P=0.5). For participants with sufficient data, complete or partial resolution of AKI was seen for 169 (90.4%) and 9 (4.8%) of 187 AKI events in the intensive arm and 86 (86.9%) and 4 (4.0%) of 99 AKI events in the standard arm, respectively. LIMITATIONS:Trial results are not generalizable to patients with diabetes mellitus or without risk factors for cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS:More intensive BP lowering resulted in more frequent episodes of AKI. Most cases were mild and most participants had complete recovery of kidney function. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT01206062.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The absolute risk reduction (ARR) in cardiovascular events from therapy is generally assumed to be proportional to baseline risk-such that high-risk patients benefit most. Yet newer analyses have proposed using randomized trial data to develop models that estimate individual treatment effects. We tested 2 hypotheses: first, that models of individual treatment effects would reveal that benefit from intensive blood pressure therapy is proportional to baseline risk; and second, that a machine learning approach designed to predict heterogeneous treatment effects-the X-learner meta-algorithm-is equivalent to a conventional logistic regression approach. METHODS AND RESULTS:We compared conventional logistic regression to the X-learner approach for prediction of 3-year cardiovascular disease event risk reduction from intensive (target systolic blood pressure <120 mm?Hg) versus standard (target <140 mm?Hg) blood pressure treatment, using individual participant data from the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial; N=9361) and ACCORD BP (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure; N=4733) trials. Each model incorporated 17 covariates, an indicator for treatment arm, and interaction terms between covariates and treatment. Logistic regression had lower C statistic for benefit than the X-learner (0.51 [95% CI, 0.49-0.53] versus 0.60 [95% CI, 0.58-0.63], respectively). Following the logistic regression's recommendation for individualized therapy produced restricted mean time until cardiovascular disease event of 1065.47 days (95% CI, 1061.04-1069.35), while following the X-learner's recommendation improved mean time until cardiovascular disease event to 1068.71 days (95% CI, 1065.42-1072.08). Calibration was worse for logistic regression; it over-estimated ARR attributable to intensive treatment (slope between predicted and observed ARR of 0.73 [95% CI, 0.30-1.14] versus 1.06 [95% CI, 0.74-1.32] for the X-learner, compared with the ideal of 1). Predicted ARRs using logistic regression were generally proportional to baseline pretreatment cardiovascular risk, whereas the X-learner observed-correctly-that individual treatment effects were often not proportional to baseline risk. CONCLUSIONS:Predictions for individual treatment effects from trial data reveal that patients may experience ARRs not simply proportional to baseline cardiovascular disease risk. Machine learning methods may improve discrimination and calibration of individualized treatment effect estimates from clinical trial data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT01206062; NCT00000620.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Generalizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes Mellitus.

Publications

Generalizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes Mellitus.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets