Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Treatment According to Baseline Prediabetes Status: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial

Role of Diuretics in Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: A Post Hoc Analysis

BACKGROUND

In a post hoc analysis, we examined whether postrandomization diuretics use can explain and/or mediate the beneficial effects of intensive systolic BP lowering on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

METHODS

SPRINT was a randomized, controlled trial of 9361 participants comparing the effects of intensive (systolic BP target <120 mm Hg) versus standard (systolic BP target <140 mm Hg) BP control on a primary composite cardiovascular end point in participants aged 50 years or older with systolic BP of 130-180 mm Hg. In time-varying multivariable Cox analyses, we assessed hazard ratios (HRs) of cardiovascular end points and all-cause mortality in participants on thiazide type, loop and/or potassium (K) sparing, or no diuretics. We also conducted mediation analysis to formally assess the role of diuretics in the effects of intensive systolic BP lowering.

RESULTS

At baseline, diuretics were prescribed in 46% and 48% of participants in standard and intensive systolic BP-lowering groups, respectively, and in 46% and 74% in the corresponding groups during the trial. The lower risk of cardiovascular end points in the intensive group (HR, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89) persisted after adjustment for postrandomization time-varying diuretics use (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89). Across the entire study population, time-varying diuretics use was not associated with cardiovascular end points (compared with no diuretics, HR for thiazide type, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.10, and loop/K sparing, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.73). However, thiazide-type diuretics were associated with lower risk of cardiovascular end points in the intensive (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.85) but not in the standard (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.39) group. In mediation analysis, HRs for total effect, direct effect (not mediated through diuretics use), and indirect effect (mediated through diuretics) of the intervention on cardiovascular end points were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79), 0.67 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.81), and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.10), respectively. The results were largely similar for all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The favorable effects of intensive systolic BP lowering on cardiovascular end points and all-cause mortality in SPRINT were independent of and not mediated by time-varying diuretics use. However, thiazide-type diuretics use associated with benefit if intensive systolic BP lowering was targeted.

The Influence of baseline glycemic status on the effects of intensive blood pressure lowering: Results from the STEP randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering showed cardiovascular benefits in the Strategy of Blood Pressure Intervention in the Elderly Hypertensive Patients (STEP) trial. We investigated whether baseline glycemic status influences the effects of intensive SBP lowering on cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of the STEP trial, participants were randomly assigned to receive intensive (110 to <130 mmHg) or standard SBP treatment (130 to <150 mmHg) and categorized by baseline glycemic status into three subgroups: normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, acute coronary syndrome, acute decompensated heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or death from cardiovascular causes. A competing risk proportional hazards regression model was used in the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 8,318 participants, 3,275, 2,769, and 2,274 had normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 3.33 years, intensive SBP lowering significantly reduced the risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.91). The adjusted hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes subgroups were 0.72 (95% CI 0.49-1.04), 0.69 (95% CI 0.46-1.02), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.56-1.15), respectively. The intensive SBP lowering strategy resulted in similar effects among participants in the three subgroups (all interaction P >0.05). The sensitivity analyses showed consistent results with the main analysis.

CONCLUSION

The effects of intensive SBP lowering on cardiovascular outcomes were consistent among participants with normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes.

Effects of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Lowering on End-Stage Kidney Disease and Kidney Function Decline in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Post Hoc Analysis of ACCORD-BP and SPRINT

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering on the risk of major adverse kidney outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or prediabetes and cardiovascular risk factors.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This post hoc ACCORD-BP subgroup analysis included participants in the standard glucose-lowering arm with cardiovascular risk factors required for SPRINT eligibility. Cox proportional hazards regression models compared the hazard for the composite of dialysis, kidney transplant, sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <15 mL/min/1.73 m2, serum creatinine >3.3 mg/dL, or a sustained eGFR decline ≥57% between the intensive (<120 mmHg) and standard (<140 mmHg) SBP-lowering arms.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 1,966 SPRINT-eligible ACCORD-BP participants (40% women) with a mean age of 63 years. The mean SBP achieved after randomization was 120 ± 14 and 134 ± 15 mmHg in the intensive and standard arms, respectively. The kidney composite outcome occurred at a rate of 9.5 and 7.2 events per 1,000 person-years in the intensive and standard BP arms (hazard ratio [HR] 1.35 [95% CI 0.85-2.14]; P = 0.20). Intensive SBP lowering did not affect the risk of moderately (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.76-1.20]) or severely (HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.66-1.28]) increased albuminuria. Including SPRINT participants with prediabetes in the cohort did not change the overall results.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc subgroup analysis suggests that intensive SBP lowering does not increase the risk of major adverse kidney events in individuals with T2DM and cardiovascular risk factors.

National Heart Center/Saudi Heart Association 2023 Guidelines on the Management of Hypertension

Background

Hypertension is a highly prevalent disease in Saudi Arabia with poor control rates. Updated guidelines are needed to guide the management of hypertension and improve treatment outcomes.

Methodology

A panel of experts representing the National Heart Center (NHC) and the Saudi Heart Association (SHA) reviewed existing evidence and formulated guidance relevant to the local population, clinical practice and the healthcare system. The recommendations were reviewed to ensure scientific and medical accuracy.

Recommendations

Hypertension was defined and a new classification was proposed as relevant to the Saudi population. Recommendations on diagnosis, clinical evaluation, cardiovascular assessment were detailed, along with guidance on measurement modalities and screening/follow-up. Non-pharmacological management is the first line of hypertension treatment. Pharmacological therapy should be used appropriately as needed. Treatment priority is to control blood pressure regardless of the drug class used. The choice of treatment should be tailored to the patient profile in order to achieve treatment targets and ensure patient compliance. Recommendations were provided on pharmacological options available in Saudi Arabia, as well as guidance on the treatment of special conditions.

Conclusion

Hypertension management should be based on appropriate screening, timely diagnosis and lifestyle changes supplemented with pharmacological therapy, as needed. Clinical management should be individualized, and careful consideration should be given to special conditions and patient groups.

Systolic Blood Pressure Time in Target Range and Major Adverse Kidney and Cardiovascular Events

BACKGROUND

Whether time-in-target range (TTR) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) associates with adverse kidney and cardiovascular events remains incompletely understood.

METHODS

This study included participants in 2 clinical trials that compared intensive (<120 mm Hg) and standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP lowering. SBP-TTR for months 0 to 3 was calculated using therapeutic ranges of 110 to 130 mm Hg and 120 to 140 mm Hg for the intensive and standard arms, respectively. Adverse kidney events included the composite of dialysis, kidney transplant, serum creatinine >3.3 mg/dL, sustained eGFR <15 mL/(min·1.73 m2), or sustained eGFR decline >40%. Adverse cardiovascular events included myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular death. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the association between SBP-TTR and kidney and cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Participants with higher TTR were younger and less likely to have preexisting cardiovascular disease. Compared with participants with TTR of 0%, the risk of adverse kidney events was lower for participants with TTR of >0% to 43% (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.57 [0.42-0.76]; P<0.001), 43% to <70% (0.57 [0.42-0.78]; P=0.001), 70% to <100% (0.53 [0.38-0.74]; P<0.001), and 100% (0.33 [0.20-0.57]; P<0.001) in fully adjusted models. The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower for participants with TTR of >0% to 43% (0.66 [0.52-0.83]; P=0.001), 43% to <70% (0.70 [0.55-0.90]; P=0.005), 70% to <100% (0.65 [0.50-0.84]; P=0.001), or 100% (0.56 [0.39-0.80]; P=0.001) compared with those with TTR of 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher SBP-TTR associates with lower risks of adverse kidney and cardiovascular events in adults with hypertension. SBP-TTR may be a potential therapeutic target and quality metric.

Glycemic status and the association of change in blood pressure with incident cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of blood pressure (BP) reduction in individuals with diabetes has not been fully elucidated. We sought to identify the clinical impact of BP reduction on incident cardiovascular disease in people having diabetes and hypertension.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including 754,677 individuals (median age 47 years, 75.8 % men) with stage 1/stage 2 hypertension. Participants were categorized using fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at baseline as normal FPG (FPG < 100 mg/dL) (n = 517,372), prediabetes (FPG:100-125 mg/dL) (n = 197,836), or diabetes mellitus (FPG ≥126 mg/dL) (n = 39,469). The primary outcome was heart failure (HF), and the secondary outcomes included ischemic heart disease (IHD) including myocardial infarction and angina pectoris, and stroke.

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up of 1111 ± 909 days, 18,429 HFs, 17,058 IHDs, and 8,795 strokes were recorded. Reduction in BP of< 120/80 mmHg at 1year was associated with a lower risk of developing HF (HR:0.77, 95% CI:0.72-0.82), IHD (HR:0.84, 95% CI:0.79-0.89), and stroke (HR:0.75, 95% CI:0.69-0.82) in individuals with normal FPG, whereas it was not associated with a risk of developing HF (HR:0.98, 95% CI:0.81-1.17) and stroke (HR:0.82, 95% CI:0.62-1.09) in those with DM. Interaction analyses showed that the influence of BP reduction on incident HF was attenuated with people with prediabetes or DM. A multitude of sensitivity analyses confirmed our results.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of BP reduction with the risk of developing HF was attenuated with deteriorating glucose tolerance. The optimal management strategy for hypertensive people with prediabetes or DM for the prevention of developing cardiovascular disease (particularly HF) is needed to be established.

Blood pressure-lowering treatment for prevention of major cardiovascular diseases in people with and without type 2 diabetes: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists as to whether the threshold for blood pressure-lowering treatment should differ between people with and without type 2 diabetes. We aimed to investigate the effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by type 2 diabetes status, as well as by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure.

METHODS

We conducted a one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analysis of major randomised controlled trials using the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration dataset. Trials with information on type 2 diabetes status at baseline were eligible if they compared blood pressure-lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or an intensive versus a standard blood pressure-lowering strategy, and reported at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively on participants with heart failure or with short-term therapies and acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. We expressed treatment effect per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure on the risk of developing a major cardiovascular event as the primary outcome, defined as the first occurrence of fatal or non-fatal stroke or cerebrovascular disease, fatal or non-fatal ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospitalisation. Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) separately by type 2 diabetes status at baseline, with further stratification by baseline categories of systolic blood pressure (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg). To estimate absolute risk reductions, we used a Poisson regression model over the follow-up duration. The effect of each of the five major blood pressure-lowering drug classes, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics, was estimated using a network meta-analysis framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018099283.

FINDINGS

We included data from 51 randomised clinical trials published between 1981 and 2014 involving 358 533 participants (58% men), among whom 103 325 (29%) had known type 2 diabetes at baseline. The baseline mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure of those with and without type 2 diabetes was 149/84 mm Hg (SD 19/11) and 153/88 mm Hg (SD 21/12), respectively. Over 4·2 years median follow-up (IQR 3·0-5·0), a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events in both groups, but with a weaker relative treatment effect in participants with type 2 diabetes (HR 0·94 [95% CI 0·91-0·98]) compared with those without type 2 diabetes (0·89 [0·87-0·92]; p_interaction=0·0013). However, absolute risk reductions did not differ substantially between people with and without type 2 diabetes because of the higher absolute cardiovascular risk among participants with type 2 diabetes. We found no reliable evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline systolic blood pressure in either group. In keeping with the primary findings, analysis using stratified network meta-analysis showed no evidence that relative treatment effects differed substantially between participants with type 2 diabetes and those without for any of the drug classes investigated.

INTERPRETATION

Although the relative beneficial effects of blood pressure reduction on major cardiovascular events were weaker in participants with type 2 diabetes than in those without, absolute effects were similar. The difference in relative risk reduction was not related to the baseline blood pressure or allocation to different drug classes. Therefore, the adoption of differential blood pressure thresholds, intensities of blood pressure lowering, or drug classes used in people with and without type 2 diabetes is not warranted.

FUNDING

British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School.

Management of dyslipidemia and atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in prediabetes

Prediabetes affects at least 1 in 3 adults in the U.S. and 1 in 5 in Europe. Although guidelines advocate aggressive management of lipid parameters in diabetes, most guidelines do not address treatment of dyslipidemia in prediabetes despite the increased atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Several criteria are used to diagnose prediabetes: impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and HbA1c of 5.7-6.4%. Individuals with prediabetes have a greater risk of diabetes, a higher prevalence of dyslipidemia with a more atherogenic lipid profile and an increased risk of ASCVD. In addition to calculating ASCVD risk using traditional methods, an OGTT may further stratify risk. Those with 1-hour plasma glucose ≥8.6 mmol/L (155 mg/dL) and/or 2-hour ≥7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) (IGT) have a greater risk of ASCVD. Diet and lifestyle modification are fundamental in prediabetes. Statins, ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors are recommended in people requiring pharmacotherapy. Although high-intensity statins may increase risk of diabetes, this is acceptable because of the greater reduction of ASCVD. The LDL-C goal in prediabetes should be individualized. In those with IGT and/or elevated 1-hour plasma glucose, the same intensive approach to dyslipidemia as recommended for diabetes should be considered, particularly if other ASCVD risk factors are present.

Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes-The Novel Treatment Possibilities

Elevated blood pressure and hyperglycaemia frequently coexist and are both components of metabolic syndrome. Enhanced cardiovascular risk is strongly associated with diabetes and the occurrence of hypertension. Both hypertension and type 2 diabetes, if treated inappropriately, lead to serious complications, increasing the mortality of patients and generating much higher costs of health systems. This is why it is of great importance to find the missing link between hypertension and diabetes development and to simultaneously search for drugs influencing these two disorders or even drugs aimed at their pathological bases. Standard antihypertensive therapy mainly focuses on blood pressure reduction, while novel drugs also possess a wide range of pleiotropic modes of actions, such as cardio- and nephroprotective properties or body weight reduction. These properties are especially desirable in a situation when type 2 diabetes coexists with hypertension. This review describes the connections between diabetes and hypertension development and briefly summarises the current knowledge regarding attempts to define targets for the treatment of high blood pressure in diabetic patients. It also describes the standard hypotensive drugs preferred in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as novel drugs, such as finerenone, esaxerenone, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues and sacubitril/valsartan.

Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Diabetes: A Comparison of Professional Society Guidelines

In this review, we compare major points given in the 2021 American Diabetes Association and the 2020 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology guidelines, in particular, the assessment and management of cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes with a focus on dyslipidemia, blood pressure, and pharmacotherapy in diabetes.

Establishing target systolic and diastolic blood pressure in diabetic patients with hypertension: what do we need to consider?

INTRODUCTION

The optimum target for systolic and diastolic blood pressure remains divisive. In particular, the conflicting outcomes of the SPRINT and ACCORD trials have led to a divergence of guideline-recommended blood pressure targets for adults with diabetes.

AREAS COVERED

Here, we review the existing recommendations for blood pressure targets in diabetes, discussing the evidence base behind them and their limitations. We start by outlining the risks and benefits of lower systolic blood pressure targets among diabetics. We then follow with a separate appraisal of diastolic blood pressure targets, which necessitates examination of the 'J curve' and isolated diastolic hypertension.

EXPERT OPINION

Current and emerging evidence supports, on balance, a blood pressure therapeutic target of < 130/90 mmHg in adults at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, including diabetics. Whether certain diabetics with systolic BPs of 120-130 and/or diastolic BPs 80-90 mmHg require drug treatment to a target of <120/80 mmHg is less clear and requires more research.

Body Roundness Index Is a Superior Obesity Index in Predicting Diabetes Risk Among Hypertensive Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study in China

Objective: Individuals with both hypertension and diabetes have been confirmed to significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality compared with those with only hypertension or diabetes. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of different anthropometric indices for predicting diabetes risk among hypertensive patients.

Methods: The study group consisted of 6,990 hypertensive adults without diabetes who were recruited in China. Demographic and clinical assessment, physical examinations, laboratory tests, and anthropometric measurements, including body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), hip circumference (HC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), and novel indices (ABSI, AVI, BAI, BRI, CI, WWI, and WHHR), were performed at baseline and during the (median) 3-year follow-up. Cox regression analyses were conducted to estimate effects from these indices for the onset of diabetes. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted to assess the predictive capacities of the anthropometric indices and determine the optimal cut-points.

Results: A total of 816 (11.7%) developed diabetes during our prospective study. Multivariate Cox regression analyses revealed weight, WC, WHR, WHtR, BAI, BRI, and WWI as the independent risk factor for diabetes among hypertensive patients, regardless of whether it was treated as a continuous or categorical variable (P < 0.05). Further Cox analyses combining BMI and different central obesity indices showed that elevated WC, WHR, WHtR, AVI, BRI, CI, regardless of the general obesity status, were found to be each independently associated with increased diabetes risk (P < 0.05). Dynamic increases of BRI < 5.24 to BRI ≥ 5.24 were associated with increased risk (HR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.64), and its reversal was associated with reduced risk (HR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.23, 1.98) compared with the others (HR = 1.95; 95% CI, 1.63, 2.32). ROC analysis indicated that the areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the anthropometric indices ranged from 0.531 to 0.63, with BRI (cut-off value = 4.62) and WHtR having the largest area.

Conclusions: Based on this novel study, BRI was the most superior predictor and independent determinant for diabetes onset among the hypertensive population. Hypertensive patients with BRI > 4.62, regardless of general obesity status, were at high risk of diabetes. Thus, the prompt screening and diagnosis of diabetes should be carried out among these patients for timely integrated intervention.

SPRINT Revisited: Updated Results and Implications

The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) results have influenced clinical practice but have also generated discussion regarding the validity, generalizability, and importance of the findings. Following the SPRINT primary results manuscript in 2015, additional results and analyses of the data have addressed these concerns. The primary objective of this article is to respond to key questions that have been raised.

Association of Anthropometric Indices With the Development of Diabetes Among Hypertensive Patients in China: A Cohort Study

Background

Patients with comorbidity of hypertension and diabetes are associated with higher morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular disease than those with hypertension or diabetes alone. The present study aimed to identify anthropometric risk factors for diabetes among hypertensive patients who were included in a retrospective cohort study.

Methods

Hypertensive adults without diabetes were recruited in China. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, and anthropometric indices were collected at baseline and during the follow-up. Anthropometric measures included BMI, waist circumference, waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), and waist-to-hip ratio, and several novel indices. To estimate the effect of baseline and dynamic changes of each anthropometric index on risk of new-onset diabetes (defined as self-reported physician-diagnosed diabetes and/or use of hypoglycemic medication, or new-onset FPG≥7.0 mmol/L during follow-up), Cox regression models were used.

Results

A total of 3852 hypertensive patients were studied, of whom 1167 developed diabetes during follow-up. Multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that there was a graded increased risk of incident diabetes with successively increasing anthropometric indices mentioned above (all P<0.05). Regardless of the baseline general obesity status, elevated WHtR was both related to higher risk of diabetes; the HRs (95%CI) of baseline BMI<24 kg/m2 & WHtR≥0.5 group and BMI≥24 kg/m2 & WHtR≥0.5 group were 1.34 (1.05, 1.72), 1.85 (1.48, 2.31), respectively. Moreover, the dynamic changes of WHtR could sensitively reflect diabetes risk. Diabetes risk significantly increased when patients with baseline WHtR<0.5 progressed to WHtR≥0.5 during the follow-up (HR=1.63; 95%CI, 1.11, 2.40). There was also a decreasing trend towards the risk of incident diabetes when baseline abnormal WHtR reversed to normal at follow-up (HR=1.93; 95%CI, 1.36, 2.72) compared with those whose WHtR remained abnormal at follow-up (HR=2.04; 95%CI, 1.54, 2.71).

Conclusions

Central obesity is an independent and modifiable risk factor for the development of diabetes among hypertensive patients. Measuring indices of central obesity in addition to BMI in clinics could provide incremental benefits in the discrimination of diabetes among Chinese hypertensive patients. Dynamic changes of WHtR could sensitively reflect changes in the risk of diabetes. Therefore, long-term monitoring of hypertensive patients using non-invasive anthropometric measures and timely lifestyle intervention could effectively reduce the development of diabetes.

Appraisal of Guidelines for the Management of Blood Pressure in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: The Consensuses, Controversies and Gaps

BACKGROUND

Currently available guidelines contain conflicting recommendations on the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Therefore, it is necessary to appraise the guidelines and summarize the agreements and differences among recommendations.

METHODS

Four databases and the websites of guideline organizations were searched for guidelines regarding BP targets and thresholds for pharmacologic therapy in DM patients, and the included guidelines were appraised with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.

RESULTS

In 6,498 records identified, 20 guidelines met our inclusion criteria with 64.0% AGREE II scores (interquartile range, 48.5% to 72.0%). The scores of the European and American guidelines were superior to those of the Asian guidelines (both adjusted P<0.001). Most of the guidelines advocated systolic BP targets <130 mm Hg (12 guidelines, 60%) and diastolic BP targets <80 mm Hg (14 guidelines, 70%) in DM patients. Approximately half of the guidelines supported systolic BP thresholds >140 mm Hg (10 guidelines, 50%) and diastolic BP thresholds >90 mm Hg (nine guidelines, 45%). The tiny minority of the guidelines provided the relevant recommendations regarding the lower limit of official BP targets and the ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM)/home BP monitoring (HBPM) targets and thresholds in DM patients.

CONCLUSION

The lower official BP targets (<130/80 mm Hg) in patients with DM are advocated by most of the guidelines, but they contain conflicting recommendations on the official BP thresholds. Moreover, the gaps regarding the lower limit of official BP targets and the ABPM/HBPM targets and thresholds need to be considered by future study.

Associations of Systolic Blood Pressure and Diastolic Blood Pressure With the Incidence of Coronary Artery Disease or Cerebrovascular Disease According to Glucose Status

OBJECTIVE

To determine associations of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) with new-onset coronary artery disease (CAD) or cerebrovascular disease (CVD) according to glucose status.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Examined was a nationwide claims database from 2008 to 2016 on 593,196 individuals. A Cox proportional hazards model identified risks of CAD and CVD events among five levels of SBP and DBP.

RESULTS

During the study period 2,240 CAD and 3,207 CVD events occurred. Compared with SBP ≤119 mmHg, which was the lowest quintile of SBP, hazard ratios (95% CI) for CAD/CVD in the 4 higher quintiles (120-129, 130-139, 140-149, ≥150 mmHg) gradually increased from 2.10 (1.73-2.56)/1.46 (1.27-1.68) in quintile 2 to 3.21 (2.37-4.34)/4.76 (3.94-5.75) in quintile 5 for normoglycemia, from 1.39 (1.14-1.69)/1.70 (1.44-2.01) in quintile 2 to 2.52 (1.95-3.26)/4.12 (3.38-5.02) in quintile 5 for borderline glycemia, and from 1.50 (1.19-1.90)/1.72 (1.31-2.26) in quintile 2 to 2.52 (1.95-3.26)/3.54 (2.66-4.70) in quintile 5 for diabetes. A similar trend was observed for DBP across 4 quintiles (75-79, 80-84, 85-89, and ≥90 mmHg) compared with ≥74 mmHg, which was the lowest quintile.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicated that cardiovascular risks gradually increased with increases in SBP and DBP regardless of the presence of and degree of a glucose abnormality. Further interventional trials are required to apply findings from this cohort study to clinical practice.

Management of Blood Pressure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Not Receiving Dialysis: Synopsis of the 2021 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline

DESCRIPTION

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis is an update of the KDIGO 2012 guideline on the same topic and reflects new evidence on the risks and benefits of BP-lowering therapy among patients with CKD. It is intended to support shared decision making by health care professionals working with patients with CKD worldwide. This article is a synopsis of the full guideline.

METHODS

The KDIGO leadership commissioned 2 co-chairs to convene an international Work Group of researchers and clinicians. After a Controversies Conference in September 2017, the Work Group defined the scope of the evidence review, which was undertaken by an evidence review team between October 2017 and April 2020. Evidence reviews were done according to the Cochrane Handbook. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to guide the development of the recommendations and rate the strength and quality of the evidence. Practice points were included to provide guidance when evidence was insufficient to make a graded recommendation. The guideline was revised after public consultation between January and March 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The updated guideline comprises 11 recommendations and 20 practice points. This synopsis summarizes key recommendations pertinent to the diagnosis and management of high BP in adults with CKD, excluding those receiving kidney replacement therapy. In particular, the synopsis focuses on recommendations for standardized BP measurement and a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, because these recommendations differ from some other guidelines.

The Impact of Various Blood Pressure Measurements on Cardiovascular Outcomes

Hypertension is a potent risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. High blood pressure (BP) correlates closely with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Although the gold standard remains office BP (auscultatory or automated), other methods (central or out-of-office) are gaining popularity as better predictors of CV events. In this review, we investigated the prognostic value of each method of BP measurement and explored their advantages and pitfalls. Unattended automated office BP is a novel technique of BP measurement with promising data. Ambulatory BP monitoring, and to a lesser extent, home BP measurements, seem to predict cardiovascular events and mortality outcomes better, while at the same time, they can help distinguish hypertensive phenotypes. Data on the association of central BP levels with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes, are conflicting. Future extensive cross-sectional and longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate head-to-head the corresponding levels and results of each method of BP measurement, as well as to highlight disparities in their prognostic utility.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease for patients not receiving dialysis represents an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline on this topic. Development of this guideline update followed a rigorous process of evidence review and appraisal. Guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence. The strength of recommendations is based on the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The scope includes topics covered in the original guideline, such as optimal blood pressure targets, lifestyle interventions, antihypertensive medications, and specific management in kidney transplant recipients and children. Some aspects of general and cardiovascular health, such as lipid and smoking management, are excluded. This guideline also introduces a chapter dedicated to proper blood pressure measurement since all large randomized trials targeting blood pressure with pivotal outcomes used standardized preparation and measurement protocols adhered to by patients and clinicians. Based on previous and new evidence, in particular the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results, we propose a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg using standardized office reading for most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, the exception being children and kidney transplant recipients. The goal of this guideline is to provide clinicians and patients a useful resource with actionable recommendations supplemented with practice points. The burden of the recommendations on patients and resources, public policy implications, and limitations of the evidence are taken into consideration. Lastly, knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research are provided.

Treatment of Hypertension in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: a Contemporary Approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Blood pressure guidelines worldwide have changed their recommended blood pressure goals multiple times over the past decade due to an evolving understanding of the treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus. While it is evident through randomized trials that treatment of hypertension in diabetes mellitus prevents complications, the optimal blood pressure goal is not clear.

RECENT FINDINGS

Post hoc analyses of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure (ACCORD-BP) trial, its long-term follow along study ACCORDION, and Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) suggest that patients with diabetes have a reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular events when aiming for more intensive blood pressure targets. High-quality data support guideline recommendations for more aggressive blood pressure targets in patients with diabetes mellitus. Reasoning for a return to more aggressive blood pressure goals in this at-risk population is discussed, and treatment strategies encompassing contemporary therapeutic options are recommended.

Biomarker-Based Risk Prediction of Incident Heart Failure in Pre-Diabetes and Diabetes

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the application of a biomarker-based risk score to identify individuals with dysglycemia who are at high risk for incident heart failure (HF) and to inform allocation of effective preventive interventions.

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification tools to identify patients with diabetes and pre-diabetes at highest risk for HF are needed to inform cost-effective allocation of preventive therapies. Whether a biomarker score can meaningfully stratify HF risk is unknown.

METHODS

Participants free of cardiovascular disease from 3 cohort studies (ARIC [Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities], DHS [Dallas Heart Study], and MESA [Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis]) were included. An integer-based biomarker score included high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T ≥6 ng/l, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥125 pg/ml, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥3 mg/l, and left ventricular hypertrophy by electrocardiography, with 1 point for each abnormal parameter. The 5-year risk of HF was estimated among participants with diabetes and pre-diabetes across biomarker score groups (0 to 4).

RESULTS

The primary analysis included 6,799 participants with dysglycemia (diabetes: 33.2%; pre-diabetes: 66.8%). The biomarker score demonstrated good discrimination and calibration for predicting 5- and 10-year HF risk among pre-diabetes and diabetes cohorts. The 5-year risk of HF among subjects with a biomarker score of ≤1 was low and comparable to participants with euglycemia (0.78%). The 5-year risk for HF increased in a graded fashion with an increasing biomarker score, with the highest risk noted among those with scores of ≥3 (diabetes: 12.0%; pre-diabetes: 7.8%). The estimated number of HF events that could be prevented using a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor per 1,000 treated subjects over 5 years was 11 for all subjects with diabetes and ranged from 4 in the biomarker score zero group to 44 in the biomarker score ≥3 group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with diabetes and pre-diabetes, a biomarker score can stratify HF risk and inform allocation of HF prevention therapies.

Pharmacological Management of Cardiac Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Insights into Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) has emerged as a growing pandemic. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) constitutes another major health problem, with coronary heart disease being the leading cause of cardiovascular death. Patients with T2DM require a multilevel therapeutic approach, both for primary and secondary prevention of CVD.

OBJECTIVE

To present and summarize the most recent, highest level evidence retrieved from literature, relevant to the pharmaceutical management of CVD in T2DM.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature on MEDLINE from its inception till today, primarily for relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

There is a trend towards more intensified therapeutic interventions in T2DM, concerning glycemic, lipid and blood pressure control. New drugs, such as sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and proprotein convertase subtilisin/ kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors might evolve as key players in the management of diabetes and its complications within the next years. Classic drugs, such as those targeting the renin-angiotensinaldosterone system, statins and aspirin remain first-line treatment options, both for primary and secondary prevention of CVD. Lifestyle interventions should always be integrated into a complete therapeutic strategy in diabetic patients. Novel drugs, such as finerenone and LCZ696 have provided significant results in cardiovascular outcome studies; however, their role in T2DM has to be further elucidated.

CONCLUSION

Pharmaceutical approach of CVD in T2DM is multilevel and complex. Drug classes featuring pleiotropic effects may boost our armamentarium in the fight against CVD.

[Evidence-Based Information Which Could Influence Arterial Hypertension Treatment Approach after Publication of SPRINT Trial Results]

The article discusses results of secondary analysis of the data obtained in the SPRINT study and published in recent years. Unresolved issues in the tactics of managing patients with arterial hypertension are discussed. One of such issues is choosing an optimum level of blood pressure (BP) for a subgroup of patients with certain characteristics, including elderly and senile patients, patients with chronic kidney disease, and patients with arterial hypertension who continue smoking. The article discusses calculation of a threshold of risk for complications of cardiovascular diseases, at which a maximum advantage of intensified regimens of antihypertensive therapy could be achieved. In addition, the article addresses approaches to selection of antihypertensive drugs in the current conditions. The authors discussed the role of candesartan in the treatment of arterial hypertension, a sartan most studied in a broad range of patients. The issue of a rapid increase in BP without a damage to target organs is addressed; evidence for the role of captopril in such clinical situation is provided.

Serious adverse events in patients with target-oriented blood pressure management: a systematic review

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

On the basis of the benefits of antihypertensive treatment, progressively intensive treatment is advocated. However, it remains controversial whether intensive blood pressure control might increase the frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs) compared with moderate control. This review assessed the occurrence of SAEs in blood pressure treatment with predefined blood pressure targets. Seven original studies and eight post hoc analyses (derived from two original studies) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with moderate blood pressure treatment, intensive treatment was associated with a significant increase in treatment-related SAEs (Sign-test: P = 0.0002, Wilcoxon signed-rank test: P = 0.001). However, comparability between studies was limited, due to unclear determinations about the treatment-relatedness of adverse events, missing definitions of SAEs and variations in recording methods. Thus, a meta-analysis was not justified. The definitions of serious adverse events and methods of recording and reporting need to be improved and standardized to facilitate the comparison of results.

Effect of intensive and standard blood pressure control on cardiovascular outcomes based on body mass index: sub-analysis of the sprint trial

The present study is a sub-analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) that aimed to evaluate the role of intensive vs. standard hypertensive treatment on cardiovascular outcomes according to the body mass indices of trial participants. SPRINT participants were categorized according to their baseline BMI values into normal (BMI ≥ 18.5 to <25), overweight (BMI ≥ 25 to <30), and obese (BMI ≥ 30) groups. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular cause. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios for the study outcome in intensive and standard BP treatment among those with varying BMI. Among 9237 participants with, 1682, 3599, and 3956 were normal, overweight and obese, respectively. After a median follow-up of 3.26 years, the hazard ratios for the primary endpoint were 0.82 (95% CI 0.58, 1.16), 0.71 (95% CI 0.54, 0.94), and 0.76 (95% CI 0.59, 0.98) for the normal, overweight, and obese participants, respectively (P value for interaction 0.79). The effect of intensive versus standard SBP treatment for the other secondary endpoints and serious adverse events were all similar in participants of different BMI (all P-interaction > 0.05). In this sub-analysis of the SPRINT trial, intensive blood pressure control had a beneficial effect in reducing the primary endpoint and all-cause mortality irrespective of the participants' BMI.

Prevention or Delay of Type 2 Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Systolic Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Mortality, and All-Cause Mortality in Normoglycemia, Prediabetes, and Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The optimal blood pressure (BP) level for diabetic patients remains controversial, while studies provided limited evidence on BP management for individuals with normoglycemia or prediabetes. We aimed to investigate the associations between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and all-cause and cardiovascular (CVD) mortality among US adults with different glycemic profiles.

METHODS

We used data from the 1999-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, n=40,046) with comprehensive baseline examination and follow-up assessment. Restricted cubic spline analysis was performed to examine dose-response relationship between SBP and mortality risk. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios of all-cause mortality and CVD mortality for SBP categories.

RESULTS

U-shaped associations between SBP and all-cause mortality were observed regardless of glucose status. The relationship between SBP and CVD mortality was found to be U-shaped only in normoglycemic participants. The lowest mortality risk of optimal SBP (mmHg) by group was 115-120 (normoglycemia), 120-130 (prediabetes), and 125-135 (diabetes). When compared with the reference group, SBP < 100 mmHg was significantly associated with 49% (HR=1.49, 95% CI: 1.13-1.96), 57% (1.57, 1.07-2.3), and 59% (1.59, 1.12-2.25) higher all-cause mortality risk in people with normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes, respectively. The multivariable-adjusted HRs of all-cause mortality for SBP ≥150 mmHg were 1.51 (1.25-1.82), 1.56 (1.27-1.93), and 1.33 (1.08-1.64), respectively. As for CVD mortality, the multivariable-adjusted HRs were 2.85 (1.29-6.33) for SBP <100 mmHg and 2.71 (1.56-4.69) for SBP ≥150 mmHg in normoglycemia; HR was 1.66 (1.05-2.63) for SBP ≥150 mmHg in diabetic patients.

CONCLUSION

U-shaped relationships between SBP and all-cause mortality were observed regardless of diabetes status. The optimal SBP range was gradually higher with worsening glucose status.

Österreichischer Blutdruckkonsens 2019

Erhöhter Blutdruck bleibt eine Hauptursache von kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen, Behinderung und frühzeitiger Sterblichkeit in Österreich, wobei die Raten an Diagnose, Behandlung und Kontrolle auch in rezenten Studien suboptimal sind. Das Management von Bluthochdruck ist eine häufige Herausforderung für Ärztinnen und Ärzte vieler Fachrichtungen. In einem Versuch, diagnostische und therapeutische Strategien zu standardisieren und letztendlich die Rate an gut kontrollierten Hypertoniker/innen zu erhöhen und dadurch kardiovaskuläre Erkrankungen zu verhindern, haben 13 österreichische medizinische Fachgesellschaften die vorhandene Evidenz zur Prävention, Diagnose, Abklärung, Therapie und Konsequenzen erhöhten Blutdrucks gesichtet. Das hier vorgestellte Ergebnis ist der erste Österreichische Blutdruckkonsens. Die Autoren und die beteiligten Fachgesellschaften sind davon überzeugt, daß es einer gemeinsamen nationalen Anstrengung bedarf, die Blutdruck-assoziierte Morbidität und Mortalität in unserem Land zu verringern.

Prediabetes and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease by Hypertension Status in Black Adults: The Jackson Heart Study

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies have suggested that prediabetes is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) only among individuals with concomitant hypertension.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed the association between prediabetes and CVD by hypertension status among 3,313 black adults in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) without diabetes or a history of CVD at baseline (2000-2004). Prediabetes was defined as fasting plasma glucose between 100 and 125 mg/dL or hemoglobin A1c between 5.7 and 6.4% (39 and 46 mmol/mol). Hypertension was defined as systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg and/or self-reported antihypertensive medication use. Participants were followed for incident CVD events and all-cause mortality through 31 December 2014.

RESULTS

Overall, 35% of JHS participants did not have prediabetes or hypertension, 18% had prediabetes alone, 22% had hypertension alone, and 25% had both prediabetes and hypertension. Compared with participants without either condition, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for CVD events among participants with prediabetes alone, hypertension alone, and both prediabetes and hypertension were 0.86 (95% CI 0.51, 1.45), 2.09 (1.39, 3.14), and 1.93 (1.28, 2.90), respectively. Among participants with and without hypertension, there was no association between prediabetes and an increased risk for CVD (0.78 [0.46, 1.34] and 0.94 [0.70, 1.26], respectively). No association was present between prediabetes and all-cause mortality among participants with or without hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of hypertension status, prediabetes was not associated with an increased risk for CVD or all-cause mortality in this cohort of black adults.

Risk of coronary artery disease according to glucose abnormality status and prior coronary artery disease in Japanese men

OBJECTIVE

Although glucose abnormality status (GAS), prior coronary artery disease (CAD), and other traditional risk factors affect the incidence of subsequent CAD, their impact in the same cohort has been scantly studied.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data from a nationwide claims database in Japan that was accumulated during 2008-2016 involving 138,162 men aged 18-72 years. Participants were classified as having normoglycemia, borderline glycemia, or diabetes mellitus (DM) with prior CAD (CAD+) or without prior CAD (CAD-). Cox regression model identified variables related to the incidence of CAD.

RESULTS

Among CAD-, management of traditional risks differed from those with and without subsequent CAD events. On the other hand, such differences were weaker in borderline glycemia and DM CAD+, and the influence of traditional risk factors on subsequent CAD was not observed. Cox regression model showed that borderline glycemia and DM confer approximately 1.2- and 2.8-fold excess risks of CAD, respectively, compared with CAD- with normoglycemia. CAD+ confers approximately a 5- to 8-fold increased risk. The impacts of DM and prior CAD additively reached a hazard ratio (HR) of 15.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.82-21.00). However, the HR in those with borderline glycemia and CAD+ was 7.20 (95% CI: 5.01-10.34), which was not different from those with normoglycemia and CAD+.

CONCLUSION

Control status of traditional risk factors and impact on subsequent CAD differ among categories of glycemic status with and without prior CAD. Individualizing treatment strategies is needed in consideration of risk factors, such as GAS and CAD+.

Influence of Prediabetes on the Effects of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Control on Kidney Events

BACKGROUND

More than one-third of US adults have prediabetes, which is typically accompanied by hypertension.

METHODS

We examined whether prediabetes modified the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering on the incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and acute kidney injury (AKI) events in a post-hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Diabetes was a SPRINT exclusion criterion. We defined normoglycemia and prediabetes as fasting plasma glucose <100 mg/dl and ≥100 mg/dl, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 9,323 participants included in this analysis, 3,898 (41.8%) had prediabetes and the rest (5,425) had normoglycemia. In participants with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2, incident CKD was defined as a ≥30% decline in eGFR to below 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 with repeat confirmation. AKI events were identified clinically. In the non-CKD participants (n = 6,678), there were 164 incident CKD events. The hazard ratios (HRs) for incident CKD for intensive SBP goal (<120 mm Hg) vs. standard SBP goal (<140 mm Hg) in the normoglycemia (HR: 3.25, 95% CI: 2.03, 5.19) and prediabetes (HR: 3.90, 95% CI: 2.17, 7.02) groups were similar (interaction P value 0.64). In the entire analytic cohort (N = 9,323), there were 310 AKI events. AKI HRs for intensive vs. standard SBP in the normoglycemia (HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.17, 2.15) and prediabetes (HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.48) groups were also similar (interaction P value 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Prediabetes was highly prevalent, but there was no evidence that prediabetes modified the effects of SPRINT intervention on kidney events.CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATIONNCT01206062.

Cost-Effectiveness and Challenges of Implementing Intensive Blood Pressure Goals and Team-Based Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Review the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation challenges of intensive blood pressure (BP) control and team-based care initiatives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intensive BP control is an effective and cost-effective intervention; yet, implementation in routine clinical practice is challenging. Several models of team-based care for hypertension management have been shown to be more effective than usual care to control BP. Additional research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of team-based care models relative to one another and as they relate to implementing intensive BP goals. As a focus of healthcare shifts to value (i.e., cost, effectiveness, and patient preferences), formal cost-effectiveness analyses will inform which team-based initiatives hold the highest value in different healthcare settings with different populations and needs. Several challenges, including clinical inertia, financial investment, and billing restrictions for pharmacist-delivered services, will need to be addressed in order to improve public health through intensive BP control and team-based care.

Effectiveness of blood pressure-lowering treatment by the levels of baseline Framingham risk score: A post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

This was a post hoc analysis of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), aimed to investigate whether intensive blood pressure treatment has differential therapeutic outcomes on patients with different baseline Framingham risk score (FRS). The 9298 SPRINT participants were categorized into low-risk (baseline FRS < 10%), intermediate-risk (FRS = 10%-20%), or high-risk (FRS > 20%) arms. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Serious adverse events were defined as hypotension, syncope, and bradycardia. Multiple Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios for study outcomes with intensive compared with standard SBP treatment between these three groups. After a median follow-up time of 3.26 years, the primary outcome hazard ratio (HR) for intensive versus standard treatment was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.61-0.88, P = .0044) in the high-risk arm. And, for all-cause mortality, the hazard ratio with intensive SBP treatment was 1.58 (95% CI: 0.55-1.06), 0.9 (95% CI: 0.26-9.50), and 0.53 (95% CI: 0.34-0.82) in three arms (all P values for interaction > 0.05). Effects of intensive versus standard SBP control on serious adverse events were similar among patients with different FRS. Our results suggested that regardless of the FRS level, the intensive blood pressure control was beneficial.

Effects of Blood Pressure Lowering on Clinical Outcomes According to Baseline Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The optimal blood pressure (BP) goal in patients with diabetes mellitus remains controversial. We examined whether benefits and risks of intensified antihypertensive therapy in diabetes mellitus are influenced by either baseline BP or cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We studied 10 948 people with diabetes mellitus, at moderate-to-high risk, in the ADVANCE trial (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation). Cox models were used to determine whether baseline BP category or CVD risk modified the outcomes of combination perindopril-indapamide treatment, compared with placebo. During 4.3 years of follow-up, treatment with perindopril-indapamide versus placebo reduced mortality and major vascular (macrovascular or microvascular) events. There was no evidence of differences in these effects, regardless of baseline systolic BP (evaluated down to <120 mm Hg; P for heterogeneity, 0.85), diastolic BP (evaluated down to <70 mm Hg; P=0.49), or whether 10-year CVD risk was ≥20% or <20% ( P=0.08). The effects of randomized treatment on discontinuation of treatment because of cough or hypotension/dizziness were also statistically consistent across subgroups defined by baseline BP and CVD risk (all P ≥0.08). Adults with diabetes mellitus appear to benefit from more intensive BP treatment even at levels of BP and CVD risk that some guidelines do not currently recommend for intervention. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00751972.

[New Targets in Blood Pressure Control: Arguments Pro and Contra]

The review contains results of analysis of clinical studies on the problem of defining the target level of the blood pressure (BP). The rationale for selection the target systolic BP level below120 mmHg was obtained in the SPRINT study comparing the target levels &lt;120 mmHg and &lt;140 mmHg. A considerably lower number of cardiovascular complications and deaths was seen in the group of a stricter BP control. Nevertheless, this study had some limitations related to certain patient populations, and methods of BP measurement. More ambitious target of BP lowering was associated with elevated risk of iatrogenic hypotension and fainting. Moreover, the ACCORD study, exploring the same target levels failed to demonstrate similar risk reduction. Taking into account various literature data, the authors find it reasonable to use personalized approach to determining BP targets, and utilize assessment of central aortic pressure and state of vessels for more accurate risk stratification and selection of treatment.

Cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes when initiating blood pressure lowering at baseline SBP between 130 and 140 mm Hg: A meta-analysis

The efficacy and safety of blood pressure (BP) lowering initiated at baseline systolic BP (SBP) of 130-140 mm Hg in patients with diabetes remain controversial. The authors aimed to investigate the benefits and harms of BP lowering initiated at these levels for patients with diabetes. Medline and EMBASE were searched from inception to March 10, 2018. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular events. Random-effects model was used to pool all the estimates. Six trials with 21 574 diabetics were included. In diabetics, initiating BP lowering at baseline SBP of 130 and 140 mm Hg did not reduce the rate of major cardiovascular events (RR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.93-1.10]), finding that was consistent in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Moreover, BP lowering did not reduce the risks of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.85-1.16]), stroke (0.83 [95% CI, 0.54-1.27]), heart failure (0.91 [95% CI, 0.79-1.04]), albuminuria (0.93 [95% CI, 0.84-1.04]), end-stage renal disease (0.93 [95% CI, 0.70-1.24]), cardiovascular death (1.25 [95% CI, 0.90-1.74]) and all-cause death (1.05 [95% CI, 0.94-1.17]) in patients with diabetes and baseline SBP of 130-140 mm Hg but possibly increase the risks of serious adverse events (RR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.33-3.01]) and hypotension (5.30 [95% CI, 0.99-28.40]). In diabetics, initiating BP lowering at baseline SBP of 130-140 mm Hg may not produce any benefit but probably increase the risks of serious adverse events and hypotension. It may not be recommended to initiate BP lowering at a threshold of SBP lower than 140 mm Hg for diabetics.

Prevention or Delay of Type 2 Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

New Challenges for Hypertension Treatment

In Mexico around 22.3 million adult Mexicans have hypertension. An estimated 65 million adult Americans, or nearly one in four of the adult population of the United States, have hypertension. However, with the new classification from 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines which considered ≥130/80 mmHg as the new cutoff point to diagnosis of hypertension, the number of patients is at least twice, in other words around 40 million adult Mexicans potentially have hypertension. Although this new classification is directed to be more efficient in the changes of life style and nondrug strategies to stage one hypertension the real word evidence suggest that we need to be more careful in the selection of patients to be introduced in a drug therapy strategy. Elevations in systemic arterial pressures have been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke. It remains one of the most reversible causes of various disease states. This article aims to review current blood pressure (BP) targets and medical therapies for hypertension in the modern era, recognizing varying clinical characteristics such as comorbidities and patient risk profile.

A Comparison of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline and the 2017 American Diabetes Association Diabetes and Hypertension Position Statement for U.S. Adults With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To determine the concordance in the prevalence of hypertension and pharmacological antihypertensive treatment recommendations for U.S. adults with diabetes using definitions from the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) blood pressure (BP) guideline and the 2017 American Diabetes Association (ADA) diabetes and hypertension position statement.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data for U.S. adults with diabetes in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2011-2016 (n = 2,266). Diabetes was defined by treatment with glucose-lowering medication, glycosylated hemoglobin ≥6.5%, fasting serum glucose ≥126 mg/dL, or nonfasting serum glucose ≥200 mg/dL. BP was measured three times and antihypertensive medication use was self-reported.

RESULTS

The prevalence (95% CI) of hypertension among U.S. adults with diabetes was 77.1% (73.9, 80.0) and 66.3% (63.4, 69.1) according to the ACC/AHA and ADA definitions, respectively. Also, 22.9% (20.0, 26.1) did not have hypertension according to either definition, and the concordance in hypertension status was 89.2% (87.2, 91.0). Among U.S. adults with diabetes not taking antihypertensive medication, 52.8% (47.7, 57.8) were not recommended to initiate antihypertensive medication by either the ACC/AHA or the ADA document and 22.4% (19.2, 25.9) were recommended to initiate it by both documents (overall concordance 75.2% [70.4, 79.4]). Among those taking antihypertensive medication, 45.3% (41.3, 49.4) and 50.4% (46.5, 54.2) had BP above the goal in neither and both documents, respectively (overall concordance 95.7% [93.4, 97.2]).

CONCLUSIONS

A high percentage of U.S. adults with diabetes are provided identical antihypertensive treatment recommendations by the ACC/AHA BP guideline and the ADA diabetes and hypertension position statement.

Effects of High Blood Pressure on Cardiovascular Disease Events Among Chinese Adults With Different Glucose Metabolism

OBJECTIVE

To investigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks caused by blood pressure (BP) of 130-139/80-89 mmHg among Chinese adults with different glucose metabolism.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective population-based cohort of 2,132 adults in Shanghai was established in 2002, and CVD information was collected during 10.9 years of follow-up. After assessing the association between BP categories and incident CVD, we analyzed the risk for CVD by blood glucose categories and BP categories combined by using multiple Cox regression analysis among 1,419 participants at follow-up.

RESULTS

The corresponding incidence of CVD per 1,000 person-years for the BP <130/80 mmHg, 130-139/80-89 mmHg, and ≥140/90 mmHg or treated groups were 3.0, 6.0, and 13.9, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and other factors, BP ≥140/90 mmHg was significantly associated with a higher CVD risk in general (hazard ratio 2.68 [95% CI 1.36-5.25]) and in various blood glucose categories (normoglycemia 2.59, prediabetes 3.03, diabetes mellitus [DM] 4.98). However, BP of 130-139/80-89 mmHg was significantly associated with a higher CVD risk in an estimated baseline 10-year atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk ≥10% (3.82 [1.42-9.78]) or DM (3.54 [1.05-11.88]) but not in the general population or for a baseline 10-year ASCVD risk <10%, normoglycemia, or prediabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

BP of 130-139/80-89 mmHg may result in a significantly higher CVD risk in Chinese adults with an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥10% or DM but not in those with normoglycemia or prediabetes.

Effect of intensive blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus over 9 years of follow-up: A subgroup analysis of high-risk ACCORDION trial participants

Although guidelines recommend strict blood pressure (BP) control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and elevated cardiovascular risk, the long-term effects of this approach are unknown. We investigated the effect of intensive BP control on clinical outcomes in patients with T2DM over 9 years of follow-up. We included Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes - Blood Pressure participants in the standard glucose control arm who had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, were ≥75 years of age or who had a 10-year coronary heart risk ≥15%. Participants were randomized to either intensive (systolic BP < 120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic BP < 140 mm Hg) BP control for an average of 5 years. Observational follow-up occurred for an average of 4 years thereafter. After an average total follow-up of 9 years, intensive BP control reduced the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke by 25% (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95; P = .02). The overall benefit was driven by a reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction (P = .01). In this post-hoc analysis, the benefits of a fixed-duration intensive BP control intervention in patients with T2DM persisted throughout 9 years of follow-up.