Dataset Information

Evaluation of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Reduction and Association With Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Optimal blood pressure (BP) targets for the prevention of cognitive impairment remain uncertain.

Objective

To explore the association of intensive (ie, lower than usual) BP reduction vs standard BP management with the incidence of cognitive decline and dementia in adults with hypertension.

Data sources and study selection

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that evaluated the association of intensive systolic BP lowering on cognitive outcomes by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to October 27, 2020.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data screening and extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Random-effects models with the inverse variance method were used for pooled analyses. The presence of potential heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 index.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was cognitive decline. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), cerebrovascular events, serious adverse events, and all-cause mortality.

Results

From 7755 citations, we identified 16 publications from 5 trials with 17 396 participants (mean age, 65.7 years [range, 63.0-80.5 years]; 10 562 [60.5%] men) and 2 additional ongoing trials. All 5 concluded trials included in quantitative analyses were considered at unclear to high risk of bias. The mean follow-up duration was 3.3 years (range, 2.0 to 4.7 years). Intensive BP reduction was not significantly associated with global cognitive performance (standardized mean difference, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.06; I2 = 0%; 4 trials; 5246 patients), incidence of dementia (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.32 to 3.67; I2 = 27%; 2 trials; 9444 patients) or incidence of MCI (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.14; I2 = 74%; 2 trials; 10 774 patients) when compared with standard treatment. However, a reduction of cerebrovascular events in the intensive group was found (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.93; I2 = 0%; 5 trials; 17 396 patients) without an increased risk of serious adverse events or mortality.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, there was no significant association between BP reduction and lower risk of cognitive decline, dementia, or MCI. The certainty of this evidence was rated low because of the limited sample size, the risk of bias of included trials, and the observed statistical heterogeneity. Therefore, current available evidence does not justify the use of lower BP targets for the prevention of cognitive decline and dementia.

SUBMITTER: Dallaire-Theroux C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8609411 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere are currently no proven treatments to reduce the risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of intensive blood pressure control on risk of dementia.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial conducted at 102 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico among adults aged 50 years or older with hypertension but without diabetes or history of stroke. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The trial was stopped early for benefit on its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. The final date for follow-up of cognitive outcomes was July 22, 2018.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group; n = 4678) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group; n = 4683).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary cognitive outcome was occurrence of adjudicated probable dementia. Secondary cognitive outcomes included adjudicated mild cognitive impairment and a composite outcome of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia.ResultsAmong 9361 randomized participants (mean age, 67.9 years; 3332 women [35.6%]), 8563 (91.5%) completed at least 1 follow-up cognitive assessment. The median intervention period was 3.34 years. During a total median follow-up of 5.11 years, adjudicated probable dementia occurred in 149 participants in the intensive treatment group vs 176 in the standard treatment group (7.2 vs 8.6 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04). Intensive BP control significantly reduced the risk of mild cognitive impairment (14.6 vs 18.3 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95) and the combined rate of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia (20.2 vs 24.1 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97).Conclusions and relevanceAmong ambulatory adults with hypertension, treating to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a goal of less than 140 mm Hg did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of probable dementia. Because of early study termination and fewer than expected cases of dementia, the study may have been underpowered for this end point.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Project description:ImportanceThe effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on brain health remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of intensive blood pressure treatment with cerebral white matter lesion and brain volumes.Design, setting, and participantsA substudy of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of hypertensive adults 50 years or older without a history of diabetes or stroke at 27 sites in the United States. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The overall trial was stopped early because of benefit for its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on a subset of participants at baseline (n = 670) and at 4 years of follow-up (n = 449); final follow-up date was July 1, 2016.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment, n = 355) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment, n = 315).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in total white matter lesion volume from baseline. Change in total brain volume was a secondary outcome.ResultsAmong 670 recruited patients who had baseline MRI (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 8.2] years; 40.4% women), 449 (67.0%) completed the follow-up MRI at a median of 3.97 years after randomization, after a median intervention period of 3.40 years. In the intensive treatment group, based on a robust linear mixed model, mean white matter lesion volume increased from 4.57 to 5.49 cm3 (difference, 0.92 cm3 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.14]) vs an increase from 4.40 to 5.85 cm3 (difference, 1.45 cm3 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.70]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -0.54 cm3 [95% CI, -0.87 to -0.20]). Mean total brain volume decreased from 1134.5 to 1104.0 cm3 (difference, -30.6 cm3 [95% CI, -32.3 to -28.8]) in the intensive treatment group vs a decrease from 1134.0 to 1107.1 cm3 (difference, -26.9 cm3 [95% CI, 24.8 to 28.8]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -3.7 cm3 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.1]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong hypertensive adults, targeting an SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, compared with less than 140 mm Hg, was significantly associated with a smaller increase in cerebral white matter lesion volume and a greater decrease in total brain volume, although the differences were small.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Project description:ImportanceOlder patients with hypertension receiving intensive systolic blood pressure control (110-130 mm Hg) have lower incidences of cardiovascular events than those receiving standard control (130-150 mm Hg). Nevertheless, the mortality reduction is insignificant, and intensive blood pressure management results in more medical costs from treatments and subsequent adverse events.ObjectiveTo examine the incremental lifetime outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of intensive vs standard blood pressure control in older patients with hypertension from the health care payer's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic analysis was conducted with a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management among patients aged 60 to 80 years with hypertension. Treatment outcome data from the Trial of Intensive Blood-Pressure Control in Older Patients With Hypertension (STEP trial) and different cardiovascular risk assessment models for a hypothetical cohort of STEP-eligible patients were used. Costs and utilities were obtained from published sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against the willingness-to-pay threshold was used to evaluate whether the management was cost-effective. Extensive sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses were performed to address uncertainty. The US and UK population using race-specific cardiovascular risk models were conducted in the generalizability analysis. Data for the STEP trial were collected from February 10 to March 10, 2022, and were analyzed for the present study from March 10 to May 15, 2022.InterventionsHypertension treatments with a systolic blood pressure target of 110 to 130 mm Hg or 130 to 150 mm Hg.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and ICER are discounted at the given rates annually.ResultsAfter simulating 10 000 STEP-eligible patients assumed to be 66 years of age (4650 men [46.5%] and 5350 women [53.5%]) in the model, the ICER values were ¥51 675 ($12 362) per QALY gained in China, $25 417 per QALY gained in the US, and £4679 ($7004) per QALY gained in the UK. Simulations projected that the intensive management in China being cost-effective were 94.3% and 100% below the willingness-to-pay thresholds of 1 time (¥89 300 [$21 364]/QALY) and 3 times (¥267 900 [$64 090]/QALY) the gross domestic product per capita, respectively. The US had 86.9% and 95.6% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at $50 000/QALY and $100 000/QALY, respectively, and the UK had 99.1% and 100% of probabilities of cost-effectiveness at £20 000 ($29 940)/QALY and £30 000 ($44 910)/QALY, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, the intensive systolic blood pressure control in older patients produced fewer cardiovascular events and had acceptable costs per QALY gained, well below the typical willingness-to-pay thresholds. The cost-effective advantages of intensive blood pressure management in older patients were consistent over various clinical scenarios across different countries.

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:IntroductionThe effect of intensive blood pressure control upon erectile function in men with hypertension, but without diabetes, is largely unknown.AimTo examine the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering on erectile function in a multiethnic clinical trial of men with hypertension.MethodsWe performed subgroup analyses from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial ([SPRINT]; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT120602, in a sample of 1255 men aged 50 years or older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular disease risk. Participants were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment group (SBP goal of <120 mmHg) or a standard treatment group (SBP goal of <140 mmHg).Main outcome measureThe main outcome measure was change in erectile function from baseline, using the 5-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) total score, and erectile dysfunction ([ED]; defined as IIEF-5 score ≤21) after a median follow-up of 3 years.ResultsAt baseline, roughly two-thirds (66.1%) of the sample had self-reported ED. At 48 months after randomization, we determined that the effects of more intensive blood pressure lowering were significantly moderated by race-ethnicity (p for interaction = 0.0016), prompting separate analyses stratified by race-ethnicity. In non-Hispanic whites, participants in the intensive treatment group reported slightly, but significantly better change in the IIEF-5 score than those in the standard treatment group (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.03, 1.32; P = 0.041). In non-Hispanic blacks, participants in the intensive group reported slightly worse change in the IIEF-5 score than those in the standard group (mean difference = -1.17; 95% CI = -1.92, -0.41; P = 0.0025). However, in non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks, further adjustment for the baseline IIEF-5 score resulted in nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) according to the treatment group. In Hispanic/other participants, there were no significant differences in change in the IIEF-5 score between the two treatment groups (P = 0.40). In a subgroup of 280 participants who did not report ED at baseline, the incidence of ED did not differ in the two treatment groups (P = 0.53) and was without interaction by race-ethnicity.Clinical implicationsThe effect of intensive treatment of blood pressure on erectile function was very small overall and likely not of great clinical magnitude.Strength & limitationsAlthough this study included a validated measure of erectile function, testosterone, other androgen, and estrogen levels were not assessed.ConclusionIn a sample of male patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in statistically significant effects on erectile function that differed in accordance with race-ethnicity, although the clinical importance of the differences may be of small magnitude. Foy CG, Newman JC, Russell GB, et al. Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Treatment Upon Erectile Function in Hypertensive Men: Findings From the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. J Sex Med 2020;17:238-248.

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 .).