Dataset Information

Time to Clinical Benefit of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering in Patients 60 Years and Older With Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Recent guidelines recommend a systolic blood pressure (BP) goal of less than 150 mm Hg or even 130 mm Hg for adults aged 60 years or older. However, harms from intensive BP treatments occur immediately (eg, syncope, fall), and benefits for cardiovascular event reduction emerge over time. Therefore, harms with low chance of benefit need to be clearer, particularly for those with limited life expectancy.

Objective

To estimate the time needed to potentially derive clinical benefit from intensive BP treatment in patients 60 years and older.

Design, setting, and participants

This secondary analysis included individual patient data from published randomized clinical trials with 27 414 patients 60 years or older with hypertension. Patient-level survival data were reconstructed when the original data were not available. Published trials were identified by searching PubMed until October 15, 2021.

Exposures

Intensive BP lowering vs standard BP lowering with the treat-to-target design.

Main outcomes and measures

Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) defined by each trial, which was broadly similar with all trials including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality.

Results

Six trials (original data from 2 trials and reconstructed data from 4 trials) with 27 414 participants (mean age, 70 years; 56.3% were women) were included in the analysis. Intensive BP treatment with a systolic BP target below 140 mm Hg was significantly associated with a 21% reduction in MACE (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.88; P < .001). On average, 9.1 (95% CI, 4.0-20.6) months were needed to prevent 1 MACE per 500 patients with the intensive BP treatment (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 0.002). Likewise, 19.1 (95% CI, 10.9-34.2) and 34.4 (95% CI, 22.7-59.8) months were estimated to avoid 1 MACE per 200 (ARR, 0.005) and 100 (ARR, 0.01) patients, respectively.

Conclusions and relevance

In this analysis, findings suggest that for patients 60 years and older with hypertension, intensive BP treatment may be appropriate for some adults with a life expectancy of greater than 3 years but may not be suitable for those with less than 1 year.

SUBMITTER: Chen T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9086939 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIntensive vs standard treatment to lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduces risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia; however, the magnitude of cognitive benefit likely varies among patients.ObjectiveTo estimate the magnitude of cognitive benefit of intensive vs standard systolic BP (SBP) treatment.Design, setting, and participantsIn this ad hoc secondary analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), 9361 randomized clinical trial participants 50 years or older with high cardiovascular risk but without a history of diabetes, stroke, or dementia were followed up. The SPRINT trial was conducted between November 1, 2010, and August 31, 2016, and the present analysis was completed on October 31, 2022.InterventionSystolic blood pressure treatment to an intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) target.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of adjudicated probable dementia or amnestic MCI.ResultsA total of 7918 SPRINT participants were included in the analysis; 3989 were in the intensive treatment group (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.2] years; 2570 [64.4%] men; 1212 [30.4%] non-Hispanic Black) and 3929 were in the standard treatment group (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.4] years; 2570 [65.4%] men; 1249 [31.8%] non-Hispanic Black). Over a median follow-up of 4.13 (IQR, 3.50-5.88) years, there were 765 and 828 primary outcome events in the intensive treatment group and standard treatment group, respectively. Older age (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.78-1.96]), Medicare enrollment (HR per 1 SD, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.35-1.49]), and higher baseline serum creatinine level (HR per 1 SD, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.19-1.29]) were associated with higher risk of the primary outcome, while better baseline cognitive functioning (HR per 1 SD, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.41-0.44]) and active employment status (HR per 1 SD, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.42-0.46]) were associated with lower risk of the primary outcome. Risk of the primary outcome by treatment goal was estimated accurately based on similar projected and observed absolute risk differences (C statistic = 0.79). Higher baseline risk for the primary outcome was associated with greater benefit (ie, larger absolute reduction of probable dementia or amnestic MCI) of intensive vs standard treatment across the full range of estimated baseline risk.Conclusions and relevanceIn this secondary analysis of the SPRINT trial, participants with higher baseline projected risk of probable dementia or amnestic MCI gained greater absolute cognitive benefit from intensive vs standard SBP treatment in a monotonic fashion.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: 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:BackgroundLimited data are available to guide the choice of a target for the systolic blood-pressure level when treating acute hypertensive response in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage.MethodsWe randomly assigned eligible participants with intracerebral hemorrhage (volume, <60 cm(3)) and a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 5 or more (on a scale from 3 to 15, with lower scores indicating worse condition) to a systolic blood-pressure target of 110 to 139 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of 140 to 179 mm Hg (standard treatment) in order to test the superiority of intensive reduction of systolic blood pressure to standard reduction; intravenous nicardipine to lower blood pressure was administered within 4.5 hours after symptom onset. The primary outcome was death or disability (modified Rankin scale score of 4 to 6, on a scale ranging from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 3 months after randomization, as ascertained by an investigator who was unaware of the treatment assignments.ResultsAmong 1000 participants with a mean (±SD) systolic blood pressure of 200.6±27.0 mm Hg at baseline, 500 were assigned to intensive treatment and 500 to standard treatment. The mean age of the patients was 61.9 years, and 56.2% were Asian. Enrollment was stopped because of futility after a prespecified interim analysis. The primary outcome of death or disability was observed in 38.7% of the participants (186 of 481) in the intensive-treatment group and in 37.7% (181 of 480) in the standard-treatment group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.27; analysis was adjusted for age, initial GCS score, and presence or absence of intraventricular hemorrhage). Serious adverse events occurring within 72 hours after randomization that were considered by the site investigator to be related to treatment were reported in 1.6% of the patients in the intensive-treatment group and in 1.2% of those in the standard-treatment group. The rate of renal adverse events within 7 days after randomization was significantly higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (9.0% vs. 4.0%, P=0.002).ConclusionsThe treatment of participants with intracerebral hemorrhage to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of 110 to 139 mm Hg did not result in a lower rate of death or disability than standard reduction to a target of 140 to 179 mm Hg. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center; ATACH-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01176565 .).

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.

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.