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:BackgroundPrevious studies indicated that intensive blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP < 120 mm·Hg) compared with standard BP control (<140 mm·Hg) was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) among hypertensive patients with normoglycemia. However, the impact of intensive BP control on the incidence of T2D for those with IFG is still unknown.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) of the study. We included participants with IFG at randomization, which was defined as fasting blood glucose (FBG) between 100 and 125 mg/dL. The primary outcome was incident T2D, defined as events of reaching FBG ≥ 126 mg/dL, participant self-report T2D at annual examination, or a record of hypoglycemic medications at follow-up. The secondary outcome was incident IFG reversion (IFGR), defined as the time to first FBG back to normoglycemia (<100 mg/dl) among participants without incident T2D. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the cumulative incidence of outcomes between the two BP control groups. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsA total of 3310 participants were included in our primary outcome analysis (median age 67 years, 29% female). There were 293 participants who developed T2D among the intensive BP control group and 256 participants who developed T2D among the standard BP control group, resulting in 56.87 (50.36-63.39) versus 49.33 (43.29-55.37) events per 1000 person-years of treatment (HR 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.40], P=0.052). After excluding 549 participants who developed T2D, 2761 participants were included in our secondary outcome analysis with 559 participants who developed IFGR among the intensive BP control group and 632 participants who developed IFGR among the standard BP control group, resulting in 141.20 (129.50-152.91) versus 158.20 (145.86,170.53) events per 1000 person-years of treatment (HR 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.01], P=0.067).ConclusionsOur study found that in comparison to the standard BP control for hypertensive patients with IFG, intensive BP control was associated with a small increased risk of new-onset T2D, though it did not reach statistical significance. This kind of impact should be considered when implementing the strategy, especially for those with high risks of developing T2D. This trial is registered with NCT01206062.

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.

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