Dataset Information

Kidney Disease, Intensive Hypertension Treatment, and Risk for Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Intensively treating hypertension may benefit cardiovascular disease and cognitive function, but at the short-term expense of reduced kidney function.

Methods

We investigated markers of kidney function and the effect of intensive hypertension treatment on incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in 9361 participants in the randomized Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, which compared intensive versus standard systolic BP lowering (targeting <120 mm Hg versus <140 mm Hg, respectively). We categorized participants according to baseline and longitudinal changes in eGFR and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio. Primary outcomes were occurrence of adjudicated probable dementia and MCI.

Results

Among 8563 participants who completed at least one cognitive assessment during follow-up (median 5.1 years), probable dementia occurred in 325 (3.8%) and MCI in 640 (7.6%) participants. In multivariable adjusted analyses, there was no significant association between baseline eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m² and risk for dementia or MCI. In time-varying analyses, eGFR decline ≥30% was associated with a higher risk for probable dementia. Incident eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m² was associated with a higher risk for MCI and a composite of dementia or MCI. Although these kidney events occurred more frequently in the intensive treatment group, there was no evidence that they modified or attenuated the effect of intensive treatment on dementia and MCI incidence. Baseline and incident urinary ACR ≥30 mg/g were not associated with probable dementia or MCI, nor did the urinary ACR modify the effect of intensive treatment on cognitive outcomes.

Conclusions

Among hypertensive adults, declining kidney function measured by eGFR is associated with increased risk for probable dementia and MCI, independent of the intensity of hypertension treatment.

SUBMITTER: Kurella Tamura M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7461687 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This series of articles for rehabilitation in practice aims to cover a knowledge element of the rehabilitation medicine curriculum. Nevertheless, they are intended to be of interest to a multidisciplinary audience. The competency addressed in this article is an understanding of how to develop an intervention for people with mild cognitive impairment and dementia to promote their independence, stability, and physical activity.IntroductionOlder adults with dementia are at a high risk of falls. Standard interventions have not been shown to be effective in this patient population potentially due to poor consideration of dementia-specific risk factors. An intervention is required that addresses the particular needs of older people with dementia in a community setting.MethodsWe followed guidelines for the development of an intervention, which recommend a structured approach considering theory, evidence and practical issues. The process used 15 information sources. Data from literature reviews, clinician workshops, expert opinion meetings, patient-relative interviews, focus groups with people with dementia and clinicians, a cross-sectional survey of risk factors, a pre-post intervention study and case studies were included. Data were synthesized using triangulation to produce an intervention suitable for feasibility testing. Practical consideration of how an intervention could be delivered and implemented were considered from the outset.ResultsElements of the intervention included individually tailored, dementia-appropriate, balance, strength and dual-task exercises, functional training, and activities aimed at improving environmental access, delivered using a motivational approach to support adherence and long-term continuation of activity. We focussed on promoting safe activity rather than risk or prevention of falls.ConclusionWe used a systematic process to develop a dementia-specific intervention to promote activity and independence while reducing falls risk in older adults with mild dementia.

Project description:BackgroundMild cognitive impairment and cognitive impairment, no dementia, are emerging terms that encompass the clinical state between normal cognition and dementia in elderly people. Controversy surrounds their characterization, definition and application in clinical practice. In this article, we provide physicians with practical guidance on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of mild cognitive impairment and cognitive impairment, no dementia, based on recommendations from the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia, held in March 2006.MethodsWe developed evidence-based guidelines using systematic literature searches, with specific criteria for study selection and quality assessment, and a clear and transparent decision-making process. We selected studies published from January 1996 to December 2005 that had mild cognitive impairment or cognitive impairment, no dementia, as the outcome. Subsequent to the conference, we searched for additional articles published between January 2006 and January 2008. We graded the strength of evidence using the criteria of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.ResultsWe identified 2483 articles, of which 314 were considered to be relevant and of good or fair quality. From a synthesis of the evidence in these studies, we made 16 recommendations. In brief, family physicians should be aware that most types of dementia are preceded by a recognizable phase of mild cognitive decline. They should be familiar with the concepts of mild cognitive impairment and of cognitive impairment, no dementia. Patients with these conditions should be closely monitored because of their increased risk for dementia. Leisure activities, cognitive stimulation and physical activity could be promoted as part of a healthy lifestyle in elderly people and those with mild cognitive impairment. Vascular risk factors should be treated optimally. No other specific therapies can yet be recommended.InterpretationPhysicians will increasingly see elderly patients with mild memory loss, and learning an approach to diagnosing states such as mild cognitive impairment is now warranted. Close monitoring for progression to dementia, promotion of a healthy lifestyle and treatment of vascular risk factors are recommended for the management of patients with mild cognitive impairment.

Project description:Background High visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) and hypertension are risk factors for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and probable dementia (PD). Few articles assessed the effect of BPV on the MCI and PD in intensive blood pressure treatment and the different functions of three types of visit-to-visit BPV: systolic blood pressure variability (SBPV), diastolic blood pressure variability (DBPV) and pulse pressure variability (PPV). Methods We performed a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial. The primary outcomes were MCI and PD. BPV was measured by average real variability (ARV). The Kaplan-Meier curves were used to clarify the difference in tertiles of BPV. We fit Cox proportional hazards models to our outcome. We also did an interaction analysis between the intensive and standard groups. Results We enrolled 8,346 patients in the SPRINT MIND trial. The incidence of MCI and PD in the intensive group was lower than that in the standard group. 353 patients had MCI and 101 patients had PD in the standard group while 285 patients had MCI and 75 patients had PD in the intensive group. Tertiles with higher SBPV, DBPV and PPV in the standard group had a higher risk of MCI and PD (all p < 0.05). Meanwhile, higher SBPV and PPV in the intensive group were associated with an increased risk of PD (SBPV: HR(95%) = 2.1 (1.1–3.9), p = 0.026; PPV: HR(95%) = 2.0 (1.1–3.8), p = 0.025 in model 3) and higher SBPV in the intensive group was associated with an increased risk of MCI(HR(95%) = 1.4 (1.2–1.8), p < 0.001 in model 3). The difference between intensive and standard blood pressure treatment was not statistically significant when we considered the effect of the higher BPV on the risk of MCI and PD (all p for interaction >0.05). Conclusion In this post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial, we found that higher SBPV and PPV were associated with an increased risk of PD in the intensive group, and higher SBPV was associated with an increased risk of MCI in the intensive group. The effect of higher BPV on the risk of MCI and PD was not significantly different in intensive and standard blood pressure treatment. These findings emphasized the need for clinical work to monitor BPV in intensive blood pressure treatment.

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:It is currently unknown whether intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering beyond that recommended would lead to more lowering of the risk of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in patients with hypertension and whether reducing the risk of LVH explains the reported cardiovascular disease (CVD) benefits of intensive BP lowering in this population. METHODS:This analysis included 8164 participants (mean age, 67.9 years; 35.3% women; 31.2% blacks) with hypertension but no diabetes mellitus from the SPRINT trial (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial): 4086 randomly assigned to intensive BP lowering (target SBP <120 mm Hg) and 4078 assigned to standard BP lowering (target SBP <140 mm Hg). Progression and regression of LVH as defined by Cornell voltage criteria derived from standard 12-lead ECGs recorded at baseline and biannually were compared between treatment arms during a median follow-up of 3.81 years. The effect of intensive (versus standard) BP lowering on the SPRINT primary CVD outcome (a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, and CVD death) was compared before and after adjustment for LVH as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS:Among SPRINT participants without baseline LVH (n=7559), intensive (versus standard) BP lowering was associated with a 46% lower risk of developing LVH (hazard ratio=0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.68). Similarly, among SPRINT participants with baseline LVH (n=605, 7.4%), those assigned to the intensive (versus standard) BP lowering were 66% more likely to regress/improve their LVH (hazard ratio=1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.11). Adjustment for LVH as a time-varying covariate did not substantially attenuate the effect of intensive BP therapy on CVD events (hazard ratio of intensive versus standard BP lowering on CVD, 0.76 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.90] and 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.91] before and after adjustment for LVH as a time-varying covariate, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with hypertension but no diabetes mellitus, intensive BP lowering (target systolic BP <120 mm Hg) compared with standard BP lowering (target systolic BP <140 mm Hg) resulted in lower rates of developing new LVH in those without LVH and higher rates of regression of LVH in those with existing LVH. This favorable effect on LVH did not explain most of the reduction in CVD events associated with intensive BP lowering in the SPRINT trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease is common and is associated with cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and cognitive function, although the nature of this relationship remains uncertain.Study designCross-sectional cohort using baseline data from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).Setting & participantsParticipants in SPRINT, a randomized clinical trial of blood pressure targets in older community-dwelling adults with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or high cardiovascular disease risk and without diabetes or known stroke, who underwent detailed neurocognitive testing in the cognition substudy, SPRINT-Memory and Cognition in Decreased Hypertension (SPRINT-MIND).PredictorsUrine albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).OutcomesCognitive function, a priori defined as 5 cognitive domains based on 11 cognitive tests using z scores, and abnormal white matter volume quantified by brain magnetic resonance imaging.ResultsOf 9,361 SPRINT participants, 2,800 participated in SPRINT-MIND and 2,707 had complete data; 637 had brain imaging. Mean age was 68 years, 37% were women, 30% were black, and 20% had known cardiovascular disease. Mean eGFR was 70.8±20.9mL/min/1.73m2 and median urine ACR was 9.7 (IQR, 5.7-22.5) mg/g. In adjusted analyses, higher ACR was associated with worse global cognitive function, executive function, memory, and attention, such that each doubling of urine ACR had the same association with cognitive performance as being 7, 10, 6, and 14 months older, respectively. Lower eGFR was independently associated with worse global cognitive function and memory. In adjusted models, higher ACR, but not eGFR, was associated with larger abnormal white matter volume.LimitationsCross-sectional only, no patients with diabetes were included.ConclusionsIn older adults, higher urine ACR and lower eGFR have independent associations with global cognitive performance with different affected domains. Albuminuria concurrently identifies a higher burden of abnormal brain white matter disease, suggesting that vascular disease may mediate these relationships.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension and cognitive impairment often coexist in older people. Office blood pressure measurement is a poor indicator for diagnosing hypertension in the general population. However, its diagnostic accuracy has not been substantially studied in patients with cognitive impairment.AimThe aim of this study was to determine the proportion of misdiagnosis of hypertension in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia compared to no cognitive impairment, by comparing office blood pressure measurement with home blood pressure measurement.MethodsA cross-sectional study including consecutive patients visiting a memory clinic between 2014 and 2017. Home blood pressure was measured for one week according to the European guidelines. Office blood pressure was assessed during routine clinical practice. Using guideline definitions for normal blood pressure and hypertension, we investigated the proportion of disagreement between office blood pressure measurement and home blood pressure measurement. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression compared disagreement in diagnosis between patients with dementia, mild cognitive impairment and no cognitive impairment.ResultsOf 213 patients (aged 73.4±9.0 years, 42% women) 82 had dementia, 65 had mild cognitive impairment and 66 had no cognitive impairment. Mean office blood pressure was 156/84±23/11 mmHg and mean home blood pressure was 139/79±16/10 mmHg. In 31% of patients, there was disagreement in hypertension diagnosis. This proportion was higher for mild cognitive impairment (38.5%) and dementia (35.4%) compared to no cognitive impairment (18.2%), with adjusted odds ratios of 3.7 (95% confidence interval 1.5-9.0), P=0.005 for mild cognitive impairment and 3.4 (1.3-8.6), P=0.011 for dementia.ConclusionsIn memory clinic patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment, the diagnostic accuracy of office blood pressure measurement is lower compared to patients without cognitive impairment. To avoid the risk of making improper treatment decisions in this vulnerable group, a diagnosis of hypertension should be based on home blood pressure measurement, not office blood pressure measurement.

Project description:ImportanceThe cardiovascular and renal outcomes of angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) treatment are well-known; however, few studies have evaluated initiation of these agents and cognitive impairment.ObjectiveTo emulate a target trial to evaluate the cognitive outcomes of initiating an ARB- vs ACEI-based antihypertensive regimen in individuals at risk for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and probable dementia (PD).Design, setting, and participantsActive comparator, new-user observational cohort study design using data from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), conducted November 2010 through July 2018. Marginal cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and treatment-specific cumulative incidence functions were estimated with inverse probability (IP) weighting to account for confounding. Participants were using neither an ARB nor ACEI at baseline. Data analysis was conducted from April 7, 2021, to April 26, 2022.ExposuresNew users of ARB vs ACEI during the first 12 months of trial follow-up.Main outcomes and measuresComposite of adjudicated amnestic MCI or PD.ResultsOf 9361 participants, 727 and 1313 new users of an ARB or ACEI, respectively, with well-balanced baseline characteristics between medication exposure groups after inverse probability weighting (mean [SD] age, 67 [9.5] years; 1291 ]63%] male; 240 [33%] Black; 89 [12%] Hispanic; 383 [53%] White; and 15 [2%] other race or ethnicity. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 4.9 years, the inverse probability-weighted rate of amnestic MCI or PD was 4.3 vs 4.6 per 100 person-years among participants initiating ARB vs ACEI (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.13). In subgroup analyses, new users of an ARB vs ACEI had a lower rate of amnestic MCI or PD among those in the standard systolic blood pressure treatment arm (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.91) but not in the intensive arm (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.52) (P = .007 for interaction).Conclusions and relevanceIn this observational cohort study of US adults at high cardiovascular disease risk, there was no difference in the rate of amnestic MCI or PD among new users of an ARB compared with ACEI, although 95% CIs were wide.